Strategic Facilitation Module Component
Utilizing the readings and videos, create the module component of your facilitation
plan. Please provide a detailed rational for the employed strategies in your plan. Apply
the concepts, tools and research we have covered in the course. Each module will
receive feedback and will build to your final facilitation plan. (2-3 pages minimum)
Components should be in APA format (no abstract page required), include a reference
page, “Times New Roman” font, size 12, and the format for paragraphs is “double-
spaced” and “left aligned”. For information please refer to Purdue Owl
Strategic Facilitation Module Component
Utilizing the readings and videos, create the module component of your facilitation
plan. Please provide a detailed rational for the employed strategies in your plan. Apply
the concepts, tools and research we have covered in the course. Each module will
receive feedback and will build to your final facilitation plan. (2-3 pages minimum)
Components should be in APA format (no abstract page required), include a reference
page, “Times New Roman” font, size 12, and the format for paragraphs is “double-
spaced” and “left aligned”. For information please refer to Purdue Owl
Grading Rubric
Items Points
Concept 25
Application 25
Rational 25
APA Format 25
Total: 100
Strategic Facilitation Application Post
Utilizing the Lynda.com videos and the module readings, please provide a detailed
discussion post on your application plan for the theories, models, and/or concepts
presented in the module readings for the your component of your facilitation plan.
The criteria for the model post is as follows:
o A minimum of 250 words
o Proofread discussions before posting:
o Students must first post their own work in order to view or reply to other
students’ discussions in the forum. Be sure your work is complete before
posting.
o Integrate the readings in your responses.
o Critically reply to at least two student’s post. Responses should be a
minimum of 250 words. Merely replying that you “agree” or that you
“like” the post is NOT a critical reply. Critical replies add to or extend the
discussion, offer different perspectives or provide explanations for
agreeing/disagreeing.
o Reply to at least 2 students’ postings. Keep in mind that students learn
from each other.
Grading Rubric
Items Points
Section A: Application Post 60
Section B: Response Post 40
Total: 100
https://Lynda.com
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page v
The Skilled Facilitator
Fieldbook
Tips, Tools, and Tested Methods for Consultants,
Peg Carlson, Sue McKinney, and Contributors
Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches
Roger Schwarz, Anne Davidson,
C1
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page iv
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page i
More Praise for The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
“This book provides the tools, techniques, and actual experience to truly practice
shared leadership. Roger Schwarz and his colleagues provide not only the theory but
the practical, hands-on experience required to develop high-performance teams.”
—Jay Hennig, vice president, Moog, Inc.
“Although I consider myself already familiar with Roger’s Skilled Facilitator approach,
I was amazed at the breadth and depth this Fieldbook provides. It is a compelling
resource for anyone interested in building his or her facilitative capabilities.”
—Sandy Schuman, University at Albany, SUNY; editor, The IAF Handbook of
Group Facilitation; and moderator, the Electronic Discussion on Group Facilitation
“The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook is a must-have for anyone serving as a third-party
intervener, coach, consultant, or a manager with a desire to develop people and
groups.”
—Thomas P. Zgambo, corporate ombudsman, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
“The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook truly provides the reader with an understandable
‘root cause’ perspective on why people interact the way they do and the means to
create change. It goes way beyond the ‘memorize these rules’ approach advocated by
many practitioners.”
—Sid Terry, director of organization development, NA Manufacturing, Kraft Foods
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page ii
Also by Roger Schwarz
The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators,
Managers, Trainers, and Coaches (New and Revised)
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page iii
The Skilled Facilitator
Fieldbook
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page iv
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page v
The Skilled Facilitator
Fieldbook
Tips, Tools, and Tested Methods for Consultants,
Peg Carlson, Sue McKinney, and Contributors
Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches
Roger Schwarz, Anne Davidson,
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page vi
Copyright © 2005 by Roger M. Schwarz, Anne S. Davidson, Margaret S. Carlson, and Susanne C.
McKinney. All rights reserved.
Published by Jossey-Bass
A Wiley Imprint
989 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94103-1741 www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise,
except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without
either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the ap-
propriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests
to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008,
or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass di-
rectly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at
317-572-3986 or fax 317-572-4002.
Jossey-Bass also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears
in print may not be available in electronic books.
Credit: “Laws of Systems” section in Chapter 7 from The Fifth Discipline by Peter M. Senge,
copyright ©1990 by Peter M. Senge. Used by permission of Doubleday, a division of Random
House, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The skilled facilitator fieldbook : tips, tools, and tested methods for consultants, facilitators, man-
agers, trainers, and coaches / Roger Schwarz … [et al.].—1st ed.
p. cm.- (The Jossey-Bass business & management series)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13 978-0-7879-6494-8 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10 0-7879-6494-8 (alk. paper)
1. Communication in management. 2. Communication in personnel management. 3. Group
facilitation. 4. Group relations training. I. Schwarz, Roger M., 1956— II. Series.
HD30.3.S373 2005
658.4’5—dc22
2004025821
Printed in the United States of America
FIRST EDITION
PB Printing 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
www.josseybass.com
http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions
www.copyright.com
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page vii
The Jossey-Bass
Business & Management Series
01_964948 ffirs.qxd 3/3/05 9:31 AM Page viii
To my parents, Richard and Jeanne Schwarz, for all their love
and encouragement
R.S.
To my family, friends, and clients for their love and support,
and especially to my nieces and grandnieces, Carson, Alex,
Emily, and Allison—the young women who will create
the world I dream about
A.D.
To Andrew, Jacob, and Lena, with love and thanks for their
unfailing wisdom, humor, and support
P.C.
To my family, who encouraged me to be curious and open-
minded about all things; to Reba, Oz, and Rain, who
keep me grounded; and to my new husband, Matthias
Ender, for his unconditional support
S.M.
02_964948 ftoc.qxd 3/3/05 9:32 AM Page ix
Contents
Editors, Authors, and Contributors xiii
Introduction xix
Part One: Understanding the Skilled Facilitator Approach
1 The Skilled Facilitator Approach 3
Roger Schwarz
2 The Group Effectiveness Model 15
Roger Schwarz
3 Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles 27
Roger Schwarz
4 Understanding What Guides Your Behavior 33
Roger Schwarz
5 Ground Rules for Effective Groups 61
Roger Schwarz
6 The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle 69
Peg Carlson
7 Thinking and Acting Systemically 75
Anne Davidson
8 Contracting with Groups 89
Roger Schwarz
Part Two: Starting Out
9 Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation 103
Roger Schwarz, Anne Davidson
10 Process Designs 107
Anne Davidson
11 Basic Facilitation: What Can Be Accomplished? What Cannot? 115
Peg Carlson
12 Do the Math: Creating a Realistic Agenda 119
Peg Carlson
13 Beginning Meetings: Introductions and Guidelines for Working Together 125
Anne Davidson
14 Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words 131
Sue McKinney
15 Using the Group Effectiveness Model 135
Anne Davidson
ix
02_964948 ftoc.qxd 3/3/05 9:32 AM Page x
16 Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions 145
Peg Carlson
17 Developing Shared Vision and Values 149
Anne Davidson
18 Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations 159
Anne Davidson
19 Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams 171
Anne Davidson
20 Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail 181
Roger Schwarz
Part Three: Deepening Your Practice
21 Ways to Practice the Ground Rules 189
Anne Davidson
22 Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation 195
Peg Carlson
23 Opening Lines 201
Roger Schwarz
24 Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon 207
Roger Schwarz
25 Now What Do I Do? Using Improv to Improve Your Facilitation 211
Roger Schwarz, Greg Hohn
26 Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like
Houses Without Foundations 217
Sue McKinney
27 Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case 235
Roger Schwarz
Part Four: Facing Challenges
28 Holding Risky Conversations 249
Anne Davidson
29 Exploring Your Contributions to Problems 255
Roger Schwarz
30 Moving Toward Difficulty 261
Sue McKinney
31 Responding to Silence and Interruptions and Enabling Members
to Talk to Each Other 269
Roger Schwarz
32 Raising Issues In or Out of the Group 273
Roger Schwarz
x | Contents
02_964948 ftoc.qxd 3/3/05 9:32 AM Page xi
Part Five: Seeking Your Path
33 Finding Your Voice 279
Anne Davidson
34 Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World 287
Sue McKinney
35 Introducing the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work: Pitfalls and Successes 293
Sue McKinney
36 Bringing It All Back Home, or Open Mouth, Insert Foot 299
Peter Hille and the Staff of the Brushy Fork Institute
37 A Carp in the Land of Koi 305
Susan R. Williams
Part Six: Leading and Changing Organizations
38 Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader 309
Tom Moore
39 Learning to Live Our Philosophy 315
Betsy Monier-Williams
40 Helping a Team Understand the System They Created 323
Roger Schwarz
41 “I Can’t Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does” 331
Roger Schwarz
42 How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness 335
Roger Schwarz
43 Developmental Facilitation 339
Anne Davidson, Dick McMahon
44 Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions 349
Anne Davidson, Dick McMahon
45 Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules 361
Jeff Koeze
46 From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn 367
Joe Huffman
47 Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader 377
Jeff Koeze
48 Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational
Policies and Procedures 383
Roger Schwarz, Anne Davidson
49 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach 391
Peg Carlson
50 Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System 403
Bron D. Skinner
Contents | xi
02_964948 ftoc.qxd 3/3/05 9:32 AM Page xii
51 Do Surveys Provide Valid Information for Organizational Change? 409
Peg Carlson
52 Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Different and Multiple Cultures 413
Anne Davidson
Part Seven: Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Your
Worklife (and Non-Worklife)
53 The Drama Triangle: A Unilateral Control Program for Helping Others 421
Dick McMahon
54 Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models 433
Guillermo Cuéllar
55 The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator 437
Anne Davidson
56 Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis 447
Chris Soderquist
57 The Facilitative Coach 457
Anne Davidson, Dale Schwarz
58 Becoming a Facilitative Trainer 479
Sue McKinney, Matt Beane
59 Being a Facilitative Consultant 495
Harry Furukawa
60 Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach as a Parent 505
Peg Carlson
61 Running for Office in a Unilaterally Controlling World 511
Steve Kay
62 Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in Public Office 515
Verla Insko
Afterword: Some Important Lessons 521
Roger Schwarz, Anne Davidson
Acknowledgments 527
Index 529
About Roger Schwarz & Associates 545
xii | Contents
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xiii
Editors, Authors, and
Contributors
Roger Schwarz is founder and president of Roger Schwarz & Associates, a consulting firm that is
dedicated to helping people change how they think and act so they can improve their business results
and relationships—often in ways they didn’t think possible. For more than twenty-five years, he has
been helping groups and organizations by facilitating as well as consulting, coaching, and teaching
and speaking on the subjects of facilitation, teams, and leadership. His clients include Fortune 500
corporations; federal, state, and local government; educational institutions; and nonprofit organiza-
tions. His book The Skilled Facilitator (Jossey-Bass, 2002) is a standard reference in the field. An or-
ganizational psychologist, Roger was formerly associate professor of public management and
government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He earned his Ph.D. and A.M. in
organizational psychology from The University of Michigan, his M.Ed. from Harvard University, and
his B.S. degree in psychology from Tufts University.
Anne Davidson is a consultant with Roger Schwarz & Associates. She specializes in leadership de-
velopment, facilitator training, and long-term organizational and community change projects. She
works internationally with management groups, work teams, and nonprofit and local government
boards. She increasingly coaches individuals who want to embrace learning and creative develop-
ment in their jobs and personal lives. Her journey toward organization development and training
started almost thirty years ago when she began teaching eleventh-grade English in South Carolina.
Since that time, she has served as a media center director; a marketing and management instructor in
the School of Business at Western Carolina University; the training and organization development
director for the City of Asheville, North Carolina; and a lecturer in public management and govern-
ment at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Anne learned the Skilled Facilitator
approach in 1988 during the early phases of its development when the City of Asheville became a
client of Roger Schwarz & Associates. She earned her B.A. in English and secondary education from
Presbyterian College. She holds an M.L.S. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
an M.B.A. from Western Carolina University.
Peg Carlson is an organizational psychologist who earned her Ph.D. from The University of Michigan.
She is a consultant with Roger Schwarz & Associates and adjunct associate professor of public man-
agement and government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She teaches, consults,
and writes in the area of organizational change and development. She leads workshops on facilita-
tion and facilitative leadership and frequently facilitates meetings for governing boards, management
teams, and community groups. She has published articles on developing effective groups, assessing the
chief executive’s performance, and multirater feedback. Peg started using the Skilled Facilitator approach
with Roger Schwarz and colleagues Dick McMahon and Kurt Jenne when she joined the UNC fac-
ulty in 1992. She resigned her tenured position in 2000 to better balance work and family life.
xiii
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xiv
Sue McKinney is a consultant with Roger Schwarz & Associates and independently. Formerly, she
was director of organizational development for an international nongovernmental organization based
in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Sue developed her facilitation skills in the early 1980s while work-
ing for an international nonprofit grounded in the consensus decision-making process. She first worked
with Roger Schwarz in 1990–1991 while serving as an intern to a county social services management
team working with him. In 1997, she attended the two-week Skilled Facilitator class offered by The
University of North Carolina Institute of Government and within one year began working with
Schwarz to teach classes around the country. McKinney has practical expertise in leadership develop-
ment, board development, mediation, facilitation, and training of trainers. She believes in the value
of humor and play to stimulate creativity and productivity and is known for her energetic and
humorous approach to working with groups. She leads workshops on a variety of topics, including
facilitative leadership, and facilitates public and nonprofit board and staff retreats. Sue earned her A.B.
in history from Duke University and her M.S.W. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, with a specialization in human services administration.
Matt Beane is an organization development, coaching, and training professional who helps individu-
als, groups, and organizations exceed performance expectations while increasing both the quality of
their relationships and their ability to learn from adversity. His specialty and passion lie in helping peo-
ple assess gaps between their behavior and their espoused values, allowing them to make more informed
choices about their behavior and values in the future. He is an associate with Roger Schwarz &
Associates and has worked with a number of Fortune 1000 companies in the financial, professional ser-
vices, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, hi-tech, travel, consumer goods, and hospitality sectors, with a
variety of nonprofit and governmental organizations, and in the public workshop format. Before be-
coming an independent in 2002, he was independent workforce director at the Forum Corporation,
a consultancy specializing in workplace learning solutions. Matt holds a B.A. in philosophy from
Bowdoin College and has done graduate work at Harvard’s School of Education in Adult Learning.
Guillermo Cuéllar is an international organization development consultant, facilitator, psycho-
therapist, and artist who brings a unique multicultural and multidisciplinary perspective to engage
others in the change processes. He is the cofounding president of the Center for Creative Conscious-
ness. For over thirty years, he has guided individuals and groups in processes to develop creative in-
telligence and discover and use their talents and gifts. He has taught cross-cultural management at the
School of International Training in the Program of International Management, in Brattleboro,
Vermont, and at NTL Institute in Bethel, Maine. He has worked since 1990 for two consulting firms
in the field of managing diversity: Elsie Y. Cross and Associates and Alignment Strategies. He pro-
vides professional services in both English and Spanish. Guillermo earned his B.F.A. and M.A. in
counseling at the University of South Florida in Tampa Florida. He then earned an Ed.D. from the
University of Massachusetts.
Diane Florio is the manager of human resources development for SpectraSite Communications, a
wireless infrastructure company based in Cary, North Carolina. She is responsible for leading and
implementing development initiatives in a fast-paced organization. She works with individuals, groups,
xiv | Editors, Authors, and Contributors
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xv
and departments to improve services, teamwork, and leadership. Diane has worked in both the private
and public sectors and has fifteen years of experience in the work of human behavior and professional de-
velopment. She was trained in the Skilled Facilitator approach in 2000. She received a B.S. in health ed-
ucation from SUNY, Cortland in New York and her M.S. in human resources education from Fordham
University, New York. She holds a business coaching certification from The University of North Carolina.
Harry Furukawa is an organization architect and a consultant with Roger Schwarz & Associates. He
helps people design and transform the organizations in which they work in order to achieve better
financial, environmental, and social results. He consults in strategic planning, values and culture iden-
tification and development, organizational change, and quality and productivity improvement. He
has served as the associate director of the University of Maryland Center for Quality and Productiv-
ity and as the senior director for strategic planning at the American Red Cross. He also has served as
examiner on the board of examiners for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award for five years
(four as a senior examiner). He earned a B.A. from the Johns Hopkins University, a master of archi-
tecture from Harvard University, and an executive M.B.A. from Loyola College.
Peter Hille has been director of Brushy Fork Institute of Berea College, which since 1988 has car-
ried out a unique leadership development program in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West
Virginia. Peter has worked extensively in Brushy Fork’s leadership development program, recruiting
participants, organizing workshops, and working with teams of community leaders as they carry out
local projects. He has created custom workshops, designed and led retreats, and facilitated strategic
planning processes for regional nonprofits, foundations, government agencies, and development
organizations. He has also conducted community development workshops nationally and interna-
tionally, in Russia and Slovakia. In recent years, Peter has focused on building collaborative networks
of diverse organizations serving the Appalachian region. A graduate of Swarthmore College, his
background includes experience in grassroots environmental organizing and small business
management.
Greg Hohn is the director of Transactors Improv Co., the South’s oldest improvisational theater, based
in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He joined the company in 1989 and became director in 1996. Since
1998 he has been teaching Applied Improv in a wide variety of venues. He is adjunct lecturer in busi-
ness communication at The University of North Carolina’s Kenan-Flagler Business School and a vis-
iting faculty member at Baruch College, City University of New York. In addition to work in
academia, Greg teaches Applied Improv, improvisational theater, acting, and presentation skills for
businesses, organizations, and educational institutions across the country. As an actor, he works in
film, television, radio, scripted theater, and industrial media. He has written for stage, radio, and pe-
riodicals and has written two books. He received a degree in English from The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Joe Huffman has served as a local government manager in North Carolina since 1990 in Elkin, Have-
lock, and Laurinburg. His exposure to learning organization concepts began with his employment in
Laurinburg and has been augmented by his completion of The University of North Carolina Institute of
Editors, Authors, and Contributors | xv
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xvi
Government course of instruction in group facilitation and consultation. Joe has served as a North Car-
olina Eastern Municipal Power Agency commissioner since 1999. His current local nonprofit involve-
ment includes serving as a member of the board of directors of the Scotland County Chapter of the
American Red Cross. He received a B.S. in criminal justice and an M.P.A. from Appalachian State Uni-
versity. His professional training includes completion of The University of North Carolina Institute of
Government Municipal Administration program in 1991.
Verla Insko was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly in 1997; she represents the Fifty-Sixth
House District in Orange County. She serves as chair of the Health Committee. Her other committee
assignments are Appropriations (Health and Human Services), Education (Universities), Environment
and Natural Resources, and Judiciary I. In 1998, House Speaker Jim Black appointed her as House chair
of the Legislative Oversight Committee on Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance
Abuse. In the 2001 session she was the primary sponsor of HB381, Mental Health Reform, which began
a five-year process of modernizing the state’s system of services for these three disability groups. She has
received numerous awards for her leadership, including in 2003 the Award for Leadership in Mental
Health Reform presented jointly by six agencies. She has sponsored the Repeal Involuntary Sterilization
Act, the Matthew Shepard Memorial Act, the State Earned Income Tax bill, and the Health Care for
All bill.
She earned an M.P.A. from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, did graduate work
at Golden Gate Theological Seminary, received a secondary teaching certificate from the University
of California at Berkeley, and received an A.B. from California State University at Fresno.
Steve Kay is a founding partner of Roberts & Kay, a firm established in Lexington, Kentucky, in 1983
to provide interrelated services for clients that include facilitation, training, organizational develop-
ment, and public policy research. His work at the local, state, and national levels includes serving as
facilitator for multiparty groups with divergent perspectives or constituencies; training beginning and
intermediate facilitators and coaches to guide sound public and organizational processes; building in-
ternal capacity to increase work group and organizational effectiveness; and providing analysis and tech-
nical assistance for complex, long-term change efforts within organizations and communities. He holds
a B.A. from Bowdoin College, an M.A. from Yale University, and an Ed.D. from the University of
Kentucky.
Jeff Koeze is president and chief executive officer of Koeze Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
He represents the fourth generation of the family to have served as the company’s general manager.
Before joining Koeze Company in September 1996, he was associate professor of public law and gov-
ernment at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In that capacity he provided consulting
services and professional education on issues of health care law, finance, and policy. His work focused
on issues of concern to public hospitals and public health providers in North Carolina. He is the au-
thor of several articles and other publications in that field. He has also served as law clerk to the Hon-
orable Morey L. Sear, U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans. He
received a B.A. in English from The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a J.D. from the
University of Virginia School of Law.
xvi | Editors, Authors, and Contributors
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xvii
Dick McMahon is a retired lecturer in public management from the Institute of Government, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. During his tenure as a lecturer, he had extensive expe-
rience working with both state and local government organizations. He has conducted supervisory
and leadership training for literally thousands of public supervisors and managers. He also worked
with Roger Schwarz at the university in developing training programs in skilled facilitation. He is cur-
rently an associate with Roger Schwarz & Associates and has worked on a long-term organization de-
velopment project with Laurinburg, North Carolina. He has worked as well with a number of other
organizations on developmental projects using the Skilled Facilitator approach in his work. Since his
retirement, he has continued to work as a consultant, facilitator, and trainer for public agencies. He
received his master’s degree at Ohio University and did doctoral work at UNC Chapel Hill.
Betsy Monier-Williams is a process improvement leader for a worldwide aerospace and industrial
supplier. She has over fifteen years of manufacturing experience, including twelve years of corporate
training and over three years facilitating work groups. She has also coordinated large-scale change in
proprietary information technology systems, lean manufacturing, and cultural transformations fo-
cusing on teams and facilitative leadership. Monier-Williams leads a variety of workshops including
facilitative leadership, Ground Rules for Effective Groups, team training, and competency manage-
ment. She is certified in lean manufacturing from The University of Michigan and in structured team-
work through Performance Resources. She earned her B.S. and M.B.A. from Medaille College with
a specialization in operations management and strategic training and human resource development.
She is currently pursuing her doctorate in human and organization development.
Tom Moore is director of the Wake County Public Library. He became interested in learning orga-
nization issues in 1993 and has studied them since. He has received extensive training in facilitative
leadership and systems thinking as well as learning organizations. The Wake County Public Library
is becoming a learning organization through training of its staff and reflective thinking about its actions
and policies. Tom is a consultant with Roger Schwarz & Associates and has worked with the Institute
of Government at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as well as several local govern-
ments, on training about facilitative leadership and becoming a learning organization. His bachelor’s
degree is in philosophy. He has a master’s degree in library science and completed two years of post-
graduate study in theology.
Dale Schwarz is the cofounding vice president of the Center for Creative Consciousness and execu-
tive director of the New England Art Therapy Institute, which she cofounded in 1981. As a registered
art therapist and licensed mental health counselor, she has a private practice working with individuals
of all ages. Her work has evolved to include personal and professional coaching and facilitating groups
in developing their creative behavior, based on a method she designed. She also works with organiza-
tions as a management consultant to develop creative behavior in the leadership ranks. A key aspect
of her work is helping people use metaphor and images to enhance communication and bring forth
their unique talents. Interwoven in her work is the foundation of mutual learning and the core val-
ues of the Skilled Facilitator approach. She earned her B.S. at New York University and her M.Ed. in
expressive therapies at Lesley College (now Lesley University) in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Editors, Authors, and Contributors | xvii
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xviii
Bron D. Skinner is an educator in the family practice residency program at The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of Family Medicine. In his role as the assistant residency director,
he has lent his educational expertise to the development of its evaluation system and its curriculum.
The department has been developing an approach to faculty performance reviews that emphasizes ca-
reer development. As part of the new approach to faculty evaluation, the department implemented a
360-degree feedback system. Bron has conducted training for staff and faculty to teach principles of
assessment as a learning process based on Roger Schwarz’s ground rules for effective groups. He has
designed forms that emphasize this approach and been a member of the team that has converted the
system to Web-based data forms. He has a Ph.D. in education from The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill and an M.A. in music education from the University of California at Los Angeles.
Chris Soderquist is the founder and president of Pontifex Consulting, an organization committed to
helping individuals, teams, and organizations in building their capacity to develop strategic solutions
to complex issues. He uses his experience in systems thinking and system dynamics, group facilitation,
communication skill development, and statistical and process analysis to facilitate the development of
solutions that are effective and actionable. For over fifteen years, he has worked with Fortune 1000
companies, international development organizations, national and state government organizations, and
communities to help them better achieve the future they desire. Chris is a contributing author to The
Change Handbook (Berrett-Koehler, 1999) and has published several features in Systems Thinker. He
has also been an invited speaker at conferences. He earned a B.A. in mathematical methods in the social
sciences and a B.A. in political science from Northwestern University.
Susan R. Williams is executive editor at Jossey-Bass, an imprint of John Wiley & Sons. She attended
a week-long Skilled Facilitator workshop with Roger Schwarz and edited the revised edition of his
best-selling book The Skilled Facilitator (2002).
xviii | Editors, Authors, and Contributors
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xix
Introduction
People in organizations and communities around the world are using the Skilled Facilitator
approach to develop effective teams and organizations and generate open, honest, and productive
working relationships. Since the publication of the first edition of The Skilled Facilitator in 1994 (and
the second edition in 2002), we have been privileged to work with a number of them. Some attended
our public workshops, others we coached, and still others invited us to help them improve their
organizations. Our clients learned from us, we learned from them, and we have learned together. The
Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook reflects these lessons.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FIELDBOOK
Our purpose in this Fieldbook is to share what our colleagues, clients, and we have learned so far on
our journey with the Skilled Facilitator principles and methods. If you are new to the Skilled Facili-
tator approach, you will find a summary of it in Part One. We hope that you will benefit from our
experiences and integrate them with your own. We also hope that this Fieldbook will be a catalyst for
you to expand the approach in new ways and settings, so that it can realize the possibilities we believe
it offers for individuals, groups, organizations, and communities.
The book reflects how our work has evolved and expanded over the years. When we began, fa-
cilitative skills were considered the domain of professional helpers. A group or manager who needed
a meeting facilitated called on a facilitator or organization development consultant. From the 1980s
to the mid-1990s, we spent much of our time working with facilitators and organization develop-
ment professionals who were serving communities, boards, and work groups.
During the 1990s, managers and leaders began to see facilitative skills as a core competency to
create responsive, successful organizations. As a result, we began to expand our work with managers
and leaders (both formal and informal leaders) with large corporations and pioneering organizations,
helping them develop a facilitative leader approach. At the same time, we engaged in long-term work
with small and midsized public and private sector organizations in applying the principles to guide
organizational transformation. This book includes the stories of our efforts and synthesizes our learn-
ing from all of these experiences.
WHAT TO EXPECT
The Fieldbook spans the full scope of the Skilled Facilitator approach, from how to get started to how
to integrate the approach with existing organizational structures and processes. It provides tips on in-
troducing the ground rules as well as guidelines for engaging in deep-level interventions. Many tips,
exercises, and sample agendas come from highly successful facilitations of board retreats, strategic
planning meetings, community visioning and conflict resolution, and management team problem-
solving sessions. We offer them as useful models to adapt. Many other examples and stories are about
work in progress; we do not know the final outcome or whether the promise of the efforts will be fully
xix
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xx
realized. They are often about creating deep, long-term personal or organizational learning. We hon-
estly share the questions, dilemmas, and frustrations that arise, along with the successes and rewards.
Often our goal is to explore the challenges involved in true transformation rather than highlight a
simple quick fix. We believe this long-term and fundamental orientation to growth embedded in
the Skilled Facilitator approach is much of what gives it strength, staying power, and a committed
following.
Over the years, we have been fortunate to work with a wide variety of colleagues and clients who
have integrated their area of focus with the Skilled Facilitator approach. So the Fieldbook also explores
a wide variety of applications, ranging from teaching to parenting to running for and serving in
political office. Across these settings, individuals have adopted the core values of the approach to guide
profound personal growth and development. The voices throughout this book are varied. Each con-
tributor shares his or her unique learning journey, but all of them speak from their experience of using
the Skilled Facilitator approach in the field.
This book is an invitation to explore, reflect on, and find connections for your own growth and
practice, wherever that might be. We hope the tools and suggestions add to the conceptual strength
of the Skilled Facilitator approach. We hope you use whatever resonates for you and your organiza-
tions. And we hope you will share your learning with the expanding number of Skilled Facilitator
practitioners. In doing so, you will join a growing community engaged in a challenging and rich
exploration of new possibilities for how we work and live together.
WHO THE FIELDBOOK IS FOR
This book is for anyone who wants to work with others to develop more powerful results and more
productive working relationships. This includes facilitators, consultants, leaders and managers, team
members, coaches, and teachers. People use facilitative skills in various roles, and we address each of
them in the book. We use the following terms and definitions:
• Facilitator: a substantively neutral third party who helps a group improve its effectiveness by
improving its process and structure.
• Facilitative consultant: a third party who uses the Skilled Facilitator approach while providing
substantive expertise to a group or organization.
• Facilitative trainer: a teacher or trainer who uses the principles and skills of the Skilled Facili-
tator approach to help students learn a particular content area.
• Facilitative coach: a person who coaches individuals using the principles and skills of the
Skilled Facilitator approach.
• Facilitative leader: a formal or informal leader in a group or organization who uses the
Skilled Facilitator principles and skills as the basis of his or her leadership approach. We refer
to this as the Facilitative Leader (TFL) approach.
Depending on the context, we use the term Skilled Facilitator approach (which we abbreviate as TSF)
to refer specifically to the facilitator role or to using the principles of the approach in any other role.
xx | Introduction
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxi
HOW THE FIELDBOOK IS ORGANIZED
The Fieldbook is organized into seven parts.
Part One, “Understanding the Skilled Facilitator Approach,” summarizes the Skilled Facilitator
approach and describes its major principles, features, and outcomes. If you are new to this approach,
Part One will give you a foundation for appreciating the rest of the book. If you have read the first
edition of The Skilled Facilitator (1994) but not the revised edition (2002), you will find new ideas
in Chapter Three, “Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles”; Chapter Four, “Understanding What
Guides Your Behavior”; Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” which contains a shorter,
revised set of ground rules; and Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically.” If you’re already
familiar with the revised edition, you will find new ideas in Chapters Four and Seven. Throughout
the Fieldbook, when we cite The Skilled Facilitator, we mean the 2002 revised edition unless we spec-
ify otherwise.
Part Two, “Starting Out,” gives guidance on using TSF with one-on-one conversations, basic fa-
cilitations, and typical work team tasks. It includes guidelines for specific types of interventions like
agreeing on a work group’s purpose and vision, chartering a team, or clarifying organizational roles
and expectations. These are the kinds of issues that many facilitators, human resource professionals,
organization development consultants, and leaders frequently are called on to help groups address.
Part Three, “Deepening Your Practice,” focuses on refining your skills. As you use the Skilled
Facilitator approach, you may want to hone your diagnosis and intervention abilities so that you can
work more effectively with groups. The chapters in Part Three provide ways to practice using the
ground rules to quickly diagnose what is happening in a group and ways to begin your interventions
with it. This part also helps you increase your personal awareness, which contributes to making your
interventions more precise and powerful.
Part Four, “Facing Challenges,” offers help for dealing with some of the most challenging situa-
tions: giving negative feedback, disagreeing with the boss, and holding other difficult conversations. It
explains why it makes sense to engage in difficult conversations and offers specific steps and examples
for how to do so. It also continues the theme of expanding self-awareness so you can see how you con-
tribute to the very problems that frustrate you.
Part Five, “Seeking Your Path,” describes the personal learning journey involved in integrating
this approach into your own life and practice. It offers the experiences of others in taking TSF back
to their organizations and guidelines for doing so yourself.
Part Six, “Leading and Changing Organizations,” focuses on applying the Skilled Facilitator
approach to create significant change in how people lead and manage their organizations and how
organizational systems function. We refer to this as the Facilitative Leader approach. The chapters
in Part Six offer methods and stories from formal and informal leaders seeking to transform all or
part of their organization as well as chapters from consultants working with these leaders. It also
describes dilemmas that arise when engaging in fundamental organizational change and how to
address them.
Part Seven, “Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Your Worklife (and Non-Worklife),”
shows how you can integrate the Skilled Facilitator approach with other approaches and with other
facilitative roles. It includes chapters that describe how to use the approach with the Myers-Briggs
Introduction | xxi
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxii
Type Indicator and systems analysis. It explains how to use the principles as a teacher or trainer, coach,
consultant, and parent. Part Seven ends with two examples of using the approach in the world of
elected politics.
HOW TO USE THE FIELDBOOK TO ENHANCE YOUR
LEARNING
We realize that people reading this book learn in different ways and are likely to want to learn differ-
ent things. We have designed the Fieldbook so you can create your own learning journey. There are
several features that will help you easily find what you need.
Icons
Throughout the book, we have used seven different icons to help you quickly identify items that may
be useful to your learning. These icons appear in two places: in the margins next to an item and at
the beginning of chapters when the chapter contains primarily a particular type of material indicated
by one of the icons, such as a model conversation that you might want to use as a template. The icons
and the items they indicate are:
Key points: a key concept, principle, or other point that is central to the Skilled Facilitator
approach.
Stories: real examples of applying (or not applying) the approach.
Tools and techniques: specific tools, techniques, or methods and samples of the outcomes they
produce.
Reflections: an invitation to reflect on the reading and apply it to yourself or your own situation.
Model conversations: verbatim examples of what to say using the Skilled Facilitator approach. Short
examples such as opening lines or questions are highlighted with boldface type in the text.
Resources: materials such as books, articles, and Web sites that we recommend.
Definitions: the meaning of certain key words. Other definitions appear in boldface in the text.
Cross-References
The Skilled Facilitator approach is a system; every element of the approach is related in some way to
every other element. So throughout the book we cross-reference other chapters that build on or sup-
port the chapter you are currently reading.
xxii | Introduction
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxiii
Choosing the Chapters That Meet Your Interests
The Fieldbook is designed so you can start anywhere and go anywhere. Depending on your interests
there are different places to start. Here are a few:
• If you are new to the Skilled Facilitator approach, consider beginning with Chapter One, “The
Skilled Facilitator Approach,” for an overview of its key components.
• If you want to understand the core of the Skilled Facilitator approach, see Chapter Four,
“Understanding What Guides Your Behavior.”
• If you are planning a facilitation, start with Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups”;
Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups”; Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation”; and Chapter
Twelve, “Do the Math.”
• If you are looking for specific tools and techniques to improve working with groups or teams,
consider starting with Chapter Ten, “Process Designs”; Chapter Fifteen, “Using the Group Ef-
fectiveness Model”; and Chapter Nineteen, “Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen
Work Groups and Teams.”
• If you are looking for ways to address difficult conversations, consider starting with Chapter
Twenty-Eight, “Holding Risky Conversations”; Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward Difficulty”;
and Chapter Forty-One, “‘I Can’t Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does.’”
• If you are looking for ways to introduce the approach in your organization, considering begin-
ning with Chapter Thirty-Five, “Introducing the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work,” or
Chapter Thirty-Six, “Bringing It All Back Home.
• If you’re interested in helping groups make significant change, consider reading Chapter Forty,
“Helping a Team Understand the System They Created”; Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental
Facilitation”; and Chapter Forty-Four, “Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions.”
• If you are a formal organizational leader interested in the challenges and rewards of applying the
approach in your organization, consider starting with Chapter Forty-Seven, “Reflections of a Some-
times Facilitative Leader,” or Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader.”
• If you are a coach, consider starting with Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative Coach.”
• If you are a teacher or trainer see Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a Facilitative Trainer.”
• If you are involved in human resources or organization development efforts, consider starting
with Chapter Forty-Eight, “Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational
Policies and Procedures”; Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilita-
tor Approach”; Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System”; and Chapter
Fifty-One, “Do Surveys Provide Valid Information for Organizational Change?”
• If you want to learn about how you may be contributing to problems around you, start with
Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems”; Chapter Forty-Two, “How
to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness”; and Chapter Fifty-Three,
“The Drama Triangle. “
Introduction | xxiii
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxiv
No matter what path you choose, you will discover that the Skilled Facilitator approach is based
on a model of mutual learning, which rests on the assumption that all of us see some things and miss
others. In other words, we are all both teachers and learners. We hope that the lessons offered in the
Fieldbook enrich your learning journey and that you will make us part of your extended learning com-
munity. Information on how to reach us is included at the end of the book.
Wherever you begin, we hope you find the journey fruitful.
January 2005
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Charlotte, North Carolina
Durham, North Carolina
Durham
ROGER SCHWARZ
ANNE DAVIDSON
PEG CARLSON
SUE MCKINNEY
xxiv | Introduction
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxv
The Skilled Facilitator
Fieldbook
03_964948 flast.qxd 3/3/05 9:33 AM Page xxvi
04_964948 pt01.qxd 3/3/05 9:34 AM Page 1
PART ONE
Understanding the
Skilled Facilitator
Approach
In Part One, we introduce the Skilled Facilitator approach and describe the major
concepts, principles, and key features of the approach. If you are new to this ap-
proach, Part One will give you a foundation for appreciating the rest of the book.
If you are already familiar with the approach, you will find some of our new think-
ing in Chapters Four, Five, and Seven.
In Chapter One, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach,” Roger Schwarz provides
an overview of the approach. Each of the following chapters explains a section of
the overview in more detail.
To understand how to improve groups, we think it is necessary to have a model
of what makes effective groups. Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,”
presents a model that describes the elements necessary for an effective group. You
can use the model to identify and address problems groups are facing and to estab-
lish new groups. In a sidebar to Chapter Two, Anne Davidson responds to ques-
tions that our clients frequently ask about the Group Effectiveness Model, such as
where trust and leadership fit in.
Many people who use the Skilled Facilitator approach are not substantively neu-
tral third-party facilitators; they are consultants, leaders and managers, trainers, and
coaches. Roger explains in Chapter Three, “Using Facilitative Skills in Different
Roles,” how these roles are similar and different. He describes how applying the skill
set and mind-set of the Skilled Facilitator approach increases your value in each of
these roles.
At the heart of the Skilled Facilitator approach is the idea that the way we act
and the consequences we create begin with the way we think. Unfortunately, in dif-
ficult situations, most of us think in ways that lead us to take actions that create un-
intended negative consequences—and we are unaware that we are doing so. In
Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” Roger describes the
unilateral control model: the values and assumptions we use in difficult situations
and how they undermine our own and groups’ effectiveness. Then he contrasts it
with the mutual learning model, the foundation for the Skilled Facilitator approach.
He shows how to create high-quality results and productive relationships by begin-
ning to change the way you think.
04_964948 pt01.qxd 3/3/05 9:34 AM Page 2
In Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” Roger describes a spe-
cific set of behaviors that you and group members can use to increase the quality of
decision making, increase commitment, reduce implementation time, and improve
working relationships. The ground rules are the strategies for implementing the mu-
tual learning model described in Chapter Four. These ground rules are not the kind
that you agree on at the beginning of a meeting, post on a flip chart, and then
maybe occasionally refer to. They guide your behavior, help you identify effective
and ineffective behaviors in the group, and guide you in intervening to help the
group become more effective. Examples include testing assumptions and inferences,
explaining your reasoning and intent, and combining advocacy with inquiry. Roger
explains how each ground rule works and how to use them.
Facilitators often ask, “What do I say when I see behavior in the group that I
think is ineffective?” In Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” Peg
Carlson addresses this question. The diagnosis-intervention cycle is a tool that pro-
vides a simple structured way to think about what is going on in a conversation and
intervene to make it more productive. Together with the mutual learning model and
the ground rules for effective groups, it enables you to help others without creating
defensiveness.
The Skilled Facilitator approach is a systemic approach. We see groups as sys-
tems in which each element needs to interact effectively with all the other elements.
In the same way, each element of the approach is integrated with all the other ele-
ments so that they form an internally consistent powerful approach. In Chapter
Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” Anne Davidson provides a brief sum-
mary of the basics of systems thinking and shows how the Skilled Facilitator
approach uses systems thinking principles to create sustainable change and reduce
unintended consequences.
We conclude Part One by exploring how to develop an effective working agree-
ment with a group. In Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” Roger describes
the principles and specific steps that you can use to establish an agreement with
groups about whether and how you will work together.
2 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 3
Chapter 1
The Skilled Facilitator
Approach
Roger Schwarz
The Skilled Facilitator approach is a values-based, systemic approach to group
facilitation. It is designed to help groups (1) increase the quality of decisions, (2) in-
crease commitment to decisions, (3) reduce effective implementation time, (4) im-
prove working relationships, (5) improve personal satisfaction in groups, and (6)
increase organizational learning. This chapter provides an overview of the approach.
WHAT IS GROUP FACILITATION?
Group facilitation is a process in which a person whose selection is acceptable to
all members of the group, who is substantively neutral, and who has no substan-
tive decision-making authority diagnoses and intervenes to help a group improve
how it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, to increase the group’s
effectiveness.
The facilitator’s main task is to help the group increase its effectiveness by im-
proving its process and structure. Process refers to how a group works together. It
includes how members talk to each other, identify and solve problems, make deci-
sions, and handle conflict. Structure refers to stable recurring group processes, such
as group membership or group roles. In contrast, content refers to what a group is
working on—for example, whether to enter a new market, how to provide high-
quality service to customers, or what each group member’s responsibilities should
be. Whenever a group meets, it is possible to observe both its content and process.
For example, in a discussion about how to provide high-quality service, suggestions
about installing a customer hotline or giving more authority to those with customer
contact reflect content. However, members responding to only certain members’
ideas or failing to identify their assumptions are facets of the group’s process.
This chapter is adapted from Chapter One, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach,” in The Skilled Facilitator: A
Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches, New and Revised Edition
by Roger Schwarz (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002). All references to The Skilled Facilitator in this Fieldbook
are to the 2002 edition unless otherwise noted.
Group facilita-
tion is a process
in which a person
whose selection is ac-
ceptable to all members
of the group, who is sub-
stantively neutral, and
who has no substantive
decision-making authority
diagnoses and intervenes
to help a group improve
how it identifies and
solves problems and
makes decisions, to in-
crease the group’s
effectiveness.
3
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 4
By definition, a
group member
cannot formally fill
the role of facilitator.
Underlying the facilitator’s main task is the premise that ineffective group
process and structure reduces a group’s ability to solve problems and make decisions.
By increasing the effectiveness of the group’s process and structure, the facilitator
helps the group improve its performance and overall effectiveness. The facilita-
tor does not intervene directly in the content of the group’s discussions; to do so
would require the facilitator to abandon neutrality and would reduce the group’s
responsibility for solving its problems.
To ensure that the facilitator is trusted by all group members and that the
group’s autonomy is maintained, the facilitator needs to meet three criteria: (1) be
acceptable to all members of the group, (2) be substantively neutral—that is, dis-
play no preference for any of the solutions the group considers—and (3) not have
substantive decision-making authority. In practice, the facilitator can meet these
three criteria only if the facilitator is not a group member. Although a group mem-
ber may be acceptable to other members and may not have substantive decision-
making authority, the group member has a substantive interest in the group’s issues.
By definition, a group member cannot formally fill the role of facilitator. Nev-
ertheless, a group leader or member can use the Skilled Facilitator principles and
techniques to help a group. Effective leaders regularly use facilitation skills as part
of their leadership role.
KEY FEATURES OF THE SKILLED
FACILITATOR APPROACH
The Skilled Facilitator approach is one approach to facilitation. Often facilitation
approaches represent a compilation of techniques and methods without an under-
lying integrated theoretical framework. The Skilled Facilitator approach is based on
a theory of group facilitation that contains a set of core values and principles and a
number of techniques and methods derived from the core values and principles. It
integrates the theory into practice to create a values-based, systemic approach to
group facilitation. In doing so, it answers two key questions: “What do I say and
do in this situation?” and “What are concepts and principles that lead me to say
and do this?” Exhibit 1.1 identifies the key features of the Skilled Facilitator
approach and their purpose.
The Group Effectiveness Model
To help groups become more effective, you need a model of group effectiveness to
guide your work. The model needs to be more than descriptive—that is, it needs to
do more than explain how groups typically function or develop because many
groups develop in a way that is dysfunctional. To be useful, the model needs to be
normative: it should tell you what an effective group looks like.
4 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 5
�
Exhibit 1.1 Key Features of the Skilled Facilitator Approach
• The Group Effectiveness Model
• A clearly defined facilitative role
• Useful in a wide range of roles
• Explicit core values
• Ground rules for effective groups
• The diagnosis-intervention cycle
• Low-level inferences
• Exploring and changing how we think
• A process for agreeing on how to work together
• A systems approach
The Group Effectiveness Model (GEM) identifies the criteria for effective groups,
identifies the elements that contribute to effectiveness and the relationships among
them, and describes what these elements look like in practice.The model enables you
to determine when groups are having problems, identify the causes that generate the
problems, and begin to identify where to intervene to address the problems. When
you are creating new groups, the model helps you identify the elements and rela-
tionships among the elements that need to be in place to ensure an effective group.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and Chapter Fifteen, “Using the
Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135.
A Clearly Defined Facilitative Role
To help groups, you need a clear definition of your facilitative role so that you and the
groups you are helping have a common understanding about and agree on the kinds
of behaviors that are consistent and inconsistent with your role. This has become more
difficult as organizations have used the word facilitator to define many different roles.
Human resource experts, organization development consultants, trainers, coaches, and
even managers have sometimes been referred to as facilitators. The Skilled Facilitator
approach clearly defines the facilitator role as a substantively neutral person who is not
a group member and who works for the entire group. Still, as I describe in the next
section, even if you are not a facilitator, you can use facilitative skills.
The Skilled Facilitator approach distinguishes between two types of facilitation:
basic and developmental. In basic facilitation, you help a group solve a substan-
tive problem by essentially lending the group your process skills. When your work
is complete, the group has solved its substantive problem, but by design, it has not
The Group Effec-
tiveness Model
(GEM) identifies the
criteria for effective groups,
identifies the elements that
contribute to effectiveness
and the relationships
among them, and de-
scribes what these ele-
ments look like in practice.
Chapter 1 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach | 5
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 6
�
�
In basic facilita-
tion, you help a
group solve a
substantive problem by es-
sentially lending the group
your process skills. When
your work is complete,
the group has solved its
substantive problem, but by
design, it has not learned
how to improve its process.
In developmental facilita-
tion, you help a group im-
prove its process by
learning to reflect on and
change its thinking and
behavior so it can solve
substantive problems
more effectively.
A Note on Terms
The Skilled Facilitator
Fieldbook focuses on all
five of the facilitative roles.
When we are writing about
a specific role—and only
that role—we use the ap-
propriate term, such as
facilitative leader or facili-
tative trainer. We use the
term Skilled Facilitator
approach to refer specifi-
cally to the facilitator role
and to using the principles
of the approach in any
other role.
learned how to improve its process. In developmental facilitation, you help a group
improve its process by learning to reflect on and change its thinking and behavior
so it can solve substantive problems more effectively.
See Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” page 115, and Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental
Facilitation,” page 339.
Useful in a Wide Range of Roles
Although I have described the Skilled Facilitator approach in terms of a substan-
tively neutral third-party facilitator, the approach also recognizes that everyone needs
facilitative skills. So the approach encompasses additional facilitative roles: facilita-
tive consultant, facilitative coach, facilitative trainer, and facilitative leader. All are
based on the same underlying core values and principles as the role of neutral, third-
party facilitator.
Chapter Three, “Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles,” page 27, has basic information on
the different facilitative roles. Many of the chapters in Parts Six and Seven explore how the dif-
ferent roles work in practice.
Explicit Core Values
All approaches to facilitation are based on some core values, explicit or implicit.
Whatever the approach, core values provide its foundation and serve as a guide.
They enable you to craft consistent new methods and techniques and to reflect con-
tinually on how well you do in acting congruently with them. But if you are to ben-
efit most from a set of core values, they need to be explicit. The Skilled Facilitator
approach is based on four explicit core values, and the principles that follow from
them: (1) valid information, (2) free and informed choice, (3) internal commitment,
and (4) compassion. (The first three core values come from the work of Chris
Argyris and Donald Schön, 1974.) Valid information means sharing all the relevant
information that you have about an issue in a way that others can understand the
reasoning. Free and informed choice means members make decisions based on valid
information, not on pressure from inside or outside the group. Internal commitment
means each member feels personally responsible for the decision and is willing to
support the decision, given his or her role. Compassion means adopting a stance to-
ward others and yourself in which you temporarily suspend judgment.
As a facilitator, you need not only a set of methods and techniques but also an
understanding of how and why they work. By using an explicit set of core values
6 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 7
�
�
and the principles that follow from them, you can improvise and design new
methods and techniques consistent with the core values. Without this understand-
ing, you are like a novice baker who must either follow the recipe as given or make
changes without knowing what will happen.
Making the core values explicit also helps you work with groups. You can dis-
cuss your approach with potential clients so that they can make more informed
choices about whether they want to use you as their facilitator. When clients know
the core values underlying your approach, they can help you improve your practice,
identifying when they believe you are acting inconsistently with the values you es-
poused. Because the core values for facilitation are also the core values for effective
group behavior, when you act consistently with the core values, not only do you act
effectively as a facilitator, but you also model effective behavior for the group you
are working with.
See Chapter Four, page 33, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” for an introduction to
how assumptions and values guide behavior. For some applications, try Chapter Thirty-Four,
“Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World,” page 287, and Chapter Forty-
Four, “Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions,” page 349.
Ground Rules for Effective Groups
As you watch a group in action, you may intuitively know whether the members’
conversation is productive even if you cannot identify exactly how they either con-
tribute to or hinder the group’s process. Yet a facilitator needs to understand the spe-
cific kinds of behaviors that improve a group’s process. The Skilled Facilitator
approach describes these behaviors in a set of ground rules for effective groups. The
ground rules make specific the abstract core values of facilitation and group effec-
tiveness (Figure 1.1).
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, for an introduction to the ground
rules. For practical detail on using them, try Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground Rules
and Principles in Your Own Words,” page 131; Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the
Ground Rules, page 189; Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning
Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217; and Chapter Thirty-Five, “Introducing
the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work,” page 293.
The behavioral ground rules in the Skilled Facilitator approach differ from
the more procedural ground rules that many groups use (“start on time, end on
time”; “turn off your pagers and cell phones”). Procedural ground rules can be help-
ful, but they do not describe the specific behaviors that lead to effective group
process.
Valid information
means sharing all
the relevant infor-
mation that you have about
an issue in a way that oth-
ers can understand the
reasoning. Free and in-
formed choice means
members make decisions
based on valid information,
not on pressure from inside
or outside the group. Inter-
nal commitment means
each member feels per-
sonally responsible for the
decision and is willing to
support the decision, given
his or her role. Compas-
sion means adopting a
stance toward others and
yourself in which you tem-
porarily suspend judgment.
Chapter 1 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach | 7
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 8
�
Figure 1.1 Ground Rules for Effective Groups
Test assumptions and inferences.
Share all relevant information.
1
2
4
5
6
8
3
9
7
Use specific examples and agree
on what important words mean.
Explain your reasoning and intent.
Focus on interests, not positions.
Combine advocacy and inquiry.
Jointly design next steps and ways
to test disagreements.
Discuss undiscussable issues.
Use a decision-making rule that
generates the level of commitment
needed.
The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
The group effectiveness model, the core values, and the ground rules for effective
groups are all tools for diagnosing behavior in groups. But you still need a way to
put these tools to work. Specifically you need to know when to intervene, what kind
of intervention to make, how to say it, when to say it, and to whom. To help put
these tools into practice, the Skilled Facilitator approach includes a six-step process
called the diagnosis-intervention cycle. The cycle is a structured and simple way to
think about what is happening in the group and then to intervene consistent with
the core values. It serves to guide you into effective action.
Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69, is an introduction to the diagnosis-
intervention cycle. For more on applications, see Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” page 115.
Low-Level Inferences
To help groups become more effective requires that you constantly try to make sense
of what is happening in the group. You watch members say and do things and
then make inferences about what their behavior means (an inference is a conclu-
sion you reach about something that is unknown to you based on things that you
8 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 9
�
have observed) and how it is either helping or hindering the group’s process. For ex-
ample, in a meeting, if you see someone silently folding his arms across his chest,
you may infer that he disagrees with what has been said but is not saying so.
The kinds of inferences you make are critical because they guide what you will
say and they affect how group members will react to you. To be effective, you need
to make these inferences in a way that increases the chance that you will be accurate,
enables you to share your inferences with the group to see if they disagree, and does
not create defensive reactions in group members when you share your inferences.
The Skilled Facilitator approach accomplishes this by focusing on what I refer
to as low-level inferences. Essentially, this means that you diagnose and intervene in
groups by making the fewest and the smallest inferential leaps necessary.
By learning to think and intervene using low-level inferences, you can increase
the accuracy of your diagnosis and your ability to share your thinking with others,
and reduce the chance that you will create defensive reactions when you do so. This
ensures that your actions increase rather than decrease the group’s effectiveness.
See the Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page
61, for an explanation of how we make inferences.
Exploring and Changing How We Think
Facilitation is difficult work because it is cognitively and emotionally demanding. It is
especially difficult when you find yourself in situations you consider potentially em-
barrassing or psychologically threatening. Research shows that in these situations, most
people tend to think and act in a way that seeks to unilaterally control the conversation,
win the discussion, and minimize the expression of negative feelings (Argyris and Schön,
1974). The same problem that reduces your effectiveness as a facilitator reduces the ef-
fectiveness of the groups you are seeking to help. Like the facilitator, the group members
are also unaware of how they create these problems for themselves.
The Skilled Facilitator approach helps you understand the conditions under which
you act less effectively and understand how your own thinking leads you to act inef-
fectively in ways that you are normally unaware of. It provides tools for increasing your
effectiveness, particularly in situations you find emotionally difficult. This involves
changing not only your techniques, but also how you think about or frame situations,
including the core values and assumptions that underlie your approach.
The Skilled Facilitator approach is grounded in a way of thinking and acting
calling the mutual learning model. In the mutual learning model, you think that you
have some information and that others have other information; you think that
others may see things that you don’t just as you may see things that they don’t; you
consider differences as opportunities for learning rather than opportunities to show
the others that they are wrong; and you assume that people are trying to act with
integrity given their situations.
An inference is a
conclusion you
reach about some-
thing that is unknown to
you based on things that
you have observed.
The Skilled Facili-
tator approach is
grounded in a way
of thinking and acting
calling the mutual
learning model.
Chapter 1 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach | 9
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 10
�
The Skilled Facilitator approach also rests on several key principles: curiosity,
transparency, and joint accountability. Curiosity about others’ views enables you to
continue a productive conversation and learn how your ideas and those of others
can be integrated. Transparency means sharing your reasoning and intent under-
lying your statements, questions, and actions. It includes sharing with others your
strategy for how you are having the conversation with them. Joint accountability
means that you share responsibility for the current situation, including the conse-
quences it creates. Rather than seek to blame others, you recognize that because you
are part of a system, your actions contribute to either maintaining the system or
changing it.
Changing your way of thinking is difficult but rewarding work. By doing this
work for yourself, you increase your effectiveness. Then you can help groups learn
to reflect on and change the ways they think in difficult situations so that they can
work more effectively together.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33; Chapter Seventeen,
“Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149; Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without
the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217; Chapter Forty-
Four, “Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions,” page 349; Chapter Forty-Five, “Introducing
the Core Values and Ground Rules,” page 361; Chapter Forty-Six, “From Learning to Lead
to Leading to Learn,” page 367; Chapter Forty-Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative
Leader,” page 377; Chapter Fifty-Four, “Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift
Mental Models, page 433; and Chapter Sixty-Two, “Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in
Public Office,” page 515.
A Process for Agreeing on How to Work Together
Facilitation involves developing a relationship with a group—a psychological con-
tract in which the group gives you permission to help them because they consider
you an expert and trustworthy facilitator. Building this relationship is critical be-
cause it is the foundation on which you use your facilitator knowledge and skills;
without the foundation, you lose the essential connection with the group that makes
your facilitation possible and powerful. To build this relationship, you need a clear
understanding and agreement with the group about your role as facilitator and how
you will work with the group to help it accomplish its objectives. I have found that
many of the facilitation problems my colleagues and I have faced stemmed from
a lack of agreement with the group about how the group and facilitator will work
together.
The Skilled Facilitator approach includes an explicit process for developing this
agreement that enables the facilitator and the group to make an informed free choice
about working together. By using this process, you act consistently with your facil-
itator role and increase the likelihood that you will help a group achieve its goals.
10 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 11
� See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups, page 89; Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative
Coach,” page 457; and Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a Facilitative Trainer,” page 479.
A Systems Approach
Facilitators often tell me stories of how, despite their best efforts to help a group in
a difficult situation, the situation gets worse. Each time the facilitator does something
designed to improve things, the situation either deteriorates immediately or tem-
porarily improves before getting even worse. One reason this occurs is that the facil-
itator is not thinking and acting systemically. The Skilled Facilitator approach
recognizes that a group is a social system—a collection of parts that interact with
each other to function as a whole—and that groups generate their own system
dynamics, such as deteriorating trust or continued dependence on the leader. You
enter into this system when you help a group. The challenge is to enter the system,
complete with its functional and dysfunctional dynamics, and help the group be-
come more effective without becoming influenced by the system to act ineffectively
yourself.
The Skilled Facilitator approach recognizes that any action you take affects the
group in multiple ways and has short-term and long-term consequences, some of
which may not be obvious. The approach helps you understand how your behav-
ior as facilitator interacts with the group’s dynamics to increase or decrease the
group’s effectiveness. For example, a facilitator who privately pulls aside a team mem-
ber she believes is dominating the group may seem to improve the team’s discussion
in the short run. But this action may also have several unintended negative conse-
quences. This person may feel that the facilitator is not representing the team’s opin-
ion and may see the facilitator as biased against him, thereby reducing the facilitator’s
credibility with that member. Even if the facilitator is reflecting the other team mem-
bers’ opinions, the team may come increasingly to depend on her to deal with its
issues, thereby reducing rather than increasing the team’s ability to function.
Using a systems approach to facilitation has many implications, a number of
which are central to understanding the Skilled Facilitator approach. One key im-
plication is treating the entire group as the client rather than only the formal group
leader or the member who contacted you. This increases the chance of having the
trust and credibility of the entire group, which is essential in serving as an effective
facilitator.
A second implication is that effective facilitator behavior and effective group
member and leader behavior are the same thing. Taking into account that the facil-
itator is substantively neutral and not a group member, the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach does not have different sets of rules for the facilitator and group members.
A third key implication is that to be effective, your system of facilitation needs to
be internally consistent. This means that the way you diagnose and intervene in a
The Skilled Facili-
tator approach rec-
ognizes that any
action you take affects the
group in multiple ways
and has short-term and
long-term consequences,
some of which may not be
obvious.
Chapter 1 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach | 11
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 12
�
�
group and the way you develop agreements with the group all need to be based on
a congruent set of principles. Many facilitators develop their approach by borrowing
methods and techniques from a variety of sources. There is nothing inherently
wrong with this, but if the methods and techniques are based on conflicting values
or principles, they can undermine the facilitator’s effectiveness as well as that of the
groups they work with.
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75; Chapter Twenty-Nine,
“Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255; Chapter Forty, “Helping a Team
Understand the System They Created,” page 323; Chapter Forty-One, “‘I Can’t Use This Approach
Unless My Boss Does,’” page 331; Chapter Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s
and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page 335; and Chapter Fifty-Six: “Applying the Skilled Facilitator
Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis,” page 447.
INTEGRATING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR
APPROACH WITH OTHER PROCESSES
Facilitators, consultants, and leaders can use the Skilled Facilitator approach with
other processes and tools to make the processes and tools more effective. For exam-
ple, people often use the approach with problem-solving methods, strategic plan-
ning processes, and quality improvement tools.
Because the Skilled Facilitator approach is a values-based systems approach, it
works well with other approaches that have a compatible value set. For example,
using a performance feedback process that prevents the person receiving the feed-
back from talking with the people who provided it is inconsistent with the Skilled
Facilitator core values. It creates a situation in which people can neither assess
whether the information is valid nor learn specifically how they might change their
behavior. This prevents them from making a free and informed choice about
whether to change their behavior and reduces their internal commitment to change.
In many cases, it is possible to modify the tool or process to be compatible with the
Skilled Facilitator approach.
See, for example, Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator
Approach,” page 391; Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System,” page 403;
and Chapter Fifty-One, “Do Surveys Provide Valid Information for Organizational Change?”
page 409.
THE EXPERIENCE OF FACILITATION
Facilitation is challenging work that calls forth a wide range of emotions. Part of
this work involves helping group members deal productively with their emotions
while they are addressing difficult issues. It is equally important to deal with your
12 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 13
own emotions as facilitator. Because your emotions and how you deal with them
profoundly determine your effectiveness, the Skilled Facilitator approach involves
understanding how you as a facilitator feel during facilitation and using these feel-
ings productively. For example, you may feel satisfied having helped a group work
through a particularly difficult problem or proud to see the group using some of the
skills they have learned from you. When the group is feeling confused and uncer-
tain how to proceed in their task, you may be feeling the same way about the facil-
itation. You may be frustrated by a group’s inability to manage conflict even if you
have been asked to help the group because they are having problems managing
conflict. You may feel sad watching a group act in ways that create the very conse-
quences they are trying to avoid, feel happy that you can identify this dynamic in
the group, and feel hopeful seeing that the group’s pain is creating motivation for
change.
At one time or another I have experienced each of these feelings as a facilitator;
they are part of the internal work of facilitation. The Skilled Facilitator approach
enables you to become more aware of these feelings and increases your ability
to manage them productively—what some refer to as emotional intelligence
(Goleman, 1995; Salovey and Mayer, 1990). I have found that my ability to de-
velop these emotional skills is both distinct from and related to my larger set of
knowledge, skills, and experience as a facilitator. While there are many ways to im-
prove my facilitation skills that do not focus on dealing with my emotions, my use
of any of these skills becomes more powerful if I am attuned to my own feelings and
others’ feelings and deal with them productively.
Through facilitating groups, you can also come to know yourself by reflecting
on how you react to certain situations, understanding the sources of your feelings,
and learning how to work with your feelings productively. In doing so, you not only
help yourself but in turn increase your ability to help the groups with which you
work—the people who face the same issues.
Resource
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
References
Argyris, C. Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View. Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1970.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Goleman, D. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books, 1995.
Salovey, P., and Mayer, J. D. “Emotional Intelligence.” Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 1990, 9, 185–211.
Chapter 1 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach | 13
05_964948 ch01.qxd 3/3/05 9:35 AM Page 14
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 15
Chapter 2
The Group Effectiveness
Model
Roger Schwarz
YOU HAVE PROBABLY had a variety of experiences working in groups. For most
people, the experience is mixed. In some groups, the members work well together,
accomplish the task, and meet some of one another’s needs. In others, the task is
done poorly (if at all), the members do not work well together, and people feel
frustrated. What factors might each group say contributed to its success or inef-
fectiveness? For example, do the members agree on how they should work to-
gether? Do they have clear goals? Is there undiscussed conflict? Are some members
of the group not motivated by the task? Are they missing certain expertise?
The answers to these questions begin to describe a model of group effec-
tiveness. Each of us has a mental model about what makes a group effective, even
if it includes only a few elements. Whether or not you are conscious of your men-
tal model, you use it to guide your diagnosis and intervention, decide where to
look when things go wrong, and know what to change.
Because a model is a simplified way to describe how something works, it does
not need to capture all the complexities of what it attempts to represent. But if your
model of a group is underdeveloped, it limits your ability to help groups become more
effective. If you have a model that shows you what an effective group looks like, the
elements that contribute to its effectiveness, and how the elements should interact,
you have a foundation from which to help members of a group diagnose problems
they are having and help them make changes to improve their effectiveness. Figure
2.1 is the Group Effectiveness Model (GEM) of the Skilled Facilitator approach.
WHAT IS A WORK GROUP?
To discuss what makes an effective work group, we first need to define what we
mean by work group. A work group is a set of people with specific interdependent
roles who are collectively responsible for producing some output (service, product,
This chapter is an adaptation of The Skilled Facilitator, Chapter Two, “What Makes Work Groups Effective?” In gen-
eral, the Group Effectiveness Model is adapted from Hackman (1987) and Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futtrell (1990).
We think of a model as a
particular way to see and
think about something.
The Group Effectiveness
Model is like a special pair
of lenses that enable you
to see and understand
what is determining a
group’s effectiveness.
15
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 16
Figure 2.1 The Group Effectiveness Model
� Clear mission & shared vision
� Clear mission & shared vision
� Problem solving
� Decision making
� Conflict management
� Communication
� Boundary management
Members
experience
growth and
development
� Effective group culture
� Clear goals
� Motivating task
� Appropriate membership
� Clearly defined roles,
including leadership
� Group norms
� Sufficient time
Group Context
Group Effectiveness
Group Structure
Group Process
Personal:
Services or
products meet
or exceed
performance
standards
Performance:
Group enhances its
ability to work together
Process:
� Supportive culture
� Rewards consistent with
objectives & design
� Information, including
feedback
� Training & consultation
� Technological &
material resources
� Physical environment
A work group is a
set of people with
specific interde-
pendent roles who are col-
lectively responsible for
producing some output
(service, product, or deci-
sion) that can be assessed
and who manage their re-
lationships with those out-
side the group. Examples
of groups that have these
characteristics are a board
of directors, a task force
or committee, and a
work team.
Source: Adapted from Hackman (1987) and Sundstrom, De Meuse, and Futtrell (1990).
or decision) that can be assessed and who manage their relationships with those out-
side the group. Examples of groups that have these characteristics are a board of
directors, a task force or committee, and a work team.
In this definition, what makes a group is the presence of key structural ele-
ments rather than the level of motivation or effectiveness of its members. Some peo-
ple use team to describe what we define as an effective group (Katzenbach and
Smith, 1993). Throughout this Fieldbook, we use the terms group and team inter-
changeably, recognizing that either can be more or less effective.
16 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 17
GROUP EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA:
PERFORMANCE, PROCESS, AND PERSONAL
What does it mean for a group to be effective? In the Skilled Facilitator approach, an
effective work group meets three criteria (displayed in the outer rings in Figure 2.1):
performance, process, and personal.
Performance
Rather than simply measure the quality and quantity of the service or product
against some objective or internal group standard, performance uses the expectations
and satisfaction of the group’s internal and external customers to determine whether
its work is acceptable. The group’s own standards are still important, but they do
not replace the assessments of others. To be effective, a group must meet all three
criteria, which are interrelated. If in the long run, if one criterion is not met, it affects
the other two.
Process
The second criterion takes into account that most groups work together over an ex-
tended period on a series of tasks. Consequently, the processes and structures they
use must enable them to work together in a way that enhances their ability to do so
in the future. For example, processes that burn group members out reduce their ca-
pability to work together on subsequent tasks.
Personal
The personal criterion of group effectiveness is that the group experience contributes
to the growth and well-being of its members. Group members reasonably expect
that through their work group, they can meet some of their personal needs—for ex-
ample, doing work that makes a difference in others’ lives or satisfies their need to
learn. In the long run, a group that does not meet its members needs is less effec-
tive than one that does.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO
GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
Groups are not either effective or ineffective; group effectiveness is measured on a
continuum and in our model is a function of three factors: group process, group
structure, and group context. Each factor has a number of elements, and the inter-
relationship among them is complex, with each element influencing the others (as
symbolized by the arrows in Figure 2.1).
Facilitators intervene pri-
marily through a group’s
process and structure, en-
abling the group to exam-
ine and perhaps change
its process, structure, and
context.
Chapter 2 • The Group Effectiveness Model | 17
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 18
�
Process refers to
how things are
done rather than
what is done. To be effec-
tive, a group must manage
a number of processes,
from problem solving to
boundary management
(see Figure 2.1).
Group Process
Process refers to how things are done rather than what is done. To be effective, a
group must manage a number of processes, from problem solving to boundary man-
agement (see Figure 2.1).
Problem Solving
A group with an effective problem-solving process meets two conditions:
1. It uses a systematic process for solving problems that is appropriate for the
problem the group is trying to solve. For example, when a group does not
consider the effect of its solution over time and throughout the system, it
can solve one problem in a way that creates more difficult ones.
2. All members focus on the same step of the problem-solving process at the same
time. A group gets off track when some members are trying to identify the
cause of the problem and others are already proposing solutions.
Decision Making
Decision making means reaching a conclusion or making a choice. The process in-
cludes determining who should be involved when, in what decisions, and how those
involved will decide. In an effective decision-making process, a number of people
are involved: those responsible for planning or implementing the decision, those di-
rectly or indirectly affected by the decision, and those who can influence whether
or how it is implemented. The core values of the Skilled Facilitator approach state
that the group includes people who have the relevant information about the prob-
lem, its causes, its solutions, and their potential effects.
There are various ways for groups to make decisions, from the leader deciding
alone, with or without consulting other members, to delegation, majority vote, and
consensus. If more than one person is to make the decision, the group needs to de-
cide what method they will use. The core values of the Skilled Facilitator approach
state that a group is more effective when it is internally committed to its choices.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for more on the core
values, and Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, on how the decision-
making method influences commitment.
Conflict Management
An effective group considers conflict a natural part of group life; when managed well,
conflict improves members’ ability to work together to accomplish their task and
contributes to personal growth. They use conflict to learn more about the problem
and how others see it rather than simply persuading people that they are right and
18 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 19
�
�
�
others are wrong. To do this, they share previously hidden thoughts and feelings and
openly test any difference of opinion. Ultimately, they resolve conflict so that it stays
resolved and in a way that members understand how the conflict arose, how they
contributed to it, and how they can act differently to prevent unnecessary conflict.
Some of the chapters that explore how the Skilled Facilitator approach enables groups to do this are
Chapter Fifteen, “Using the Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135; Chapter Twenty-Nine,
“Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255; Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward
Difficulty,” page 261; and Chapter Thirty-Two, “Raising Issues In or Out of Group,” page 273.
Communication
The communication process is embedded in all other group processes. Essentially,
communication means exchanging information such that the sender and receiver
understand the meaning in the same way. The ground rules and core values of the
Skilled Facilitator approach describe elements of effective communication.
For an introduction, see Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33,
and Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61. For an introduction to using the
ground rules in e-mail, see Chapter Twenty, “Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail,” page 181.
For discussions about creating a performance feedback system, see Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree
Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach,” page 391, and Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a
360-Degree Feedback System,” page 403.
Boundary Management
In an effective group, members can articulate the group’s task and what they are
responsible for accomplishing, so that they do not take on tasks unrelated to their
purpose and outside the group’s expertise. Similarly, they know what kind of
authority and autonomy the group has.
At the same time, a group must coordinate its work with other parts of the or-
ganization, including deciding what information to share and how, what tasks are
performed by whom, and how decisions are made. Effective groups also manage
boundaries to ensure that the larger organization provides the materials, technol-
ogy, people, and information needed to accomplish their tasks. Some groups have
to manage boundaries directly with the organization’s external customers.
Group Structure
Group structure is the second factor contributing to group effectiveness (Figure 2.1).
The term group structure refers to the relatively stable characteristics of a group,
including mission and vision, tasks, membership, roles, time available, shared values
Chapter 2 • The Group Effectiveness Model | 19
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 20
�
�
Group structure is
the second factor
contributing to
group effectiveness (Figure
2.1). The term group
structure refers to the rela-
tively stable characteristics
of a group, including mis-
sion and vision, tasks,
membership, roles, time
available, shared values
and beliefs, and norms.
and beliefs, and norms. Understanding the dynamic relationships that create the
structure is important because changing the relationships in the activity changes
the structure.
Clear Mission and Shared Vision
A group’s mission answers the question, “Why do we exist?” A vision is a mental
picture of the future that a group seeks to create. It identifies what the group should
look like and how it should act as it seeks to accomplish its mission. In an effective
group, members can articulate their mission and vision, find it engaging, and use it
to guide their work.
See Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149.
Effective Group Culture
Group culture means the set of fundamental values and beliefs shared by the mem-
bers of a group that guide their behavior. A belief is an assumption about what is
true—for example, “People are naturally motivated to do a good job.” A value is
an assumption about what is worthwhile or desirable—for example, “maintaining
honesty at all times.” An artifact is a product of the culture—for example, a pol-
icy, a procedure, or a structure that members create.
In an effective group, members can articulate its core values and beliefs, and
they take actions and make decisions that are congruent with them. Inferring
values and beliefs from a group’s cultural artifacts, including how members act, is a
primary method of developmental facilitation used to help groups examine their
process and structure.
See, for example, Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and
Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
Goals, Task, and Membership
An effective group has clear goals that are consistent with the organization’s mis-
sion and vision and allows members to select the means by which they achieve their
goals. Clear goals enable a group to measure its progress toward achieving them.
Without clear goals, a group has difficulty solving problems and making decisions,
and this often leads to conflict.
A group task is the work the group performs to accomplish its goal. In the
Group Effectiveness Model, this includes the idea that group members must be in-
terdependent with each other in accomplishing the task and share collective re-
sponsibility for the group’s output.
20 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 21
�
A motivating group task meets certain conditions (Hackman, 1987):
• It enables members to use a variety of their skills.
• It is a whole and meaningful piece of work with a visible outcome.
• Its outcomes have significant consequences, for either customers or for oth-
ers in the organization.
• It gives members significant autonomy over how they accomplish it so that
they feel ownership of their work.
• Working on the task generates regular and trustworthy feedback to members
about how well the group is performing.
An effective group also has an appropriate membership, meaning that its mem-
bers are carefully selected according to several criteria:
• The members bring an appropriate mix of knowledge and skills to complete
the task successfully.
• The group is just large enough to handle the task. A group with more mem-
bers than it needs to complete the task spends time on coordination that
could be spent working directly on the task. In addition, as the group grows,
members can lose interest in the work and reduce their effort.
• The composition of the group should be stable enough to maintain conti-
nuity of effort yet fluid enough to ensure that members do not all think the
same way and discourage new or differing ideas.
Clearly Defined Roles, Including Leadership
In an effective group, members understand clearly what role each plays and what
behavior people expect in each role. With clear, agreed-on roles, members can co-
ordinate their actions to complete the task. Without these roles, they are likely to
experience unnecessary conflict and stress. Effective groups clarify the roles of their
members as the task changes or as members change.
Defining the leader role means defining the relationship between the leader and
other group members regarding how the group handles its processes, structures, and
functions. As a group becomes more self-directed, more elements of the leadership
role are integrated into the roles of the members.
For more on the facilitative leader role, see Chapter Three, “Using Facilitative Skills in Different
Roles,” page 27; Chapter Eighteen, “Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations,” page 159;
Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309; and Chapter Forty-
Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader,” page 377. The Skilled Facilitator core val-
ues are introduced in Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and
the ground rules in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Chapter 2 • The Group Effectiveness Model | 21
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 22
�
�
The third factor in
the GEM is group
context, which in-
cludes aspects of the
larger organization that in-
fluence the group’s effec-
tiveness but that the group
usually does not control
(Figure 2.1).
Group Norms
A norm is an expectation about how people should or should not behave that all or
many of the group members share. Norms stem from the values and beliefs that
constitute the group’s culture. In an effective group, members explicitly discuss and
agree on the norms that they want to guide their group. They also agree to hold one
another accountable for following the norms by raising the issue if someone acts in
some way inconsistent with them. The ground rules for effective groups are a set of
group norms that are based on the core values and beliefs of the Skilled Facilitator
approach.
Sufficient Time
Finally, a group needs two kinds of time to complete its tasks and achieve its goals:
performance time and capacity-building time.
During performance time, the group produces its product or service. During
capacity-building time, the group engages in activities that help build capacity to
improve performance—for example, redesigning the flow of work to increase effi-
ciency or reflecting on how the group managed a conflict so as to improve its skills.
Typically, groups spend too little time on building capacity.
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75, and Chapter Twelve, “Do the
Math: Creating a Realistic Agenda,” page 119.
Group Context
The third factor in the GEM is group context, which includes aspects of the larger
organization that influence the group’s effectiveness but that the group usually does
not control (Figure 2.1). The elements of group context include clear mission and
shared values, a supportive organizational culture, rewards consistent with group ob-
jectives and design, information (including feedback about performance), training
and consultation, technology and material resources, and a physical environment
that fits the group’s needs. An effective group recognizes that although it may not
control the group context, it might influence the larger organization to create a more
supportive one. Understanding the group context helps a facilitator identify how the
larger organization is likely to help or hinder a group’s efforts to improve effective-
ness. It also helps identify the extent to which facilitation alone can help a group.
See Chapter Two in The Skilled Facilitator for more detail on the elements of group context. For dis-
cussions about performance feedback systems, training, and consultation that are congruent with the
Skilled Facilitator approach, see Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled
Facilitator Approach,” page 391; Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System,”
page 403; Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative Coach,” page 457; Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a
Facilitative Trainer,” page 479; and Chapter Fifty-Nine, “Being a Facilitative Consultant,” page 495.
22 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 23
�
PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
The Group Effectiveness Model proposes three criteria for an effective group: per-
formance, process, and personal. Three factors—process, structure, and context—
contribute to making a group effective. And each factor comprises its own elements
(Figure 2.1). You can think of these elements—for example, conflict management,
a motivating task, and technology and material resources—as pieces of a puzzle that
must fit together for the group to be effective. The elements themselves have to be
effective, and the relationships among the elements need to be congruent.
You can use the model to help groups explore how well they are meeting the ef-
fectiveness criteria and what elements and relationships among elements may need
to change to improve effectiveness. You can also use the model to help new groups
get off to a good start.
See Chapter Fifteen, “Using the Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135.
Anne Davidson
Frequent Questions About the
Group Effectiveness Model
When people are introduced to the Group Effectiveness Model, they often ask
about elements they believe may be missing. They also wonder about the limits
of applying the model. Below are some of the thoughts I share when responding.
Trust
Groups often ask why trust is not in the Group Effectiveness Model or if one
can introduce and discuss the model in low-trust environments. Trust is an
aspect of group culture. People become vulnerable when they take actions
they perceive as risky within their culture. Whether they feel others have taken
advantage of their vulnerability builds or erodes trust. Trust, then, is an out-
come of effective behavior.
The Group Effectiveness Model identifies elements that you can inter-
vene on directly, and you cannot intervene directly on trust. Instead, using the
Skilled Facilitator approach, you would intervene on the specific behaviors,
norms, values, and assumptions that create or destroy trust. For example, if
coworkers say they support a decision in a meeting but afterward talk about
all the problems with it and how they will avoid implementing it, you are unlike-
ly to trust their support of future decisions. Using the Group Effectiveness
Model and the Skilled Facilitator approach principles, we would intervene on
the group norms and underlying values and assumptions that led people not
to openly disagree in the meeting, not to feel they could share all relevant
information (their feelings and concerns), and/or the processes used that
contributed to false consensus.
The Group Effec-
tiveness Model
identifies elements
that you can intervene on
directly, and you cannot in-
tervene directly on trust.
Chapter 2 • The Group Effectiveness Model | 23
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 24
Leadership is em-
bedded in various
Group Effective-
ness Model elements. A
more useful conversation
than discussing leadership
generally is to clarify the
behaviors expected in for-
mal and informal leader
roles.
In discussing group culture, I might ask group members about their level
of trust and whether and how that affects their ability to work together, but I
quickly follow up their assessment with a request for examples of the specific
behaviors that contributed to or reduced trust. In a low-trust culture, we may
need to come back to this issue several times because it may initially feel too
risky to raise certain examples. But I do not assume that if trust is low, I can-
not use the model. That would be self-fulfilling and self-sealing. That is, if I
were to need a trusting environment to use the Group Effectiveness Model,
then the only place I would be able to use it to build trust is where I already
have trust—in which case I don’t much need it anyway. The value of the tool
is using it to help overcome obstacles. If I assume I cannot use it, I seal off the
possibility of helping individuals develop the skills to overcome their lack of
trust. I may need to change norms and develop skills by degrees, but if I
assume I cannot work toward raising increasingly difficult issues, then I see
no way to build the very trust a group lacks. By helping group members iden-
tify and consistently engage in trustworthy behavior, groups build relationships
to the point that increasingly difficult issues can be addressed. Like many
other broad descriptors of group interaction, such as respect, fairness, and
support, trust needs to be defined and discussed at the level of behavior con-
sistent with desired group values, assumptions, and norms.
Leadership
Similar to trust, people often wonder why leadership is not included in the
Group Effectiveness Model. Leadership is a broad term that is often interpret-
ed differently by each individual in a group. Some define leadership in terms
of unilateral behaviors, like telling the group to get back on track or dictating a
choice. Others see leadership as influencing quietly behind the scenes.
Beliefs about leadership are embedded in the group culture and norms, and
they influence expectations about how individuals should help groups set
goals, solve problems, and communicate. To complicate this issue, leader can
also be a formal role people fill. And as facilitative leaders, every group mem-
ber can engage in leadership behaviors to support group effectiveness. So
leadership is embedded in various Group Effectiveness Model elements. A
more useful conversation than discussing leadership generally is to clarify the
behaviors expected in formal and informal leader roles.
No Control over Context
The elements of group context can contribute to group problems or support
increased effectiveness. Yet by definition, group context contains elements
that “influence the group’s effectiveness but that the group usually does not
control.”1
Groups sometimes feel it is hopeless to engage in process or structure
interventions since, they believe, “we are helpless unless upper management
changes.” Subordinates argue that change must start from the top, because
24 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 25
�
otherwise they will be punished for acting differently. They may believe they
cannot gain access to information they need to make effective decisions. In a
few cases, they may be right. More frequently, I find that groups can influence
context elements even if they do not control them. Chapter Forty-One, about
not being able to use the Skilled Facilitator approach unless the boss knows
it, and Chapter Forty-Two, about how we contribute to our boss’s ineffective-
ness, speak to this issue. The learned helplessness born of working in tradi-
tional patriarchal organizations is pervasive.2 It is a recurring excuse for not
attempting improvement. It is harder and perhaps riskier to try to change the
elements of context but entirely possible. Many organizations have changed
slowly from the bottom up or the middle out. For an example, see Tom Moore’s
story in Chapter Thirty-Eight about how his department slowly became a
model for an entire organization.
See Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309; Chapter
Forty-One, “‘I Can’t Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does,’” page 331; and Chapter Forty-
Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page 335.
Groups seldom consider how they themselves contribute to the very con-
ditions they complain about. Frequently I work with groups whose members
tell me they cannot raise issues with those above them in the organization.Yet
when I talk with the senior executives, I find that those executives are com-
pletely unaware of the issues, say they would be more than willing to make
changes, and say they are frustrated because no one will tell them “what is
really going on around here.” In diagnosing Group Effectiveness Model issues,
I challenge groups to think about how they contribute to ineffectiveness in con-
text elements.3 In designing interventions, we discuss how a group might influ-
ence improvements in those elements even if they do not control them.
Examining carefully how organizational ineffectiveness is cocreated by all lev-
els significantly increases the likelihood that groups can positively influence
organizational context. And if groups discover their efforts unwelcome and
their worst suspicions correct, they have valuable data to help them wisely
invest their time and energy.
Limits of the Model
When thinking about influencing the culture of an entire organization, clients
and facilitators frequently ask about the limits of the model. Can it be used as
a model of an entire organization or just for a group within an organization?
What about using the model with community and nonprofit groups? Does it
apply only to work groups? What are the reasonable limits to applying the
effectiveness criteria and key factors?
The research on which the Group Effectiveness Model is based was con-
ducted with work teams—groups in organizations with fairly clear goals, mem-
bership, and interdependent tasks (Hackman, 1987; Sundstrom, De Meuse,
Chapter 2 • The Group Effectiveness Model | 25
06_964948 ch02.qxd 3/3/05 12:31 PM Page 26
and Futtrell, 1990). There are probably conditions to which the assumptions
behind the model will not extend. Yet I have used the model for years to suc-
cessfully analyze whole organizations, community groups with loose structure
and weak interdependence, local governments with ever-changing and poor-
ly defined membership and boundaries, and work groups at all levels of large
and small organizations.
The primary factor that changes across situations is context. When think-
ing about an organization, the context is usually an entire industry or industry
group. When mapping a community, the context comprises a broad array
of groups and individuals. The definitions of the elements within context need
to shift, change, or expand. For example, an entire community is unlikely to
have a clear mission or shared vision, but there may be pervasive values or
sets of values that can be clearly defined. Or there may be one clear goal, like
downtown renewal or economic development, that most of the community
share. In the community example, the remaining elements within context may
all be relevant—for example, physical environment, training and consultation
available, material resources (regional economy), rewards for local business-
es that beautify their storefronts, and broad community support. In other situ-
ations, some or all of the elements may be less relevant. The key to success-
fully using the model in non–work group contexts is to share it with clients, dis-
cuss which elements are relevant, and adapt the definitions and examples to
fit the situation. When adapted, the Group Effectiveness Model proves useful
to help a wide variety of groups and organizations think systemically about
their problems and design lasting improvements.
1. See The Skilled Facilitator, p. 31.
2. For a compelling discussion of the ways in which our organizational experiences have contributed to
our feelings of powerlessness, lack of accountability, and conflicting belief systems, see Peter Block’s
Stewardship (1993).
3. For an example and additional thoughts about this topic, see Chris Argryis’s “Good Communication
That Blocks Learning” (1994).
Resources
Argryis, C. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning.” Harvard Business Review, July-
Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993.
References
Argryis, C. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning.” Harvard Business Review, July-
Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993.
Hackman, J. R. “The Design of Work Teams.” In J. Lorsch (ed.), Handbook of Organi-
zational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1987.
Katzenbach, J. R., and Smith, D. K. The Wisdom of Teams. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1993.
Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P., and Futtrell, D. “Work Teams: Applications and Effec-
tiveness.” American Psychologist, 1990, 45, 120–133.
26 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 27
Chapter 3
Using Facilitative Skills
in Different Roles
Roger Schwarz
Many of you reading this book need to use facilitative skills but are not (or at least
sometimes are not) a substantively neutral third-party facilitator. Instead, you are
involved in the group’s discussions and decisions as an expert consultant, a team
leader or member, a coach, or a trainer. Increasingly, people who serve in these roles
are recognizing that facilitative skills are essential for working effectively with groups.
If you serve in any of these roles, you can apply the same core values, principles, and
ground rules discussed throughout the book in working with groups.
It is important to understand how the facilitative roles are similar and different
and to select the appropriate facilitative role—the one that accurately represents
your relationship with the group. If group members see your facilitative role as ap-
propriate, they are likely to be legitimately influenced by you. If members think you
are filling an inappropriate facilitative role, they may not be open to being influ-
enced by you, even if your observations and suggestions make sense within that role.
For example, a group sometimes rejects the help of an expert consultant who, by
inappropriately serving as a neutral facilitator, leads the members to wonder whether
the consultant is trying to subtly steer them in a certain direction without saying
so. Table 3.1 shows the five facilitative roles and how they are similar and different.
THE FACILITATOR ROLE
A facilitator is a substantively neutral third party, acceptable to all members of the
group, who has no substantive decision-making authority. The facilitator’s purpose
is to help a group increase its effectiveness by diagnosing and intervening largely on
group process and structure.
This chapter is an adaptation of The Skilled Facilitator, Chapter Three, “The Facilitator and Other Facilitative
Roles.”
You do not have to
give up your leader-
ship role or your ex-
pertise to use facilitative
skills. On the contrary, using
facilitative skills enhances
your leadership or consult-
ing role and expertise.
27
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 28
Table 3.1 Facilitative Roles
Facilitator Facilitative Facilitative Facilitative Facilitative
Consultant Coach Trainer Leader
Helps a group
increase its
effectiveness by
diagnosing and
intervening on
group process
and structure
Helps a client
make informed
decisions by
bringing content
expertise to the
client’s particular
situation
Helps individuals
achieve their
goals by helping
them learn to
rigorously reflect
on their behavior
and thinking
Helps clients
develop
knowledge and
skills they can
apply to real
problems or
opportunities
Helps groups of
which they are the
formal leader or a
member increase
their effectiveness
by diagnosing and
intervening on
group process and
structure while
contributing their
content expertise
Process expert Process expert Process expert Process expert Skilled in process
Content neutral Content expert Involved in content Content expert Involved in content
Substantively Neutral
By substantively neutral, I don’t mean that you have no opinions on the issues that
the group is discussing. That would be unrealistic. Rather, I mean that you facilitate
the discussion without sharing your opinions, with the result that group members
cannot discern what you think about the group’s issues; consequently, you don’t in-
fluence the group’s decisions. Group members are easily and justifiably annoyed by
a facilitator who claims to be neutral and then acts in a way that is not.
To remain neutral requires listening to members’ views, and remaining curious
about how their reasoning differs from others (and from your private views), so that
you can help the group engage in productive conversation. If you trade your
curiosity for a belief that some members are right and others are wrong, or that
the group as a whole is going in the wrong direction, you give up your ability to
help group members explore their own views and differences and replace it with
your desire to influence the content of discussion. If you find yourself invested in
an issue or in having the group reach a particular outcome, or if you have expertise
on the subject that makes it difficult for you to remain neutral, then consider serv-
ing in one of the other facilitative roles.
Third Party
A facilitator needs to be a third party because it is difficult to act neutrally in your own
group. If you are a group member or leader, people would reasonably expect you to
be involved in the content of discussion and to have a role in decision making.
28 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 29
The term third party is open to interpretation. Even if you are not a member of
the immediate group that requests facilitation, members may not consider you a
third party. This may happen, for example, if the group is seeking facilitation to
address concerns with the division it is part of and you are an internal facilitator
working in the larger division. To serve as a facilitator, the group requesting help
needs to consider you a third party.
Process Expert
A facilitator is content neutral but a process expert and advocate. As a process ex-
pert, you know what kinds of behavior, process, and underlying structure are likely
to contribute to high-quality problem solving and decision making, and you know
which elements contribute to making an effective group. If you ask a group to use
certain ground rules or identify certain ineffective behavior in the group, it is on the
basis of this process expertise.
As a process expert, you advocate for processes, structures, and behaviors nec-
essary for effective facilitation, such as appropriate membership, useful problem-
solving methods, sufficient time, and ground rules. You inquire whether the group
you are working with sees any problems with your design for the facilitation. For
all of these decisions about the facilitation process, you are a partner with the group.
THE FACILITATIVE CONSULTANT ROLE
Unlike the facilitator, a facilitative consultant is used for expertise in a particular
content area. The facilitative consultant is a third-party expert whose purpose is to
help the client make informed decisions. The facilitative consultant does this by ap-
plying the area of expertise (marketing, management information systems, organi-
zational change, service quality, and so forth) to the client’s particular situation,
recommending a course of action, and in some cases implementing it for the client.
Any substantive decision-making authority the consultant has results not from the
role but from its being delegated by the client. A facilitative consultant uses facili-
tative skills while serving as an expert in a particular content area. Like the facilita-
tor, the facilitative consultant may be external or internal to the organization.
Internal human resources or organization development consultants often serve as
facilitative consultants in an organization.
Facilitative skills are essential for expert consulting, which typically requires de-
veloping effective relationships, working with groups, and dealing with difficult con-
versations. The issues on which the expert consultant is called in are often ones on
which members have strong and differing views. Consequently, the ability to help
the group address the issues depends partly on the consultant’s ability to effectively
manage the process of exploring the issues. To paraphrase one of my clients, an ex-
pert consultant, “What do I do when I am talking to the client about what I found
It is being skilled in
group process that
makes each of the
five roles a facilitative role.
Chapter 3 • Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles | 29
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 30
�
�
The Internal Role
Some of you reading this book are internal consultants, coaches, trainers, and
coaches. The concepts, principles, and tools and techniques of the Skilled
Facilitator approach apply equally whether you are working internally or exter-
nally to the organization. There is essentially no difference between what con-
stitutes effective behavior for internal and external facilitative roles. You may
be thinking, “The Skilled Facilitator approach could really improve my organi-
zation, but how do I apply it as an internal person? I don’t have the freedom
or power of an external person, and I can’t say what an external person can
say. The risks are greater than I can take.”
There are a variety of actions you can take to reduce the potential risks
you face as an internal person and increase your effectiveness with your
clients. I describe these in detail in The Skilled Facilitator in Chapter Fifteen,
“Serving as a Facilitator in Your Own Organization,” and Resource H, “Guidelines
for Contracting with Your Manager.”
and what I recommend, and people start disagreeing with each other in front of
me?” When this occurs, the facilitative consultant can help in the conversation while
still being a participant in the content of the discussion. By integrating facilitative
skills with expertise, the facilitative consultant increases the value provided to the
clients.
See, for example, Chapter Fifty-Nine, “Being a Facilitative Consultant,” page 495.
THE FACILITATIVE COACH ROLE
In recent years, organizations have made coaches available for many of their execu-
tives and managers. A coach usually works individually with people, helping them
improve their effectiveness. Depending on her background, a coach may bring sub-
ject area expertise in certain areas. At the heart of the facilitative coaching role is the
ability to help people improve their effectiveness by helping them learn to rigorously
reflect on their behavior and thinking.
A facilitative coach jointly designs the learning process with the client in-
stead of assuming that she knows how the client can best learn. She also models
mutual learning by exploring with the client how her coaching methods are help-
ing or hindering the client’s ability to learn. Facilitative coaches and clients explore
the coaching relationship itself as a source of learning for both the client and the
coach.
For more on this approach, see Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative Coach,” page 457.
30 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 31
�
THE FACILITATIVE TRAINER ROLE
Like the expert consultant, a trainer also has knowledge to share with participants;
like the facilitative consultant, the facilitative trainer models the Skilled Facilitator
core values and ground rules and uses facilitative skills to enhance the participants’
learning experience. But although both facilitative consultants and facilitative train-
ers use their substantive expertise to help clients learn, they differ in their primary
goal and focus. For consultants, the primary goal is to help the client solve a real
problem or create a specific opportunity. For trainers, the primary goal is to help
the client develop knowledge and skills that they can apply to real problems or spe-
cific opportunities. Consequently, for consultants, the client’s situation takes center
stage; for trainers, the substantive topic is the focus. Still, facilitative trainers design
workshops so that participants use the training sessions to test out and get feedback
on their new knowledge and skills on real issues that face them.
When feasible, a facilitative trainer works with the participants to design the
training so that it meets their interests. During the training, the facilitative trainer
regularly inquires whether the training is meeting the participants’ needs and is flex-
ible enough to modify the design if not. The facilitative trainer also considers the
training setting an opportunity for his own learning, not just for participant learn-
ing. This means he is open to changing his views and inviting participants to chal-
lenge his assumptions, just as the trainer himself challenges participants.
In recent years, some trainers have changed their title to facilitator. To the de-
gree that this signals a shift in trainers’ recognizing the value of facilitative skills and
integrating them into their work, it makes me hopeful. Yet calling a trainer a facil-
itator obscures the fact that the individual is expert in and has responsibility for
teaching some particular topic. I use the term facilitative trainer to recognize both
sets of responsibilities and skills.
To learn more about the facilitative training role, see Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a
Facilitative Trainer,” page 479.
THE FACILITATIVE LEADER ROLE
The facilitative leader uses the Skilled Facilitator core values and principles to help
groups and organizations increase their effectiveness. This includes helping to cre-
ate the conditions in which group members can also learn to use the core values and
principles.
The facilitative leader may be the formal leader of the group or just a group
member. In either case, the facilitative leader role is the most difficult to fill because
this person needs to use his facilitative skills at the same time that he has views—
sometimes strong views—about the issue being discussed. For example, this requires
that the facilitative leader openly state his views on a subject, explain the reasoning
underlying those views, and then encourage others to identify any gaps or problems
The facilitative
trainer facilitates
the interaction
among participants to
enhance learning.
The facilitative
leader may be the
formal leader of the
group or just a group
member. In either case,
the facilitative leader role
is the most difficult to fill
because this person needs
to use his facilitative skills
at the same time that he
has views—sometimes
strong views—about the
issue being discussed.
Chapter 3 • Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles | 31
07_964948 ch03.qxd 3/3/05 12:32 PM Page 32
�
The appropriate fa-
cilitative role is the
one that accurately
represents your relation-
ship with the group. If you
select an inappropriate
role, you create problems
for yourself and the group.
The facilitator role
is appropriate for a
situation in which
you are not a member of
the group, have no stake in
the issues, and have no
role in the group’s decision
making given your roles in
the organization.
A Note on Terms
The Skilled Facili-
tator Fieldbook fo-
cuses on all five of the
facilitative roles. When we
are writing about a specific
role (and only that role),
we use the appropriate
term, such as facilitative
leader or facilitative trainer.
We use the term Skilled
Facilitator approach to
refer specifically to the fa-
cilitator role and to using
the principles of the ap-
proach in any other role.
in his reasoning. Underlying the facilitative leader role is the premise that a group
increases its effectiveness as members take on more responsibility for the group and
increase their ability to learn from their experiences.
See, for example, Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309;
Chapter Forty-Six, “From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn,” page 367; and Chapter Forty-
Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader,” page 377.
CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE ROLE
The appropriate facilitative role is the one that accurately represents your relation-
ship with the group. If you select an inappropriate role, you create problems for
yourself and the group. One common problem occurs when an internal or external
consultant or leader tries to serve as a facilitator rather than as a facilitative consul-
tant or facilitative leader. Consider, for example, an internal human resources (HR)
manager who works with groups across the organization to develop and implement
HR policy. The manager begins the group meeting by describing her role as a facil-
itator and asking for each group’s thoughts about a particular policy. But the man-
ager is an expert in the area of HR and has her own thoughts about what makes
effective HR policy. When she realizes that the groups have ideas differing from
those of HR, the “facilitator” begins asking leading questions in order to influence
the group members’ views without saying so explicitly, or she simply identifies some
problems with others’ proposals. Some group members begin to feel set up, believ-
ing that the HR person misled them about her role. At the same time, the manager
is frustrated because she feels she cannot openly influence the group’s ideas in the
facilitator role. In this case, serving as a facilitative consultant or facilitative leader
enables the manager to share subject matter expertise, be involved in the decisions,
and still use facilitative skills to improve the quality of the group’s interaction.
SERVING IN MULTIPLE FACILITATIVE ROLES
At times, you may serve in two or more of these facilitative roles. You may be a fa-
cilitative leader in your own group, a facilitator or facilitative consultant to other
parts of the organization, and a facilitative trainer as well. Because all five facilita-
tive roles are based on the same core values and principles, you can move among
the roles as necessary with integrity. Whether serving in one facilitative role or more
than one, the underlying principle is the same: select the appropriate role given the
situation, accurately and explicitly describe to the group the facilitative role you plan
to fill, seek agreement with the group, and then fill the role according to that agree-
ment. If you plan to use facilitative skills in a nonfacilitator role, say so, being clear
to distinguish between using facilitative skills and serving as a substantively neutral
third-party facilitator.
32 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 33
Chapter 4
Understanding What
Guides Your Behavior
Roger Schwarz
Increasing one’s effectiveness in a facilitative role is not simply a matter of learn-
ing new strategies and tools or techniques. The challenging internal work for those
in facilitative roles is to identify and explore the core values and assumptions that
guide our actions, rigorously reflect on how they increase or decrease our effective-
ness, and develop a new set of values and assumptions that we can use to increase
our effectiveness and that of the groups we work with.
YOUR THEORIES OF ACTION
As described by Argyris and Schön, you have in your head theories of action about
how to act effectively and respond quickly to situations; without them, you would
have to invent a new response to every situation you face, and you would never be
able to act in time.1 You have two types of theories of action in your head—your es-
poused theory and your theory-in-use—or to oversimplify, what we say we do and
what guides how we actually act.
Espoused Theory
Your espoused theory is what you say you do and why you do it. You describe your
espoused theory when you tell others how you would act in a given situation, includ-
ing the values and beliefs that lead you to act that way. One way to recognize your es-
poused theory is to say, “In this situation, I would . . . because I believe that . . .” and
fill in the blanks.
This chapter is an adaptation of The Skilled Facilitator, Chapter Four, “Understanding the Theories That Guide
Our Actions.” I derived the models from the work of Chris Argyris and Don Schön (1974) who originally labeled
them as Model I, Opposite Model I, and Model II, and from adaptations by Robert Putnam, Diana McLain
Smith, and Phil MacArthur at Action Design (1997), who refer to them as the Unilateral Control, Give-Up-
Control, and Mutual Learning Models. Action Design is an organization and management development firm that
has built on the work of Argyris and Schön. Putnam and McLain Smith are coauthors with Argyris of Action
Science (1985).
Your espoused
theory is what you
say you do and
why you do it.
33
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 34
The challenging in-
ternal work for
those in facilitative
roles is to identify and ex-
plore the core values and
assumptions that guide
our actions, rigorously re-
flect on how they increase
or decrease our effective-
ness, and develop a new
set of values and assump-
tions that we can use to in-
crease our effectiveness
and that of the groups we
work with.
Mental Models, Theory-in-Use,
and Espoused Theory
Throughout the book, we use the terms mental models, theory-in-use, and
espoused theory. The terms are related but different.
Mental Models
Like some other psychological terms, the term mental models has migrated
into the popular management literature and become part of managers’ vocab-
ulary. The Fifth Discipline (1990) by Peter Senge at MIT helped introduce
many leaders and managers to the concept of mental models and the impact
it can have on organizations.
According to cognitive psychologist Philip N. Johnson-Laird (1989),
cognitive psychologist Kenneth Craik developed the modern concept of men-
tal models. In The Nature of Explanation (1943), Craik reasoned that individ-
uals translate external events into internal models and use their models to
reason through situations. They also use the models they create to guide their
actions.
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook states that mental model “refers to both the
semipermanent tacit ‘maps’ of the world which people hold in their long-term
memory, and the short-term perceptions which people build up as part of their
everyday reasoning processes” (Kleiner, 1994, p. 237).
As we understand it, people can have mental models that represent any
part of the world. They can have mental models about how our solar system
works (we used to think the sun revolved around the earth), how car engines
work, or how people work effectively in groups. Mental models include but are
not limited to that part of the world that involves our behavior.
Theory-in-Use and Espoused Theory
Theory-in-use and espoused theory are terms that Argyris and Schön (1974)
coined to describe two kinds of theories of action. Theories of action involve
assumptions about ourselves, others, and the situation, and the causal con-
nections between them and the consequences that result. A theory of action
takes this form: “If I’m in situation S and I want to create consequences C,
given assumptions a1, . . . , a , I should do A.”n
Argyris and Schön distinguished espoused theory from theory-in-use
because they found that people tended to be unaware of the assumptions that
guided their behavior and the unintended consequences they created. They
thought that the problem people would encounter learning a new theory of
action would have less to do with learning the new theory and more to do with
unlearning their current theories-in-use.
How We Use the Terms
We use mental models as a general term to refer to the tacit models that
people hold in their memory about how some part of the world works. Mental
models can include models that do not involve the model holder’s behavior
34 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 35
(for example, how an engine works) and models that do involve the model
holder’s behavior (for example, how to get a group to support your decision).
We think of theories-in-use and espoused theories as particular forms
of mental models. We use these terms to refer specifically to the unilateral
control model or mutual learning model described in this chapter. We use
theory-in-use to refer to the theory we infer that actually guides a person’s
behavior, and espoused theory to refer to the theory they say guides their be-
havior, recognizing that their espoused theory and theory-in-use may or may
not be the same.
Theory-in-Use
Your theory-in-use is reflected by what you actually do. It is called theory-in-use
because if we examined your actions, it is the theory we would infer that you used,
whether conscious or not, as having guided those actions.
Theory-in-use can only be inferred from watching your actual behavior. It in-
cludes a set of (1) core values and assumptions, (2) strategies that follow from the
core values and assumptions and specify how you should act, and (3) the conse-
quences of your interactions with others. For example, if I watched you in the sit-
uation in which people were disagreeing with your point of view, I might observe
that you do not ask people why they have a different view than you do, and I might
see you respond with comments like, “Trust me, this plan will work” or “What you
don’t understand is . . .” Without practice, most people are unaware of their theory-
in-use and how it differs from their espoused theory.
The theory-in-use I might infer from your behavior is likely to be very differ-
ent from, and less effective than, the theory you espouse.
Part of what makes your theory-in-use so powerful is that it operates very
quickly, skillfully, and effortlessly. You act and react using core values and assump-
tions, yet you are typically unaware of what your theory-in-use is or how you are
using it to design your behavior. While people have different espoused theories,
when we find ourselves in embarrassing or psychologically threatening situations,
almost all of us use the same theory-in-use to guide our behavior—the unilateral
control model, which is what Argyris and Schön (1996) called Model I. This theory-
in-use leads us to act in ways that create misunderstanding, conflict, and defensive-
ness and reduce our ability to help groups. Unfortunately, our unawareness of our
theory-in-use, and the speed and effortlessness with which we apply it, becomes a
liability and compounds our problem. Not only are we acting ineffectively, but also
our theory-in-use leads us to do it quickly, skillfully, and effortlessly and without
even being aware that we are doing so. Consequently we are usually blind to the in-
consistencies between our espoused theory and theory-in-use and to how our theory-
in-use is reducing our effectiveness. We are not walking our talk, so to speak.
Theory-in-use can
only be inferred
from watching your
actual behavior. It includes
a set of (1) core values and
assumptions, (2) strategies
that follow from the core
values and assumptions
and specify how you
should act, and (3) the
consequences of your in-
teractions with others.
Without practice,
most people are
unaware of their
theory-in-use and how
it differs from their
espoused theory.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 35
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 36
The terms unilat-
eral control and
unilateral control
model refer to the theory-
in-use that almost all of us
use to design our behavior
in situations that are psy-
chologically threatening or
potentially embarrassing.
This blindness makes it difficult to discover your inconsistencies for yourself
and then to reduce the negative consequences that stem from your theory-in-use.
Fortunately, others can often see your inconsistencies and help you become more
aware of what is going on.
UNILATERAL CONTROL MODEL
The terms unilateral control and unilateral control model refer to the theory-in-
use that almost all of us use to design our behavior in situations that are psycho-
logically threatening or potentially embarrassing.
Core Values of the Unilateral Control Model
When you use a unilateral control theory-in-use, you design your behavior using
the set of core values listed in the far left-hand column of Figure 4.1. People use a
mix of these core values and to different degrees. Together these core values provide
a basis for shaping the way you think:
Figure 4.1 Unilateral Control Model
Core Values and Assumptions Strategies Consequences
Achieve my goal
through unilateral
control
Win, don’t lose
Minimize
expressing
negative
feelings
Act rational
I understand the
situation; those
who see it
differently
do not
I am right; those
who disagree
are wrong
I have pure
motives; those who
disagree have
questionable
motives
My feelings are
justified
Advocate my
position
Keep my reasoning
private
Don’t ask others
about their
reasoning
Ease in
Save face
Misunderstanding,
unproductive conflict
and defensiveness
Mistrust
Self-fulfilling, self-
scaling processes
Limited learning
Reduced
effectiveness
Reduced quality
of worklife
Source: Argyris and Schön (1974); Action Design (1997).
36 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 37
• Achieve my goal through unilateral control. This essentially means to get oth-
ers to do what you want them to do. It includes conceiving of the purpose of the
meeting, task, or activity by yourself rather than jointly deciding the purpose with
others. Once you have defined your goal, you try to achieve it by acting unilaterally
to control the conversation.
• Win, don’t lose. You define winning as achieving your intended purposes. Any-
thing that happens that leads to either changing the purposes or not achieving them
is considered losing and a sign of weakness.
• Minimize expressing negative feelings. You keep your own and others’ un-
pleasant feelings out of the conversation, believing that expressing negative feelings
like anger or frustration is acting incompetently or undiplomatically because it can
hurt people and make it difficult to accomplish goals. Raising negative feelings can
lead things to get out of your control.
• Act rational. This means being objective and logical, not becoming emotional,
and thinking of any discussions of the issues as being purely objective, regardless of
the emotions that might underlie them. It means acting as if your behavior is in-
ternally consistent even if it is not.
Core Assumptions
In conjunction with the core values you use to design your behavior, there is a set
of assumptions embedded in unilateral behavior (Figure 4.1).
• I understand the situation; those who see it differently don’t understand. You as-
sume that whatever information you bring to understanding the situation is valid
and complete, as are the conclusions you draw about it. In other words, the way you
see it is the way it really is. Those who disagree with you are misinformed and do not
understand. If they understood what you understand, they would agree with you.
• I am right; those who disagree are wrong. You assume that there is a right and
wrong perspective and that if you are right, others who disagree or see it differently
must be wrong.
• I have pure motives; those who disagree have questionable motives. You assume you
are acting in the best interests of the group or organization and that those who dis-
agree with you are motivated by self-interest or other motives that are inappropriate.
• My feelings are justified. Because others do not understand the situation as it is
(that is, as you see it) and because their lack of understanding results in part from
their questionable motives, you are justified in being angry or feeling whatever you
are feeling toward them. In the unilateral control model, you consider your feelings
as the natural inevitable result of others’ actions toward you. You do not consider the
possibility that your feelings result from your own thoughts and that to the extent
that your thinking may not be reflecting the full situation, neither do your feelings.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 37
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 38
Strategies
You use the combination of the core values and assumptions to develop unilateral
control strategies for dealing with your conversations. These are strategies that you
use to guide your actions whether or not others use them.
• Advocate my position. You tell people what decision should be made or course
of action should be taken.
• Keep my reasoning private. As you advocate your positions, you are careful to
keep your reasoning private. For example, part of your strategy might be to ask other
people leading questions so they will “see the light” and think that they have come
up with the ideas that you want them to implement. Given that this strategy is de-
signed based on unilaterally controlling the situation, you would need to keep it
private. Sharing it with group members would reduce your ability to implement the
strategy. The ability to implement a unilateral control strategy often depends on the
ability to withhold the strategy from those on whom you are using it.
To determine whether your strategy is unilateral, try this transparency thought
experiment: imagine saying your strategy out loud to your intended audience; if it
seems embarrassing or absurd to reveal your strategy or doing so would hinder your
ability to implement your strategy, the strategy is probably unilateral.
• Do not inquire into others’ reasoning. When others’ advocate their points of view,
you may respond by telling them why they are wrong, but you typically do not ask
them to explain how they reached their conclusions. If you do inquire into others’
reasoning, you do so in a way that does not fully answer your private questions.
• Ease in. Easing in is an indirect approach designed to get others to see things
your way for themselves. It can involve asking others’ questions or making state-
ments that are designed to get them to figure out and state what you are privately
thinking without your having to say it. For example, when you say, “Don’t you think
it would be a good idea if we outsourced the work?” you are easing in because you
are indirectly stating your point of view.
• Protect yourself and others. Together, these strategies enable you to unilaterally
control the situation and protect yourself and others. If you fully explain your rea-
soning, you become vulnerable by enabling others to question your reasoning and
identify places where your reasoning has gaps or inconsistencies.
By inquiring into others’ reasoning, you fear that you might make public what
you have privately thought—that there are gaps and flaws in the other person’s rea-
soning. You assume this would embarrass or threaten the other person and possibly
yourself and that this would lead to raising negative feelings, which you are trying
to suppress. Also, if you inquire into others’ reasoning, it becomes more likely that
they will feel free to inquire into yours.
Rather than inquiring into others’ reasoning or behavior, you simply assume that
you know what they are saying and why they are saying it. Rather than test with others
whether your inference is accurate, you privately conclude it is accurate and then use
38 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 39
�
your untested inference to respond to them. Your untested inferences form the faulty
foundation for all sorts of other conclusions you might make and actions you take. In
short, you have built a compelling but potentially flawed data base about others.
Consequences
All of these strategies are designed to unilaterally control the situation and suppress
negative feelings and defensiveness. Ironically, by attempting to control the situa-
tion, you also create the very results that you say you are trying to avoid.
Your core values and assumptions and strategies interact in complex ways to
create these consequences (see Figure 4.1):
• Misunderstanding, unproductive conflict, and defensiveness. You create misunder-
standing because you assume that the situation is as you see it, and you base your ac-
tions on untested inferences about others rather than test them out. To the extent that
you make negative attributions about other’s motives and do not test them, you gen-
erate your own mistrust of others, and vice versa. Acting on untested inaccurate infer-
ences contributes to others’ getting defensive and generates unproductive conflict.
• Self-fulfilling and self-sealing processes. Believing that openly sharing your rea-
soning with others will make them defensive, you ease in by asking others questions
without explaining why you are asking them. This leads them to be wary and
cautious in their responses, which you see as defensive. In this way, you create a self-
fulfilling process, generating the very consequence you set out to avoid.
When others recognize that you are withholding information but acting as if
you are not, they mistrust you. Of course, they are unlikely to point this out to you
because that would be potentially embarrassing, so they play along but withhold
their concerns. If you sense that they have concerns about you but are not raising
them and you do not raise this issue with them, you create a self-sealing process,
sealing off the opportunity for learning how your own behavior may be contribut-
ing to the group’s reduced effectiveness.
Getting results we do not intend leads us to be even more controlling and fo-
cused on winning. We try to suppress negative feelings, thus reinforcing our uni-
laterally controlling approach. By attempting to control the conversation and simply
pushing our point of view and by not being open to influence from others, we are
seen as being defensive ourselves.
See Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255, and Chapter
Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page 335.
• Reduced learning and effectiveness. By focusing on unilaterally controlling the
conversation and having your point of view prevail, you reduce the opportunity to
learn how others see the issues differently and to learn about flaws or gaps in your
own reasoning. In addition, you reduce the opportunity to learn how your own
Ironically, by
attempting to con-
trol the situation,
you also create the very
results that you say you
are trying to avoid.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 39
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:36 AM Page 40
behavior may be contributing to the group’s reduced effectiveness. This reduces your
effectiveness in working with groups on both process and content issues.
• Reduced quality of worklife. It can be stressful when you cannot say what you
are thinking without creating negative consequences. A great deal of mental energy
gets tied up in trying to withhold what you are thinking or carefully craft what you
are saying to dress up your intentions. Conflict can be created when you make
untested inferences about others that lead them to get defensive. Relationships can
also be difficult when others use the unilateral control approach with you.
Creating a Dilemma
Using a unilaterally controlling approach creates a dilemma in which there is no
good answer to the question, “What should I do with my thoughts and feelings dur-
ing a conversation?” If you say exactly what you are thinking and feeling in the form
you are thinking and feeling it, you will likely create defensive reactions in others.
If you self-censor, not sharing at all what you are thinking and feeling, others will
not hear your views. If you are indirect and ease in, you still create defensiveness
and others don’t fully understand your views.
Learning and Unlearning Unilateral Control
You probably began to learn the unilateral control model as a child. My clients often
say that their parents taught them this approach. They continued to learn it and have
it reinforced in school, by friends, and in organizations they joined. In short, they began
to learn the approach when they were young enough that they could not easily under-
stand the implications or question them. And because the unilateral approach hinders
testing assumptions, seeking negative feedback, and learning, it makes it difficult to be-
come aware of the fact that you are using the unilateral control approach. Given this,
it’s fair to say that you are not responsible for having become unilaterally controlling.
However, once you are aware of this, you have a choice about whether to change.
GIVE-UP-CONTROL MODEL
When people recognize that they use the unilateral control model, they often want
to change. Unfortunately, they often shift from one form of control to another: the
give-up-control model, which I think of as a subset or variation of the basic unilat-
eral control model.
The core values of the give-up-control model are (1) everyone participates in defin-
ing the purpose, (2) everyone wins and no one loses, (3) express your feelings, and (4)
suppress using your intellectual reasoning (Argyris, Putnam and McLain Smith, 1985).
A key assumption is that in order for people to learn and be involved and committed,
they must come to the right answer by themselves. Of course, the right answer is the
40 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 41
one you have already come up with. When others don’t see the answer that you see, a
common strategy is to ask easing-in or leading questions to help the others get the an-
swer by themselves. The results of the give-up control model are the same as those of
the unilateral control model: increased misunderstanding, unproductive conflict and
defensiveness, as well as reduced learning, effectiveness, and quality of worklife.
People often move from the unilateral control model to the give-up-control vari-
ation and back. A common occurrence is with a manager who seeks to empower his
employees. After recognizing that he has been micromanaging and unilaterally con-
trolling the group, the manager shifts to letting his group make decisions. He dele-
gates an important decision to the group and, in an effort not to influence them, does
not share relevant information he has, including criteria that need to be met in the so-
lution. When the group proudly returns with a solution, the manager rejects it be-
cause it does not meet the criteria (which he did not share) or take into account the
information he withheld. As a result, the group infers that the manager doesn’t want to
give up control and that the manager thinks the group is not ready to be empowered.
The manager responds by shifting back to a unilaterally controlling approach.
In the unilateral control model, you take control; in the opposite model, you
give up control. But because you take control and give up control unilaterally, fun-
damentally both models are unilaterally controlling.
MUTUAL LEARNING MODEL
The mutual learning model is the theory-in-use that enables you and the groups
you work with to become more effective, particularly under difficult conditions.
The Skilled Facilitator approach is based on the mutual learning model. Like the
unilateral control model, it has three components: (1) core values and assumptions,
(2) strategies, and (3) consequences (Figure 4.2).
Core Values
The core values that guide the mutual learning model are the core values of the
Skilled Facilitator approach.
Valid Information
Valid information means that we share all information relevant to an issue, in-
cluding our assumptions and our feelings about how the issue is being addressed. It
means using specific examples so that others can understand clearly what we mean
and can ideally determine independently whether the information is accurate. Valid
information also means that others understand the information that we share with
them. This means that we share not only our conclusions but also the reasoning by
which we reach our conclusions. Valid information is the core value on which the
next two core values are built.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 41
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 42
Figure 4.2 Mutual Learning Model
Core Values and Assumptions Strategies Consequences
Source: Argyris and Schön (1974); Action Design (1997).
Free and Informed Choice
When you make an informed choice, it is based on valid information. You make
free choices to the extent that you can define your own objectives and the methods
for achieving them. When you make free choices, you do so not because you are
being coerced, manipulated, or acting out of defensiveness, but because the choice
is related to fulfilling some important personal need.
Internal Commitment to the Choice
You are internally committed when you feel personally responsible for the choices
you make. You are committed to the decision because it is intrinsically compelling
or satisfying, not because you will be rewarded or penalized for making that choice.
When you are internally committed to a decision, you take ownership for
Valid information
Free and informed
choice
Internal
commitment
Compassion
I have some infor-
mation; others have
other information
Each of us may see
things the others
do not
Differences are
opportunities for
learning
People are trying to
act with integrity
given their
situations
Test assumptions
and inferences
Share all relevant
information
Use specific
examples and agree
on important words
Explain reasoning
and intent
Focus on interests,
not positions
Combine advocacy
and inquiry
Jointly design the
approach
Discuss
undiscussables
Use a decision-making
rule that generates the
commitment needed
Increased under-
standing, reduced
unproductive conflict
and defensiveness
Increased trust
Reduced self-
fulfilling, self-
sealing processes
Increased learning
Increased
effectiveness
Increased quality
of worklife
42 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 43
implementing it. As a result, there is little need for traditional over-the-shoulder
monitoring to make sure you are really doing what you said you would do. You
monitor the consequences of your decisions and implement or consider changes if
results differ from those intended.
Compassion
Compassion involves adapting a stance toward others and yourself in which you
temporarily suspend judgment. When you act with compassion, you infuse the other
core values with your intent to understand, empathize with, and help others.
Compassion literally means “to suffer with” and is sometimes mistakenly thought of
as having pity for others. The kind of compassion I have in mind enables you to
have empathy for others and for yourself in a way that still holds you and others ac-
countable for your actions. This kind of compassion does not involve unilateral pro-
tection and enhances the other core values rather than diminishing them.
Compassion comes from the heart. If you act out of compassion rather than
out of fear and guilt, you are able to move beyond defensiveness and be open and
vulnerable. This enables you to create conversations in which you can mutually learn
with others how to increase your effectiveness.
Core Assumptions
There are three core assumptions in the mutual learning model and the Skilled
Facilitator approach (see Figure 4.2).
I Have Some Relevant Information; Other People Also
Have Relevant Information
You assume that you may have only part of the information necessary to understand
and address the issue. You assume that others have relevant information that may
affect how you think about the subject. In other words, you know that you don’t
know all that you need to know. Information includes many things, including what
you believe to be facts, your point of view and the reasoning by which you came to
that point of view, and your feelings.
Each of Us May See Things Others Do Not
You assume that just as you may know or see things that others do not, others may
see things that you miss. You see conversations partly as puzzles in which each per-
son brings different pieces; the task is to jointly figure out what pieces each person
is bringing and how the pieces fit together. You recognize that whether you are work-
ing with another person, a group, or an organization, you are part of a system. The
information and perspective you bring are limited; you can only see certain things
from your vantage point in the system. You recognize that you may be contribut-
ing to the problem and not seeing it.
You recognize that
you may be con-
tributing to the
problem and not seeing it.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 43
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 44
In the mutual learning approach, by starting with the assumption that you may
be contributing to the problem and may be unaware of it, you are recognizing your
own limits. This leads you to be curious and to ask about the ways in which others
see you as contributing to the problem.
Another part of this assumption is that your feelings may be one of the ways
you are contributing to the problem and not seeing it. In mutual learning, you con-
sider the possibility that your feelings have resulted from your own conclusions based
on untested inferences, assumptions, and attributions. You recognize that to the ex-
tent you act on these feelings, you are contributing to the problem. Using the mu-
tual learning model does not preclude your feeling angry or disappointed; rather, it
asks you to reflect on the thinking you used that generated these feelings.
Differences Are Opportunities for Learning
You are curious about others’ perspectives because you consider differences in points
of view as opportunities for learning. By exploring how people see things differently,
you can help the group create a common understanding that enables them to move
forward in a way that everyone can support. You are eager to explore differences
because you see them as possibilities for developing greater understanding and
creating solutions that integrate multiple perspectives.
People Are Trying to Act with Integrity Given Their
Situations
You begin with the assumption that people’s motives are pure rather than that they
are suspect. If people are acting in ways that do not make sense to you or that you
think you understand but disapprove of, you do not assume that they are acting that
way because of a dubious motive. Instead, you begin with the assumption that peo-
ple are striving to act with integrity; part of your task becomes understanding the rea-
sons for their actions rather than assuming you know, and evaluating them accordingly.
Key Principles
Several key principles are associated with the mutual learning core values and as-
sumptions. One principle is curiosity, the desire to learn more about something.
Being curious enables you to find out whether the data you and others have are
valid. It motivates you to find out what information others have that you might be
missing. When others see things differently, it helps you explore how they came to
a different conclusion rather than simply trying to persuade others their conclusions
are wrong. When others do things that don’t make sense to you, curiosity leads you
to learn about how it makes sense to them. Combined with compassion, curiosity
enables you to learn about yourself and others without generating defensiveness.
44 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 45
�
Another principle is transparency, the quality of sharing all relevant informa-
tion, including your strategies, in a way that is timely and valid. Being transparent
means sharing your reasoning and intent underlying your statements, questions,
and actions. It includes sharing with others your strategy for how you want to have
the conversation with them, so together you can jointly design the strategy and make
a free and informed choice about how they want to work with you.
It is difficult to be transparent when you are acting unilaterally; to do so, you
would have to tell others that you were trying to unilaterally control the conversa-
tion, and that would undermine your strategy. But being transparent when using a
mutual learning approach actually increases the effectiveness of your strategy be-
cause your strategy is to learn jointly rather than control the situation.
Transparency is the other half of curiosity. Curiosity leads you to ask questions
so you can learn; transparency leads you to share information so others can learn.
A third principle is joint accountability, which means that you share respon-
sibility for the current situation, including the consequences it creates. Rather than
seek to blame others, you recognize that because you are part of a system, your ac-
tions contribute to either maintaining the system or changing it.
Being accountable means you are responsible for addressing your problems with
others directly with them rather than avoiding them or asking others to intercede
for you. It means offering feedback directly to others—even those who have more
power and authority—so they can ask about your thinking and can make an
informed choice about whether to change their behavior. And it means seeking
the same kind of feedback so you can become more effective. This accountability is
a joint accountability recognizing that you are interdependent with others in the
system.2
These three principles are interwoven with the core values and assumptions of
the mutual learning model. Together they are put into action in the strategies that
follow.
Strategies
You use the combination of the core values and assumptions to develop strategies
for dealing with a conversation. These are strategies that you use whether or not
others use them. The strategies for mutual learning are the ground rules for effec-
tive groups of the Skilled Facilitator approach (Figure 4.2).
See Chapter 5, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, for a basic introduction. The use of
the ground rules in various settings is explored in Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground
Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,” page 131; Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the
Ground Rules,” page 189; and Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning
Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217.
Combined with
compassion, cu-
riosity enables you
to learn about yourself and
others without generating
defensiveness.
It is difficult to be
transparent when
you are acting uni-
laterally; to do so, you
would have to tell others
that you were trying to uni-
laterally control the conver-
sation, and that would
undermine your strategy.
But being transparent
when using a mutual
learning approach actually
increases the effective-
ness of your strategy be-
cause your strategy is to
learn jointly rather than
control the situation.
Rather than seek to
blame others, you
recognize that be-
cause you are part of a
system, your actions con-
tribute to either maintaining
the system or changing it.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 45
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 46
Consequences
All of the mutual learning strategies are designed to create valid information, free
and informed choice, and internal commitment, and to do so with compassion. To-
gether, the mutual learning core values and assumptions and the strategies create re-
sults that are very different from unilateral control.
Increased Understanding, Reduced Unproductive
Conflict, and Defensiveness
With the mutual learning approach, you increase understanding because you test as-
sumptions and create valid information. You also assume that others have informa-
tion you do not have and that they may see things you are missing. By assuming that
people are striving to act with integrity, you reduce the negative attributions you make
about others. When you do make attributions, you test with the people about whom
you are making them. In this way, you reduce the unproductive conflicts that arise
from acting on untested inaccurate assumptions, and you reduce the defensive be-
havior associated with it. Similarly, you increase trust. Using a mutual learning ap-
proach does not ensure that others will respond nondefensively; however, it does
reduce the chance that you will create or contribute to others’ defensive reactions.
Reduced Self-Fulfilling, Self-Sealing Processes
Acting on untested, inaccurate assumptions is the first step in self-fulfilling and self-
sealing processes. By testing out your assumptions, you reduce the likelihood of self-
fulfilling and self-sealing processes. Even if you do create a self-fulfilling process,
your openness to learning how you created the problem will reduce the chance that
it becomes self-sealing.
Increased Learning
All of this information enables you and others to create shared meaning that in-
creases learning for you and the group. This includes learning how you and group
members each contribute to the group’s effectiveness and ineffectiveness.
Increased Effectiveness
Together these results increase the group’s effectiveness: its performance, process,
and meeting group members’ personal needs.
Increased Quality of Worklife
The mutual learning values and assumptions enable you to increase understanding
and trust and reduce defensive behavior. This reduces feelings of anxiety, fear, and
anger that create stress.
(Continued on p. 58)
46 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 47
�
The Unilateral Control and Mutual
Learning Models in Action
One way to begin to identify a person’s theory-in-use is with a left-hand col-
umn case. In a left-hand column case, you write about a challenging conver-
sation you had in which you wanted to be more effective. In the right column,
you write the verbatim dialogue as best as you can remember it. In the left col-
umn, you write your thoughts and feelings during the conversation.
For more on this method, see Chapter Twenty-Seven, “Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand
Column Case,” page 235.
By seeing what the case writer was thinking and saying, you can begin to
infer the case writer’s theory-in-use. By talking with the case writer about it,
you can also test your inferences about the case writer’s theory-in-use.
The data feedback case below is a left-hand column case that Barbara (a
pseudonym) wrote to use during one of our public workshops. I have analyzed
her case, placing my notes in italic type in brackets, indicating the ways in
which Barbara’s thoughts and feelings and what she says reflect elements of
the unilateral control approach, with boldface type highlighting some of the
core values, assumptions, and strategies at work here.
In the data feedback case revised that follows, I have rewritten the con-
versation to highlight some of the values, assumptions, and strategies in
Barbara’s left-hand column that are representative of the mutual learning
model that guides the Skilled Facilitator approach.
The Data Feedback Case
The new chief information officer (CIO) of an organization had heard of long-
standing management and performance problems in his office and had asked
a consulting group to conduct interviews and focus groups to generate data
on the issue. In the meeting described below, the consulting group was pre-
senting its findings. One of the group’s main findings was that employees were
waiting to see if the new CIO’s team would release the results of the inter-
views and focus groups. Because of conflict within the CIO’s team, the con-
sulting group expected that this would be a difficult conversation for the team.
Barbara, a member of the consulting group, facilitated the meeting of the
CIO and his team. The consulting group saw their challenge as allowing the
group to discuss whether to share the findings and, in Barbara’s words, “without
the discussion degenerating into out-and-out warfare, and to guide the group to
what we saw as the right decisions without appearing to take sides ourselves.”
Unilateral Control Model
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
Uh-oh, this wasn’t supposed to Mike: My God, we can’t possibly let
happen until this afternoon. I this stuff out of this room. It’s dyna-
never thought they’d bring it mite. We’ll look like idiots. I for one
up themselves! There goes don’t want to have anything to do
the whole agenda. with it!
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 47
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 48
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
[Achieve my goal through
unilateral control. Although
Barbara believes the group
needed to bring up this issue,
she assumes that unless it
occurs in the order she desired,
the agenda will not be completed.]
Looks like it’s going to get ugly Joe: This just goes to show why we
real fast. This guy Joe just can never get the work done
doesn’t get it! around here. The people are more
[I understand the situation; interested in sitting on their butts
others don’t. Barbara infers that and blaming their managers than
Joe doesn’t get it but doesn’t in actually doing their jobs.
share her reasoning and test it
with Joe. Nor does she explore
what Joe might know that she
or others do not.]
Sandy: Well, wait a minute, these
results are so striking I don’t see
how we can ignore them . . .
He’s gonna be real trouble. If he Joe: We don’t have to let them
doesn’t have a stroke first, with make our decisions for us though!
those veins popping out . . . Time [Continues with a lengthy diatribe
to do something so Sandy can about why people today don’t
get some support if there is any. have the same values and work
Why isn’t Frank saying something? ethic they used to.]
[Save face. Barbara believes that
Joe’s comments create trouble
for Sandy and that Barbara needs
to provide support for Sandy
because she may not be able to
do it herself.]
Barbara: Okay, let’s do a process
check here. I think this an important
conversation for you all to have, but
it might take some time. You can do
it now or wait until we work on the
action plan this afternoon. What’s
the sense of the group?
[Barbara does not check with the
group whether they think it’s an
important conversation to have,
but only when to have it.]
48 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 49
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
Susan: Let’s get it out there now!
[Some expressions of agreement
around the table.]
Finally! Why’d he wait until now to Frank: I think we need to take the
speak up? Some leadership time to do this now. It’s pretty
style! important.
[Barbara attributes to Frank that
his leadership style is ineffective
but does not test her attribution
about why he waited to speak.]
This ought to flush everyone out Barbara: Okay. Here’s what I pro-
up front so I know what we’re pose: let’s go around the table
dealing with here. I need to get and ask everyone for their views
this thing back under control. before we get into the discussion.
[Achieve my goal through [Barbara keeps private her
unilateral control. Barbara thinks reasoning for getting out
of her strategy as being in the everyone’s views.]
service of her continuing to control
the conversation.]
I wonder if I should have set a [The group does that, but it takes a
time limit for each person. This is lot longer than expected, and some
turning into a debate and no one people, on both sides, hog the floor.]
is really listening to each other.
[Barbara infers that people are not
listening to each other but does
not test this out with team
members.]
This ought to get some structure Barbara: Now that we have a sense
into the conversation and maybe of where you are as a group on
tone down some of the emotional this issue, and you’re about one-
content. third for release and two-thirds
[Minimize expressing negative against, it’s a good time to step
feelings. Barbara considers team back and look together at
members’ expression of negative pros and cons. I’ll divide a flip
feelings as unproductive.] chart into two columns, and you
can brainstorm on that. Here
goes. . . .
No one is listening to anyone [The group charts the pros and cons,
else; they’re just hardening their and although the discussion
positions. The clock is ticking and becomes more orderly, it is no
the group really hasn’t started its less heated and no closer to a
work yet. I wonder how much conclusion.]
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 49
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 50
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
longer I should let them go. But if [Barbara advocates a process
they can’t even deal with this issue, without checking to see whether
how are they going to do any of team members have any
the hard work down the road? concerns with it.]
[Barbara’s suggestion for listing pros
and cons unknowingly causes
team members to harden their
positions rather than focusing on
interests.]
Oh no, now they’re going to move Sandy [near tears]: I just can’t
in for the kill against her. I don’t believe we’re even having this
want to break my neutral stance, discussion! Who are we kidding?
but she’s going to need some The employees already know what
help here soon. they think. Who would we be hiding
[Barbara assumes she needs to it from? If this group can’t face up
unilaterally protect Sandy. In to the truth, what right do we have
doing so, she also realizes that to be in our jobs? [eye-rolling from
she will be leaving her sub- Joe] Frank, don’t you agree?
stantively neutral facilitator role.]
This guy is absolutely hopeless! Frank: Well, I think you have a real
[I am right; those who disagree point there, but . . .
are wrong. Barbara makes a
high-level inference about Frank.]
Well, I guess this is my opening. Mike: I’d like to hear from the
Should I tell them what I really consultants what they think. After
think? I might lose them all all, they work with a lot of other
if I do. organizations. What do other
people do about things like this?
Barbara: Thanks, Mike. I have to say
that you all are not the first to face
this issue, and it’s always tough.
But Sandy is on to something: your
people know what they think, but
they don’t think you do. They want
to know that they’ve been heard,
and because there’s so little trust
here, they want more than just your
assurances on that. By responding
to their request to release the
results, you’d be sending them
50 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 51
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
a big signal that you really
mean business about changing
the culture. They’re handing you a
big opportunity. And in our experi-
ence with other groups, you need
to make a clear gesture up front to
get people’s attention if you want
to move ahead with change.
[Barbara leaves her substantively
neutral facilitator role and enters
the facilitative consultant role
without asking whether this is
acceptable to the rest of the
group. She advocates her
position without asking for others’
reactions to what she said.]
Oh, that’s great. He obviously Frank: How about a break now? I’d
thinks I’m an idiot and doesn’t like us to mull this question over
want to release the stuff. and revisit it this afternoon.
[Barbara makes an untested
inference about how Frank has
reacted to her point of view.]
There are several key aspects to Barbara’s thinking and behavior. First,
Barbara defines her role as a substantively neutral facilitator, but acts incon-
sistently with the role when she seeks to guide the group to the right sub-
stantive decisions without appearing to take sides. This requires that she keep
her reasoning and strategy private so that the group does not learn that she
is guiding them to what she considers the right decision. Second, Barbara
views Mike and Joe as “not getting it” and being wrong. This leads her to make
negative inferences about Mike and Joe’s views when they differed from
Barbara’s. This makes it difficult for Barbara to be curious about their views
and ask about them, which could lead the group and Barbara to learn some
new information.
Barbara also believes that she needs to protect Sandy from others in the
group, perhaps because Sandy shares Barbara’s view and Barbara does not
believe that Sandy can persuade others to accept her point of view. This com-
promises her role as a neutral facilitator. Finally, when asked by Mike to pro-
vide the consultants’ view, Barbara responds without giving the full group a
free and informed choice about whether she should enter the content of the
conversation.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 51
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 52
The Feedback Case Revised: The Mutual Learning Model
The feedback case revised illustrates how Barbara’s left-hand column case
might have looked if her theory-in-use had been the mutual learning model.
This changes not only the conversation but what Barbara is thinking and
feeling during it. I have placed my notes in italic type in brackets, indicating
the ways in which Barbara’s thoughts and feelings and what she says
reflect elements of the mutual learning approach. As before, boldface type
signals some of the mutual learning values, assumptions, and strategies at
work here.
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
Uh oh, I didn’t expect this to Mike: My God, we can’t possibly let
happen until this afternoon. I this stuff out of this room. It’s
never thought they’d bring it up dynamite. We’ll look like idiots. I for
themselves! This will change one don’t want to have anything to
the agenda. I need to see if do with it!
they want to discuss this now
or later when it’s scheduled.
[Barbara assumes that
it is ultimately the group’s
free and informed choice,
with her process input—
valid information—to
decide when to discuss
the topic.]
Mike is taking a position on this
and assuming that they’ll
look like idiots if they release
the data.
[Barbara identifies the elements
of Mike’s behavior that makes
the conversation less effective.]
I wonder what his underlying
concerns and interests are. I
wonder how he thinks it will
blow up if they share it.
[I have some information; others
have other information.
Barbara remains curious about
Mike’s reasoning, suspending
judgment about it.]
Joe’s also taking a position. He’s Joe: This just goes to show why we
also attributing some negative can never get the work done
motives to employees. Does he around here. The people are more
think the data aren’t valid? This interested in sitting on their butts
conversation is not going to get and blaming their managers than
any more productive if Joe and in actually doing their jobs.
52 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 53
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
Mike are hunkered down in their
positions and making untested
assumptions.
[Barbara identifies the elements
of Joe’s behavior that make
the conversation less effective.
She remains curious about
Joe’s reasoning, suspending
judgment about it.]
Should I intervene now or first Sandy: Well, wait a minute. These
see what Sandy and Frank results are so striking I don’t see
think? Good—Sandy’s speaking. how we can ignore them.
Joe’s started to interrupt her Joe: We don’t have to let them
midsentence, and she’s just make our decisions for us though!
pulled back from the table. If
she wasn’t finished, she
doesn’t look as if she’s going
to finish talking. I want to get out
her views, whatever they are;
otherwise the conversation is
going to be even less productive.
Barbara: Sandy, it looked as if you
weren’t finished talking when Joe
started to talk, yes?
Sandy: Yeah, he just cut me off.
Barbara: Joe, would you be willing
to let Sandy finish?
Joe: Go ahead.
Sandy has also taken a position. Sandy: The employees already
She sees it differently from Joe know what they think. Who would
and Mike. She’s asking some we be hiding it from? We have to
questions, but they sound share the results. If this group
rhetorical. can’t face up to the truth, what
[Barbara identifies Sandy’s right do we have to be in our jobs?
behavior that contributes to
making the conversation less
productive.]
Let me see if the group is ready Barbara: Okay, let’s do a process
to have this conversation now. check here. I think the conversation
If they do, I’m going to suggest you’re having about whether to
they focus on interests and share the data is an important one.
identify their underlying Before you go further, I want to see
assumptions so they can explore if everyone is ready to have this
each other’s reasoning. conversation now. I think it’s
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 53
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 54
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
[Barbara plans to give the group a important that everyone be clear on
free and informed choice about what the feedback data say so you
how to proceed and will also can have a more informed
advocate a process, which is part conversation about whether to
of her facilitator role.] share the data. Anyone see that
differently?
[Barbara checks for different views.]
[People nod in agreement.]
Okay, so are there any questions
about the results?
[People say no.]
Then what does each of you think:
Do you want to continue the con-
versation now?
[Barbara gives the group a free and
informed choice about how to
proceed.]
Susan: Let’s get it out there now!
[Some expressions of agreement
around the table.]
Okay, everyone wants to talk Frank: I think we need to take the
about it. Now I can suggest time to do this now. It’s pretty
the process. important.
I think Mike has assumed that Barbara: Okay. Right now those of
they won’t look like idiots if they you who have spoken on the
withhold the information. But I issue—Joe, Mike, and Sandy—
think it’s premature to ask him have taken a position to either
about this. It’s more relevant to not share the data with employees
discuss when they are exploring or share the data. Am I off?
their interests. [People agree she is correct.]
[Barbara identifies an assumption Right now I think you’re about to get
that she thinks Mike has made stuck because you are starting to
but decides not to test it out at go back and forth arguing your
this point.] position—either sharing or with-
holding the data.
But your positions may be in conflict
even when your underlying inter-
ests or needs are compatible. So
by exploring your interests, togeth-
er you have a better chance of
crafting a solution that meets all
the interests.
[Barbara explains her reasoning
for advocating a different process.]
54 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 55
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
Given that, let me propose a different
process and get your reactions. I
suggest that as a group, you devel-
op a list of interests or needs
underlying your positions. In other
words, each of you identifies the
needs you are trying to address in
dealing with the data. For example,
Mike, when you said earlier that
you thought by sharing the infor-
mation, you would look like idiots, it
sounded as if one of your interests
is that whether you end up sharing
the data or not, you want to do it in
a way that the team looks compe-
tent rather than incompetent. Did I
get your interest correct?
Mike: Absolutely, I don’t want us to
look like fools.
Barbara: So we would list all of your
interests on the board. Then you
would clarify what each of your
interests meant so everyone under-
stands them the same way. You’ll
get a chance to ask each other why
your interests are important. Next,
I’ll ask each of you if there are any
interests on the list that you think
should not be considered in coming
up with a solution. Assuming every-
one considers all of the interests
legitimate, I’ll ask you to brainstorm
some ways to meet all the inter-
ests. What questions do you have
about what I’m proposing?
Good question, even if it’s Joe: Why don’t we just list the pros
rhetorical. and cons?
Barbara: In my experience, listing
pros and cons encourages people
to come up with as many reasons
as possible to support their initial
positions. Each side tries to build
the longest list, and both sides try
to convince the others they are
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 55
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 56
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
wrong. I’m asking you to do
something different. By focusing
on your interests, I’m asking you
to temporarily suspend focusing
on whether to share the data and
instead identify what needs you
are trying to meet in the data feed-
back process. Then you can figure
I wonder what Joe thinks of this out how to meet those needs
[Barbara assumes that differences whether or not you share the data.
are opportunities for learning.] What’s your reaction, Joe?
[Barbara combines advocacy and
inquiry by advocating for a
process, explaining her reasoning,
and then asking Joe for his
reactions.]
So, they’ve been in this situation Joe: Sounds like you’ve seen some
before. of our other meetings. I’m willing
to try it, but I’m not sure how we’ll
close the gap between us.
Barbara: I agree, Joe. I think it’s too
early to know how you’ll close the
gap. By identifying all of your
interests, we can find out what’s
causing the gap. Then you will
have a better idea of whether and
how you can close it.
I want to make sure I address Barbara: Any other questions or
any questions before I ask for concerns? [Everyone shakes their
their commitment. heads no.] Let me check with
[Internal commitment. Barbara each of you to see if you are
assumes that people need to willing to use this process: Joe,
make an informed choice in order Sandy, Mike, Frank, Susan?
to be committed to the process [Each nods agreement.]
she’s suggesting.]
Well, this raises questions about Mike: I’d like to hear from the consul-
my role. I was supposed to be tants about what they think we
the neutral facilitator in this should do. After all, they work with
meeting. If I answer his question, a lot of other organizations. What
I’m leaving my role. But Mike’s do other people do about things
question is a fair one, and it like this?
deserves an answer. Let me lay
out the options and my concerns
and see what they want to do.
56 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 57
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
[Barbara assumes that sharing all
relevant information will enable
the group to make a better
decision.]
Barbara: Your question’s a fair one
and deserves an answer. Before
the consultants answer it, let me
describe our situation and then as
a group we can figure out how to
answer your question.
[Barbara identifies that they will
jointly design the decision.]
The group and I agreed that I would
be a neutral facilitator in this meet-
ing today, which means I wouldn’t
get into the content of your discus-
sion. If I answer your question, I
think I’m getting into the content.
Does anyone see that
differently?
[Each of us may see things that
others do not. Barbara describes
the situation as she sees it and
checks for differing views.]
I agree. Mike: It is content, but it’s also what
we hired your consulting group to
help us with.
Barbara: I agree. So I have two
options. Fred and Elise can
answer your questions, and I can
still serve as the substantively
neutral facilitator. Or I can step out
of my facilitator role and become
a facilitative consultant, sharing
my views on the issue while still
facilitating. I’m okay moving to a
facilitative consultant role as long
as the group recognizes that I’ll
be involved in the content of the
conversation at the same time I’m
facilitating your conversation.
[Barbara shares relevant
information so the group can
make an informed choice.]
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 57
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 58
Barbara’s Thoughts
and Feelings The Conversations
The other point I want to make is
that the core values and ground
rules you have been using today
provide some guidance to
answering the questions whether
and/or how to share the feedback
data. Again, if the group is inter-
ested, I’m happy to explain how
you could use the core values to
guide your decisions.
So, given this, would you rather I
continue to serve as a neutral
facilitator or move to the facilita-
tive consultant role?
There are several key differences in the way Barbara thinks and acts in
this left-hand column case and her original case. In this case, Barbara sees
herself as helping the group generate valid information so that they can make
a free and informed choice they will be committed to rather than implicitly
steering the group to a decision she thinks is correct. Second, she is curious
about the reasoning underlying Mike’s and Joe’s comments. This curiosity and
a sense of compassion enable her to suspend judgment about their views
rather than assume that she is right and they are wrong. With the mutual
learning model as her theory-in-use, Barbara is able to more fully share her
views about the process, explain her reasoning, and genuinely inquire about
the team members’ concerns. If we were able to play out her left-hand case to
its conclusion, we would see some of the expected consequences of Barbara
and the group operating with the mutual learning model as their theory-in-use:
increased understanding and trust, reduced unproductive conflict and defen-
siveness, and increased learning and effectiveness.
Results Reinforce the Model
The mutual learning consequences you create feed back to the mutual learning core
values and assumptions, reinforcing the approach. For example, when you are in a dif-
ficult conversation and temporarily withhold judgment to test inferences and inquire
into others’ reasoning, you are able to learn more about yourself and others while min-
imizing defensive behavior, and you are more likely to continue using the approach.
A key point for anyone trying to use the Skilled Facilitator approach is this: sim-
ply changing what you say and how you say it (using the ground rules, for instance)
is not sufficient to significantly change the unintended consequences you get. If you
try only to learn new mutual learning phrases, your theory-in-use values and as-
sumptions will sometimes override them, and your conversation will take a unilateral
58 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 59
control form. When I hear my clients wondering why the ground rules have stopped
working for them, we often discover that they were using them in a unilaterally con-
trolling way.
One of the kinds of learning that the Skilled Facilitator approach requires is
learning to reflect rigorously on and redesign your core values and assumptions in
order to think differently and use the new strategies and tools effectively. To engage
in this level of learning, you need to explore the question, “What is it about the
values and assumptions that I hold that leads me to design the kinds of strategies
that create unintended consequences for me and others?” This is the difficult but
rewarding work of facilitation.
Resources
Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1993.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Read-
ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Notes
1. Argyris and Schön have written extensively and compellingly about how our
theory-in-use creates many unintended negative consequences and how
groups and organizations can create a powerful alternative (1974, 1996). Their
seminal research, writing, and practice is reflected in management writings
about mental models. Schön died in 1997.
2. For a compelling view of joint accountability, read Stewardship (1993) by
Peter Block.
References
Action Design. Workshop Materials. Newton, Mass.: Action Design, 1997.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and McLain Smith, D. Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Read-
ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Craik, K. The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1943.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. “Mental Models.” In M. I. Posner (ed.) Foundations of Cognitive
Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989.
Kleiner, A. “Mental Models.” In P. M. Senge and others, The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook.
New York: Currency, 1994.
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday, 1990.
Chapter 4 • Understanding What Guides Your Behavior | 59
08_964948 ch04.qxd 3/3/05 9:37 AM Page 60
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 61
Chapter 5
Ground Rules for
Effective Groups
Roger Schwarz
What are the specific kinds of behavior that contribute to or hinder a group’s
effectiveness? Experienced facilitators may intuitively know some of the answers to
this question. The Skilled Facilitator approach makes them explicit by describing
these behaviors in a set of nine ground rules for effective groups.
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
The nine ground rules of the Skilled Facilitator approach are not the same as the pro-
cedural ground rules that many groups and facilitators use (“start on time, end on time”;
“turn off your cell phones and pagers”). They are also different from the desired behav-
iors that some groups and facilitators may express at a relatively abstract level (“treat
everyone with respect,” “be constructive”). The ground rules for effective groups de-
scribe specific behaviors that improve group process. In fact, they are the strategies for
bringing to life the core values and assumptions of the mutual learning model.
The ground rules can be used in several ways:
• For diagnosis. They enable you to quickly identify ineffective group behavior
so that you can intervene on it.
• As a teaching tool. They serve as a teaching tool for developing effective group
norms. When groups commit to using the ground rules, they set new expec-
tations for how members will interact with one another.
• To guide your behavior. They are used to guide your work and increase your
own effectiveness in whatever role you serve. Also, by modeling the ground
rules in your facilitative roles, you demonstrate how others can do the same.
This chapter is an adaptation of The Skilled Facilitator, pp. 9, 96–135. In general, the ground rules are derived
from Argyris (1982) and Argyris and Schön (1974). Ground Rule Five is from Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991),
which was based on the work of Mary Parker Follett in the early twentieth century (Graham, 1995). See Chapter
Five, p. 96, and Resource A, p. 345, in The Skilled Facilitator for more depth and an illustration of the evolution
of the ground rules.
61
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 62
�
�
�
Keep in mind that
the ground rules
for effective groups
are not a group’s ground
rules until they commit to
using them in this way.
When you assume
something, you
take for granted
that it is true without verify-
ing it. When you infer
something, you draw a
conclusion about what you
do not know on the basis
of things you do know.
When you attribute some-
thing, you make an infer-
ence about someone’s
motives.
Testing an assump-
tion or inference:
“A few minutes
ago I think you said, ‘The
plans are incomplete.’
Did I get that right?” [If
the person says yes, con-
tinue.] “It sounded to me
as if you thought we
can’t meet the original
deadline. Is that what
you’re thinking?”
Keep in mind that the ground rules for effective groups are not a group’s ground
rules until they commit to using them in this way.
Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, discusses how the ground
rules link to the core values, assumptions, and strategies of the mutual learning model. To explore
the introduction and use of the ground rules in more depth in various settings, see also Chapter
Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,” page 131;
Chapter Twenty, “Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail,” page 181; Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to
Practice the Ground Rules,” page 189; Chapter Twenty-Four, “Reducing the Skilled Facilitator
Jargon,” page 207; Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are
Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217; and Chapter Forty-Five, “Introducing the Core
Values and Ground Rules,” page 361.
Ground Rule One: Test Assumptions and Inferences
When you assume something, you take for granted that it is true without verifying
it. When you infer something, you draw a conclusion about what you do not know
on the basis of things you do know. When you attribute something, you make an
inference about someone’s motives. Assumption, inference, or attribution, the ef-
fect is the same: an untested supposition.
How we make inferences is described in “The Ladder of Inference” sidebar in this chapter, page 63.
The problem is not that we make assumptions and inferences; we must do that
to make sense out of what people are saying. The problem is that if we are unaware
of the inferences we are making, our only choice is to consider them as facts rather
than as hypotheses and to act on them as if they are true.
When you test assumptions and inferences, you ask others whether the meaning
you are making of their behavior or of the situation is the meaning they make of it.
Ground Rule One links to two Skilled Facilitator core values directly: it generates
valid information that you and others can use to make free and informed choices.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69, for guidance on when and how to
test assumptions and inferences in a group.
Ground Rule Two: Share All Relevant Information
This rule means that each group member shares all the relevant information she or
he has that affects how the group solves a problem or makes a decision. Relevant in-
formation includes not only data that bear directly on the problem, decision, or other
content the group is working on; it also includes information that does not support
one’s preferred position and information about group members’ feelings about one
another and the work they are doing.
62 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 63
The Ladder of Inference
How you make inferences is illustrated in the ladder of inference in Figure 5.1.
You begin at the bottom of the ladder with directly observable data. In a con-
versation, you are faced with a lot of directly observable data, including what
people are saying and their nonverbal behavior. I think of directly observable
data as whatever a video camcorder can record.
You cannot attend to everything, so at the first rung of the ladder of infer-
ence, you observe and select certain data to pay attention to while ignoring
other data. Some of what you choose to pay attention to is selected con-
sciously, but much of it happens out of your awareness. In the case of Hank
(see the figure), he pays attention to the part of Jim’s comment that says, “But
the analyses have been slowing your group down. I’m going to give Donna’s
group the weekly sales figures to analyze.” He ignores entirely Jim’s comment
that “your group’s been working really hard and doing good work.”
At the second rung, you begin to infer meaning from the data by translating
into your own words and labeling. Essentially, you say to yourself, What does it
really mean when this person says or does this? Hank thinks to himself, Jim is
saying that I haven’t managed the job well and that we’re not going to be
responsible for the sales analysis anymore. He is taking away part of my job.
Figure 5.1 The Ladder of Inference
Internal Questions
What should I do?
What is leading the person to say or do
this? How is this positive or negative?
What does it mean when the
person says or does this?
What data am I paying attention
to? What data am I excluding?
What data are available to me?
Decide whether
and how to respond
Evaluate and
causally explain
Translate and
label
Observe and
select data
Directly observable
data
Hank’s Thoughts
He’s already made up his mind, but I still need to
let him know it’s not fair.
He thinks I can’t handle the sales analyses because we
were late the last four weeks. It’s not my fault that
Donna’s unit has been giving us data sets full of errors
that take two days to clean up. Jim is doing this because
he doesn’t want to confront Donna with the problem.
I’m angry. We get the blame for her group’s mistakes.
He’s saying that I haven’t done the job well and that
we’re not going to be responsible for the sales
analysis anymore. He is taking away part of my job.
Jim said, “The analyses have been slowing your
group down. I’m going to give Donna’s group the
weekly sales figures to analyze.”
Jim says, “Hank, your group’s been working really
hard and doing good work, but the analyses have
been slowing your group down. I’m going to give
Donna’s group the weekly sales figures to analyze.
You won’t need to do it.”
Sources: Argyris (1985); Action Design (1997).
Chapter 5 • Ground Rules for Effective Groups | 63
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 64
Using a specific ex-
ample: “Amy and
Rollie, an example
of your not taking initia-
tive on the project is when
you didn’t schedule the
team meeting until this
week after I reminded you
that you said you would
schedule it last week.”
Using words to mean the
same thing: “George,
when you say you pro-
pose to finish your report
by the end of the year,
I’m taking that to mean
by December 15 so peo-
ple will see it before we
close for the holidays. Is
that what you were think-
ing, or did you mean
something different?”
Notice that in translating and labeling Jim’s comment, Hank infers that Jim
thinks he has not done the work well and also that the change is permanent.
At the third rung, you evaluate and explain what you have translated and
labeled at the second rung. Whereas on the second rung, you describe what
is occurring, on this rung you judge it and create a causal explanation.You ask
yourself, In what way is this positive or negative? You also ask yourself, What
is leading the person to say or do this? Hank thinks, He thinks I can’t handle
the sales analyses because we were late the last four weeks. It’s not my fault
that Donna’s unit has been giving us data sets full of errors that take two days
to clean up. Jim is doing this because he doesn’t want to confront Donna with
the problem. I’m angry. We get the blame for her group’s mistakes.
Notice that the causal explanation that Hank creates includes an attribu-
tion about Jim (that he is doing this because he doesn’t want to confront Donna
with the problem)—that is, an inference about what is motivating Jim to do this.
At the top of the ladder, you decide whether and how to respond. Hank
decides, He’s already made up his mind, but I still need to let him know it’s not
fair. Like Hank, we go up the ladder of inference in milliseconds, without even
being aware that we are doing so.
You turn the inferences you make into facts that influence what you
observe, and this becomes the basis for further inference. This is illustrated in
the loop that starts at the top of the ladder and returns to lower rungs.
This rule implements the core values by sharing information in a way that can
be validated, which ensures that members have a common basis for making an
informed choice and generating commitment. Ground Rules Three, Four, Five,
and Eight identify specific ways of sharing all relevant information.
Ground Rule Three: Use Specific Examples and Agree
on What Important Words Mean
Ground Rule Three encourages a particular way of sharing relevant information that
generates valid data. Using specific examples means sharing detailed relevant in-
formation, including who said what and when and where it happened. Unlike gen-
eral statements, specific examples enable others to determine independently whether
the information in them is valid. By agreeing on what important words mean, you
make sure that you are using words to mean the same thing that others mean.
Ground Rule Four: Explain Your Reasoning and Intent
Ground Rule Four means explaining to others what leads you to make a comment,
ask a question, or take an action. Your intent is your purpose for doing something.
Your reasoning represents the logical process that you use to draw conclusions on
the basis of data, values, and assumptions. Ground Rule Four includes making your
private reasoning public, so that others can see how you reached your conclusion
64 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 65
�
and ask you about places where they might reason differently. A key part of ex-
plaining your reasoning is to make transparent the strategy you are using to hold
the conversation. Explaining your reasoning and making your strategy transparent
are opportunities to learn where others have differing views or approaches and where
you may have missed something that others see.
For a discussion of transparency, see the core assumptions of the mutual learning model in Chapter
Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
Ground Rule Five: Focus on Interests, Not Positions
Focusing on interests is another way of sharing relevant information (see Ground
Rule Two). Interests are the needs, desires, and concerns that people have in regard to
a given situation (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991; Graham, 1995). Positions or solu-
tions are how people meet their interests. In other words, people’s interests lead them
to advocate a particular solution or position. An effective way for groups to solve
problems is to begin by sharing their individual interests. Once they agree to a set
of interests for the group, which may or may not include all the individual interests
identified, they can begin to generate solutions or positions that take that set of in-
terests into account.
Ground Rule Six: Combine Advocacy and Inquiry
When you combine advocacy with inquiry, you (1) explain your point of view in-
cluding the interests and reasoning you used to get there, (2) ask others about their
point of view, and/or (3) invite others to ask you questions about your point of view
(Argyris and Schön, 1974).
Combining advocacy and inquiry accomplishes several goals. First, it can shift
a series of monologues into a focused conversation. For example, in some meetings,
one person speaks after the other but no one’s comments seem to directly address
the previous person’s. Without an explicit invitation to inquire about or comment on
the previous person’s remarks, the meeting switches focus with each person who
speaks. The second goal that Ground Rule Six accomplishes is to create conditions
for learning. By identifying where people’s reasoning differs, you can help a group
explore what has led them to reason differently: Are they using other data, making
other assumptions, or assigning different priorities to certain issues?
Ground Rule Seven: Jointly Design Next Steps and
Ways to Test Disagreements
Ground Rule Seven means deciding with others what topics to discuss, when to dis-
cuss them, how to discuss them, and when to switch topics rather than making such
decisions privately and unilaterally. In general, jointly designing next steps means
Explaining your
reasoning and
intent: “I’m thinking
that starting the project
next month makes more
sense because we will
have everyone back from
vacation and will have fin-
ished the current project.”
Focusing on
interests, not
positions:
“However we decide to
announce the layoffs, I
want to do it in a way
that enables people to
plan for the transition
and still maintain
productivity.”
Combining
advocacy and
inquiry:
“I think it would help to
give division heads their
own budgets so that their
accountability will be
commensurate with their
responsibility. Here’s the
reasoning that led me to
suggest this.” [Explains
reasoning.] “I’d like to hear
what each of you thinks
about this idea. What are
your thoughts? What, if
anything, do you see
differently?”
Chapter 5 • Ground Rules for Effective Groups | 65
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 66
�
�
Jointly designing
next steps and
ways to test
disagreements: “You and I
disagree about whether
the current product is
being produced within
specifications. How can
we figure out together
what the situation is?”
You begin to raise
an undiscussable
issue when you
say something like: “This
may be a difficult issue,
but I want to talk about
how I think we, as your
direct reports, withhold
information from you be-
cause of how you react
when we share bad
news. I’m raising this not
because I want to put
anyone on the spot, but
because I want us to
make the best strategic
decisions possible. I’d
like to share what I’ve
seen that leads me to
say this and test out
whether others see it the
same or differently.”
(1) advocating your point of view about how you want to proceed, including your
interests, relevant information, reasoning, and intent; (2) inquiring about how oth-
ers may see it differently; and (3) jointly crafting a way to proceed that takes into
account group members’ interests, relevant information, reasoning, and intent.
Jointly designing ways to test disagreements is one specific type of next step.
Chapter Thirteen, “Beginning Meetings,” page 125 describes how to jointly design the beginning
of a conversation.
Jointly designing ways to test disagreements means considering such important
questions as, “How might it be that we are both correct?” and “How could we each
be seeing different parts of the same problem?” A useful analogy for testing dis-
agreements this way is two scientists who must design a joint experiment to test
their competing hypotheses; the research design needs to be rigorous enough to meet
the standards of both.
Ground Rule Eight: Discuss Undiscussable Issues
An undiscussable issue is one that is relevant to the group, that is reducing or may
reduce the group’s effectiveness, and that people believe they cannot discuss with-
out creating defensiveness or other negative consequences. By using this ground rule
together with the previous ground rules, you can discuss these issues fruitfully and
reduce the level of defensiveness.
Groups often choose not to discuss undiscussables, reasoning that raising them
might make someone embarrassed or defensive and that avoiding them will save
face for the group’s members (and themselves). In other words, they see discussing
undiscussable issues as not being compassionate. Yet people often overlook the neg-
ative systemic—and uncompassionate—consequences they create by not raising an
undiscussable issue. Examples of undiscussables are members who are not per-
forming adequately, or are not trusting one another, or are reluctant to disagree with
their manager who is also a member of the group.
Although Ground Rule Eight is emotionally difficult to use, the process for dis-
cussing undiscussables is contained in all the previous ground rules.
See Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255.
Ground Rule Nine: Use a Decision-Making Rule That
Generates the Level of Commitment Needed
Ground Rule Nine makes specific the core value of internal commitment. Its premise
is that group members’ commitment to a decision is in part a function of the de-
gree to which they make an informed free choice to support it. The more they are
66 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 67
�
able to make an informed free choice, the more likely they are to be internally com-
mitted to the decision.
Practicing Ground Rule Nine means understanding that there are different types
of group decision-making processes that generate different degrees of acceptance of
a decision. The Skilled Facilitator approach recognizes four such types: delegative,
consensus, democratic, and consultative.1 The degrees of acceptance of a decision range
from resistance, to noncompliance, to compliance, to enrollment, to internal commit-
ment.2 Internal commitment means that each member of the group believes in the
decision, sees it as his or her own, and will do whatever is necessary to implement
it effectively.
When implementation of a decision requires the support and cooperation of
the group members and there are differing perspectives within the group, the deci-
sion-making process needs to help members (including the leader) explore their dif-
ferences and create a shared understanding. Consensus decision making
accomplishes this by ensuring that a decision is not reached until each group mem-
ber can commit to the decision as his or her own. Ground Rule Nine does not state
that all decisions should or need to be made by consensus, however. It recognizes
that some decisions do not require the internal commitment generated through the
consensus process.
LEARNING TO USE THE GROUND RULES
The ground rules are like dance steps: each is part of the foundation of the Skilled
Facilitator approach, but their power usually results from combining the steps to
create movement with a purpose. Also, the ground rules are necessary but not suf-
ficient for effective group process; they can create effective group behavior in the
moment, but a group also needs larger processes to impart direction—for example,
problem-solving and systems thinking models for understanding complex systems.
It is natural to feel unnatural when beginning to use the ground rules—for ex-
ample, when trying to translate your left-hand column into sentences that use the
grammatical structure of the ground rules, trying to integrate them with your own
natural speech pattern and word choice, and trying to put it all together so you can
talk at the speed of normal conversation. With regular practice, you will probably
find that you can use the ground rules in a way that sounds like you and doesn’t re-
quire you to talk at an unnaturally slow pace to find the words you are looking for.
For learning how to use the ground rules, see Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the Ground
Rules,” page 189, and Chapter Twenty-Two, “Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of
Conversation,” page 195. For different examples of using the ground rules, see Chapter Twenty-
Three, “Opening Lines,” page 201, and the ground rules example in Chapter Twenty-Four,
“Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” page 207.
Ground Rule Nine
does not state that
all decisions
should or need to be made
by consensus, however. It
recognizes that some
decisions do not require
the internal commitment
generated through the
consensus process.
Chapter 5 • Ground Rules for Effective Groups | 67
09_964948 ch05.qxd 3/3/05 1:55 PM Page 68
Notes
1. The four types of decision making are distilled from the work of Victor
Vroom and his colleagues (Vroom and Jago, 1988; Vroom and Yetton, 1973).
2. Adapted from Senge (1990) and Vroom and Jago (1988).
References
Action Design. Workshop materials. Newton, Mass.: Action Design, 1997.
Argyris, C. Reasoning, Learning, and Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.
Argyris, C. Strategy, Change, and Defensive Routines. Boston: Pitman, 1985.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Without Giving In. (2nd ed.)
New York: Penguin, 1991.
Graham, P. (ed.). Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of Management. Cambridge, Mass.: Har-
vard Business School Press, 1995.
Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York:
Doubleday, 1990.
Vroom, V. H., and Jago, A. G. The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organiza-
tions. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1988.
Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. Leadership and Decision Making. Pittsburgh: University
of Pittsburgh Press, 1973.
68 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 69
�
Chapter 6
The Diagnosis-Intervention
Cycle
Peg Carlson
As Roger Schwarz describes in the overview of the Skilled Facilitator approach,
the Group Effectiveness Model, the core values, and the ground rules all create
the foundation for diagnosing behavior in groups, but they don’t tell you exactly
what to say when, and to whom. The diagnosis-intervention cycle provides this
guidance. It is a straightforward and structured six-step process that enables you
to think about what is happening in a group and then to intervene consistent with
the core values.
For an overview, see Chapter One, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach,” page 3.
STEPS IN THE CYCLE
Figure 6.1 illustrates the six steps of the diagnosis-intervention cycle. The first
three steps reflect your private diagnosis as you observe behavior (step 1), infer
meaning (step 2), and decide whether and how to intervene in order to help an
individual or group be more effective (step 3). The second three steps reflect what
you actually say as you describe the behavior (step 4), share the meaning you have
inferred (step 5), and help a group member decide whether and how to change
his or her behavior to be more effective (step 6). The two sides of the cycle are
parallel: steps 1 through 3 track your unspoken diagnosis, and steps 4 through
6 enable you to share your observations and inferences, see if others agree, and
if appropriate, give them the choice to redesign their behavior. That is, in step 4,
you publicly share what you observed in step 1; in step 5, you share the infer-
ence you made in step 2; and in step 6, you help group members decide whether
and how to change their behavior, as consistent with your choice in step 3. This
parallel structure gives you a way to intervene that is transparent; by publicly shar-
ing your private reasoning, you allow others to understand what you’re thinking
and what led you to make your intervention.
This parallel struc-
ture gives you a
way to intervene
that is transparent; by
publicly sharing your pri-
vate reasoning, you allow
others to understand what
you’re thinking and
what led you to make
your intervention.
69
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 70
Figure 6.1 The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle with Diagnostic Frames
Diagnosis Steps
Intervention Steps
Other
frames and
processes
why to
Unilateral control model
Mutual learning model intervene
2 Infer meaning
Ground rules
for effective
groups
1 Observe
effectiveness behavior
model
Group
3 Decide whether,
how, and
4 Describe behavior
Test for different
views
5 Share inference
Test for different Explain
views reasoning
and intent
6 Help group
decide whether
and how to
change behavior
Test for different
views
Intervention Steps
Each intervention step (steps 4 through 6) has two parts. The first part of each step
is described above: sharing your observation, the inference you’ve made, and helping
others decide whether and how to change behavior. The second part of each step is
a test for different views in which you check to see whether the group member agrees
or disagrees with your observation (step 4), inference (step 5), and recommenda-
tion (step 6). This explicit test reinforces the importance of checking to make sure
that others agree with your assessment before moving on to the next step. If the per-
son or people who are the focus of the intervention disagree with your observations
or interpretation at any step, you cannot unilaterally proceed with the rest of the
intervention. The test for different views ensures that group members make a free
choice to accept—or reject—the facilitator’s interventions.
To help the group understand why you have chosen to intervene at a certain
point and why you’re asking them to change their behavior, you may share your rea-
soning and intent at steps 4, 5, or 6.
For example, to begin step 4, you might say, “I’d like to share some observa-
tions about a term, benchmark, you’ve been using in the conversation because
it sounds as if it may mean different things to different people.” Or, at step 6 you
might say, “Can you say what you mean by benchmark? The reason I’m asking
is that I think it will help the group figure out whether everyone is using this
term to mean the same thing.” By helping group members understand your own
reasoning and intent, you are also enabling them to make an informed choice about
whether to change their behavior to increase the effectiveness of the discussion.
70 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 71
A Step-by-Step Example
To illustrate how it looks to go around the diagnosis-intervention cycle, here is an
example of how to use it to intervene on a common issue in meetings: keeping a con-
versation focused. Picture a meeting where you are facilitating a discussion of ideas
for how to absorb the latest round of budget cuts. The group is brainstorming pos-
sible strategies and has suggested several ideas. Paul, a group member, states, “I don’t
see how we can ask people to take on any more responsibilities than they currently
have.” Maria, another member, says, “I agree. Everyone is completely overloaded and
stressed out.” Using the cycle to diagnose and intervene may look like the following:
Step 1: Observe behavior. Paul said, “I don’t see how we can ask people to take on
any more responsibilities than they currently have,” and Maria said, “I agree.
Everyone is completely overloaded and stressed out.”
Step 2: Infer meaning. It sounds as if Paul and Maria are evaluating the feasibility of
some of the budget-cutting suggestions. If so, they are unilaterally moving the
group forward instead of jointly designing next steps (Ground Rule Seven).
Step 3: Decide whether, how, and why to intervene. Since the group agreed to brainstorm
possible strategies before evaluating them, it’s important to check my inference that
Paul and Maria’s comments are evaluative. If I don’t, some members may continue
generating suggestions while others are moving on to the next step of evaluation.
Step 4: Describe behavior and test for different views. “Paul, a minute ago you said
that you didn’t think people could be asked to take on more responsibilities
than they have now. Is that right?” (Paul: “Right.”) And Maria, you agreed
and said that people are overloaded?” (Maria, “Yes, they’re really stressed.”)
Step 5: Share inference and test for different views. “It sounds as if you’re both eval-
uating the feasibility of some of the suggestions we’ve got up on the flip
chart. Am I correct?” (Paul: “Yeah, it’s hard for me to see how some of these
things are going to work.” Maria: “Me too.”)
Step 6: Help group decide whether and how to change behavior and test for different
views. “Since the group agreed to brainstorm ideas before evaluating any
of them, would you be willing to hold your thoughts for now and share
them during the next step, or check with the group to see if others are
ready to move on to evaluating ideas?” My intent at this step is to help the
group jointly design next steps in their discussion, so continuing to brainstorm
is one option, but the group may also choose to move on to evaluation.
Although I am focusing on Ground Rule Seven (jointly designing next steps)
in this intervention, there are other ground rules embedded in steps 4 through 6.
For example, step 4 uses specific examples of Paul and Maria’s conversation (Ground
Chapter 6 • The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle | 71
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 72
�
For example, if a
group member,
Bridget, says, “I
think our quality control
system does a poor job of
identifying persistent prob-
lems in our manufacturing
process,” I’m likely to infer
that Bridget has some spe-
cific examples in mind and
ask her, “Would you be
willing to give an exam-
ple of a problem that the
system failed to identify
in the past?”
Rule Three), step 5 tests an inference (Ground Rule One), step 6 shares my reason
for intervening at this point (Ground Rule Four), and the second part of each step
uses inquiry to confirm or disconfirm my interpretation (Ground Rule Six).
For more examples of language for steps 4 through 6 of the cycle, see the Diagnosis-Intervention
Cycle in Chapter Twenty-Three, “Opening Lines,” page 201, and Chapter Twenty-Four, “Reducing
the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” page 207.
SKIPPING STEPS OF THE CYCLE
It’s not always necessary to include each step of the cycle in your intervention. In
fact, it can sometimes sound overly methodical and artificial to do so. For example,
you can skip the “test for different views” part of step 4 and go on to step 5 if you’re
intervening on a comment the person just made: “Laurie, a minute ago when you
said, ‘All staff agreed with the decision,’ I assume that means the department
heads. Is that right?”
You can skip step 5 (sharing inferences) if you are making a low-level inference,
and there is little chance that others would misunderstand or disagree with your
inference.
Avoid skipping steps in the cycle when (1) it is a high-conflict situation or group
members have a history of misunderstanding each other, (2) the group is beginning
developmental facilitation and members are learning to use the diagnosis-interven-
tion cycle in their own discussions, and (3) you are doing a complex intervention
and sharing multiple observations that you have gathered over time (for example,
discussing an undiscussable issue).1
USING THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION CYCLE
WITH OTHER FRAMES
In the Skilled Facilitator approach, we frequently use the ground rules, the Group
Effectiveness Model, and the unilateral control and mutual learning models to di-
agnose and intervene on behavior. However, you can use other diagnostic frames
and processes with the cycle as long as you can identify directly observable behav-
ior to support your inferences. For instance, in the example with Paul and Maria
earlier in this chapter, I used a problem-solving frame to make and test my infer-
ence that group members were on different steps of the process, with some mem-
bers brainstorming alternatives and others evaluating them.
72 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 73
�
CONCLUSION
The diagnosis-intervention cycle is the primary tool that individuals trained in
the Skilled Facilitator approach learn to help others use the ground rules. Its six
steps operationalize the core values, since they emphasize the importance of using
valid information, testing inferences, explaining reasoning, and giving people a free
and informed choice to change their behavior.
This chapter is intended as a summary of the diagnosis-intervention cycle. Additional guidance on
using the cycle for intervening may be found in many of the chapters in Parts Two, Three, and
Four of this Fieldbook.
Note
1. For more on when to skip—and not skip—intervention steps, as well as
other guidelines for how to intervene, see Chapter Eight in The Skilled Fa-
cilitator.
Chapter 6 • The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle | 73
10_964948 ch06.qxd 3/3/05 9:38 AM Page 74
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 75
Chapter 7
Thinking and Acting
Systemically
Anne Davidson
Thinking and acting systemically is one of the key elements of the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach. When Roger Schwarz points out in Chapter One that the Skilled
Facilitator approach “recognizes that any action you take affects the group in multi-
ple ways and has short-term and long-term consequences, some of which may not be
obvious” (p. 11), he highlights three of the fundamental principles of the discipline
of systems thinking. He is speaking about the principles of interrelatedness, delay and
separation between cause and effect, and the difficulty of seeing systemic structure.
When later in that same chapter he discusses the need to treat an entire group as the
client, he is, in essence, speaking about the principle of systems integrity.
Understanding how systems thinking is embedded in the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach strengthens your ability to use the approach effectively across a wide variety
of situations. This chapter discusses how this approach incorporates many of the
basic principles or laws of systems thinking.
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMS THINKING
The field of systems thinking is relatively young. The published theory dates from
the 1940s, and the primary concepts of system dynamics that we apply to groups
and organizations were articulated in the 1960s.1 The principles, tools, and applica-
tions of systems thinking are still being discovered and developed. The principles pre-
sented here are fundamental concepts that appear in one form or another in most
approaches to applying systems thinking to groups and organizations. They are based
on eleven “laws” of systems thinking summarized by Peter Senge in The Fifth
Discipline (1994). (See the sidebar, “The Laws of Systems,” page 76.)
There is a great deal more to know about systems thinking and the analytical
systems tools that are increasingly being applied to the fields of organization and
human development.2 But as you begin to learn and practice using the Skilled
Facilitator approach, understanding these basic principles is a good foundation for
designing your conversations and interventions.
75
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 76
The Laws of Systems
(Learning to Think Systemically)
1. Today’s problems come from yesterday’s “solutions.” Solutions
that merely shift problems from one part of a system to another often go unde-
tected because those who solved the initial problem are different from those
who inherit the new problem.
2. The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. Well-
intentioned interventions often call forth responses from the system that off-
set the benefits of the intervention. Systems thinking calls this phenomenon
compensating feedback. Nearly everyone knows what it feels like to be facing
compensating feedback: the harder we push, the harder the system pushes
back; the more effort you expend trying to improve matters, the more effort
seems to be required.
3. Behavior grows better before it gets worse. In complex human sys-
tems, there are always many ways to make things look better in the short run.
A typical solution feels wonderful when it cures symptoms. Now there’s
improvement, or maybe the problem has even gone away. It may be two, three,
or four years before the problem returns or some new, worse problem arrives.
By that time, given how rapidly most people move from job to job, someone
new is often sitting in the chair.
4. The easy way out usually leads back in. Most people find comfort in
applying familiar solutions to problems, sticking to what we know best.
Pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions while fundamental problems
persist or worsen is a reliable indicator of nonsystemic thinking. This is often
called the “what we need is a bigger hammer” syndrome.
5. The cure can be worse than the disease. The long-term, most insidi-
ous consequence of applying nonsystemic solutions is the increased need for
more and more of the solution. The phenomenon of short-term improvements
leading to long-term dependency is so common that it has its own name: “Shifting
the Burden to the Intervenor.” The intervenor may be federal assistance to cities,
food relief agencies, welfare programs, or supervisors who take responsibility for
doing their employees’ work. All “help” in such a way that they leave the system
fundamentally weaker than before and more in need of further help.
6. Faster is slower. It is not often that you can just jump in and fix some-
thing and expect it to work in the long term. Each situation has its optimum
rate of change.
7. Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. There
is a fundamental mismatch between the nature of reality in complex systems
and our predominant ways of thinking about reality. The first step in correcting
that mismatch is to let go of the notion that cause and effect are close in time
and space. Some of the most important effects of changes may not be noted
until years later.
8. Small changes can produce big results, but the areas of highest
leverage are often the least obvious. Systems thinking is often called the
new dismal science because it teaches that most obvious solutions don’t
work. At best, they improve matters in the short run, only to make things worse
in the long run. Systems thinking also shows that small, well-focused actions
76 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 77
can sometimes produce significant, enduring improvements if they’re in the
right place. When actions are taken in the right place, this is called leverage.
The problem is that many high-leverage changes are usually not obvious to
most participants in the system.
9. You can have your cake and eat it too, but not all at once. The best
example of this is played out in the search for high-quality service and prod-
ucts. It was once thought in the business world that high cost and high quali-
ty were always linked and that you could not have high quality and lower costs.
As it turns out, this is true in the short term, but in the long term, it is not true.
Many apparent dilemmas, such as central versus local control, happy and
committed employees versus competitive labor costs, and rewarding individ-
ual achievement versus having everyone feel valued, are by-products of stat-
ic thinking. They only appear as rigid either-or choices because we only think
of what is possible at a fixed point in time.
10. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two elephants.
Systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole. To understand
the most challenging issues requires seeing the whole system that generates
the issues. This does not mean that every organizational issue can be under-
stood only by looking at the entire organization. Some issues can be understood
only by looking at how major functions interact, but there are other issues where
critical systemic forces arise within a given functional area or subsystem. The
key principle, called the principle of the system boundary, is that the interactions
that must be examined are those most important to the issue at hand, regard-
less of the traditional organizational boundaries.
11. There is no blame. We tend to blame outside circumstances for our
problems. Systems thinking shows us that there is no outside, that you and
the cause of your problems are part of a single system. The cure lies in your
relationship with your “enemy.”
Source: Condensed from “The Laws of the Fifth Discipline” in Senge (1990), pp. 57–67. Used by permission.
Interrelatedness: Everything Affects Everything Else
First, systems thinking is about the principle of interrelatedness. My working defi-
nition of a system is “a perceived whole whose elements ‘hang together’ because they
continually affect each other over time and operate toward a common purpose”
(Senge and others, 1994, p. 90).
Organizations can be thought of as systems, as can families, teams, habitats, and
even our planet. The discipline of systems thinking moves us away from linear in-
terpretations of events (A causes B, which results in C) and toward an appreciation
of more complex patterns of interaction. Elements of systems are linked in a web of
relationships so that every element can affect every other element. Here is a simple
example. When you drive a car, you and your car form a simple system. Your ac-
tions influence what the car does; the responses you get from the car (speed, direc-
tion) influence your subsequent actions (pressing the accelerator harder, applying
My working defini-
tion of a system is
“a perceived whole
whose elements ‘hang to-
gether’ because they con-
tinually affect each other
over time and operate
toward a common pur-
pose” (Senge and others,
1994, p. 90).
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 77
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 78
�
�
the brakes, turning the steering wheel to the right or left). The car responds again,
and you further adjust. In this way, the outcome of one action is fed back to influ-
ence the next. We call this cycle of information a feedback loop. Simple feedback
loops are linked together to form complex systems.
These feedback loops are at work in individual conversations, group dynamics,
and the interactions between facilitators and groups as well. Let’s look at an exam-
ple from a typical situation. If I ease in to a difficult topic by asking leading ques-
tions, I actually contribute to getting a defensive reaction from you in return.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
Your defensive reaction shapes my next response. I can either inquire into what
created the defensiveness, in which case I might learn how to improve my own
behavior, or I can decide that your defensiveness proves your inability to receive
feedback, in which case I withhold information and future feedback. In either case,
your response provides feedback that influences my next choice. My mental
model—unilateral control or mutual learning—determines which choice I make
and begins to create the background structure of the cycle.
The first choice contributes to creating a virtuous cycle: the more we under-
stand how we both contributed to an ineffective conversation, the more productive
this and future conversations become. The second choice, withholding feedback,
contributes to creating a vicious cycle: the capacity to improve conversations will be
diminished and our relationship is more likely to deteriorate over time. Either way,
we co-evolve our responses, each affecting the other. Whatever approach I take will
change your behavior but will also loop back and influence my own behavior. The
process will cycle back on itself again and again.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15.
The Group Effectiveness Model is a clear example of the concept of every-
thing affecting everything else: any element can cause changes in any other ele-
ment. Unclear roles might generate conflict that leads to a group’s missing
deadlines and not accomplishing its goals, which will likely contribute to further
conflict. Trust may erode because of unclear communications, and unclear com-
munications may further erode trust. In reality, the patterns are quite complex
and emerge and evolve over time, but they are always following this process of in-
terrelatedness. Systems thinking is basically a worldview (mental model) and a
language for communicating about these complex interdependencies. As Daniel
Kim (1995a) points out, many of the most vexing problems confronting man-
agers and corporations today are caused by a similar web of tightly interconnected
circular relationships.
78 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 79
�
There Is No Blame
In trying to understand problems, we usually look outside, that is, to other people’s
actions rather than our own and to other work groups or organizations rather than
those to which we belong. But if we are affected by a system, we must accept that
at some level we are part of that system. Based on the principle of interrelatedness,
any action we take has the potential of improving or degrading the behavior of the
system, even if in seemingly minute ways.
“An inherent assumption of the systems thinking worldview is that problems
are internally generated—that we often create our own ‘worst nightmares’” (Kim,
1995a, p. 7). “Us” and “them” are part of the same system and share responsibility
for both its problems and their solutions. Chris Argyris points this out clearly in his
article “Good Communication That Blocks Learning” (1994).
Argyris tells the story of a company celebrating a highly successful Total
Quality Management initiative. He reveals that the employees knew about
critical problems for three to five years before Total Quality Management
and blamed them on management’s blindness and timidity, as well as a cul-
ture of unilaterally protecting people by not raising difficult issues. They
were blind to the fact that they were colluding to keep problems in place by
not raising them and by making undiscussable the fact that they felt they
could not raise them without repercussions.
See Chapter Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,”
page 335, for a further discussion of this dynamic.
What becomes clear when studying systems principles is that we cocreate our
own problems. Every issue, every difficult conversation, every ineffective employee
is in part a result of our own actions within a complex system.
Cause and Effect Are Not Closely Related
in Time and Space
Feedback loops are often hard to see because they influence behavior over time, and
there may be long delays between cause and effect. There may also be significant
differences between the result we get in the short run and how things play out in
the long run. We typically think of problems and challenges from the perspective
of an isolated event: the crash of the space shuttle, the collapse of the stock market,
a disagreement with the boss. But systems are structured by complex networks of
relationships that evolve among elements over time. The genesis of the Challenger
disaster occurred in decisions, discussions, and misinterpretations of data that hap-
pened years before the tragedy. The difficult relationship with the boss started in
Based on the prin-
ciple of interrelat-
edness, any action
we take has the potential
of improving or degrading
the behavior of the system,
even if in seemingly
minute ways.
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 79
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 80
The Skilled Facili-
tator approach is
built on the struc-
ture of helping people ex-
amine how their core
values and assumptions
led them to adopt a partic-
ular strategy and then
helping them appreciate
the unintended long-term
consequences that their
strategy created.
small ways, often with the initial work agreement, and deteriorated over time as each
party built actions on higher and higher levels of untested assumptions.
Of course, it is not always easy or even possible to predict the consequences of
a decision. Every decision has both intended and unintended (positive and nega-
tive) consequences. But learning to play out possible implications in plausible sce-
narios is an important systems thinking skill. The Skilled Facilitator approach is
built on the structure of helping people examine how their core values and as-
sumptions led them to adopt a particular strategy and then helping them appreci-
ate the unintended long-term consequences that their strategy created. Where
human behavior is concerned, it is often quite possible to accurately predict the con-
sequences of the short-term strategies we use to get out of difficult situations. With
fairly short delays, we often see misunderstanding, conflict, decreased trust, increased
dependence, and reduced overall effectiveness.
Once we appreciate the nature of delay and unintended consequences, we can see
the value of slowing down decision-making processes to consider the possible feedback
loops and potential unintended consequences. This kind of thinking is fundamental
to many Skilled Facilitator interventions, which often focus on helping groups apply
the principle, Faster is slower. One of the most frequent objections to following the
ground rules is that they will take more time, slowing the group down. In the short
run, this is true. In the long run, slowing down planning or data-gathering steps pays
huge dividends in most cases. We frequently use the diagram in Figure 7.1 to help
groups think through how planning and building commitment to a decision everyone
can support actually speeds implementation and helps avoid unintended consequences.
I often tell the story of one team I worked with that rushed to change its fu-
neral leave policy:
The group felt employees were abusing the leave by taking unnecessary
days, so they sought to tighten the guidelines. They also did not believe the
issue was worth a lot of time to investigate. They wanted to get it done
quickly and move on to what they viewed as “more substantive” matters, so
they revised the policy in a couple of hours. Because they had not consid-
ered a number of contingencies, like shift differentials, union requirements,
record-keeping requirements, or employee opinion, a series of problems
arose when the policy was implemented.
Figure 7.1 Speeding Implementation
Planning
Planning
Implementation
Implementation Time Saved
80 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 81
�
It turned out that the group had done a poor job of reaching consen-
sus on the policy changes. Several of the team members responsible for
implementing the policy did not like it, so they did not enforce it consistent-
ly. At last count, the team had dealt with problems resulting from the new
policy on twenty-two separate occasions! Each discussion lasted an
hour or more. In hindsight, the group estimated that had they taken more
time up front to have a productive discussion, gather valid information, and
reach genuine consensus, they could probably have revised the policy in
two meetings of two hours each. Instead, each of seven team members
spent up to eighteen unnecessary hours.
Similar examples abound in most organizations. Talking through them can help
groups see that rushing through decisions actually costs them time in the long run.
Pointing out this outcome can build support for using Skilled Facilitator skills to
have a different kind of conversation.
Quick Fixes Can Backfire
Whether or not time is the issue, it is productive to discuss unintended negative
consequences of past well-intended decisions. Most groups and organizations have
examples of situations in which the easy way out led back in or the cure was worse
than the disease. Once groups begin to talk through the notion of unintended con-
sequences and how they usually result from short-term thinking, the advantages of
“going slow to go fast” become clear. After seeing a few organizational examples, it
is easier for people to realize how the same dynamic is at work in individual con-
versations. They begin to see how strong advocacy without genuine inquiry may
create resistance or noncompliance in the long run, even if it looks as if they are
winning the argument in the moment.
See Chris Soderquist’s example in Chapter Fifty-Six, “Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to
a Systems Thinking Analysis,” page 447, about the impact on customer satisfaction that could
result from a special investment program implemented without carefully analyzing the potential
systemic consequences.
Often one must look elsewhere in the system (in a different space) to see where
problems are created. The source of a problem may be separated by several levels of
hierarchy or located in a related but not directly involved function.
In trying to fix one problem easily (repair parts were being pilfered from
trucks), an organization I worked with implemented a complex inventory
control process that included having purchasing department staff deliver
parts to job sites. In the short run, fewer parts disappeared from trucks. Yet
job productivity declined gradually and steadily over a period of several
years. No one really knew why. The organization blamed the repair crews,
citing turnover, poor training, mistakes, and laziness. When a more systemic
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 81
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 82
�
In the Skilled Facil-
itator approach, we
are always trying
to expand the capacity of
the system so that prob-
lems do not just move
elsewhere—to a future
time or a different person
or department.
analysis was completed after repair backups had reached critical levels, it
became apparent that the cause of the problem was located in a different
place in the system from where the symptoms appeared. Solutions required
working with the purchasing and inventory control systems. Even though it
was not obvious, the system of delivering parts to job sites caused crews
to wait up to two hours when an unanticipated part was needed. And the
system they were repairing had never been properly documented, so there
were a lot of surprises when the crews began working. The solution includ-
ed intervening in the inventory control system and generating documenta-
tion from engineering, not just in how repair crews handled parts.
It is not uncommon to find that well-intended attempts to resolve a problem
quickly create unintended, negative consequences that show up in other parts of a
system and worsen over time. This repair parts case also illustrates the systems prin-
ciples of behavior grows better before it gets worse and today’s problems come
from yesterday’s solutions.
Applying these principles of delay, separation, and unintended long-term conse-
quences to interpersonal and group interactions helps explain why groups become de-
pendent on leaders who solve their problems for them. In the short run, it looks like
an effective strategy to meet a deadline when the leader jumps in to fix a mistake or
complete a task. But in the long run, this does nothing to develop capacity. Employ-
ees don’t learn to do the task themselves or to plan their time and prioritize their work
appropriately. In time, the leader is overwhelmed doing things for others they can and
should do for themselves, and her performance deteriorates. In the Skilled Facilitator
approach, we are always trying to expand the capacity of the system so that problems
do not just move elsewhere—to a future time or a different person or department.
See Chapter Fifty-Three, “The Drama Triangle,” p. 421, for more about this dynamic.
We know that the harder we push, the harder the system will push back.
The harder we try to solve a problem, the more likely it is that it will move else-
where. Changing the inventory system for repair parts just moved the problem to
crews, but the system capacity stayed the same in the short run and got worse in the
long run. These principles of delay and separation between cause and effect explain
why we would use the Skilled Facilitator approach to discuss more difficult issues
rather than avoid or gloss over them. We resolve relevant issues in groups rather than
privately so that we are not at risk of revisiting the issues again and again. These
principles are behind our reasons for advocating decision rules likely to generate
commitment to decisions rather than short-term compliance, since without com-
mitment, there is usually a lack of follow-through or adequate monitoring of deci-
sion results. And the principles help explain why we may advocate for a
theory-in-use or more developmental intervention that is more likely to get at fun-
damental or root causes of difficulties rather than simply to manage a conflict to
help relieve discomfort in the short run.
82 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 83
Small Changes Can Produce Big Results, But the Areas
of Highest Leverage Are Often the Least Obvious
One of the problematic aspects of working with systems is that the systemic struc-
ture driving a problem is frequently difficult to see—not just because of time delays
but because of the nature of the structure itself. By structure, I am referring to the
network of relationships that build up over time as key system components inter-
act. Richard Karash (1997) distinguishes between internal structure and external
structure. Internal structure is made up of the way we think about things, that is,
the assumptions and mental models of the individuals involved in a system. Exter-
nal structure is made up of such elements as hierarchy and information and process
flows. Karash likens systems structure to the submerged portion of an iceberg: “As
opposed to events and patterns, which are usually more observable, much of what
we think of as structure is often hidden. We can witness traffic accidents, for exam-
ple, but it’s harder to observe the underlying structure that causes them” (p. 6). Yet
resolving problems and making systems more productive frequently requires inter-
vening at the structural level.
Seeing systems structure requires thinking and observing at multiple levels.
Daniel Kim articulates five levels or perspectives from which we can study a system
(1996, pp. 6–7). (See Figure 7.2.) He points out that the further one moves from
specific events toward mental models or vision, the more leverage one has to resolve
a problem. By “leverage” we mean small, well-focused actions that can produce sig-
nificant, lasting changes (Senge, 1990). For example, for decades the health care sys-
tem in the United States has been structured around a mental model of treating
disease. Had the mental model started out as “creating wellness,” it is likely the sys-
tem would have been structured very differently. Leverage to alter a system might
come from intervening at any level, but a key principle of systems thinking is that
intervening at the higher levels (external structure, mental models or vision) is more
likely to increase influence over future outcomes.
Structure in systems, then, is built up from the choices people make consciously
or unconsciously over time. Problems may be created by the system (for example,
from the way a job is designed and the internal reporting structure), but that fact is
often not apparent. The feedback loops that occur within a system are often hard
to see or predict. For example, many groups make the mistake of thinking that they
must make either-or choices, like providing the insurance package employees want
at greater expense or choosing less coverage at lower cost to keep the budget in line.
If, however, they reframe their thinking, they may find that other options exist. One
group I worked with used the “focus on interests” ground rule and testing assump-
tions to reframe their thinking about their health insurance plan. They created a
plan for the organization to become self-insured after they realized that part of the
systems structure was based on their mental models of how insurance could be pro-
vided. They were able to meet both cost and coverage interests more fully once they
changed the system structure by altering their mental model. The principle you can
One of the prob-
lematic aspects of
working with sys-
tems is that the systemic
structure driving a problem
is frequently difficult to
see—not just because of
time delays but because
of the nature of the struc-
ture itself.
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 83
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 84
Figure 7.2 Levels of Perspective
Vision
Mental
Models
External
Systemic
Structures
(reporting
relationships,
work
processes,
information
flow)
Patterns
Events
Intervening on
process or the
theory-in-use of in-
dividuals or organizational
defensive routines may take
time in the short run, but it
is likely to alter the structure
of the system and leverage
significant improvement in
the longer run.
Increasing Leverage
Source: Adapted from Kim (1996).
have your cake and eat it too, but not all at once also applies here. If time delays
are factored in, assumptions about either-or trade-offs often fall away, and when this
happens, the structure of the system changes. The organization could not become
self-insured in the short run, but looking at how the system could be restructured
over a year’s time showed how the organization could have its cake and eat it too.
Understanding this concept of levels of perspective helps one choose higher-
leverage interventions. This principle explains why I might recontract with a group
to engage in a theory-in-use intervention (for example, address mental models)
rather than continue to intervene on missed ground rules (events or patterns). Just
as a good systems thinker is looking at all five levels simultaneously, a good facilita-
tor is analyzing each level as well and selecting the most productive places to inter-
vene accordingly. We understand that group process may be part of the structure
running behind a team’s effectiveness.
Intervening on process or the theory-in-use of individuals or organizational de-
fensive routines may take time in the short run, but it is likely to alter the structure
of the system and leverage significant improvement in the longer run.
Dividing an Elephant in Half Does
Not Produce Two Elephants
Each system has its own integrity. You cannot pull out pieces separately without cre-
ating a fragmented mess. Understanding most challenging issues requires seeing the
whole system that generates the issues. We constantly see the results of people trying
to solve problems without seeing the whole system at work. We address symptoms
84 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 85
�
�
without getting at root causes. We try to treat wounds without understanding why
they recur. We try to correct isolated errors by blaming individuals without seeing
how the system produced the likelihood of mistakes, as in the initial response to
parts missing from repair trucks in the previous story.
A powerful example of this principle comes from Mohrman, Cohen, and
Mohrman’s (1995) research on knowledge-work teams. They found that what pre-
vented most teams from good, integrated performance was a set of factors external
to the team, such as lack of consistent direction, inconsistent goals, or shifting re-
source commitments. Organizations usually invest enormous resources on internal
team development and internal team processes, yet Mohrman, Cohen, and
Mohrman became convinced that they needed to look at the whole organizational
system to understand team effectiveness. Understanding systems integrity also helps
explain why trying to split off and apply selected Skilled Facilitator tools, like the
ground rules or the diagnosis-intervention cycle, without understanding and using
mental models and core values creates defensiveness and limits effectiveness. The
higher-leverage aspects of systemic structure are being ignored.
See, for example, Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are
Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217.
Systems integrity is also one of the principles behind the Skilled Facilitator con-
tracting process. We emphasize the importance of getting the whole system (or rep-
resentatives of the whole system) involved early in the planning process for a
facilitation or consultation. Since systems are hard to see and are cocreated, it re-
quires multiple perspectives to gather enough valid information to see feedback loops
and predict intended and unintended consequences.
See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89.
I believe that at the outset of any engagement, it is critical to help people un-
derstand and define the relevant system boundaries for the issue at hand. Only in
this way can we have the various systems perspectives and components represented
in the room. It is not necessary to have the entire system represented for every issue,
but it is critical to understand the integrity of the whole and consider what elements
must be present. Otherwise, the easy way out will just lead back in: problems and
unintended negative consequences will result, the problem or a worse one will recur,
and the situation will have to be addressed all over again.
THE LAWS ARE INTERRELATED
The laws or principles of systems thinking are themselves interrelated. It is hard to
talk about the easy way out leading back in or faster is slower without also discussing
the fact that systems have integrity. Part of what one needs to slow down to do is
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 85
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 86
analyze the whole system. And one cannot talk about analyzing the whole system
without considering systems structure, leverage, and interrelated feedback loops.
This is exactly the way the Skilled Facilitator approach works: you cannot use the
diagnosis-intervention cycle without understanding the ground rules of combining
advocacy and inquiry, explaining reasoning and intent, sharing specific examples,
and testing assumptions. And you cannot recognize the need to test assumptions if
you are not seeking to learn from valid information and seeking processes that
generate commitment to decisions. In essence, the principles of systems thinking
are at work any time we use the Skilled Facilitator approach to design a conversa-
tion, intervene with a group, contract to facilitate, consult, or engage in a long-term
organizational change effort.
Notes
1. General systems theory began in the 1940s with the work of theoretical bi-
ologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others, founded on principles from
biology, physics, and engineering. Jay Forrester originated the primary con-
cepts of system dynamics that we apply to groups and organizations in his
1961 book, Industrial Dynamics. Peter Senge, who synthesized and popular-
ized the current thinking on systems dynamics in 1990 with the publication
of The Fifth Discipline, based his initial work on Forrester’s. In 1964, Daniel
Katz and Robert Kahn drew on Bertalanffy’s work to present a systems view
of groups and organizations in The Social Psychology of Organizations. And
Margaret Wheatley’s 1992 Leadership and the New Science linked the princi-
ples of quantum physics, self-organizing systems, and chaos theory to the
forces that shape organizations.
2. For an excellent summary of five of the primary forms or schools of systems
thinking, see Charlotte Roberts’s and Art Kleiner’s discussion in The Dance
of Change (Senge and others, 1999).
References
Argyris, C. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning.” Harvard Business Review, July-
Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
Forrester, J. Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1961; Cambridge, Mass.:
Productivity Press, 1992.
Karash, R. “How to See Structure.” Systems Thinker, 1997, 8(4), 6–8.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley,
1978.
Kim, D. H. Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s Reference Guide. Cambridge, Mass.: Pegasus
Communications, 1995a.
86 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 87
Kim, D. H. “Vision Deployment Matrix: A Framework for Large-Scale Change.” Systems
Thinker, 1995b, 6(1), 1–5.
Kim, D. H. “From Event Thinking to Systems Thinking.” Systems Thinker, 1996,
7(5), 6–7.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman, A. M., Jr. Designing Team-Based Organi-
zations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday, 1990.
Senge, P., and others. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a
Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Senge, P., and others. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in
Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
Wheatley, M. J. Leadership and the New Science: Learning About Organization from an
Orderly Universe. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 1992.
Chapter 7 • Thinking and Acting Systemically | 87
11_964948 ch07.qxd 3/3/05 1:56 PM Page 88
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 89
�
Chapter 8
Contracting with Groups
Roger Schwarz
One of the most powerful interventions you can make is to contract effectively
with the group you are working with. I define contracting as the process of develop-
ing a shared understanding and agreement about what outcomes the group seeks and
how the group and you will work together to achieve the outcomes.
Many facilitators, even those with excellent diagnostic and intervention skills,
reduce their effectiveness and their ability to help their clients because they have not
contracted well. Effective contracting creates the foundation for a successful work-
ing relationship. The Skilled Facilitator approach includes a set of principles and
stages for developing this relationship.
WHY CONTRACT?
There are several reasons for contracting. First, contracting increases the chance that
the group and I understand and agree on the goal of the facilitation and how we
will work together, including time constraints, our roles, ground rules, and how de-
cisions will be made. Second, the contracting process serves as a microcosm of the
facilitation itself. It gives me an opportunity to watch how group members inter-
act, to demonstrate how I would intervene during the facilitation, and it enables the
group to make a more informed choice about whether they want me to facilitate.
Third, contracting begins to develop the trust between the group and me that is
essential for facilitation.
CONTRACTING PRINCIPLES
The principles for contracting are based on the mutual learning model of the Skilled
Facilitator approach and reflect a systems approach to working with groups.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Seven,
“Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
This chapter is an adaptation of The Skilled Facilitator, Chapter Thirteen. A different version of this piece
appeared as “How to Contract for Effective Facilitation” in M. Silberman, The 2004 Team and Organization
Development Sourcebook (2004).
I define contract-
ing as the process
of developing a
shared understanding and
agreement about what
outcomes the group
seeks and how the group
and you will work together
to achieve the outcomes.
89
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 90
First, the entire
group is the
client.
Finally, my actions
in the contracting
process must be
transparent to all client
group members, and I
cannot collude with one
or more group members
against the other
members.
First, the entire group is the client. To be seen as a credible, effective facilitator, the
client must be the entire group (what I call the primary client) that I am facilitating.
Consequently, only the full group can commit to hiring me as a facilitator, not the spon-
sor, group leader, the person who signs my check, or the person who initially contacts
me (what I call the contact client). Third, the group commitment to the facilitation and
to hire me needs to be based on valid information and a free and informed choice. Fi-
nally, my actions in the contracting process must be transparent to all client group mem-
bers, and I cannot collude with one or more group members against the other members.
CONTRACTING STAGES
To put the principles in action, there are four contracting stages with a set of tasks
to accomplish at each stage (Figure 8.1).
Stage 1: Initial Conversation with a Primary Client
Group Member
In stage 1, I identify whether the person contacting me is a member of the primary
client group—someone who is a member of the group and will be present in the
group I am being asked to facilitate. If the person is not, I explain why I need to
talk with a member of the group. If the person is a member of the group, I begin
my initial diagnosis of the situation by asking a series of questions and discuss my
approach to facilitation.
Questions for the Initial Contact
Before asking the questions, I explain that I am asking the questions to better un-
derstand the situation and decide whether I can help. Without explaining my rea-
soning and seeking agreement to proceed, the person may wonder what purpose the
questions serve:
1. Who is seeking the services?
2. Are you are member of the group?
3. Has the group already set a date for the facilitation, or it is flexible?
4. What does the group want to accomplish with the help of a facilitator?
5. What problems, if any, is the group experiencing?
90 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 91
Figure 8.1 Contracting Stages
Stage Major Tasks
1
2
3
4
Initial contact with a primary client
group member
Planning the facilitation
Reaching agreement with the full
primary client group
Completing and evaluating the
facilitation
1. Identify member of primary client
group.
2. Conduct initial diagnosis.
3. Discuss approach to facilitation.
4. Agree on whether to proceed.
If so . . .
5. Set up meeting for stage 2.
1. Send letter to planning group about
purpose and agenda for planning
meeting. Conduct diagnosis with
full group or representative of
primary client group.
2. Agree on facilitation objective,
agenda, ground rules, and other
elements.
3. Send tentative agreement to full
client group.
4. Check for any changes in
conditions before actual facilitation
occurs.
1. Agree on objective, identify
expectations, and address any
concerns.
2. Agree on the agenda and time
allocation.
3. Agree on the process, including
ground rules.
4. Define roles.
1. Evaluate facilitation using self-
critiques.
2. Evaluate contract.
Chapter 8 • Contracting with Groups | 91
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 92
Questions When the Initial Contact Is a Member
of the Primary Client Group
If the contact is also a member of the group that I will be facilitating, I ask addi-
tional questions to learn more about the group’s situation as the person sees it. Some
key questions include:
For Opportunity-Oriented Issues
1. What is the group trying to create that doesn’t currently exist?
2. What is leading to the need or desire now?
3. What barriers do you or others anticipate facing as you seek to create this
change?
For Problem-Focused Issues
4. Tell me more about the problems the group is facing. What are some
specific examples?
5. How widespread are the problems, and when did they begin?
6. How do members contribute to the problems?
7. What are the consequences of these problems for the group and the larger
organization?
8. What are the potential causes of the problems?
Motivation and Resources for Change
9. What, if anything, has the group done to work on this issue already? What
were the results?
10. What strengths can the group draw on as it works on these issues?
Experience with Facilitators and Current Request for Help
11. Have you used other facilitators in the past? If so, what did the facilitator
do that you found helpful and not helpful?
12. What has led you to call me in particular?
13. How do you see me helping the group accomplish its goals?
Describe Your Interest and Ability to Help
After learning about the client’s situation, I describe whether I have the ability to
help and whether I am interested in the work. These are two different factors. I
sometimes get requests for facilitation that I am able to meet but are not that
interesting to me. If you have the flexibility, consider focusing on the types of
92 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 93
facilitation that most interest you. Even if I am interested and able to meet the need
as the person has presented it, it is important to tell the person that I need to meet
with the full group or representatives (stage 2) before either the group or I can make
an informed choice about working together.
Describe Your Approach to Facilitation
Describing my approach to facilitation gives the person relevant information about
how I will work with the group. It enables him or her to make a more informed
choice about how well my approach will meet the group’s needs.
I share several elements of my approach: (1) how I define my facilitator role and
the consequences for the group; (2) the core values and beliefs that guide my ap-
proach; (3) the Ground Rules for Effective Groups that I use to both diagnose and
intervene to help the group function more effectively; and (4) examples of how I
would intervene with the group. I give specific examples of what I would say and
do in a variety of situations so that the person has a clear picture of my approach. I
also state my fee and expenses for the facilitation. I ask for the person’s reactions to
my approach and invite the person to ask questions about how I would work with
the group and to raise any concerns.
Summarize and Agree on Next Steps
If both the individual and I are interested in pursuing the facilitation, I summarize
my initial understanding of the client’s situation and check to see that I have un-
derstood it correctly. I describe the rest of the contracting process, explaining the
purpose of each step, and address any questions or concerns.
The next step will be for the person to discuss our conversation with the pri-
mary client group. If the group is interested, we will arrange a conference call or
meeting in which the group and I will plan the facilitation and decide if we want
to work together. This will be stage 2.
Address Concerns About Time
When I tell the primary client group member that the stage 2 planning meeting
takes about two hours, sometimes the person is concerned that the contracting
process will take too much time. I offer two responses. First, I note that a major goal
of the contracting process is to ensure that all group members are committed to fa-
cilitation. Without this commitment, the facilitation is likely to be unsuccessful and
the group will have wasted valuable time. Second, sometimes the person suggests
that the planning meeting is not necessary because all group members agree on the
purpose and approach for the facilitation. I respond that if this is the case, the plan-
ning meeting will take very little time. I do not shorten the contracting process sim-
ply because the client is concerned about time. To do so would be to abandon my
responsibilities as a process expert and to knowingly create potential problems for
the group later on.
Chapter 8 • Contracting with Groups | 93
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 94
�
�
“Ground Rules for
Effective Groups”
and “A Consumer’s
Guide to Hiring and Work-
ing with a Group Facilita-
tor” are available from
Roger Schwarz and
Associates at www.
schwarzassociates.com.
See Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” page 115, and Chapter Twelve, “Do the Math: Creating
a Realistic Agenda,” page 119, for addressing issues about time.
Stage 2: Planning the Facilitation
The purpose of stage 2 is to reach agreement with the primary client group about
whether and how we will work together. We also tentatively agree on the agenda
and logistics for the facilitation. In this stage, I try to meet with the entire group I
will be facilitating. If it is not logistically possible to do that, I meet with a repre-
sentative sample of the group, so that the diversity of views on the issues is repre-
sented. Before the meeting, I send a proposed agenda for meeting and copies of two
articles that describe my approach: “Ground Rules for Effective Groups” and “A
Consumer’s Guide to Hiring and Working with a Group Facilitator.” This enables
group members to come to the meeting prepared to ask me about my approach to
helping them.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61; Chapter Eleven, “Basic
Facilitation,” page 115; and Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
Ask Questions and Describe Your Approach
During the meeting, I ask the same general set of questions and share the same kind
of information I shared in stage 1. The significant difference is that I am now meet-
ing with the group and facilitating the conversation. This enables me to observe
how the group members interact and to demonstrate the kinds of interventions I
would make if we worked together. In addition to the questions I described in stage
1, the group and I address a set of more specific questions, which form the basis of
our working agreement.
Questions for an Effective Contract
1. Who is the primary client (that is, who will attend the meetings)?
2. What are the objectives of the facilitation?
3. What are the agendas for the meetings?
4. Where, when, and how long will the group meet?
5. What are the roles of the facilitator, leader, and team members?
6. What ground rules will the group follow?
7. How will the group assess its performance?
94 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 95
�
Deciding What Ground Rules to Use and How
A central part of the Skilled Facilitator approach is the core values and ground
rules. I use them as the basis for diagnosing and intervening in the group, and
I ask group members if they are willing to commit to using them as well. On
the belief that group members will support what they have developed, some
facilitators ask the group to develop a set of ground rules. Because some of
these facilitators also have their own ground rules, they privately hope that
group members will identify ground rules that coincide with their own. If this
does not happen, sometimes these facilitators may even put their ground
rules in place by rephrasing group members’ suggestions for ground rules or
suggesting some of their own.
I believe that group members do not have to develop their ground rules to
be committed to them; rather, they need to make a free and informed choice
to use them. As group process experts, we should have a clear idea what
kinds of ground rules lead to effective group behavior. Sharing this expertise
is consistent with our facilitator role. By discussing the ground rules, I make
explicit the kind of group behavior that I consider effective and will be helping
group members use. Because the ground rules are so central to my approach
to facilitation, in the planning meeting I advocate for the set of ground rules
that I have developed, explain the reasoning underlying them, and encourage
members to raise questions and concerns they have about using these
ground rules.
The group has several choices to make regarding the ground rules. First,
the members need to decide whether they are willing to have me use the
ground rules to intervene with the group. Because the ground rules are cen-
tral to my approach, if the group chooses not to have me use them, then they
are also choosing not to use me as their facilitator. If this occurs (and it has
not yet), I would find out what the group’s concerns were, and if I could not
meet the concerns, then I would help the group find another facilitator. The
second choice the group has to make is whether to commit to practicing the
ground rules during the facilitation. The group can revisit this choice if, after
practicing the ground rules and understanding them better, members have
new concerns about using them. The ground rules for effective groups are not
the group’s ground rules until the group has explicitly committed to using
them.
In the course of making the first two decisions, the group and I make a
third decision: whether to add, delete, or modify any ground rules. A group
might add a ground rule about whether the information discussed in the meet-
ing is confidential (this is fairly common). Here, my interests are that any
change in the ground rules be consistent with the underlying core values; if
ground rules are eliminated, it does not entirely limit me as the facilitator from
intervening on behavior that is decreasing the group’s effectiveness.
See Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,”
page 131.
Chapter 8 • Contracting with Groups | 95
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 96
8. How will the facilitator’s performance be assessed?
9. What are the facilitator’s fees and other charges?
10. When and how can the agreement be changed?
11. How will the contract be conveyed to all the primary group members?
Summarize and Agree on Next Steps
Here I explicitly state whether I am willing and able to facilitate and explicitly ask
the group whether it wants to hire me to facilitate. If we have agreed to work to-
gether, I send a memo to all group members (including those not in attendance) re-
flecting the agreements reached in the meeting.
Stage 3: Reaching Agreement with the Entire
Primary Client Group
This stage occurs at the beginning of the actual facilitation. The purpose is to en-
sure that all members attending the facilitation are committed to agreements reached
in stage 2. If all group members were present at the planning meeting in stage 2,
stage 3 becomes a simple review of the agreement: (1) the purpose, agenda, and time
allocation; (2) the process, including ground rules; and (3) the role of the facilita-
tor, leader, and other group members.
If the group members who attended the planning meeting represented the diversity
of views on the issues, including the views of those who were absent, then this stage
will be easy; those who did not attend the planning meeting will likely support the
agreements made at the meeting, and the content of the facilitation begins. However, if
the views of those who were absent were not incorporated in the agreement, this stage
becomes difficult. Because the entire group is the client, I now need to facilitate a dis-
cussion between those who attended the meeting and those who did not and whose
needs are not met by the current agreement. This discussion is essential but frustrating
for group members who thought the contracting process was completed.
Stage 4: Completing and Evaluating the Facilitation
In this stage, the client group and I evaluate and complete the facilitation. The eval-
uation process and the term of the facilitation are both agreed on in stage 2. De-
pending on the length and nature of the facilitation, conditions may change during
the facilitation that may lead either the group or me, or both of us, to want to re-
consider elements of the agreement. This is a natural part of contracting, and the
process for recontracting is agreed on in stage 2.
96 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 97
The Dilemma of Group versus
Individual Interviews
Facilitators face a dilemma when deciding whether to meet with group mem-
bers individually before the full group facilitation. When I used to conduct
these individual interviews, group members would tell me their concerns
about other group members, especially if I agreed to keep their comments
confidential. They often wanted me to address their concerns in the facilitation
without mentioning that they had the concern or about whom they had it. In
short, the interviews provided me with diagnostic information, but I could not
act on it without violating confidentiality, leaving the role of facilitator by rais-
ing group members’ issues for them or colluding with one team member
against others. If I did act on the information I could not explain that I was
doing so, and therefore would violate the principle of transparency.
If I did not meet with individuals or subgroups, I avoided these problems
but may have created others. If members were reluctant to share information
in the full group, I may have designed the facilitation without knowing about
important group issues or dynamics until I began the actual facilitation, and
some issues may not have been raised at all.
Unlike many other facilitators, I usually deal with the dilemma by not con-
ducting individual interviews with group members or the group leader (apart
from the initial telephone calls), recognizing that although issues may not get
raised as quickly in the facilitation, group members will always maintain
accountability for raising their issues. I have shared this reasoning with the
client. When clients request to meet individually before meeting as a group, I
typically ask to talk first with the members as a group. This gives me an
opportunity to discuss the dilemma that the group and I face, talk with the
group about the concerns they have about sharing information in the plan-
ning session or facilitation, and inquire about what leads to these concerns.
If members are willing to share some of their concerns, I then ask, “What
would need to happen for you to be willing to raise and address these con-
cerns?” If group members agree to these conditions (for example, no retri-
bution for raising an issue), they can then discuss issues that they previous-
ly chose not to discuss.
Whenever members’ concerns about sharing information in the full plan-
ning group were discussed, I have never had a group state they were unwill-
ing to continue planning in the full group. If it were to happen, however, I might
agree to talk to individuals or a subgroup if the planning group (1) agreed on
how the information discussed in the private meeting would be shared in the
full group and (2) agreed that the responsibility for raising issues remained
with group members. Underlying all of my choices to meet as a full group
whenever possible is the principle that the facilitator seeks to create the con-
ditions in which members can publicly share as much information as possible
in a way that permits each member to make a free and informed choice about
the risk of sharing the information.
Chapter 8 • Contracting with Groups | 97
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 98
�
Contracting with
Your Manager
As an internal facil-
itator (or an external facili-
tator who works for
someone else), the first
agreement to reach is with
your manager.You thereby
reduce potential misunder-
standings between the
group, the manager, and
you, all of which better
serves the group. Here are
some key questions to dis-
cuss with your manager:
• How will groups request
my facilitation services?
• Under what conditions
may I decline or accept
a facilitation request?
• What information will I
need to share with you
about the facilitation?
• How will my facilitator
performance be
evaluated?
• What special arrange-
ments will we make if
you are part of the
group I am asked to
facilitate?
Some of you reading this book who are internal consultants, coaches, train-
ers, and coaches may be thinking, The Skilled Facilitator approach could real-
ly improve my organization, but how do I apply it as an internal person? I don’t
have the freedom or power of an external person, and I can’t say what an
external person can say. The risks are greater than I can take.
The concepts, principles, and tools and techniques of the Skilled
Facilitator approach apply equally whether you are working internally or exter-
nally to the organization. There is essentially no difference between what con-
stitutes effective behavior for internal and external facilitative roles. There are
a variety of actions you can take to reduce potential risks you face as an inter-
nal person and increase your effectiveness with your clients. I describe these
in detail in The Skilled Facilitator in Chapter Fifteen, “Serving as a Facilitator
in Your Own Organization,” and Resource H, “Guidelines for Contracting with
Your Manager.”
FACILITATING IN YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION
See Chapter Forty-Five, “Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules,” page 361.
USING CONTRACTING IN OTHER
FACILITATIVE ROLES
Because contracting is essentially about developing a clear agreement about whether
and how you will work together, the principles underlying it are equally relevant for
facilitative consultants, facilitative coaches, facilitative trainers, and facilitative lead-
ers, even if the stages and tasks within them differ. For example, if a facilitative con-
sultant is consulting to a group whose members have various needs, it is important
for the consultant and group to agree whether and how those needs will be met. Ap-
plying the principles to the facilitative trainer role means that the trainer identifies
the learning needs of the participants even if the training was initially brought in
by others in the organization. Although coaches typically work one-on-one, seek-
ing agreement about the way in which you will work with the person, including
what information, if any, will be shared with the person’s boss, is essential. Even fa-
cilitative leaders engage in contracting, although they don’t call it that. The “con-
tracting process” begins when people join an existing group or when the group is
newly formed. Agreeing on how team members and the leader will work together
is part of setting clear goals, agreeing on roles, developing an effective group culture
and norms, and agreeing on how problems will be solved, decisions will be made,
and conflicts will addressed. All of these are elements of the Group Effectiveness
Model—elements that need to be in place for a group to function well.
98 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 99
� See Chapter Three, “ Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles,” page 27. For some examples, see
also Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” page 115; Chapter Eighteen, “Helping Groups Clarify
Roles and Expectations,” page 159; Chapter Thirty-Five, “Introducing the Skilled Facilitator
Approach at Work,” page 293; and Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative Coach,” 457.
Whatever your role, effective contracting takes time so that the group and you
can work effectively and efficiently together. In systems thinking terms, it’s a matter
of going slow to go fast.
Resource
Schwarz, R. “Ground Rules for Effective Groups” and “A Consumer’s Guide to Hiring
and Working with a Group Facilitator.” [www.schwarzassociates.com/sfp.htm].
Reference
Silberman, M. (ed.). The 2004 Team and Organization Development Sourcebook. Princeton,
N.J.: Active Training, 2004.
The process for
contracting is es-
sentially the same
whether you are an internal
or external facilitator. In
fact, the contracting
process is especially impor-
tant if you are facilitating in
your own organization. If
groups have worked with
you before, they are likely
to have implicit expecta-
tions of your role that may
be different from your ex-
pectations. This contracting
process enables you to dis-
cuss and agree on them.
Chapter 8 • Contracting with Groups | 99
www.schwarzassociates.com/sfp.htm
12_964948 ch08.qxd 3/3/05 12:34 PM Page 100
13_964948 pt02.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 101
PART TWO
Starting Out
With an understanding of the Skilled Facilitator foundation principles, you can
begin applying this approach to improve conversations and group meetings. Every
conversation is an opportunity to practice your skills. In every meeting, you can use
the principles to improve the validity of information shared and the quality of de-
cisions reached. Part Two offers guidance on using the Skilled Facilitator approach
with one-on-one conversations, basic facilitations, and typical work team tasks. It
includes guidelines for specific types of interventions, such as agreeing on a work
group’s purpose and vision, chartering a team, or clarifying organizational roles and
expectations. These are the kinds of issues that many facilitators, human resource
professionals, organization development consultants, and leaders frequently are called
on to help groups address. Many just learning the Skilled Facilitator approach strug-
gle to integrate what they already know about basic facilitation with their new skills.
The chapters in Part Two aim to help you get started.
We begin by helping you use the Skilled Facilitator approach to build a foun-
dation for any conversation, whether one-on-one or with a group. Chapter Nine,
“Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” shows you how to
jointly design the purpose and process for any discussion before you start working on
content. Once you know how to set up this basic structure, you will be ready to de-
sign group processes and use them to conduct basic facilitations.
Chapters Ten through Fourteen focus on planning a basic facilitation and open-
ing your first group meeting. Chapter Ten, “Process Designs,” discusses the three
levels of group process (designs, methods, and tools). It offers criteria for selecting
appropriate processes with examples of agendas the authors have used successfully.
Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” and Chapter Twelve, “Do the Math,” help you
apply your theoretical understanding of group process to determining what can (and
cannot) be accomplished in a basic facilitation. This chapter offers practical guid-
ance and sample agendas to help you jointly design a process with a group and de-
termine how much time is needed and how to allocate it, as well as what to do when
you and the group disagree about or need to reallocate time.
Chapter Thirteen, “Beginning Meetings,” and Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing
the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,” help you set up the first part
of a group session. Chapter Thirteen discusses the sorts of working agreements we
set up with groups for issues as broad as confidentiality and as specific as managing
breaks. It offers suggestions for handling group introductions and provides a typical
13_964948 pt02.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 102
set of guidelines for workshops and basic facilitations. Chapter Fourteen shares sug-
gestions for how to condense the principles for a short, basic facilitation. It offers a
way to quickly introduce a group to five basic principles that can guide a focused
work session when a group is not familiar with the ground rules or core values.
Chapters Fifteen to Nineteen address fundamental work group issues. Chapter
Fifteen, “Using the Group Effectiveness Model,” suggests steps for introducing the
model, conducting a diagnosis of group strengths and weaknesses, and jointly de-
signing with a group which effectiveness elements to address. It then covers how to
intervene on a specific aspect of group effectiveness. Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group
Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,” adds another decision-making
skill. Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” and Chapter Eigh-
teen, “Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations,” discuss ways to establish these
critical components of a group’s structure. Chapter Nineteen, “Using the Skilled Fa-
cilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams,” points out how the Skilled
Facilitator approach supports the factors that recent research shows create successful
teams and collaborative organizations. It focuses on creating a strong team charter and
adapting the chartering process for executive-level management teams. Together, these
chapters should help you get any work group or team off to sound start.
E-mail is increasingly a primary method of communication in many organiza-
tions. The concluding chapter in this part suggests ways to apply key ground rules
that can overcome the additional challenges of communicating when you cannot
see or hear those you are “conversing” with. Chapter Twenty, “Using the Ground
Rules in E-Mail,” provides a sample e-mail, shows how to analyze it to see whether
ground rules are being used, and then offers a rewritten version modeling Skilled
Facilitator principles.
102 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
14_964948 ch09.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 103
�
Chapter 9
Jointly Designing the
Purpose and Process
for a Conversation
Roger Schwarz
Anne Davidson
Beginning a conversation well can make the rest of a conversation more pro-
ductive. For us, this includes agreeing on the purpose and process of a discussion
before engaging in the content of the conversation. Anne Davidson calls this the
PPC approach, and it represents one of the applications of Ground Rule Seven:
jointly design next steps. It is equally important for one-on-one conversations and
group meetings.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Unfortunately, people often begin conversations by immediately discussing the
content without first agreeing about the purpose of the conversation or the process
they will use to have it. Consequently, each person may have a different under-
standing of the purpose and uses his or her own process to guide the conversation.
This can create misunderstanding and unnecessary conflict.
Jointly designing the purpose and process of a conversation provides the valid
information for people to make an informed choice about committing to having the
conversation. By agreeing first on the purpose, you begin to create a shared under-
standing about what kinds of comments will be relevant. This enables people to focus
their comments and monitor the conversation to see if it is on track.
Similarly, agreeing on the process of the discussion gives everyone the same road
map. In conversations that involve conflict, people are sometimes concerned that the
process will be used to push a particular point of view and exclude their point of view.
You can reduce this concern if all group members agree to the process. In formal
meetings, people are more likely to have an agenda and sometimes even an agreed-
on process. But in our experience, as a conversation becomes less formal and more
spontaneous, an agreed-on purpose and process disappear.
Beginning a con-
versation well can
make the rest of a
conversation more
productive. For us, this in-
cludes agreeing on the
purpose and process of a
discussion before engag-
ing in the content of the
conversation.
103
14_964948 ch09.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 104
By sharing your
purpose and
process, you are
making your reasoning
transparent. By advocating
and then checking for any
concerns, you are combin-
ing advocacy with inquiry.
If you initiate a conversation or meeting, it’s reasonable to have not only a pur-
pose in mind but also a suggested process. By sharing your purpose and process, you
are making your reasoning transparent. By advocating and then checking for any
concerns, you are combining advocacy with inquiry.
For a simple, informal conversation, using PPC might look like this: “Jeff, I
have some additions I’d like to make to your grant proposal to cover small town
projects. Would you be willing to take about thirty minutes to talk through
them with me and then agree about whether you are willing to add them?” [If
yes] “When would be a good time to do that?”
Below is an example of beginning a more formal meeting by agreeing on pur-
pose and process:
Step Opening Line
1. Agree on Purpose
Explain your purpose “Today I’d like for us to reach a
decision about how we will handle
allocation of costs for the internal
consultants.”
Inquire about different views
Reach agreement about the
purpose
“Does anyone have a different
understanding of the purpose of the
meeting? Is there any other issue we
need to address in order to make this
decision?”
2. Jointly design a process “Now that we’ve got agreement on the
purpose, I want to suggest a process
for the meeting and get your
reactions.”
Advocate a process and share
reasoning
“I suggest we start by clarifying our
interests or needs in terms of allocat-
ing costs for the internal consultants.
In other words, I want us to answer
the question, ‘However we end up
allocating internal consultant costs,
we need to do it in a way that . . .’”
“Next, I suggest we reach agreement
about the set of interests. Then we
can jointly craft a solution that
meets as many of the interests as
possible—hopefully, all of them.”
104 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
14_964948 ch09.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 105
“I think if we start by identifying our
interests, we’ll better understand the
needs that each of us has, so we’ll be
better able to come up with a solu-
tion that works for everyone.
“I want to see if we can reach a
consensus decision on this because
the decision affects each of your
budgets. But we need a decision to
Finance by the end of the day, so if
we aren’t able to reach agreement by
then, I’ll make the decision based on
all of your input.”
Inquire about different views “What problems if any do you see with
the process I’m proposing?”
Reach agreement about the process “Do we have agreement to use the
process?”
3. Begin discussing the content “Okay, now that we’ve agreed on the
of the conversation process, let’s begin with the first step:
identifying interests.”
Chapter 9 • Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation | 105
14_964948 ch09.qxd 3/3/05 9:40 AM Page 106
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 107
�
Chapter 10
Process Designs
Anne Davidson
In the same way you lay the foundation for a productive conversation by jointly
designing its purpose and process, every time you facilitate, you will need a clear
purpose and a process or blueprint for completing the project. There are literally
hundreds of tools and methods skilled facilitators use to help groups accomplish
their goals, and these can be combined to create thousands of process designs. The
Skilled Facilitator approach can be used productively with numerous approaches
to improve the quality of dialogue and decision making within those designs.
See Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103.
THREE LEVELS OF GROUP PROCESS
We distinguish three levels of process. By process I mean any set of steps or ac-
tivities that participants follow to perform a task. First, process designs structure
the whole facilitation or a major portion of it. This level represents the more
macro processes that address the group’s purpose for meeting, such as develop-
ing a vision and mission statement, creating a strategic plan, or chartering a new
team. Methods are more specific processes used to move the group through a se-
ries of steps. Problem-solving models and process mapping are examples of group
process methods.1 At the most micro level, tools represent discrete activities used
within a method, such as brainstorming or Pareto analysis or mind mapping.
Tools structure the group’s experience for a relatively shorter period of time.
In working with groups, we first determine the purpose and overall design
for a session. The design then guides the methods chosen. The tools appropriate
to that method are the ones from which we select to complete our plan for a fa-
cilitation. Table 10.1 lists some of the designs, methods, and tools that I find use-
ful to combine with the Skillful Facilitator approach. Skilled Facilitator principles
and tools can strengthen each level. For example, the Group Effectiveness Model
can guide the discussion during a team chartering process. The ground rules may
help the group stay focused on one step at a time during problem solving or test
assumptions behind a cause-and-effect diagram.
In the same way you lay
the foundation for a pro-
ductive conversation by
jointly designing its pur-
pose and process, every
time you facilitate, you will
need a clear purpose and
a process or blueprint for
completing the project.
107
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 108
Table 10.1 Some Useful Process Designs, Methods and Tools
Design Recommended
(Purpose) Group Size Method Sample Tools
Group Formation Small (3–12) Group Effectiveness Pairs introductions
Model review Ground rules
development
GEM diagram
Posted introduction
Large Purpose and sheets
goals review Group biographies
Chartering authority Roles and
presentation responsibilities
Vision/values/mission Large Future Search Stakeholder selection
Open Space Timelines and milestones
Trend analysis
Large or small Future scenario Common theme
development identification
Public commitments
Small Search conference Four principles and
Dialogue one law
Focused conversation Visioning exercises
Strategic planning Large Open Space Four principles and one law
Balanced Scorecard Force-field analysis
Trend analysis
Medium to small ICA Strategic Planning Visioning exercises
Process
SWOT analysis
Scenario planning
Problem solving Medium to small 9-, 7-, or 5-step problem- Problem definition
solving model Gap analysis
Pareto charting
Checksheets
Root cause diagrams
Multivoting
Brainstorming
Decision grids
Interest charting “Strawman” development
Priority setting
Project planning Medium to small Goals/Objective/Action Stakeholder
Item Development identification
Interest charting Mind-mapping
Project timeline Goal wishing (Synectics)
Asset mapping Control charts
Critical Path analysis
Force-field analysis
Storyboarding
108 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 109
Design
(Purpose)
Recommended
Group Size Method Sample Tools
Conflict resolution Small to large
(in subgroups)
Interest charting
Ground rules–based
dialogue
Mediation
Focused conversation
Left-hand column dialogues
Assumption and intention
testing
Prouds and sorrys
Hopes and fears
Project piloting
Process
improvement
Medium to small Process mapping Checksheets
Histograms
Flowcharting
Group
development
Medium to small
(include all group
members)
Group Effectiveness
Model review
Appreciative Inquiry
Roles and expectations
review
Focused conversation
Ground rules
Mental models
Biases and defensive
triggers exercise
Group critique
Experiential activities
Note: This list is not intended to be comprehensive. It is merely a sample list of processes that my colleagues and I find work well with the Skill-
ful Facilitator approach for the purposes indicated.
The sample process designs (agendas) in Exhibits 10.1 and 10.2 at the end of
this chapter demonstrate how once a group sets a purpose or intent and number of
participants, you can then select methods and tools well matched to the task. In the
town visioning exercise (Exhibit 10.1) we had a large group that needed an oppor-
tunity to create and share possible future scenarios. Town leaders needed some sense
of the ideas people most supported, but no final agreement would be reached until
ideas had been further developed and researched. For this purpose, creating a process
for citizens to brainstorm future scenarios was an ideal method, and brainstorming
and multivoting were sufficient and productive tools.
I suggest that you develop a basic set of tools in each of several categories that
you can explain and facilitate well. Choose categories that represent the types of fa-
cilitation and consultation you do or want to do. However, be aware that every
group and every session is different. With experience, you will develop templates
that often work for you and the groups you typically facilitate, but you will always Always carefully
be testing new designs and tools. Keep several basic references on process design at match designs to
hand. For suggestions, see the resource list at the end of this chapter. Constantly the specific needs
and goals of your clients. seek, develop, and test new processes.
Clarify the criteria you are Always carefully match designs to the specific needs and goals of your clients.
using to select designs,
Clarify the criteria you are using to select designs, methods, or tools. The next sec- methods, or tools.
tion contains the basic set of criteria that I use to guide my choices.
Chapter 10 • Process Designs | 109
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 110
�
�
DESIGN SELECTION CRITERIA
The most impor-
tant guideline is to
be certain that any
design, method, or tool
can be used in a manner
consistent with the Skilled
Facilitator core values.
In general, as long
as the intent of a
design can be
shared and mutually
agreed on between the fa-
cilitator and participants, it
can be successfully used
or adapted. In other words,
the primary principle for
combining the Skilled Facil-
itator and other processes
is to make the process de-
sign transparent.
The most important guideline is to be certain that any design, method, or tool can
be used in a manner consistent with the Skilled Facilitator core values. This means
that manipulative designs that withhold information and trick participants for the
sake of making a point are not a wise choice. It is difficult to ask groups to share
valid information as they work through a process if you have modeled withholding
it in an earlier exercise. Following this guideline means that many tools may need
adaptation for successful combination with the Skilled Facilitator approach (see
Table 10.1).
In general, as long as the intent of a design can be shared and mutually agreed
on between the facilitator and participants, it can be successfully used or adapted.
In other words, the primary principle for combining the Skilled Facilitator and other
processes is to make the process design transparent.
See Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a Facilitative Trainer,” page 479, for some specific examples
of consistent and inconsistent group activities.
Here are the basic design selection criteria:
• Purpose. What is the group trying to accomplish? What problems, if any, have
you and the group diagnosed? What designs will address these problems and allow
the group to accomplish its purpose?
• Time/length. What is the duration of the project? How much time has the
group allotted? Is it sufficient to accomplish the goals, or can the time or goals be
renegotiated? (Most groups plan to accomplish too much in too little time.)
See Chapter Twelve, “Do the Math,” page 119, for suggestions about determining the time needed
for a process design.
• Group size. Some tools and processes are specifically designed to work with
very large or very small groups. Often large groups need to spend some time in sub-
groups to accomplish their tasks. Determining which processes are appropriate for
the size of the group is very important, as is determining how to manage transitions
between small group work and larger group work. Be certain there is sufficient time
or a specific process for each small group or individual to report out and have their
work shared with the full group.
110 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 111
• Facilitator skill. Match process designs to your skill level. If you have never
facilitated a process you feel would be effective for a group, tell them so. Agree about
whether it is okay to try this together to see how it works, whether to cofacilitate
with someone experienced in this process, or whether to use a different design.
• Consistency with the core values. Does the process allow for being transparent
about how it is designed and the intentions for using it? Can you share all valid in-
formation about a process and still use it effectively? (For example, one option is to
share with a group that an exercise withholds key information that they must
discover to succeed, and then mutually agree about whether the group members
still want to engage in it.) Can an activity be used in a way that provides every
individual free and informed choice (including whether or not to participate) and
is compassionate?
• Internal consistency of processes. Is the method or tool consistent with the
purpose the group is trying to achieve? Watch out for selecting tools that work at
cross-purposes to one another. For example, don’t choose icebreakers that estab-
lish competing subgroups if you are trying to help the group develop boundary
spanning or collaboration skills in subsequent activities. Watch out for setting up
subgroups in ways that reinforce existing group barriers. Avoid using tools that seem
repetitious. Consider different learning or information processing styles as well.
SAMPLE DESIGN A: TOWN VISIONING EXERCISE
Sample Design A (Exhibit 10.1) was a design for a half-day town meeting to brain-
storm a set of special community projects that would be completed in honor of the
millennium and the town’s two-hundredth birthday celebration. The town had pre-
viously engaged in similar, longer sessions to develop a vision and Year 2020 Plan.
This was an update to that plan.
SAMPLE DESIGN B: BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS RETREAT
This design (Exhibit 10.2) was for an annual planning retreat for a town board of
commissioners. One unique feature was inclusion of the manager’s evaluation. The
facilitator helped board members reach agreement about each item on the manager’s
evaluation form and then facilitated a feedback conversation between the Board and
the manager.
Chapter 10 • Process Designs | 111
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 112
Exhibit 10.1 “New Century, New Carrboro”Town Meeting Agenda
9:45–10:15 Registration, Coffee, Informal Greeting, Introductions at Tables
10:15–10:25 Welcome and Explanation of the Project
10:25–10:30 Overview of Process for the Meeting
Invitation to Imagine Carrboro in 2011
10:30–10:50 Background Information on Major Projects, Recreation Master
Plan, etc.
10:50–11:00 Instructions to Small Groups (brainstorming, posting,
combining, prioritizing)
11:00–11:40 Brainstorming Ideas
Posting, Clarifying, and Combining Ideas
11:40–12:10 Reviewing and Multivoting on ideas
12:10–1:00 Review of Priorities from each group
Next Steps
Questions from Participants
Charge to Groups
What projects (large or small), if completed by 2011, would make Carrboro a better
place to live?
Guidelines for Brainstorming Projects
• Everybody in the group contributes something, if only one idea.
• One person speaks at a time.
• Nothing is challenged or criticized during brainstorming.
• It is okay to add to ideas others contribute.
• It is okay to pass when you have nothing more to offer.
• Add brief, clarifying points to ideas after brainstorming but before posting.
Guidelines for Prioritizing Projects
• Scribes will post ideas on the wall, one idea per page.
• Scribes will combine duplicate ideas as they post.
• You have seven colored “sticky dots”; place one dot each on the seven
projects you believe will most contribute to enhanced quality of life in
Carrboro.
• If you have questions about the meaning or content of a project, locate a
member of the group that originated the project and ask for clarification before
you select your priority projects. (The number of the group that originated the
idea is on the idea sheet and on the name tags of group members.)
YOUR BREAKOUT GROUP NUMBER IS 5
112 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 113
Exhibit 10.2 Board of Commissioners Retreat: Proposed Agenda
Day 1
5:00 P.M. Agenda Review, Revision, and Agreement
Review Role of Facilitator
5:15–5:45 Dinner and Networking
5:45–8:30 Discussions with Department Heads
5:45–6:15 Police
6:15–6:45 Public Works
6:45–7:15 Water/Sewer
7:15–7:30 Break
7:30–8:00 Recreation
8:00–8:30 Finance
8:30–9:00 Brief Review of Previous Year’s Accomplishments
Adjourn
Day 2
8:00–10:00 A.M. Closed session: Manager’s Evaluation and Feedback to
Manager (board reaches consensus rating of each item on
evaluation form and then discusses each rating, reasons for
the rating, and specific examples with the manager)
10:00–10:15 Break
10:15–11:00 Review and Update of Commissioner and Mayor Roles
and Expectations
11:00–12:30 Discussion of Special Topics (with working lunch)
12:30–2:00 Brainstorm Coming Year Commission Goals and Projects
2:00–3:00 Agree on Top Priorities
Multivote
Develop consensus on top priorities
3:00–3:30 Wrap-Up and Evaluation
Chapter 10 • Process Designs | 113
15_964948 ch10.qxd 3/3/05 9:41 AM Page 114
Resources
For some excellent proven process designs, methods, and tools, review these
resources. Note that some of the uses described are not consistent with the Skilled
Facilitator approach. Use the design criteria set out in this chapter before combining
with the Skilled Facilitator approach.
Bens, I. Facilitating with Ease. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Bunker, B. B., and Alban, B. T. Large Group Interventions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1997.
Justice, T., and Jamieson, D. W. The Facilitator’s Fieldbook. New York: AMACOM, 1999.
Kaner, S. Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New
Society Publishers/Canada, 1996.
Stanfield, B. The Art of Focused Conversation. Toronto: ICA Canada, 1997.
Note
1. See The Skilled Facilitator, Chapter Ten, pp. 215–232, for further discussion
of using the Skilled Facilitator approach with other processes and for a
detailed example of using the approach with a problem-solving model.
114 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
16_964948 ch11.qxd 3/3/05 9:43 AM Page 115
Chapter 11
Basic Facilitation
What Can Be Accomplished? What Cannot?
Peg Carlson
When I do basic facilitation, I help a group use effective process to discuss a par-
ticular substantive topic. Because the facilitator assumes the primary responsibility
for attending to the group’s process, basic facilitation does not result in reduced de-
pendence on the facilitator over time. I have little expectation that the group will
learn and transfer these skills to future discussions, as occurs with developmental
facilitation. Based on my experience, I have developed both an appreciation for what
a group can accomplish using basic facilitation and an understanding of where lim-
itations often arise.
WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH
BASIC FACILITATION?
As I use the term, basic does not mean that the substantive topic being discussed is
easy or simple; a group may use basic facilitation to discuss some very difficult top-
ics. For example, a management team may ask a facilitator to help them use effec-
tive process skills as they decide who will be laid off during lean budget times, or a
group may ask a facilitator for assistance in identifying and discussing past events
where group members ended up extremely angry at one another over perceived
violations of trust. Here are some examples of the issues groups have addressed when
I worked with them:
• Clarified roles and expectations
• Agreed on a vision and core values for the organization
• Set long- and short-term goals
• Developed a new performance management system
• Agreed on criteria to select a new chief executive officer
Basic facilitation
is helping a group
use effective
process to discuss a par-
ticular substantive topic.
Basic does not mean that
the substantive topic
being discussed is easy or
simple; a group may use
basic facilitation to discuss
some very difficult topics.
115
16_964948 ch11.qxd 3/3/05 9:43 AM Page 116
Difficulties can
arise, however,
because without a
full understanding of the
ground rules, individuals
run the risk of intervening in
a way that is unilateral and
increases defensiveness
among other members.
In my experience, there’s no limit to the substantive content a group can tackle
in basic facilitation.
Although the facilitator is not explicitly teaching process skills to a group in a
basic facilitation context, group members frequently develop an awareness of and
appreciation for the importance of group process as they work with a facilitator.
When I work with a group in basic facilitation, members have seen the “Ground
Rules for Effective Groups” article and heard me briefly describe the core values and
ground rules at the beginning of the meeting (and sometimes in the planning meet-
ing as well).1 I explain to the group that these are the tools I use to help group mem-
bers have more effective conversations and ask if they are interested in trying to use
them during the time we are working together. I assure them that there is no ex-
pectation that they will be able to use the ground rules consistently. My role is to
help the group use the core values and ground rules during the discussion. Typically,
groups readily agree to try to use the ground rules during the meeting.
LIMITATIONS
Although I am the primary person monitoring and intervening on the group’s
process in basic facilitation, group members often pick up on what I am doing and
begin to use the ground rules themselves. For example, after seeing me intervene
several times in a conversation, group members may begin to say to each other, “I
think we’re making an assumption in this conversation,” “You’ve told us your posi-
tion, but I still don’t understand your interests,” or “Let me explain why I asked that
question.” This recognition of the value of the ground rules and how they can help
the group have a more effective discussion can help group members monitor their
own behavior and use more effective process to discuss their issues even when a
facilitator is not present.
Difficulties can arise, however, because without a full understanding of the
ground rules, individuals run the risk of intervening in a way that is unilateral and
increases defensiveness among other members. For example, it often creates tension
when an individual tells another person, “You’re making an inference,” without rec-
ognizing the need to test out his or her own inference that the other person is mak-
ing an inference. This type of unilateral intervention, or “ground rules police,” can
create bad feelings and a disincentive toward using ground rules in future meetings.
There are two roots to this problem. First, at the operational level, people lack
the knowledge of how to intervene using the diagnosis-intervention cycle. Second,
at a deeper level, groups that have not been trained in the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach often lack the understanding of the mutual learning model underlying the
core values and ground rules. This results in using the ground rules in a unilaterally
controlling way. In these situations, I intervene, applauding the effort to use the
ground rules but then adding the steps needed to, for example, add inquiry to what
might otherwise be a unilateral declaration.
116 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
16_964948 ch11.qxd 3/3/05 9:43 AM Page 117
�
�
For an introduction to these foundational principles, see Chapter Four, “Understanding What
Guides Your Behavior,” page 33; Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61; and
Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
Basic facilitation is not likely to result in group members’ reflecting deeply on
the consequences of their own behavior and recognizing when they may be con-
tributing to the very group outcome that they believe to be ineffective. Groups fre-
quently express frustration at finding themselves in the same boat again and again,
whether the topic is failing to meet overly ambitious sales targets or developing a
compensation system that is perceived as equitable and effective. In my experience,
the questions that are valuable for a facilitator or group member to raise at this point
are “double-loop learning” questions intended to help a group examine their values
and strategies.2 For example, to help a group reflect on its underlying values and
strategies, I may ask, “What is it that leads this group to create long lists of projects
year after year, even when you say you want to scale back and set key priorities?” Al-
though it is possible to have these conversations in a basic facilitation context, group
members are often better equipped, and more willing, to have a discussion of how
they have contributed to the problem the group is facing as part of a developmen-
tal facilitation when they have committed to learning and using the core values and
ground rules in their work.
AN EXAMPLE
The following example illustrates the tremendous progress groups can make using
basic facilitation and the difficulty they have in maintaining a more effective group
process once the facilitator departs.
I worked with a governing board that was divided into two camps, accord-
ing to their beliefs about what their constituents wanted. Each side had
made accusations about the other, and they were nursing hurt feelings that
went back several years. There were also different ideas about how to work
effectively with the executive director, and board members had accused
other members of not doing their job correctly (as each side defined it). I
worked with them over a period of several months as they agreed on roles
and expectations for other board members and the executive director
See Chapter Eighteen, “Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations,” page 159.
As they explored what they expected of other members and the direc-
tor, they uncovered assumptions they had made about others’ actions and
motives. The group members learned that these assumptions were fre-
quently incorrect, and they changed their interpretation of the meaning of
past events after hearing the explanations and perspectives of other mem-
bers. After three sessions, the group expressed great satisfaction with the
Basic facilitation is
not likely to result
in group members’
reflecting deeply on the
consequences of their own
behavior and recognizing
when they may be con-
tributing to the very group
outcome that they believe
to be ineffective.
Chapter 11 • Basic Facilitation | 117
16_964948 ch11.qxd 3/3/05 9:43 AM Page 118
For groups that
use basic facilita-
tion and see the
value of having a more
effective group process
when tackling a specific
problem, the experience
may ultimately help them
make an informed choice
about committing to im-
prove their process more
permanently through de-
velopmental work.
progress they had made and felt that they were now in a very different
place in terms of their ability to work together effectively. Several members
described the experience as a real breakthrough that permanently
changed the way they viewed their role as a board member.
However, when I checked on the group’s progress six months later,
there appeared to be little change in individuals’ behavior regarding the
assumptions they made about other board members’ actions, motives, and
intent. Even though they saw the value of testing assumptions in the earlier
basic facilitation context, they did not move to the next step of monitoring
their own behavior: recognizing when they were starting to make untested
assumptions that might bring them down the same (ineffective) road they
had been down before. They continued to view the work they had done
clarifying roles and expectations as extremely valuable, but felt that they
had lapsed back into old patterns fairly quickly.
For groups that use basic facilitation and see the value of having a more effec-
tive group process when tackling a specific problem, the experience may ultimately
help them make an informed choice about committing to improve their process
more permanently through developmental work.
Notes
1. “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” available at www.schwarzassociates.com.
2. For a description of single- and double-loop learning, see the writings of
Chris Argyris, for example, “Good Communication That Blocks Learning”
(1994).
Reference
Argyris, A. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning,” Harvard Business Review, July-
Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
118 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.schwarzassociates.com
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 119
Chapter 12
Do the Math
Creating a Realistic Agenda
Peg Carlson
One area in which a facilitator can add value is in helping a group craft a real-
istic agenda to help it accomplish its stated goals. In my experience, doing the
math is a major part of determining what a group can reasonably expect to ac-
complish in a meeting. By calculating specific time estimates for the various por-
tions of the discussion, a facilitator and group can jointly decide how much
material the group is likely to cover in a given period.
It’s common for groups to be overly ambitious in their estimates of what can
be done in a full day, a half-day, or an hour. Here are some examples of time esti-
mates given by groups during the initial phases of planning a meeting or retreat:
“We would like to agree on a vision for our community and set annual goals
for the staff ’s work. We can meet from 9:30 a.m. to noon.”
“We want to agree on roles and expectations of each other as board mem-
bers and set a strategic plan to guide the organization’s priorities for the
next five years. The board has agreed to set aside four hours—most mem-
bers aren’t willing to meet for longer than that.”
When I sit down with group members in a planning meeting, it often feels as
if participants are trying to put twenty pounds of flour in a ten-pound sack. This
tendency is completely understandable. Having an entire management team, de-
partment, or governing board come together for a half-day or more represents a
big commitment of time and money, and it’s tempting to try to fit in as many
important issues as possible.
SOME RULES OF THUMB FOR GENERATING
TIME ESTIMATES
Here are the general principles that I use to estimate the amount of time a group
needs to accomplish its agenda goals.
It’s common for
groups to be
overly ambitious in
their estimates of what
can be done in a full day,
a half-day, or an hour.
My job is not to
convince group
members that their
time allotments are incor-
rect and mine are correct;
rather, my goal is to have
each of us share our as-
sessment and our reasons
for what leads us to that
assessment, and jointly
design an agenda that rep-
resents our best estimate.
119
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 120
Factor in the Number of People in the Group
Generally, the larger the group, the more time is needed to allow participation by
members. This seems self-evident, but it’s easy to overlook when trying to construct
the agenda. For example, I was recently working with group representatives to plan
a meeting for a fifteen-member board. One portion of the agenda involved discus-
sion and adoption of an employee compensation plan. The group had originally al-
located fifteen minutes for a staff member’s presentation, followed by thirty minutes
of board discussion. I pointed out that this translated to two minutes per person of
discussion time and asked if this was a topic that people saw as important and was
likely to generate differing views. The answer was yes to both, and the group de-
cided that setting aside ninety minutes for the board discussion was more realistic.
In a large group, some portions of the discussion may occur in subgroups. This
is a useful technique for allowing more people to participate in a discussion. How-
ever, if the group ultimately needs to reach agreement on a topic, it’s still important
to allow additional large group time to fully process the different perspectives and
suggestions that may emerge from the small group discussions.
Incorporate Some Slack into the Agenda
An estimate on how long each agenda item will take is just that: an estimate. Some-
times an agenda item may be addressed more quickly than anticipated, but in my
experience, it has been more common for a portion of the discussion to need more
time than originally allocated. By proposing that a group create a cushion of time
in the event that some agenda items take longer than expected, a facilitator can help
a group avoid the frustration associated with not accomplishing everything on
the list or limiting the contribution of individual group members because of time
constraints.
Consider the Group’s History and Your Knowledge
of the Group
Is this the first meeting of a newly formed group? If so, the members are likely to need
some extra time at the outset to get to know each other and understand their place
in the group. If the group has a history of working together, ask group members
whether they normally complete discussion of agenda items within the allotted time
or whether their conversations tend to run long. While a facilitator may certainly help
frame and focus the discussion, it is useful to consider the group’s established working
style (if it has one) when creating the agenda. Using the Skilled Facilitator approach, it
is not your role to determine this unilaterally or make untested inferences about the
way the group works together. As part of a contracting session, you can ask the group
about this, as well as make your own observations of the group’s interactions.
120 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 121
WHEN THE FACILITATOR AND GROUP
DISAGREE ABOUT TIME
A group (or group representatives in a contracting session) may disagree with your
assessment of how much time is needed for each of the agenda items. This may be
because the group thinks your estimates are probably accurate, but the group just
can’t afford to take that much time, or your estimates are unnecessarily generous,
and the group is likely to progress more quickly than you think. It can be difficult to
jointly design a way to test this disagreement ahead of time, as the test is likely to
be the meeting itself.
I have two recommendations for how to handle this situation. First, if the group
is concerned because it looks as if they won’t be able to get through all they had
planned, I may say something like this:
“Part of my job as a facilitator is to help you move effectively and efficiently through
your agenda. I think I can help you do that in two ways. One way is to intervene in
your group’s discussion as needed to help people stay focused, identify their inter-
ests, and make decisions that have the necessary support.
“The other—and perhaps more important—way is to help you create an agenda
that reflects a realistic estimate of how long the discussion is likely to take. If we have
a realistic agenda, it reduces the chance that group members will become frustrated
because they didn’t accomplish everything on the list, or because some members
didn’t get a chance to contribute to the discussion because of time constraints.
“Does this help address your concern? What problems do you see with this
approach?”
Second, if the group disagrees with my time estimates, I say something like this:
“If you believe that the discussion will not take as long as my estimate, I think we
should use your recommended time allotment. However, if it turns out to be less
time than the group needs, I want you to know that I cannot compress the work to
fit the time allotted. So I propose that if the group is not finished at the end of the
allotted time, I will work with the group to jointly design how to move forward. How
does that sound to you?”
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS TAKE LONGER
THAN ANTICIPATED
Despite the best estimates of the facilitator and group, sometimes the meeting time
turns out to be inadequate for what the group wants to accomplish. If it looks as if there
will not be sufficient time to complete the discussion, Ground Rule Seven (jointly de-
sign next steps) will help determine how to move forward. A group may decide to add
extra time, drop an item, plan another meeting, or come up with another idea.
The important point to remember is that jointly designing next steps will take
some time; as a facilitator, you don’t want to have this conversation with the group
Chapter 12 • Do the Math | 121
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 122
when only five minutes remain. To prevent this, I do frequent process checks
A key part of the
facilitator’s role is
to help the group
make informed choices
about how it is spending its
time. Frequent process
checks will help a group do
that and avoid the frustra-
tion associated with being
unaware that time is run-
ning out.
throughout the meeting—for example,
“We are nearing the end of the time allotted for this topic. Would you like to contin-
ue this discussion, or move on to the next agenda item?” I frequently add something
like, “If you choose to continue this discussion, I think it may reduce the time you
have available to discuss X later in the meeting. Do others agree, or do you see it
differently?” [If group agrees] “Given that, how would you like to spend your remain-
ing time?”
A key part of the facilitator’s role is to help the group make informed choices
about how it is spending its time. Frequent process checks will help a group do that
and avoid the frustration associated with being unaware that time is running out.
No two groups will use exactly the same amount of time to move through an
agenda. However, by using the right questions and careful planning, a facilitator can
work with a group to create an estimate that has an increased likelihood of being
accurate. Exhibits 12.1 and 12.2 are two sample retreat agendas. The first can be
used for a one-day retreat to clarify roles and expectations of board members and
chief executive officer and the second works for a two-day retreat to agree on vision,
mission, and goals for an organization or department.
122 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 123
Exhibit 12.1 Sample One-Day Retreat Agenda: Roles and Expectations
for the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Introduction
• Introduce participants
• Review and agree on agenda
• Review role of facilitator
• Agree on ground rules
• Identify expectations for retreat (for example, “What needs to happen to make
this retreat a success?”)
Board members’ expectations of each other
Each board member completes the statement, “I expect other board members
to . . .”
Board members’ expectations of chair and vice chair (and vice versa)
Each board member completes the statement, “I expect the chair and vice
chair to . . .”
Chair and vice chair complete the statement, “I expect board members to . . .”
Board members’ expectations of CEO (and vice versa)
Each board member completes the statement, “I expect the manager to . . .”
CEO completes the statement, “I expect board members to . . .”
Clarification of/agreement on expectations
Group reaches agreement on a set of expectations for each role [This may be
done after each set.]
Next steps
Group agrees on next steps for implementing ideas suggested/commitments
made during the retreat, including what they will do if people fail to meet
expectations.
Self-critique
Group members identify what went well during the retreat and what they
would do differently next time.
Chapter 12 • Do the Math | 123
17_964948 ch12.qxd 3/3/05 9:44 AM Page 124
Exhibit 12.2 Sample Two-Day Retreat Agenda: Vision, Mission, Goals
Introduction
• Introduce participants
• Review and agree on agenda
• Review role of facilitator
• Agree on ground rules
• Identify expectations for retreat (for example, “What needs to happen to make
this retreat a success?”)
Vision for Stevens County
• Participants share their desired future for Stevens County
• Group identifies common themes and interests
• Group drafts vision statement for Stevens County
Mission Statement for Stevens County
Using the new vision statement, group drafts/updates a mission statement for
Stevens County.
Goal Setting
Group sets goals for the next three to five years, given their mission and vision
for Stevens County.
Prioritizing Goals
Group agrees on most important goals for Stevens County.
Action Planning
Group identifies strategies to help them reach goals, including discussion of
possible barriers they will need to overcome.
Next Steps
Group agrees on next steps for implementing ideas suggested/commitments
made during the retreat.
Self-Critique
Group members identify what went well during the retreat and what they would
do differently next time.
124 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 125
�
Chapter 13
Beginning Meetings
Introductions and Guidelines for Working
Together
Anne Davidson
The opening of any meeting, retreat, or workshop sets the tone for the entire gath-
ering. Just like beginning a conversation, this is the time to build a structure to sup-
port the session. We rely on the steps in Stage Three of our contracting process
(reaching agreement with the entire group) and Ground Rule Seven (Jointly design
next steps and ways to test disagreements) to create a firm foundation. This is the time
to reach clear and mutual agreement about the purpose of any session and the process
that will be used for doing our work together before we begin on content.
The opening of a session is also an opportunity to begin to model the Skilled
Facilitator principles by, at a minimum, sharing valid information, explaining rea-
soning and intent, and combining inquiry with advocacy (testing for agreement). I
often see problems later in a workshop or meeting that could have been resolved by
spending a bit more time understanding who will be in the room and their expec-
tations. Confusion and frustration are also avoided by agreeing about some proce-
dural guidelines for working together. Yet I frequently see trainers, facilitators, and
leaders dive right in without investing time on introductions or guidelines.
This chapter outlines some thoughts about the value of going slow to go fast as
you open a session and some examples of what I share with groups.
See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89, and Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing
the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103.
INTRODUCTIONS
Introductions are a good way for people to begin to get their voices in the room.
Taking more time here can pay dividends by setting group norms of people speak-
ing up, of sharing responsibility for the success of the session, and for taking at least
The opening of any
meeting, retreat, or
workshop sets the
tone for the entire gather-
ing. Just like beginning a
conversation, this is the
time to build a structure to
support the session.
125
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 126
mild risks in revealing something of themselves. This is the time to check and clar-
ify expectations so that the session content can be adapted, if necessary, or so that
you can identify expectations that you believe cannot be met. This allows partici-
pants to make a free and informed choice about whether they need or want to
remain at a session or to decide whether and how to align their goals for the session
with those of others. I have seen more than one facilitation or training disrupted
when participants began leaving because their expectations were not met and because
no one clarified what they could or should expect at the outset.
The length of time I take with introductions depends on the length of the ses-
sion. Exhibits 13.1 and 13.2 are two examples. The first is for a workshop where I
am in the role of facilitative trainer. The group will be together for several days and
will be asked to engage in activities together that reveal a fair amount about their
thinking, strategy, and past struggles. This can feel risky, so I take more time at the
start to allow people to get to know one another, help them gain information to de-
cide with whom they would like to work most closely, and clarify what all of us want
from the session.
In sessions like this one, people usually work together in small groups. Unless
they already know one another well or have agreed to remain together as an intact
work group during the session, I generally do not have them sit in small groups or
select their small group partners until after the introductions. At Skilled Facilita-
tor trainings and most of the other sessions I conduct, we start out in a circle, in
rows, in a horseshoe, or in some other seating design that will have to be reconfig-
ured to form working groups. We want to provide participants as free and informed
a choice as possible about the partners they will spend time with during a lengthy
session. If people come in and sit in the same-size groups they will work in, it is
often harder to reconfigure the group after introductions. (Of course, to be trans-
parent, we share this reasoning with the group when we explain why the group is
sitting in a circle.)
Exhibit 13.2 is an abbreviated set of introductory questions for use in a shorter
session (one day or less). Although these introductions cannot be as lengthy, I still
want to take time for others to know who is in the room and for all of us to check
the alignment of our objectives and expectations.
GUIDELINES FOR WORKING TOGETHER
We separate procedural guidelines from ground rules. Although many groups use
the term ground rules for the sorts of things we cover in guidelines, we do not want
to confuse the mutual learning behavioral strategies we call Ground Rules in the
Skilled Facilitator approach with other group agreements.
126 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 127
Exhibit 13.1 Example 1: Introductions for Multiday Sessions
Listed below are some suggestions to guide you in introducing yourself to the
group. We believe this introduction is important because it helps each of you get
to know one another better and may make it easier for you to take risks and ask
questions in order to learn most productively.You may share information related to
some of the suggested points or information that is different from the suggestions,
or you may choose not to share anything about yourself.
Information we suggest sharing and the reasons for sharing this
information:
1. Your name—what you like to be called. Reason: So that each person will
know how you like to be addressed when they speak to you.
2. Your job and how long you have been with your organization. Reason:
So that each of us knows the jobs of the people in the room, your level of
experience, and how your jobs relate to one another. This will help you cre-
ate effective learning partnerships.
3. Something important about yourself that others may not know. Reason:
A fun way to get to know and appreciate the talents of other people. Also
helps you identify some of the group’s commonalties and differences.
4. The concerns, if any, you have about this training. Reason: Allows
instructors and group members an opportunity to help you address your
concerns and clarify assumptions about the workshop.
5. What needs to happen for this to be a good learning experience for
you. Reason: Allows instructors and others an opportunity to make adjust-
ments to meet your expectations, identify expectations that cannot be met in
this workshop, and make adjustments for your unique learning style.
Note: Dick McMahon and Anne Davidson created this example for a three-day workshop. With twenty-four people,
this can take up to fifty minutes, which allows one and a half to two minutes per person.
I use the term guidelines in two ways. First, this is the term I use for our spe-
cific working agreements as a group, such as how we will handle breaks and absences.
Second, I include principles that are much broader than behavioral guidelines, such
as keeping a sense of humor, sharing responsibility for the success of a session, or
adopting an open, curious stance toward discussions. We may include a guideline
about confidentiality if this is a consideration for the type of session in question. So
my guidelines statement (see the sidebar) is a catchall for those important founda-
tional agreements that do not fit within the ground rules.
In addition to proposing these guidelines, I invite the group to add others, and
I check to see if there is anyone who cannot fully support one of the guidelines. If
Chapter 13 • Beginning Meetings | 127
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 128
Exhibit 13.2 Example 2: Introductions for Sessions of One Day or Less
You will have several opportunities to network and participate with others in the
room today. So that we may work together more productively and comfortably,
please share the items listed below (or similar information of your choosing) with
the other participants at your table. Ask one person at the table to serve as the
spokesperson for the group. This person will be asked to briefly summarize the
expectations in attending this session of those at your table. We will check quickly
to see whether and how your expectations can be met.
Please share (about 45 seconds per person):
Your name:
The group you represent:
One thing that needs to happen for you to consider this meeting time well
spent (or what you expect to gain from attending this meeting today):
Note: This was created for a half-day facilitation.
someone has a concern about a guideline, we try to change it to address the con-
cern. The extent to which we discuss and edit the guidelines is in part a function of
time and group size, but if we cannot reach general agreement to follow a guideline,
the default is to drop it from the list. So far in my hundreds of trainings and facili-
tations, I have never needed to drop a guideline from the basic set I propose.
The “Workshop Guidelines” sidebar is an example of what I use for workshops
and consultations. I edit the set to reflect the role or roles of facilitator or consul-
tant, and I change the language to be consistent with the meeting at hand. For ex-
ample, I may drop the statement about “here-and-now learning,” change workshop
to session, shift from a focus on learning to meeting needs, or add a specific guideline
a group has requested, like how to proceed if there is a fire alarm. I hand out a copy
of the guidelines so group members can refer to them during the session. If the
guidelines change and the session runs more than one day, I hand out a revised copy
at our second meeting.
128 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 129
Workshop Guidelines
1. Joint responsibility. The success of this workshop is the joint responsi-
bility of the instructors and the participants. Please help us meet your needs by
asking questions and giving us feedback. Let us know, for example, about the
pace of the workshop and whether discussions and activities are meeting your
learning needs. Request breaks if you need them. Challenge our thinking, and
share your own.
2. Breaks. We will announce starting and ending times for breaks and
activities. We will resume the session promptly at the end of a break. It is your
responsibility to be where you need to be when the group reconvenes. We rec-
ognize that there may be times when you need to return a telephone call or
take care of other matters that don’t precisely fit our break time. We encour-
age you to be mentally and physically present with the group at all times dur-
ing the workshop, because group members often learn as much from each
other as from the instructors. However, we will assume you are taking respon-
sibility for balancing your needs with those of the group. We will not round you
up when it is time to reconvene or make assumptions about your interest or
commitment to the workshop if you are not present at some point. If you need
to be absent for an extended time, please let us know so that we won’t worry
about your health or safety.
3. Modeling. The workshop itself is a valuable here-and-now learning lab
about group behavior and effective leadership. The instructors will make every
attempt to model the skills we are teaching and encourage you to use every
opportunity to practice your own skills. Because we are all human, each of us
at times will behave inconsistently with the very principles we are trying to
model. When you see a behavior that you believe is inconsistent, please raise
your concern in the group. When you see a behavior that you think is particu-
larly effective, point this out so all of us may note it. By observing and dis-
cussing instructor and participant behaviors, all of us can learn.
4. Confidentiality. We encourage you to share your experience and wis-
dom through your specific examples and stories. In this way, we can all learn
from one another, you can receive suggestions about how to handle difficult
situations, and we can follow your reasoning clearly. At the same time, we ask
that you keep others’ stories and examples confidential. If you wish to share
someone else’s story outside the session, we ask that you (1) get permission
from the person who shared the example in the workshop and/or (2) strip
away all information that could identify the organization or people involved in
the example. The second condition is often difficult to meet unless you discuss
exactly what you plan to share with the person who told the story. If you can-
not do this and you have any doubt about the story being identified without
permission, refrain from sharing it.
5. Humor. We believe that keeping a sense of humor about human behav-
ior is critical to working together effectively. While the work we do is very impor-
tant, we should not take ourselves too seriously or judge others harshly. It helps
to laugh together about our foibles and struggles. As instructors, we will often
point out the lighter side of the principles we teach. We invite you to join in the
fun with your own stories, examples, and humorous thoughts!
Chapter 13 • Beginning Meetings | 129
18_964948 ch13.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 130
19_964948 ch14.qxd 3/3/05 9:45 AM Page 131
Chapter 14
Introducing the Ground
Rules and Principles in
Your Own Words
Sue McKinney
I often work with groups that ask me to attend one or two meetings to help
them get off on the right foot or to help with a particularly difficult conversa-
tion. In these situations, the group is not asking me to help them learn a new
method of communicating with each other. They simply want my help for a few
hours. In these cases, I share my approach to facilitation at the first meeting. I
explain the core values and then share a simple list of guidelines through a series
of stories and examples. I write the list on a flip chart so participants can refer to
it during the meeting. Here is what I often say:
I want to share my thoughts about what makes groups more or less effective and
suggest some guidelines that in my experience will likely enhance the quality of
conversation that takes place today. It is my experience that groups often com-
municate in ways that make a group less effective than it can be.
In many meetings, I hear someone say something that makes me immedi-
ately want to respond. I start thinking about my response and exactly what I want
to say. While I’m thinking, I’m waiting for the person to stop talking so I can speak.
Sometimes I get so excited to speak that I take even the briefest pause as an
invitation to jump in with my important thought! Can some of you identify with
this? [I wait for responses.]
I think the danger in this example is that when I am thinking about how to
respond, I am no longer listening. I may be hearing what the person is saying,
but I’m not listening with an intention of trying to understand where the person is
coming from and what leads him or her to say what he or she is saying. If I were
listening, I would probably respond with questions so I could better understand,
rather than the statement I’ve been rehearsing while they were talking.
So the first guideline I recommend is that you listen to understand and
avoid interrupting because you cannot be listening when you are talking at the
same time someone else is talking. Does that guideline work for the group?
The second guideline is to remain curious and open to the perspective of
others. Often I am in a series of meetings with the same people, and over time, I
131
19_964948 ch14.qxd 3/3/05 9:45 AM Page 132
come to develop opinions about these people. I guess you could say I begin to figure
them out. I look for predictability in their behavior and responses. Soon I have them in
a box and keep them there since it makes it easier for me to understand them. I think
things like, “John always has it in for the employees. He doesn’t even want to under-
stand them. He just doesn’t get it.” Or, “Clearly Sally has a hidden agenda. She is never
totally open in these meetings, and she is always whispering to Dan afterward. I don’t
trust her.” Of course, at the same time, I’m thinking, “I have the best interests of this
organization at heart. And Tom agrees with me, so he must too.”
If I take a step back from these thoughts, I have to consider how many people
actually get up out of bed and think, “I cannot wait to get to that meeting and mess
up the group again!” or better yet, “I am excited to go to the team meeting and make
Sue angry again. That is so much fun!” I have to admit to myself that it is not very
likely. I think most group members think, as I do, that they have the best interests of
the group at heart. So the key is to stay curious and open to their perspective so I
can better understand why they think differently than I do. Rather than being judg-
mental without a good understanding of their thoughts and perspective, I can stay
open to learning. What do all of you think about following this guideline?
The third guideline is sharing the reasons behind your questions and
statements. One of the things that people naturally do is to try to understand what
motivates a person to think or say a certain thing. If listeners don’t understand
the motivation, they begin to make up stories that make sense to them, given their
own perspective. We are, in fact, making up stories about each other.
For example, if I walk down the hall and pass a person higher than me in the
hierarchy and say, “Hello!” and the person does not respond, I begin to make up sto-
ries. They could go like this: “He never speaks to me. He thinks I’m a nobody. He
doesn’t give credence to anything I say.” Or like this: “He must be hard of hearing. I
noticed he didn’t speak to so-and-so the other day either. He needs to go to a doc-
tor, but he is too vain to get a hearing aid.” Or: “He is so busy and important. I
shouldn’t bother him when he is clearly thinking hard.” Have you ever noticed your-
self doing something like this? Making up stories to explain the behaviors, actions,
or comments of others? To reduce the likelihood of someone making up stories
about you, it is important to share the reasons behind your statements, questions,
and comments. Doing so makes your motivation and intentions clear, and no one
has to make up a story to understand where you are coming from. Is this a guide-
line you are willing to follow during this meeting?
The fourth guideline is to focus on needs and interests instead of solu-
tions. This will help the group out when you are trying to arrive at decisions or
solutions that everyone can support. In many groups, I have had the experience of
members’ arguing back and forth for a certain solution or decision. The group can
go around and around making little progress and increasing member frustration as
time passes without forward movement. Have any of you had that experience?
[Usually many heads nod.] I have found that talking about what it is about the solu-
tion or decision that you feel is important helps move the conversation in a more
productive direction. Group members talk about what their needs are. This discus-
sion opens up the possibility of many more solutions than may be originally pro-
posed. Is this a guideline that you can support following?
My final guideline is to relax and enjoy ourselves today. I find that groups
that have fun together are more creative. Plus, since we are spending a day togeth-
er, we might as well enjoy ourselves. Does anyone have a concern with following
this guideline?
132 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
19_964948 ch14.qxd 3/3/05 9:45 AM Page 133
Does anyone want to add to this list of guidelines or modify my suggested
guidelines?
Once the group agrees to use these guidelines, we discuss how using them will
affect communications for the day. I share some quick examples with the group. I
explain that when I see people speaking at the same time, I will stop them and ask
them to check with each other about who speaks first and so on. Or if the group
starts getting stuck when seeking solutions to a problem, I will ask some questions
about the underlying interests or needs they are trying to meet.
I also explain that I don’t expect all of the participants to act consistently with
these guidelines, but that I will do so and will try to help them do so when it seems
to be causing a problem for the group. I then ask if anyone has a concern with how
I am suggesting the group and I use the guidelines. This often leads to a brief dis-
cussion about how everyone will use or try to use the guidelines and how I will
specifically use them. Once we reach agreement, we begin the meeting.
Meeting Guidelines
• Listen to hear (avoid
interruptions).
• Stay curious and open
to the perspective of
others.
• Share reasons behind
questions and
statements.
• Focus on underlying
interests or needs rather
than solutions.
• Relax and enjoy
ourselves.
Chapter 14 • Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words | 133
19_964948 ch14.qxd 3/3/05 9:45 AM Page 134
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 135
Chapter 15
Using the Group
Effectiveness Model
Anne Davidson
You are working at your desk when the phone rings. Dragging yourself from the
task at hand, you answer. After the briefest of greetings, you are invited into the world
of an anxious caller: “Glad I got you,” he says. “We need some help with team build-
ing. The department heads need to work together better. Are you available?”
Where do you start? I have found one of the most useful places for me to start
is with the Group Effectiveness Model (GEM). For years I kept the model posted
near my telephone and used it to guide my questions for potential clients and as a
starting point for working with groups.
DIAGNOSING GROUP ISSUES
As soon as I establish that the person calling is a member of the group requesting my
services (or start my first conversation with someone who is a group member), I ask
questions based on the three group effectiveness criteria. For example, I might ask:
“What is happening that leads you to feel you need team building?” Or “What
is not happening in the group that you want to happen?” Or more specifi-
cally, “How well is the group meeting its work goals?” [Performance]
“How well are group members making decisions together and handling
conflict?” [Process]
“How are the needs of group members being met or not met?” [Personal]
Usually, I do not go into great depth with just one group member, but ques-
tions based on the group effectiveness criteria help me gauge whether the client will
benefit from my services and whether my skills seem a good match. If working to-
gether holds promise, I set up a planning meeting or conference call with the group
or with representative group members.
As soon as I establish that
the person calling is a
member of the group re-
questing my services (or
start my first conversation
with someone who is a
group member), I ask ques-
tions based on the three
group effectiveness criteria.
135
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 136
�
In sharing the
GEM, I am also
modeling the very
transparency and curiosity
that guide my facilitation.
For details of this process see Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89.
INTRODUCING THE GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
MODEL TO GROUPS
Early in my career, I kept my diagnostic process more private than I do now. My
customary approach was to set up a planning meeting and ask a series of questions
based on the elements of the GEM.1 I still use this approach occasionally, especially
when the client makes a free (and somewhat informed) choice not to spend time
discussing the model. I might ask questions like, “How would you describe the
group’s purpose and goals?” or “How do group members behave when you
disagree with one another?” Responses, particularly specific examples, provide data
for an initial diagnosis of critical group effectiveness issues and indicate possible in-
terventions.
Now I customarily share the GEM itself with a group in the planning or diag-
nostic meeting. I see several advantages to this approach. First, it ensures that I ask
about each important element of group effectiveness and elicit examples. I get more
specific and comprehensive data this way. Second, I make my diagnostic frame trans-
parent to the group. Participants can see if the model fits their own experience and
raise areas they think may be missing from the model. They can more clearly con-
firm or disconfirm the diagnosis I make from their descriptions of group behavior.
In sharing the GEM, I am also modeling the very transparency and curiosity
that guide my facilitation. The group experiences what it will be like to work with
me, how I model my values, and whether and how my approach fits for them. An-
other advantage is that the group begins to learn the GEM so they can use it them-
selves as a tool to assess their future progress or set up new groups on their own.
STEPS FOR INTRODUCING THE GEM
To introduce the model, I spend about fifteen minutes briefly explaining the group
effectiveness criteria, setting out the three major factors (group process, structure,
and context), and defining a few of the less common terms, like boundary spanning.
Then the group and I use stories and examples of past group situations to map their
issues and develop a shared diagnosis and intervention plan. Here are the specific
steps I follow.
Step 1: Explain the Model
First, explain the purpose of the model and why you are introducing it. I say some-
thing like this:
136 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 137
“To help us identify what is working and what is not working for this group, I would
like to introduce a model of group effectiveness. The model shows the elements that
need to be in place for groups to work well together and how these things are inter-
related. It will also point to places where you can begin to make changes. By exam-
ining the model together, I think we will have much better information about how I
might help you and how you can continue improving after my consultations. Does
anyone have questions about why I am proposing we spend time working through
the model?”
Then I briefly define the effectiveness criteria, the three factors, and the terms de-
scribing the elements. I show how criteria and elements are interrelated and point out
that this is a model of a group as an open system: everything affects everything else.
Step 2: Ask the Group Members to Describe a Time
When the Group Was Effective
This should be a specific incident or decision process, supported by examples of
group behavior and discussion, recreated in as much detail as possible. Identify
which of the three group effectiveness criteria were met. Then identify the elements
of the group’s process, structure, and context that might be supporting its effec-
tiveness. List these or map them and how they are interrelated as in Figure 15.1 later
in the chapter. These will be strengths you and the group can build on to address
less effective elements.
Step 3: Ask the Group to Describe a Specific Time or
Incident When the Group Was Ineffective
Identify which of the three group effectiveness criteria were not met. Then identify
the elements of the group’s process, structure, and context that might be hindering
its effectiveness. Using lines and arrows to connect the elements, illustrate how in-
effectiveness in one element contributes to ineffectiveness in other elements in the
model. (See the sample map in Figure 15.1 later in the chapter.) Repeatedly ask two
questions: “What elements contribute to causing this effect?” and (2) “What
other elements are affected by problems with this element?”
Step 4: Share Observations and Reach Consensus
About the Highest-Leverage Elements to Address
A high-leverage element addresses root causes, builds a foundation for other ele-
ments, or has significant impact on a number of other elements. For example, if a
group is unclear whether it has the right members and is also unclear about its pur-
pose and goals, it is a higher-leverage intervention to first clarify mission, vision,
and goals because goals will determine membership needs and roles.
Chapter 15 • Using the Group Effectiveness Model | 137
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 138
Introducing the Group Effectiveness Model
The director of a human services agency for a large, metropolitan county
requested help improving the effectiveness of a ten-member team she led.
She shared that about six months earlier, one of the members, whom
we’ll call Sarah, confronted her during a team meeting. Sarah accused the
director of a series of biased or unfair decisions. She implied that the direc-
tor’s racial prejudice contributed to poor decisions. Other team members were
silent during the meeting, but afterward several of them wrote a memo defend-
ing the director and counterattacking Sarah. The director felt that team morale
had been poor since the incident, meetings frequently got off track, and the
group had difficulty reaching agreement on any course of action. The group
managed critical county services that often were scrutinized by the local
press. In the past, they had worked together fairly well, but lately they seemed
to be working at odds with one another in ways the director saw as risky,
wasteful, or inconsistent with the stated interests of county commissioners.
She wanted to turn the situation around as quickly as possible.
I suggested that we introduce the group to the GEM and start with their
assessment of effective and less effective elements. We e-mailed all group
members, asking if they would spend up to one hour reading a description of
the GEM and preparing responses to three questions.1 Everyone agreed to
prepare and to come to a three-hour diagnostic meeting. We stated clearly
that at the end of the meeting, the group would decide whether and how to
continue working with the facilitator.
At the meeting, the group first asked questions to clarify their under-
standing of the GEM. Then they shared responses to the following questions:
1. What are three specific, concrete wishes you have for this work group?
2. Looking at the elements of the Group Effectiveness Model, which ele-
ments work together to help you perform well? Tell a story or share an
example that supports your view.
3. Which elements of the model are missing or need strengthening? What
specifically has happened that leads you to say these elements need
strengthening?
In a little over two hours, the group heard each person’s vision of how the
group would be functioning when more effective, where each member saw
strengths, and where each person thought the group needed to improve.
Members listed eighteen specific wishes for the group representing eight of the
elements of the Group Effectiveness Model. We did not try to reach consensus
about each item on every list; rather, we asked which items on each list every-
one fully agreed about. In this case, there was consensus that six elements of
the GEM represented clear strengths, including shared vision, clear mission and
goals, and motivating task. The discussion appeared to refocus the group on
their commitment to and clarity about the important services they provide. Using
the lists of wishes and elements that needed strengthening, the group reached
consensus to work to improve five elements of the model: communication, con-
flict management, group culture, group norms, and decision making.
138 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 139
Since group values and beliefs (culture) and norms (ground rules) signif-
icantly influence how individuals communicate, manage conflict, and make
decisions, I recommended that the group begin by addressing values, beliefs,
and norms. The group quickly designed a process and schedule to do this
work. Over subsequent weeks, they were able to raise difficult issues and
process past incidents (including the memo) in ways that were productive
and modeled their desired norms. Group members said that starting with the
GEM helped them focus on their overall task, helped them acknowledge and
use their strengths, and made the task seem less overwhelming. Although
they knew at the outset that the work would be hard and personally challeng-
ing, seeing the model helped them fit the pieces together in a way that made
sense to them. They could see how effectiveness or ineffectiveness can build
on one another and affect the larger system. This group plans to revisit the
model periodically to assess progress and keep things in balance.
1. I used my colleague Peg Carlson’s article, “A Model for Improving a Group’s Effectiveness,” in Popular
Government, 1998, 63, 37–45. Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, contains an updat-
ed version of the model that will work well with most groups. See also The Skilled Facilitator, pp. 17–39.
Example: Mapping the System
Several years ago, a client who worked for a large national bank called to ask me to
help her with a team-building effort for her work group. After agreeing to meet with
the group, I guided them through the four steps for introducing the GEM:
The group described how effectively it had designed training materials and
promotional literature for the bank. They had won several awards and had
earned an excellent reputation throughout the banking community. The
group performed effectively, and they felt proud of their results. Their mis-
sion, goals, and tasks were clear and motivating. The team was staffed with
experienced and talented individuals who could work well under pressure.
We listed mission, vision, goals, task, and membership as group strengths,
as well as their ability to solve work problems collaboratively.
When we got to the third step, describing when the group was ineffec-
tive, they told me that they had related well and had collaborated fully on
every project until the organization adopted a new ranking and rating sys-
tem. In implementing the new system, the corporate office insisted that
each team member have his or her own separate score and ranking for
merit pay purposes. Although the team requested a shared rating for the
whole group, they were instructed to discriminate the top to bottom persons
on the team with individual rankings for each. Trying to develop the ratings
led to arguments, accusations, and mistrust among team members. They
had worked together so closely that no one clearly remembered who con-
tributed what. People started feeling others were taking credit for their
work. Morale deteriorated. The group was not meeting the personal or
process criteria for effectiveness.
Chapter 15 • Using the Group Effectiveness Model | 139
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 140
We mapped the problem and the causal connections on a diagram of
the Group Effectiveness Model (see Figure 15.1). The most obvious issues
were communication problems and conflict within the group. There was a
mismatch between established group norms of team production with
shared recognition and individual evaluation. But as the diagram clearly
shows, the problem was generated by an element in group context: rewards
were not consistent with the objectives of working as a self-managed, cre-
ative team. Using the data generated by the group, we agreed that team
building would not help. The highest-leverage intervention was to help the
group craft a productive conversation with those implementing the reward
system rather than working on group process issues.
Figure 15.1 Using the Group Effectiveness Model to Map the Problem
and Causal Connections
� Clear mission & shared vision
� Clear mission & shared vision
� Problem solving
� Decision making
� Conflict management
� Communication
� Boundary management
Members
experience
growth and
development
� Effective group culture
� Clear goals
� Motivating task
� Appropriate membership
� Clearly defined roles,
including leadership
� Group norms
� Sufficient time
Group Context
Group Effectiveness
Group Structure
Group Process
Personal:
Services or
products meet
or exceed
performance
standards
Performance:
Group enhances its
ability to work together
Process:
� Supportive culture
� Rewards consistent with
objectives & design
� Information, including
feedback
� Training & consultation
� Technological &
material resources
� Physical environment
140 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 141
�
DESIGNING INTERVENTIONS
After you and the group map an issue using the GEM, the next step is to agree about
where and how to create change. There is no right or perfect place to begin. Hav-
ing said this, there are more or less productive places. As I described in step 4 for
introducing the GEM, my approach is to look for the highest-leverage intervention.
With the bank team, that was to address the reward system that was generating the
conflict. Often one of the first places I look is among the elements of group struc-
ture. Once a group sets its fundamental structure, it is easier to clarify communica-
tion needs, decision processes, and work flow. Conflict frequently lessens or
disappears after there is agreement about elements like group mission, roles, and
boundaries. Later, it may be productive to discuss how the group handles differ-
ences, but to me this does not seem as efficient as resolving the root causes of many
of those differences.
Honor the principle of starting where the group is. I am guided by the
choices of group members and the reasons they seek my assistance. If the facilita-
tion is fairly basic (for example, putting together an annual plan), I may not go
deeper than discussing the group’s mission, goals, roles, and membership. But if the
group tells me they have put together plans in the past that they never implemented,
I delve into the group norms and culture that create such a situation. I may raise
subjects like mental models and defensive routines. We talk about the challenges of
reshaping one’s thinking, the length of time it might take, and the consequences of
not doing deeper-level work. My responsibility as the consultant or facilitator is to
advocate going deep enough to address the root causes of problems so that they do
not return again and again. But ultimately the group makes a choice about how to
spend its time and how deep to go. Often our starting place is not at the deepest
level possible. Rather, we start with the elements all the group members fully sup-
port addressing.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Forty-
Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339, for discussions of mental models and defensive
routines.
WHAT IF YOU MAKE THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS
OR START IN THE WRONG PLACE?
The good news is this: since groups are systems and since, in systems, everything is
related to everything else, no matter where you start, the fundamental issues will
arise. Your initial approach may not be the most efficient, and the group may be-
come frustrated, so there is merit in getting to the core issues as quickly and clearly
My approach is
to look for the
highest-leverage
intervention. Often one of
the first places to look is
among the elements of
group structure.
Honor the principle
of starting where
the group is.
Chapter 15 • Using the Group Effectiveness Model | 141
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 142
Avoiding a Misguided Effort
Sharing the GEM early in my work with a new client has saved me from mak-
ing bad contracts. On one memorable occasion, I met with a CEO and his top
management team to discuss the CEO’s request for team building.
The CEO had seen references to top management teams and heard this
approach discussed at a recent conference. The assistants and department
heads who worked most closely with him were enthusiastic about the idea of
a team.The group customarily held lengthy monthly planning meetings. Everyone
thought team building might improve the efficiency and productivity of these
sessions.
I scheduled an initial session with the CEO and four of the prospective
team members to discuss whether and how we might work together. To get us
started, I briefly explained the GEM and its usefulness as a template for build-
ing an effective team. I asked what role the team might play, which aspects of
the model were already in place, and which would need to be added or
strengthened.
The CEO stared at the model in silence for several minutes following my
questions. After what seemed an eternity, he looked up and said, “I just real-
ized sitting here that my strength is creating organizational [group] context. I
have always worked in that area, and perhaps a little in helping structure other
groups in the organization. But for the most part, the department heads have
teams, and they should work with them. I do not want to work on group
process. I do not think working on the things in this model will change how I
work or will be the most productive use of my skills. Department heads advise
me, but I really do not want to spend time working with them on making deci-
sions, managing boundaries, conflict, even goals or roles, because I believe
those are clear.”
I asked the others present if they saw the situation similarly or differently.
Basically, they agreed with the CEO’s assessment: “He’s a strong leader, and
he is effective. He does allow us to advise him, but unless he wants to change
his style and focus, I think we don’t need a team. We are not that interdepen-
dent. We know our mission. It’s clear. The CEO delegates broad areas for us
to manage. Then we need teams and collaborative processes to guide those
areas.”
The CEO was quite clear that he could support team-building efforts for
departments, but that he was just not interested in investing his energy to do
so with his own department heads. We all agreed that the discussion had
been extremely useful. The department heads present requested help sharing
the GEM with their subordinates but agreed it would be better not to start a
team-building effort with the CEO. I concurred that this would not be a good
use of my time. Using the GEM had improved effectiveness for many top man-
agement teams, but this was not the right time or place. Had we forged ahead
without this clear assessment, I think the effort would have failed in the long
run while expending organizational resources and goodwill unproductively.
142 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 143
as possible. Nevertheless, groups need to learn for themselves the effects of address-
ing or not addressing difficult issues. Since they make free choices not to talk about
certain subjects, the facilitator using a mutual learning approach cannot rescue the
group by saving them from errors. The facilitator can advocate for addressing an
issue and explain his or her reasoning (for example, the consequences of not
addressing a difficult issue) but cannot direct the group to deal with a challenging
element. Pushing groups too hard to take risks they feel unready or unwilling to face
can generate resistance. Unaddressed issues almost always return. In my experience,
if you jointly design your work with the group and gain their full support for ad-
dressing the issues you do process, you will usually be invited back when a concern
reemerges and the group is prepared to go deeper.
Note
1. See The Skilled Facilitator, pp. 278–279, for a list of diagnostic questions
based on the Group Effectiveness Model.
Since groups are
systems and since,
in systems, every-
thing is related to every-
thing else, no matter where
you start, the fundamental
issues will arise.
If you are using a
mutual learning ap-
proach, you cannot
rescue the group by
saving them from errors.
Chapter 15 • Using the Group Effectiveness Model | 143
20_964948 ch15.qxd 3/3/05 12:35 PM Page 144
21_964948 ch16.qxd 3/3/05 9:47 AM Page 145
Chapter 16
Helping Group Members
Focus on Interests Rather
Than Positions
Peg Carlson
In the classic story that illustrates the difference between positions and interests,
two children, holding one orange, bring it to an adult and state that they both want
it. The adult asks each of them to describe why they need the orange. One child is
hungry and wants to eat it; the other needs the grated rind for a cake recipe. Prob-
lem solved: by focusing on the interests rather than the position, both children get
100 percent of what they want.
Although not all organizational problems are as easily solved as this one, Ground
Rule Five, “Focus on interests, not positions,” is an extremely useful way to approach
many of the issues we face daily at work. A position is a single answer or solution
to a problem; an interest is a need, hope, or concern that frequently can be met by
more than one solution (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991).
Because people tend to move quickly from thinking about their own interests
to advocating a position that meets their interests, it is easy for parties in conflict to
argue and bargain over different solutions instead of generating a solution that meets
the underlying interests.
Whether formulating a policy, making choices about allocating scarce resources,
or mediating a dispute between coworkers, focusing on identifying and meeting
shared interests is a key technique for resolving a problem in a way that stays
resolved.
Here are ways to help people focus on interests rather than positions.
START WITH A SENTENCE PROMPT
A useful technique for getting the discussion started on the right foot is to give peo-
ple an opportunity to identify interests before any positions have been stated. For
example, if a group has the task of designing a new pay-for-performance plan for
the organization, you can write, “The pay-for-performance plan needs to be
A position is a sin-
gle answer or solu-
tion to a problem;
an interest is a need, hope,
or concern that frequently
can be met by more than
one solution (Fisher, Ury,
and Patton, 1991).
145
21_964948 ch16.qxd 3/3/05 9:47 AM Page 146
designed in a way that . . .” at the top of a flip chart pad. Group members then com-
plete this sentence with as many statements as they can, each stated in the form of
an interest. Typical interests may include “rewards high performers,” “retains good
employees,” and “allows good budget projections.” The group can then look at the
entire list and share ideas for pay-for-performance plans that meet the set (or a por-
tion of the set) of interests.
This approach helps frame a discussion around interests from the very begin-
ning, avoiding the common scenario where group members offer proposals for var-
ious plans, based on their own interests, and other group members point out flaws
in the plan, based on their interests not being met.
GENERATE ONE COMMON LIST OF
INTERESTS RATHER THAN A
TWO-COLUMN PRO-CON FORMAT
In the example, the group will create one list of interests and can then use this list
to identify which interests are shared by most members, which ones are considered
highest priority to meet, and other parameters. Avoid a two-column format at this
stage of generating interests—sometimes referred to as pro-con or cost-benefit analy-
sis. The usual process for a two-column format involves naming a solution and then
listing the pros and cons of this solution. Although the intent is to help groups reach
a decision based on a rational weighing of the merits of a particular solution, this
format frequently results in group members’ fixating on a position and then using
the two columns to justify it (the pro) or object to it (the con). The tool doesn’t ap-
pear to help groups identify all their interests when solving a problem and then
search creatively for a position that meets all, or most of, the interests.
ARRANGE THE ROOM SO PEOPLE CAN SEE
EACH OTHER AND THE LIST OF INTERESTS
This is related to Fisher, Ury, and Patton’s idea (1991) of separating the people from
the problem. If group members can see and contribute to a growing list of shared
interests, it helps counter the tendency to see other members of the group as oppo-
sition, or people who are standing in the way of achieving a preferred solution.
USE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE
DISCUSSION TO HELP PEOPLE UNCOVER
INTERESTS
Identifying the interests underlying positions is often like peeling an onion: you get
through the initial position only to find another position under it. This is seldom
due to intentional resistance from the group member; instead, it reflects how deeply
ingrained is our tendency to think in terms of positions.
146 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
21_964948 ch16.qxd 3/3/05 9:47 AM Page 147
For example, picture a group discussion in a company’s training and organiza-
tion development department about when to offer a series of leadership workshops.
One group member, Sarah, may propose the third Tuesday of each month (a posi-
tion). If I were facilitating this discussion and using the ground rule of focusing on
interests rather than positions, I may ask, “What is it about the third Tuesday of
the month that works well, in your view?” If Sarah responds, “If we follow that
schedule, it won’t conflict with Tony’s time management classes,” then the group
has learned something about her interests. However, “not conflicting with Tony’s
time management classes” is still a position, although Sarah’s interests are beginning
to emerge. So I may ask a follow-up question: “And can you say some more about
why it would be good to avoid scheduling at the same time as Tony’s time man-
agement classes?” It may turn out that Tony is needed to teach in both workshops
or that Sarah believes there is a similar audience for both types of classes.
This process of peeling the onion with questions that help group members focus
on their interests is similar to the Total Quality concept of asking “Why?” five times
in order to get to the root cause of a problem. The key is asking the questions in a
way that reflects compassion and curiosity, not cross-examination. It is rare, in my
experience, to have people hold tightly to their interests as a hidden agenda, reveal-
ing them only under duress. It is much more common to see multiple interests
emerge throughout the conversation because people are so accustomed to talking—
and thinking—in terms of positions that it takes some time to recognize and artic-
ulate their interests.
Note that none of these questions requires the use of the word position or
interest. It’s fine to use these terms if the group is familiar with them; in fact, in a
developmental facilitation context, where group members are learning to use the
ground rules themselves, it can be helpful to draw their attention to the distinction
by using the words. However, if you are working in or with a group that views the
words position and interest as jargon, it’s quite possible to use your facilitative skills
to help people focus on the interests underlying their positions without ever using
these words.
Whether I’m facilitating a half-day retreat for a city council or teaching facilitation
skills to an organization over a period of months, I continue to be struck by the
power of Ground Rule Five. Helping group members focus on interests can change
the entire tone and direction of the conversation from its outset. Exploring inter-
ests before moving on to positions frequently shifts the focus from what divides us
to what unites us, enabling people to build on commonalities and create innovative
solutions.
Reference
Fisher, R., Ury, W., and Patton, B. Getting to Yes. (2nd ed.) New York: Penguin Books,
1991.
Interest-Eliciting
Questions
• “What is it about
X [the position] that
makes it a good solu-
tion, in your view?”
• “Can you say some
more about why X is
important to you?”
• “I heard you propose
that the group do X, but
I didn’t hear you say
how this would meet the
needs the group has
identified. Can you say
more about the needs X
would address?”
Exploring interests
before moving on to
positions frequently
shifts the focus from what
divides us to what unites
us, enabling people to build
on commonalities and cre-
ate innovative solutions.
Chapter 16 • Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions | 147
21_964948 ch16.qxd 3/3/05 9:47 AM Page 148
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 149
Chapter 17
Developing Shared
Vision and Values
Anne Davidson
The Group Effectiveness Model highlights clear mission and shared vision in
two factors: group context and group structure. Clients and colleagues often ask us
why the element is repeated. One reason is that the meaning shifts depending on
its scope. Organizational mission, for example, is different from the purpose of an
operating division. I believe a second reason for listing this element twice is the im-
portance of defining vision, mission, and the values underpinning them.
Unclear or misaligned direction is a frequent cause of team failure. Unfortu-
nately, this problem often does not show up in the short run. Teams and groups
may work for months before they recognize that their mission and purpose are at
odds with the organizational direction. I have worked with groups that got as far as
trying to create an implementation plan before discovering that individual mem-
bers had vastly different interpretations of the vision, the mission, or the values. The
team became stuck and had to go all the way back to the beginning of their process,
wasting valuable time and resources.
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF VISION
In discussing vision here, I am not talking about a lofty vision statement with care-
fully crafted wording that goes up on plaques and is seldom referenced. Consistent
with the terminology in The Skilled Facilitator (pp. 27–31), I work with the notion
of vision as a specific, richly detailed picture of a desired future that a group seeks
to create. The focus is more on the dream than the words, on creating a compelling
picture of the way things could be that engages people’s imagination and invites oth-
ers to join in a quest to “reach the far-away lights.” Mission then defines what the
group or organization exists to do, its fundamental purpose. And values describe
what is worthwhile or desirable—what it is most important to do and stand for in
the group or organization.
Visioning has earned a bad name in many quarters as faddish and ineffective. I
believe there are several reasons for this. One is that too much emphasis is placed
Unclear or mis-
aligned direction
is a frequent
cause of team failure.
149
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 150
In ineffective vi-
sioning, too much
emphasis is placed
on lofty, poorly defined
language and not enough
on how the vision will be
realized: the behaviors
and goals that will guide
daily movement toward a
specific dream.
Success in com-
plex adaptive sys-
tems means “fit
with the environment” or
continuous adaptation to
an ever-changing set of
circumstances rather than
trying to close a gap with a
specific ideal that may be-
come irrelevant during the
journey toward it.
on lofty, poorly defined language and not enough on how the vision will be real-
ized: the behaviors and goals that will guide daily movement toward a specific dream.
A second reason is that many managers are less comfortable with imagination than
with analysis of concrete data, so making up a future seems too “touchy feely.” In
other words, they are less accustomed to using their feeling-based or imaginative
brain functions and have little regard for or trust in dreams, metaphors, and feel-
ings as sources of information. More fundamental, I believe there is underlying am-
bivalence about how a vision functions in complex organizations.
According to widely accepted theory, a compelling vision generates what Robert
Fritz (1989) defines as “structural tension,” more popularly known by the term used
in Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990): creative tension. Creative tension is gen-
erated by the gap between a vision and current reality. The desire to close that gap is
said to be the source of the creative energy needed to fully engage purposeful action.
The more specific and visual the vision is, the better defined the gap is. And the bet-
ter defined the gap is, the easier it is for individuals and groups to design specific
actions to move toward their ideal future. I have seen individuals and groups
progress or completely change direction as the result of clarifying their vision
through dialogue, art experiences, reflective writing, or some combination of these
approaches. I believe a powerful vision can make a difference. But I do not start my
work with groups there.
Many organizations stumble when trying to develop shared vision as a founda-
tion for organizational alignment or change. I have had the privilege of working
long term with a number of organizations, either intermittently or continually. Some
of these relationships span a decade or more. Most of these organizations developed
visions or vision statements (or both). I facilitated many of the efforts to generate
these. And yet most did not really stick. The vision statements may be shared by a
few leaders or by those who generated them, but not by others in the organization.
People seldom reference the elements of the vision when making day-to-day deci-
sions or when developing goals or work plans. Vision statements sound great but
do not perform a useful function that makes a performance difference.
I am beginning to deeply challenge the assumptions about how vision works in
large organizations and other complex systems. As I study the fields of complexity
theory and systems thinking, I think of organizations and collections of work or
community groups as more closely following the laws of complex adaptive systems.
Success in complex adaptive systems means “fit with the environment” or con-
tinuous adaptation to an ever-changing set of circumstances rather than trying to
close a gap with a specific ideal that may become irrelevant during the journey to-
ward it. By focusing on fit, change emerges one interaction at a time. It is not
dependent on a predetermined detailed design of a future state. Each decision
changes the landscape, and the future is generated through a complex process of co-
evolution among the individual participants. The result is organizations that are
150 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 151
sustainable over time under adverse conditions, concentrated on growth and agility
rather than any particular end state. They place a premium on attending to relevant
information and improvising to respond rapidly to changing conditions (Olson and
Eoyang, 2001).
Mary Catherine Bateson makes much the same argument in Composing a Life,
her inspirational treatment of the lives of five outstanding women. She writes that
jazz improvisation is an appropriate metaphor for creating success in each of these
lives: “Each of us has worked by improvisation, discovering the shape of our creation
along the way, rather than pursuing a vision already defined” (1989, p. 1). The bi-
ographies make a convincing case that in our rapidly changing world, more is
achieved by evolving a life decision by decision, opportunity by opportunity, chal-
lenge by challenge, based on a few clear principles. To the extent that there is vision,
it is emergent and highly unstable. So at both the personal and organizational levels,
the role of vision is less clear and more complex than much of the literature suggests.
EMPHASIZING VALUES AND PURPOSE
Most resources on developing shared missions and visions recommend starting with
the personal vision of individuals, next discovering shared vision, and then agree-
ing on goals or milestones to close the gap between vision and reality. Many cor-
rectly assess the importance of attending to values as part of a shared vision effort.
The values become “like a figurehead on a ship: a guiding symbol of the behavior
that will help people move toward the vision” (Senge and others, 1994, p. 302). But
most of these resources, which I cherish and use, still underestimate the importance
of values or guiding principles. (See the list of visioning resources at the end of the
chapter.)
The organizations and work groups that I see maximizing the criteria for effec-
tive groups spent significant time discovering or generating a short list of shared core
values. So now I start my shared mission and vision interventions by working first on
core purpose and values.
Jim Collins and Jerry Porras (1994) come closest to articulating the importance
of core values in their examination of enduring, visionary organizations. They
point out that companies enjoying enduring success have a vision comprising both
a core ideology and an envisioned future. The two distinct elements of core
ideology are core values (a system of guiding principles and tenets) and core pur-
pose (the organization’s most fundamental reason for existence). Their work
emphasizes helping organizations discover their authentic values, the ones they
would stick to whether or not they were popular or offered competitive advan-
tage. Success comes from preserving this core and being open to changing
everything else, including the actual products or services on which the organization
was founded.
Chapter 17 • Developing Shared Vision and Values | 151
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 152
In many ways val-
ues supplant vision
for organizations
that aspire to become trans-
formational, generative, or
learning organizations.
Although Collins and Porras’s points relate to organizations as a whole, I have
found the same emphasis to catalyze the passion of work groups at all levels and of
all sizes. In fact, for organizations that aspire to become transformational, generative,
or learning organizations, the values in many ways supplant the vision. That is, the
shared vision becomes to live and learn and change in ways wholly consistent with
the core values. The primary vision is about creating a workplace that is values dri-
ven and fully open to change around those values.
THE PURPOSE OR VALUES (AND MAYBE
VISION) INTERVENTION
My interventions to clarify mission and vision are more productive when I start by
reviewing the purpose and clarifying the values of a group or organization. I follow
essentially the steps below (although often iteratively rather than just sequentially).
1. Review Purpose
I ask a group to review its mission or purpose, asking questions like, “Why does
this group [organization] exist? What are or will be your most important con-
tributions to society? What is the fundamental reason for your existence?” If
mission or purpose statements already exist, this is the time to review and question
these. I encourage deep reevaluation, not just a little editing. Often I encourage
revisiting purpose after values are clarified to check for consistency.
2. Agree About a Basic Set of Authentic Core Values
I spend more time helping groups discover and reach consensus on their core val-
ues than on any other step. There is no “right” set of core values. What is crucial
is how committed the group is to the values and how consistent their collective
and individual behavior is with the values they espouse. Often the real values are
rooted in a group’s history, so at this stage, we may create a group time line, talking
about significant past events that shape or illustrate what is important to this
organization.
Agreeing about core values should be a deeply reflective dialogue, examining
exactly what each value means to the group. It is tempting to use lofty words like
honesty or integrity, but these terms can imply vastly different behaviors to each in-
dividual in the room. One executive team spent five hours discussing the meaning
of honesty before coming to consensus about exactly what they would do or not do
to live out this value. Frequently I help a group develop a list of beliefs that lays out
152 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 153
�
the assumptions or actions that support the core values. Whether or not a list of be-
liefs is added to the list of values, it is critical at this stage to examine in detail the
thinking and behavior that will support each value.
To have a productive dialogue about deeply held values, it is necessary for
groups to understand and practice ground rules consistent with those of the Skilled
Facilitator approach. Group members need to share interests, understand the mean-
ing of consensus and internal commitment, explain their reasoning in detail, and
agree on what important words mean. They also need to grasp the notion of dis-
tinguishing espoused theory from theory-in-use. A statement of core values is a state-
ment of ideals. Actual behavior will always fall short of realizing aspirations. Publicly
recognizing this fundamental distinction is essential in addressing the cynicism that
can breed when inconsistencies between values and behavior are not openly
discussed.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for a further discussion
of the distinction between espoused values and theory-in-use, and Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for
Effective Groups,” page 61, for an introduction to the ground rules.
To create genuine dialogue that generates living values, groups need some aware-
ness of mental models and ground rules before the values discussion is meaningful.
I usually ask group members to complete some reading and then conduct a half- or
full-day training session on mental models and ground rules. With this background,
groups can deeply examine and commit to values that will inform daily actions.
3. Create a Vision
Some individuals and groups are motivated by a more specific picture of their ideal
future. I present this as an option. Several groups have chosen to work on living out
their values for some period of time and then have created a vision after grasping
more fully what image would be consistent with their values. If a group wishes to
develop a shared vision or vision statement, I recommend starting with individual
vision statements. I often use visual exercises, scenarios, or a set of questions for re-
flective writing to help individuals clarify their desires. A wonderful side benefit is
that people often tell very personal stories to illustrate why they are passionate about
elements of their personal vision. Sharing these stories, in my experience, engenders
levels of respect, understanding, and appreciation among the individuals on a team
that build trust and lasting support. Because groups often develop vision scenarios
or statements at some stage, Exhibits 17.1 and 17.2 offer some sample exercises and
questions that have worked well for me.
Chapter 17 • Developing Shared Vision and Values | 153
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 154
Exhibit 17.1 Sample Exercise and Questions for Discovering Personal
Vision
Lifeline Exercise
1. On a blank piece of paper, draw your lifeline. Here we are thinking of your
lifeline as similar to a history time line. Start as far back as you can
remember, and stop at the present time.
2. Draw your lifeline as a graph, with the peaks representing the highs in your
life and the valleys representing the lows.
3. Next to each peak, write a word or two identifying the peak experience. Do
the same for the valleys.
4. Now go back over each peak. For each peak, make a few notes on why this
was a peak experience for you.
Analyze your notes. What themes and patterns are revealed by the peaks in your
life? What important personal strengths are revealed? What do these themes and
patterns tell you about what you are likely to find personally compelling or
important in the future?
Questions for Clarifying Vision
The following questions may help you in clarifying your vision:
1. How would you like to change the world for yourself and your organization?
2. If you could invent the future, what future would you invent for yourself and
your organization?
3. What mission in life absolutely obsesses you? (Don’t be too quick to judge
that nothing obsesses you.)
4. What is your dream about your work?
5. What is the distinctive role or skill of your organization (or department)?
6. About what do you have a burning passion?
7. What work do you find absorbing, involving, enthralling? What will happen in
ten years if you remain absorbed, involved, and enthralled in that work?
8. What does your ideal organization look like?
9. What is your personal agenda? What do you want to prove?
154 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 155
Exhibit 17.2 Group Visioning Scenarios
To help a group create a concrete picture of its shared, desired future, I find it
useful to ask each individual to reflect on an imaginary scenario. Here are a couple
of examples that work well.
Scenario One
Imagine fifteen years into the future. Mount Holly Products [your organization, group,
or community] has just been featured in Fortune Magazine as one of the best
employers [or communities under fifty thousand people, for example] in the country.
A news team is on its way to town to do a story for Sixty Minutes: “What’s So Great
About Mount Holly Products (MHP)?” Each group member will have a brief interview
with the news team and an opportunity to show off one or two of their favorite things
about [living or working] here. In preparation for your interview, describe:
1. What you think Mount Holly Products has accomplished in the past ten years
that makes it special.
2. The key contributions you believe you made to MHP’s progress.
3. What you are personally most passionate about for MHP.
4. What you want the news team to photograph to demonstrate MHP’s progress.
Scenario Two
It is five years from now.You are taking a hot air balloon ride over your facility [or
town].You are thinking back over the past five years and about how many of your
dreams you have achieved. Draw a picture of what you see that represents
progress toward your ideals. Use stick figures, shapes, symbols, words—whatever
quickly expresses your image. Next, write a brief description of what you see in
your picture and what it means to you.
After sharing individual visions, it is easier to establish common ground and
reach consensus about a desired future to work toward. Sometimes the agreement
looks more like one or two broad goals than a fleshed-out vision statement. The im-
portant thing is for the group to have a very specific, challenging, and shared aspi-
ration that will inform their daily actions and that they can clearly communicate to
those who must support its achievement.
RESULTS
The values and beliefs statement from the City of Laurinburg management team in
Exhibit 17.3 illustrates the final product of an intervention like the one I am describing:
The team has successfully used the statement in Exhibit 17.3 to guide its
decisions since 1996. Has it created an organization wholly consistent with
Chapter 17 • Developing Shared Vision and Values | 155
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 156
Exhibit 17.3 Values and Beliefs for the Laurinburg Management Team
The values and beliefs listed below were developed by the Laurinburg Management
Team. They serve as our guiding principles for managing the City of Laurinburg.
They describe our future and will be the basis for decisions and actions taken by the
management staff of the organization. These common values will make us more
effective. They are the foundation for building a sense of teamwork, clarifying why
things are done, and promoting general understanding among employees and the
public of what is important to us. We believe the following statements should serve
as a guide for our actions:
We value:
• Honesty; our actions and communications are free of fraud and deception.
• Collaboration and teamwork.
• People’s contributions to our organization and our community.
• Government; the things we do are important.
• People making informed choices, without threat.
We believe:
• All citizens have equal access to and delivery of the services for which they
qualify.
• We are responsible stewards of the public trust, including money, property,
and the environment.
• The council-manager form of government increases the efficiency and effec-
tiveness of the delivery of services.
• We relate to people in a helpful, courteous manner.
• We gather valid information and share all relevant information.
• People work better when they are committed to what they do.
• We employ people based on qualifications and abilities and employ the best
possible people.
• Individuals are accountable and responsible for their actions.
• People are rewarded for their work based on its quality, quantity, and complexity.
• We have a responsibility to assure that the city has competent employees
and to provide opportunities for them to develop to the best of their
ability.
• We improve service delivery through innovation, and each of us is responsible
for taking the risks associated with innovation.
• A sense of humor is an important part of our behavior.
• In taking individuals’ circumstances into consideration in our actions toward
them.
156 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 157
�
its values? No. Is making decisions based on these values quick and easy?
Not usually. Dealing with the complexities of governing a community (or any The use of the val-
other organization) often requires careful consideration of multiple facets of ues, not one spe-
each issue and a delicate balancing act among various interests. For cific vision or the
example, in trying to create a new water and sewer system extension poli-
cy, the group members found themselves wrestling with the trade-offs
between being stewards of citizens’ tax dollars and being good stewards of
the environment. The most environmentally friendly approaches are often
the most expensive. Trade-offs and best fits with the existing situation are
required. Yet the team reaches few significant decisions without consider-
ing their values and beliefs and how to help the organization move toward
consistency with them. Decisions are revisited less often, their rationale is
clearly understood by every department head, and issues of people not
supporting an agreement during implementation seldom arise.
Since 1996, the Laurinburg team has realized several visions: becoming
an All-America city, revitalizing its downtown, and planning for a major brown-
fields reclamation among them. To accomplish results, the management
team had to collaborate broadly with the city’s governing board and an array
of citizen groups. Throughout, the values have been the lasting guide for
each individual in his or her decisions and actions. The use of the values, not
one specific vision or the wall poster statement, is the significant touchstone.
For this group and others, aligning core values makes all the difference.
See Chapter Forty-Six, “From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn,” page 367, for the
Laurinburg city manager’s account of his personal journey.
Resources
A number of resources offer visioning processes and questions to guide individual
and group thinking. Some of my favorites are:
Block, P. The Empowered Manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
Collins, J., and Porras, J. Built to Last. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
Justice, T., and Jamieson, D. W. The Facilitator’s Fieldbook. New York: AMACOM, 1999.
Senge, P., and others. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
References
Bateson, M. C. Composing a Life. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 1989.
Collins, J., and Porras, J. Built to Last. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
Fritz, R. The Path of Least Resistance. New York: Fawcett-Columbine, 1989.
Olson, E. E., and Eoyang, G. H. Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity
Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2001.
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Senge, P., and others. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
wall poster statement, is
the significant touchstone
for Laurinburg. The values
have been the lasting
guide for each individual’s
decisions and actions.
Chapter 17 • Developing Shared Vision and Values | 157
22_964948 ch17.qxd 3/3/05 9:48 AM Page 158
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 159
Chapter 18
Helping Groups Clarify
Roles and Expectations
Anne Davidson
Unclear roles and unstated expectations are a frequent source of unnecessary and
unproductive group conflict. Conflicts that appear to arise at the group process level
often have at their core misaligned role definitions or implicit and inconsistent ex-
pectations. Consequently, helping groups clarify roles and expectations is one of the
most basic and useful group structure interventions. The roles and expectations in-
tervention answers the questions, “What roles [formal duties] are needed?” and
“How do we expect people to behave while carrying out their duties?”
Our colleague Dick McMahon tells the story of two individuals serving on
an elected board who spent years at odds. Their disagreements affected
the productivity and personal satisfaction of all the other board members.
When asked to facilitate a board retreat and help to deal with these “dif-
ficult” individuals, Dick began by guiding a discussion of what the board
members expected of each other. One of the “difficult” individuals stated that
he wanted the mayor and the other board members to stop having “secret
meetings.” He cited the member with whom he was at odds as frequently
instigating such meetings. Everyone else denied such sessions were occur-
ring. When asked for specifics, the accuser said that he “knew” everyone
else talked by telephone and exchanged information before attending board
meetings, and he gave some specific examples of times this had occurred.
His “partner in crime” immediately asked if this was what the other board
member had been upset about “all this time.” After a yes, the response that
followed was, “Oh, my gosh! Don’t you remember five years ago when I
called you at home about the State Street incident? You told me then to
never again bother you at home with issues like that. So I haven’t. We never
call you because we know you don’t want to be bothered.”
“But I did not mean for you to leave me out of all the information,” the
accuser replied. “I just meant that the State Street issue seemed trivial and
that it could have waited until a later meeting.”
While at one level straightening out this misunderstanding was just a matter of
agreeing on what important words mean (“secret meetings”), at another level the
The roles and ex-
pectations interven-
tion answers the
questions, “What roles [for-
mal duties] are needed?”
and “How do we expect
people to behave while
carrying out their duties?”
159
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 160
�
One of the reasons
the roles and ex-
pectations inter-
vention is so powerful is
that it elicits clarification of
multiple elements of the
group effectiveness model.
issue probably would not have surfaced without structuring a roles and expectations
conversation. In this instance, the board members were able to clarify that no deci-
sions were being made in private. They specified what information to share before
meetings and when and how to share it. The two individuals at odds significantly
improved their relationship and worked together effectively for a number of years
following this discussion.
I have had similar experiences working with top management teams who, for
example, wait for the boss to speak or strategically plan what to present to the boss
without ever clarifying the boss’s desires. In one memorable instance, group members
shared during a roles and expectations conversation that they never worked on any-
thing until they had heard support from the director and the assistant director. If
there was any hint that both individuals did not agree, they assumed a project would
not be implemented. “We just hunker down until we are sure both people named
John see things the same way. And we don’t usually say what we think until we are
pretty sure both of them are on the same page.” For their part, the director and as-
sistant director were extremely frustrated with the team members for not showing
more initiative and not implementing decisions quickly. Working from implicit as-
sumptions about expectations created misalignments for this group that had gone
on for years and significantly degraded the performance of the entire organization.
Time and again, roles and expectations clarification is one of the most systemic
and lasting interventions in facilitation with work groups, appointed and elected
boards, and community project committees
THE POWER OF THE INTERVENTION
One of the reasons the roles and expectations intervention is so powerful is that it
elicits clarification of multiple elements of the group effectiveness model.
Expectations are essentially group norms that grow out of group values and be-
liefs (culture), so each of these elements is discussed. Roles address the more formal
job duties and tasks to be performed. In clarifying roles, it is generally necessary to
revisit group membership and issues of boundary management, asking, for exam-
ple, “What other roles have a deep impact on this group’s effectiveness? Do the in-
dividuals in those roles need to be added to this group?” It is difficult to discuss roles
and expectations productively without asking, “Roles in service of what? How do
our roles link to our purpose? What results are we trying to achieve here? How
are our expectations helping or hindering us in accomplishing our purpose?” Some-
times the group realizes that it must back up a step and revisit its mission and vision.
In these cases, starting with roles and expectations may lead to addressing an even
more fundamental structural problem.
See Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149.
160 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 161
Often I find that group members agree about their purpose even if their visions
for the future differ. But unfortunately, each assumes his or her own personal
expectations are shared (or should be shared) by everyone else. When individuals
behave inconsistently with others’ expectations, they are usually judged harshly, but
the inconsistency is never raised. Over time, an escalating cycle occurs: each person
assumes that those not meeting his or her private expectations are not fully
committed to the group or just “don’t get it.” When this is the case, information
certainly cannot be shared openly and differences candidly discussed. Relationships
become increasingly strained and communication gaps more serious. The inability
to discuss differences about how roles should be performed is viewed as confirma-
tion that the group cannot address other difficult issues. And avoiding difficult is-
sues compromises the group’s creativity and performance. The roles and expectations
intervention can halt this downward spiral. Dealing with ineffective group member
behavior is much less difficult when the group has previously agreed about what
constitutes appropriate behavior.
STEPS OF THE INTERVENTION
If a group has never developed role descriptions or agreed on expectations, allow
some time for preparation in advance of the discussion. Figure 18.1 is an overview
of the roles and expectations intervention. The group will need to agree ahead of
time about which roles to include so members can decide who needs to participate.
A ten- to twelve-member group can generally work through the steps in three to
four hours. More time will be needed if the group needs to revisit its purpose or de-
velop descriptions of new or changing roles. Make sure each group member can be
present for this discussion. If one person is absent, it can make a considerable dif-
ference in the level of commitment the group gains for following expectations and
for future decisions.
Step 1: Identify Critical Roles and Participants
Although usually obvious in hindsight, key roles are rather frequently overlooked
when planning a discussion. Each party must be fully committed to performing his
or her role according to expectations, and full participation in the conversation is
necessary to gain that commitment and shared understanding. When working with
teams and boards, the group usually thinks of including the various roles that cur-
rently exist in the intact group (for example, mayor, manager, board members, di-
rector, department heads). Roles frequently overlooked but crucial to a group’s
performance may be facilitator, consultant, sponsoring manager for a work team,
clerk for an elected board, or town or chamber of commerce staff for a community
group.
Dealing with inef-
fective group mem-
ber behavior is
much less difficult when
the group has previously
agreed about what consti-
tutes appropriate behavior.
If a group has
never developed
role descriptions or
agreed on expectations,
allow some time for prepa-
ration in advance of the
discussion.
Chapter 18 • Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations | 161
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 162
Figure 18.1 Steps in the Roles and Expectations Intervention
Identify
critical roles and
participants
Review/agree
on group
Brainstorm
roles and
expectations
Agree to
accountability
process
Reach
consensus (full
support) for roles and
expectations
Periodically
review and
revise roles and
expectations
Even if those holding key liaison roles will not meet with a group as regular
members, it is important to work with them to agree about how they will support
the group. When working with a new group, it is helpful to have the group imag-
ine roles that will be crucial to accomplishing the defined purpose. A recurring
source of role conflict is to find that certain individuals hold critical information
but do not see themselves as having a role to support a particular group. The group
then finds those individuals unresponsive to important requests, and relationships
and work product suffer. There are limits to how many people and roles can be
productively included in the discussion, but it is important to ensure that the most
critical ones are all in the same room at the same time participating in one
conversation. Then expectations for ancillary roles can be addressed and commu-
nicated separately.
Step 2: Review/Agree on Group
Review or ask the group to review before the discussion any vision, purpose, or goal
statements. Check for agreement about the purpose of the group, and jointly de-
cide if this needs clarification before roles and expectations can be developed. For
162 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 163
example, if a work group realizes it will not need a facilitator or a consulting engineer
for a particular project, it is inefficient to spend time clarifying an unnecessary role
just because such a role has existed in the past or is useful on other projects. It is
often necessary to review step 1 after the purpose is clarified or changed, because
the purpose may now indicate new individuals who should participate in the
conversation.
Step 3: Brainstorm Roles and Expectations
Group members generate a list of expectations for how members will perform in
each of the roles. It is helpful to move from general to specific. If a mayor or man-
ager is also a full member of the group, define general expectations that group mem-
bers have of one another first (for example, come to a meeting fully prepared). Then
add any expectations that relate to special or added responsibilities (for example,
represent the board on a regional task force or keep other departments informed
about project status). We use a prompt like, “I expect other group members to . . .”
and ask each individual to complete the sentence with statements reflecting his or
her own expectations.
When a group already knows or wishes to learn the ground rules for effective
groups, it is helpful to include some of the key principles in the expectations. Many
of the groups we work with create expectations lists that include such items as “clar-
ify the decision-making rule for all important issues” or “be sure all members have
the same valid, relevant information before meetings.” Frequently we recommend
that groups read a short article describing the ground rules (Schwarz, 2002). Some
groups adopt the ground rules as part of their expectations. However, expectations
are often more general in nature and ground rules are adopted or developed sepa-
rately as group norms.
Step 4: Reach Consensus (Full Support) for Roles
and Expectations
Groups seldom agree with all of the items on a brainstormed list of roles and ex-
pectations. The purpose of this step is to identify common ground and adopt only
roles and expectations that are fully supported by every member of the group. To
this end, we clarify and answer questions about each item on the list and then check
with each individual to see if he or she supports each item. This may seem labori-
ous, but it often brings to light hesitations that indicate unresolved concerns. To
prevent future conflicts, it is critical to check into these and to be certain of unre-
strained support for each expectation. The final result is a fully supported and fairly
short list of key expectations for each role that can meaningfully guide the group’s
work together.
Chapter 18 • Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations | 163
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 164
Step 5: Agree to Accountability Process
Role descriptions and shared expectations will not improve group dynamics unless
the members agree to hold one another accountable for behaving consistently with
them. This is the Achilles heel of many groups. Most people say that they want
honest, direct feedback. Yet at the same time they say that they are reluctant to
“embarrass” others or “put them on the spot” by telling them when they fall short
of expectations. Most individuals seem especially fearful of raising the group leader’s
inconsistencies with him or her.
It is critical at this stage to discuss the dilemma created when people want and
need feedback to improve performance but no one is willing to offer it. Reframe with
a group the importance of feedback for mutual learning. Point out that withholding
feedback discounts another’s ability to learn and grow. Help the group explore the
risk of not raising an issue—for example, deteriorating performance, impaired prod-
uct quality, the high cost of firing and hiring new people, or hampered competitive
position. This discussion may elicit an even deeper examination of the group’s norms,
values, and theories-in-use. At a minimum, this is an opportunity to reinforce skills
for raising potentially undiscussable issues. The group should have a clear under-
standing of when and how to give each other feedback on meeting expectations.
Step 6: Periodically Review and Revise Roles
and Expectations
Roles and expectations change as group responsibilities evolve and as members’ skills
develop. Part of accountability is to regularly review the expectations and assess
whether and how the group is meeting them. Many groups we work with annually
review their roles and expectations statements, deciding what to keep and what to
change or drop. If even one member of the group changes, the group should review
roles and expectations and invite additions and changes from the new members.
This is an important part of integrating new members into a group and of building
and continuing shared commitment to expectations. Periodic reviews may take only
a few minutes; annual review and revision may take an hour or so.
CHANGES AND ADAPTATIONS TO
THE INTERVENTION
In practice, the basic steps of the roles and expectations intervention may be ex-
panded or adapted. Two particularly useful adaptations are responsibility charting
and use of scenarios.
Responsibility Charting
Developing a chart of critical functions for each important role is particularly use-
ful when creating a new team or restructuring a work team that is expected to re-
main intact permanently or for a long project. Responsibility charts also become
164 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 165
Useful Questions for Each Step of the Intervention
1. Identify critical roles and decide who needs to participate:
• What are the most important roles in this group at this time?
• Who is in charge in each situation we regularly face?
• What formal role or job descriptions already exist? Do these need
to be reviewed at this time?
• From whom will we need critical information and support in the
near future? Do these individuals need to be group members?
What are the consequences of not creating explicit expectations
with those individuals whether or not they are group members?
2. Review group purpose:
• What is your understanding of this group’s central purpose?
• What key contributions do you think this group can make?
• What are your hopes and dreams for this group? What are you
personally most passionate about for this group?
• What are the group’s statutory responsibilities?
• For what critical outcomes is this group responsible?
3. Brainstorm roles and expectations:
• What are your expectations of yourself as a member of this group?
• What do you expect of other group members? Of the individuals
who fill each of the important roles identified in step 1?
• What are examples of times you have been effective as a group?
Why were you effective? What behaviors do you want to continue?
• What are examples of times you were ineffective as a group? Why
do you think this occurred? What are examples of behaviors you
want to improve?
• What understandings do you have for communicating issues, con-
cerns, or complaints to one another?
4. Reach consensus on roles and expectations:
• Is there any expectation listed that does not seem fair or legitimate
for this group?
• Are there any similar expectations listed that can be combined?
• Have you listed any expectations that even one member cannot
commit to working to fulfill?
5. Agree about how to hold one another accountable:
• If you think another party is not fulfilling an expectation or respon-
sibility, how will you raise this with him or her?
• How will you decide if the group or individual members are or are
not meeting expectations?
6. Periodically review and revise roles and expectations:
• When will you review these expectations to determine how well
you are meeting them?
• What process will you use to integrate the expectations of new
members when membership changes?
Chapter 18 • Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations | 165
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 166
increasingly useful as a team becomes more self-managing because they can indicate
which responsibilities or roles members will fill now, in six months, or in a year.1 A
brief example is shown in Table 18.1.
Creating a role analysis this detailed takes teams several sessions and often in-
volves assistance from human resource specialists or outside consultants. However,
it can form the basis of very productive conversations about what is expected, how
a team will develop, and how members will be evaluated.
Table 18.1 Sample Responsibility Chart
Roles
Team
Members
Now
Team
Members
in Six
Months
Leader
Now
Leader
in Six to
Twelve
Months
Sponsoring
Manager
System management
Approve applications
designs X X X
Set conversion
schedule X X
Performance
management
Perform quarterly
reviews X
Perform annual reviews X X
Team development
Train new team
members X X
Grant module training
certification X X
Source: Adapted from the Technology Work Group Charter, Town of Carrboro, North Carolina (2000).
166 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 167
Sample Roles and Expectations
from Real Work Groups
Real groups often develop expectations that reflect their current concerns.
Although the examples here are not all precisely worded, they were developed
and used by groups I facilitated. The emphasis in my facilitation was not on
elegant wording. Rather, the written expectation is an artifact or reminder of a
significant group conversation. Meanings sometimes shift, so regular review
and clarification are needed for statements like these to serve their purpose
over time.
Management Team Members [Expectations] of One Another
• Help monitor the consistency with which we fulfill our mission and goals
across the organization.
• Communicate shared accountability for success throughout the
organization—”upward” and “downward.”
• Before deciding important issues, clarify who decides and how we
decide.
• Agree about exactly what supporting a decision means.
• Balance informality with task accomplishment.
• Do not list an item as a priority unless it is genuinely important and we
are all committing to get it done.
• Support each other outside meetings. Don’t talk negatively to employ-
ees about each other.
• It is acceptable to use each other as a sounding board to define difficult
issues and to plan for future conversations.
• We accept our responsibility to fully understand important issues by
doing our homework, asking questions, and insisting on full discussion
of each important issue.
Management Team Members of the CEO
• Help us coordinate our work but do not run our departments for us.
• Keep us informed of key board issues and concerns.
• Communicate with all group members on important issues, not just with
one or two.
• Explain your reasoning and intent when you make a request.
• Be open to hearing things from us that you may not like; don’t “kill the
messenger.”
Chapter 18 • Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations | 167
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 168
CEO of Management Team Members
• Take responsibility for getting the information you need; read the agen-
da ahead of meetings and ask for additional information if you need it.
• Monitor your own behavior for consistency with group expectations and
ground rules.
• Let me know if you think I have failed to behave consistently with
expectations.
• Share responsibility for keeping meetings on track and group process
well managed.
• Monitor performance of all key programs, and keep me informed of
results.
• Consult me on professional resources available to assist with your
decisions.
Work Team Members of One Another
• Develop a process for setting priorities and check with all team mem-
bers before changing priorities.
• Come to meetings prepared.
• Take turns scribing and preparing minutes and agendas.
• Commit to meet the timetables we set for ourselves and to assist others
when unforeseen events create slippage.
• Make decisions based on verifiable facts or best available sources.
• We respect our differences, separating differences in communication
style and preferred ways of participating from fundamental values
differences.
Scenario Development
Sometimes groups find it difficult to develop expectations in the abstract. A useful
adaptation of the roles and expectations intervention is to create three to five short
scenarios of one to two paragraphs each that reflect recent experiences. It is helpful
if groups can think of one or two times when they worked well together and one or
two times when problems occurred. Then, by considering questions like the fol-
lowing, the group can clarify their expectations:
• Think about the situations in which the group worked well together. What
did each person do that contributed to this effectiveness? What do you ex-
pect one another to continue to do to support the group’s effectiveness?
• Think about the situations in which the group was not as effective as it might
have been. What did not happen that you would expect to see happen in the
future?
168 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 169
• What other commitments would you make or ask others to make in situa-
tions like the ones described in the sidebar “Sample Roles and Expectations
from Real Work Groups”?
Note
1. For more a more detailed discussion of responsibility charting and additional
examples, see Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman (1995).
References
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman, A. M., Jr. Designing Team-Based Organi-
zations: New Forms for Knowledge Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
Schwarz, R. “The Ground Rules for Effective Groups.” Chapel Hill, N.C.: Roger Schwarz
& Associates, 2002. [www. schwarzassociates.com].
Town of Carrboro, North Carolina. “Technology Work Group Charter.” Carrboro, N.C.:
Town of Carrboro, 2000.
Chapter 18 • Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations | 169
23_964948 ch18.qxd 3/3/05 1:57 PM Page 170
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 171
Chapter 19
Using the Skilled
Facilitator Approach to
Strengthen Work Groups
and Teams
Anne Davidson
Much of what we have said so far about the Skilled Facilitator approach implies
that we are interacting with teams and similar work groups. My own early work
focused almost exclusively on work teams, and I continue to facilitate and consult
extensively with organizations trying to improve or establish team-based structures.
TSF is a powerful addition to the practice of creating work teams or any collabora-
tive work system.
WHAT ARE WORK GROUPS AND TEAMS?
Individuals and organizations frequently disagree about what a work team is and is
not. Some use team to define formally chartered groups that share a specific pur-
pose or outcome and use the term group for all other collections of individuals. In
The Wisdom of Teams, for example, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) state that “a team
is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a com-
mon purpose, performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves
mutually accountable” (p. 45). Katzenbach (1997) also writes specifically about “The
Myth of the Top Management Team,” pointing out that “a so-called top team sel-
dom functions as a real team” (p. 83) because of the absence of many of the factors
such as specific performance goals and mutual accountability for tasks.
In the Skilled Facilitator approach, we use the terms work group and team in-
terchangeably. In either case, we are referring to “a set of people with specific inter-
dependent roles who are collectively responsible for producing some output (service,
product or decision) that can be assessed, and who manage their relationships with
those outside the group” (The Skilled Facilitator, p. 20).
171
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 172
�
In the Skilled Facili-
tator approach, we
use the terms
work group and team in-
terchangeably. In either
case, we are referring to “a
set of people with specific
interdependent roles who
are collectively responsible
for producing some output
(service, product or deci-
sion) that can be assessed,
and who manage their rela-
tionships with those outside
the group” (The Skilled
Facilitator, p. 20).
The first steps in
using the Skilled
Facilitator ap-
proach with work groups
are to clearly specify inter-
ests and develop a solid
contract to address the
interests.
The factors or prin-
ciples that create
successful teams
and collaborative organiza-
tions are precisely those
addressed by the Skilled
Facilitator.
The level of interdependency and types of responsibility shift with the role of the
team, but the key factors of interdependency, shared responsibility, and boundary man-
agement are present in some form whenever we use the terms team or work group.
It often helps during initial contracting to clearly define such important terms
as group, team, and teamwork. More important is to discover the interests behind a
request. Many people request teams or team-building activities when what they seek
are collaborative behaviors like listening, joint problem solving, or effective conflict
management. Or they want to create teams or a team-based organization as a means
of reducing hierarchy and improving responsiveness to customers. Debating whether
a group is or is not a “real team” is not often a productive discussion. There is a
range, from a specific work group with a narrowly defined charge through a top
team with strategic responsibilities, to an organization based on teamwork and mu-
tual accountability. Beyerlein, Freedman, McGee, and Moran (2003) at the Center
for Collaborative Organizations (formerly the Center for the Study of Work Teams)
define the range most clearly when they describe three levels of collaborative work
systems: traditional teams, team-based organizations, and collaborative organiza-
tions. TSF skills are powerful in addressing the full range of interests, but the play-
ers, the interventions, and the time and resource commitment differ significantly.
The first steps in using the Skilled Facilitator approach with work groups are to
clearly specify interests and develop a solid contract to address the interests.
WHY IS TSF SO POWERFUL?
Over the past decade or so, a large body of new research has identified critical factors
for work group success in a wide range of contexts. There is a good deal of consis-
tency among the studies. They emphasize the importance of team structure (pur-
pose, roles, norms, accountability), supportive organizational context, and group
process skills like conflict resolution and decision making. The factors or principles
that create successful teams and collaborative organizations are precisely those
addressed by the Skilled Facilitator.
The Group Effectiveness Model (GEM) specifically addresses issues of group
context such as rewards, material resources, and information. Each of the critical
group structure criteria is also addressed in the GEM: clear mission and goals, mo-
tivating task, clearly defined roles, membership, and group norms. And the group
process elements of the model are essentially the same ones identified by the
researchers as important for effective teams: ability to solve problems and make
decisions, manage conflict, communicate, and manage organizational boundaries.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and Chapter Fifteen, “Using the
Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135, on the model and its applications.
In addition, TSF adds two components that are missing from much of the team
and group development literature. First, the approach is internally consistent and
172 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 173
integrated. Using the tools of the approach, one can address all of the critical success
factors. You do not have to teach a new vocabulary for each skill set or ask groups to
develop fundamentally different skills. Second, the approach offers behaviorally spe-
cific methods for addressing the components of effectiveness. Many programs iden-
tify success factors, and some offer specific examples of items like meeting guidelines.
But few provide tools like the Ground Rules for Effective Groups that cut across mul-
tiple success factors. Rather than having to learn lots and lots of different models for
boundary spanning, team chartering, decision making, and so forth, work groups
that master the ground rules can move fluidly from task to task in a consistent and
skilled manner. TSF provides both the fundamental underpinnings for each team
success factor and, in most cases, the specific behaviors that support them.
HOW DID TSF HELP A TEAM-BASED
ORGANIZATION?
At one point in my career, I helped a large utility set up self-directed work teams:
We used an array of training materials and models to help the teams get start-
ed. Their initial training took eight days over the course of three weeks. Topics
covered included the stages of group development, how to create a team
vision and develop measurable objectives, a nine-step problem-solving
model, guidelines for productive meetings, a conflict management process,
and tips for dealing with “overbearing” group members. Teams completed
experiential exercises and developed their own initial charter as a part of their
training. They were also assigned a facilitator, whom they helped to choose,
to work with them for the first few months of their formation. We thought we
were doing everything necessary to build a strong foundation for effective
teams.
But the results were disappointing. A few teams produced one or two fin-
ished projects, but most floundered. None was able to meet consistently on
their own without feeling they needed guidance from their facilitator.
Facilitators were quickly overwhelmed trying to support seven or eight teams
each. In refresher sessions, we found that all the teams had significant gaps
in their skill set.
About this time, I began using the TSF approach in my practice. This
led me to introduce the Group Effectiveness Model to a meeting of team
leaders at the utility and to ask them to diagnose which elements were
working well and which contributed to less-than-stellar results. The leaders
did not all agree, but each could pick out three or four key elements in the
GEM that were problematic (or altogether missing) for their team. Most did
agree on one thing: there were too many different tools and techniques in
our team training program. They could not figure out when to use what. And
they still got stuck in disagreements and felt as if they made decisions with-
out good information. Most had problems getting managers who had for-
merly controlled data and processes to release reports the teams needed
to make improvements or to manage their own processes. In general, the
leaders advised abandoning the team process.
TSF provides both
the fundamental
underpinnings for
each team success factor
and, in most cases, the
specific behaviors that
support them.
Chapter 19 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams | 173
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 174
�
A team chartering
process is similar
to, and as impor-
tant as, the contracting
process that supports
effective facilitation or
consultation.
Instead, we went through a series of meetings in which we introduced
an early version of the GEM and discussed it across all levels of the orga-
nization. We also revised the training, reduced it to four days, and replaced
a number of the tools with an introduction to what were then the sixteen
ground rules of the Skilled Facilitator approach. We began to use the GEM
as the basis for chartering teams rather than having a separate chartering
system. It took about six months to introduce the revisions to the teams, and
the results were by no means perfect. We still did not address the issue of
mental models effectively, and over time this created additional problems.
But the improvement was dramatic. Teams began to get results because
they were more focused and could develop valid information more easily. A
smaller, more targeted set of tools allowed them to concentrate their efforts
on a manageable set of skills. The successes achieved generated energy to
continue with and improve the team processes. And the trainers responsi-
ble for developing new teams reduced the manual from two thick volumes to
just over one hundred pages in one notebook. The team journey became an
important stage in the organization’s becoming more collaborative, more
profitable, and more focused on serving customers.
See the section on chartering teams below. See also Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without
the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217.
HOW DOES TSF STRENGTHEN TEAM
CHARTERING?
A team chartering process is similar to, and as important as, the contracting process
that supports effective facilitation or consultation. Developing a clear working agree-
ment lays the foundation for an effective work group. The initial inclusion of the
critical success factors happens during chartering. Early in my work with teams, I
thought charters useful but perhaps not critical, especially not for internal teams
working within a broad team process shared across an organization. A few experi-
ences with teams and their sponsoring managers taught me to value the chartering
process and to treat it as sacred.
In one memorable experience, I helped establish a team of employees charged
with revising the policy for after-hours callback:
During the initial meeting, the sponsoring manager told the team, “I will
agree to try whatever you recommend, even if I disagree with it. I will give
anything you come up with a shot, as long as it does not increase our over-
time pay budget more than 5 percent. I would like to see you reduce that
budget. Anything else goes that is legal.”
Months later (and following several unsuccessful attempts to get the
manager to go over preliminary recommendations), the team presented their
recommendations to a council that included the CEO and other top man-
agers in the organization. The sponsoring manager became visibly upset
during the presentation. At the conclusion, he jumped up and said, “That is a
terrible policy; I did not agree to it.You have to go back to the drawing board.”
174 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 175
Luckily, the manager’s initial agreement was written into a team charter. One
of the team members took what he deemed a significant risk (in front of the
top executives) and reminded the sponsoring manager of what was in the
charter. The manager immediately apologized, shared his concerns, and
promised to give the recommendation his support despite his reservations.
Without the charter, the team member may not have spoken up, the recom-
mendations would have been shelved, and the team would likely have given
up and become cynical about the team process. Instead, the experience
added to the team’s sense of accountability and authority and gave other
teams more faith in the process and management’s support of it.
What I learned from the experience was not only the importance of getting
agreements about purpose and process into a written charter. I also recognized that
we had missed an important element of the charter: clarifying the sponsoring man-
ager’s role and responsibilities during the development of the team’s recommendation
so that we had his commitment to review the team’s work regularly and offer his
feedback. By overlooking this agreement with the manager up front, we had con-
tributed to placing him in the dilemma of either having to accept a decision he had
reservations about or turning it down and alienating employees. Without owning
and addressing our part in creating the problem, we risked alienating other spon-
soring managers. This experience led me to advise groups to develop more complete
charters that considered the whole system in which they operated.
I began taking two steps: first, I introduce groups briefly to the ground rules
and invite them to use the ground rules during our discussions for developing a
charter; second, I spend ten to twenty minutes introducing the GEM to a group,
and we decide which elements are most important for their team charter. I advo-
cate for the basic elements that I find important to almost all teams: clear purpose,
clearly defined roles, agreement about group norms, a boundary management or
escalation process, and a clear understanding of how to get and share information
and resources. Within these elements, many others can be discussed and agreed on,
such as the role and expectations of the sponsoring manager, the rewards available
to the team, and how the team purpose fits into the organizational mission. Even
if the group does not practice the ground rules during these discussions, part of
my agreement with them is that I will use them to intervene and help the group
have a productive discussion. My use of the rules results in good modeling for the
group, so that they often decide to use the Skilled Facilitator ground rules or prin-
ciples as part of their process, and we develop a sound charter that supports groups
over time.
Charters are living documents. Just having a written charter does not guarantee
a successful group. While it is important to have a document to reference agreements,
the key value is the process that people go through to develop a charter and the shared
meaning and commitment they generate. During the process, a good charter is also
adapted for the particular circumstance, so that no two look alike. Exhibit 19.1 is an
excerpt from a charter developed using the process I have described.
While it is impor-
tant to have a doc-
ument to reference
agreements, the key value
is the process that people
go through to develop a
charter and the shared
meaning and commitment
they generate.
Chapter 19 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams | 175
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 176
Exhibit 19.1 Excerpts from the Town of Carrboro Technology Work Group
Charter, March 2000
Name: Technology Work Group
Work Group Purpose
The purpose of the Technology Work Group is to provide recommendations to the
management team on matters relating to Town information systems.
Work Group Tasks
Typical tasks may include:
1. Assessing technology needs and updating the strategic plan.
2. Working toward a centralized, computerized information system for the Town.
3. Recommending technology policies to the Management Team (department
heads, assistant manager and manager). A top priority in this area is public
records law compliance.
4. Recommending systems standards and service priorities.
5. Helping to span boundaries between “common” and departmental projects
and sharing information about technology related to day-to-day activities in
departments. For example, helping individual departments decide the role of
technology for them and providing a forum to discuss and to make
recommendations about variances from the technology plan. . . .
8. Being a catalyst for ideas and pilot projects. Recommending projects.
Projects will be the responsibility of the department implementing them.
9. Helping identify training needs, work with Network Administrator and
Management Team to set up training.
Expectations of the Work Group and Work Group Members
The Management Team expects the Work Group to:
• Create a work plan that supports the group’s purpose and implement
the plan.
• Provide information regularly to the management team for purposes of
accountability and information sharing. The Work Group will report two times a
year to the Management Team and informally to the sponsoring manager
(Assistant Town Manager) as needed. The Management Team expects the
work group to make decisions at the lowest level possible and to avoid unnec-
essary reporting.
• Commit to getting valid, relevant information from all departments before
making recommendations and decisions.
• Provide decision options supported by valid information.
176 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 177
Escalation Path
The escalation path for questions, recommendations and decisions that cannot be
decided within the Work Group will be from the Work Group to the Network
Administrator. The Network Administrator will work with project leaders and report
to the sponsoring manager. If necessary or desired, the project leader may meet
with the sponsoring manager or invite the sponsoring manager to meet with the
Work Group. The Work Group may escalate issues to the Management Team, if
necessary, and from the Town Manager to the Town Council. The final level of
escalation will depend upon the issue being addressed.
Management Team’s Commitment to the Technology Work Group
The Management Team makes the following commitments to the Work Group:
• Members will be given reasonable time to attend Work Group meetings and
perform Work Group tasks.
• The management team will respond to recommendations from the
Technology Work Group within a reasonable, mutually agreed-upon time
frame. The management team will share with the Work Group actions to be
taken based upon the Group’s recommendations or provide explanations for
not taking action.
• The management team will work with the Work Group to design ways to rec-
ognize the Group’s contributions to the organization.
Key Roles
Sponsoring manager for the Work Group (liaison to management team)—Assistant
Town Manager
Facilitator—Anne Davidson will assist the Work Group initially and be available on
an as-needed basis
Work Group Coordinator—Will schedule meetings, book meeting rooms, open
meetings and assist the project leader(s), who will lead meetings
Project Chairs—Individual Work Group members will take the lead on specific
projects and chair meetings related to those projects.
Liaison to Sponsoring Manager—The Network Administrator will fill this role by
meeting with the Work Group, working with the Project Chairs, and reporting
regularly to Assistant Town Manager
Other Advisors—as needed
Membership Criteria
The revised list of criteria to use when selecting Work Group Members is that
candidates should be:
1. Knowledgeable about technology or willing to learn.
2. Willing to respect the opinions of others.
Chapter 19 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams | 177
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 178
3. Broadly representative of the organization (good mix of department and job
level representation).
4. Willing to spend reasonable time to attend Work Group meetings and
perform Work Group Tasks.
5. Willing to accept the fact that the group will function by charter.
6. Willing to work for the good of the group and to fully support the decisions of
the group.
7. Interested in serving as a Work Group member.
Group Norms
[Included were the TSF ground rules and a short set of meeting guidelines.]
The principles and
tools of the Skilled
Facilitator ap-
proach are just as valuable
for top management teams
as for teams responsible
for specific work products
or processes.
WILL THE SAME PROCESS WORK WITH TOP
MANAGEMENT TEAMS?
Management groups at the top of organizations (at least traditional, hierarchical or-
ganizations) often do not have tangible performance goals for which they are mu-
tually accountable, and their purpose is much broader than that of most
organizational teams. But I have found principles and tools of the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach just as valuable for top management teams as for teams responsible for
specific work products or processes. I believe the elements of the GEM may need
to be more broadly defined. For example, the top team’s mission and vision may be
indistinguishable from the organization’s mission and vision. The elements of group
context may take on more significance for a management team because they are
often the one group that can change elements like the reward structure, the perfor-
mance feedback process, and the physical environment. They can even change the
organization’s entire mission.
Although the elements in an executive team charter may be different from those
in other team charters, I find it just as valuable for top teams to develop written char-
ters. Part of the reason can be seen by examining the Carrboro Technology Work
Group Charter example in Exhibit 19.1. For the work group to manage its bound-
aries and command the necessary resources to function, it needed certain commit-
ments from the organization’s management team, its top executives. The list of
management team commitments runs longer than the sample here, and those
commitments created the framework in which the team could begin to operate in a
context that was traditionally hierarchical. In other words, unless and until the culture
of the larger organization changed, the Technology Work Group needed the top team
to create space for the work group to operate. And for the executive team to carry
out its commitments, each member needed to share responsibility and accountabil-
ity with all others, even if they were not interdependent around their other tasks.
178 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 179
In organizations that strive to become more team-based or collaborative, such
as learning organizations, a written executive team charter takes on even greater sig-
nificance. The executive management team provides overall strategic direction for
the organization and fosters the kinds of values and behaviors that must support a
move to more collaborative processes. “The importance of leadership from this team
cannot be overestimated. Unless the macrocontext is brought into alignment with
the team approach, organizational members will be caught in the tension between
the new and old ways of operating” (Mohrman, Cohen, and Mohrman, 1995,
p. 263). Mohrman, Cohen and Mohrman outline four large clusters of responsi-
bilities for executive teams in team-based organizations: (1) setting and communi-
cating corporate strategy and goals, (2) designing the organization’s structure and
systems, (3) orchestrating performance management of business units, and (4) mod-
eling team-oriented norms. They found that what separated effective from ineffec-
tive management teams were “the ability . . . to develop a shared understanding of
where and how they are leading the organization, the extent to which the team plans
and sets goals collaboratively, and the extent to which the team is managed (and
manages itself ) as a team” (pp. 266–267). Having a written charter that addresses
these elements is particularly helpful in communicating direction to other employ-
ees (and customers) and to modeling the desired values and norms.
The components of the Skilled Facilitator approach address specifically the be-
haviors required of the top team and help its members develop the skills necessary to
set goals collaboratively. Here is a list of the elements in the management team char-
ter of one executive group that has made significant progress in its journey toward
becoming a more collaborative organization:
• Purpose of the management team (strategic direction)
• Membership criteria (who is included, the rationale for inclusion, and
the conditions under which new members may be added permanently or
temporarily)
• Values and beliefs of the management team (a statement of the importance
of values and beliefs in guiding management team decisions and a list of the
specific values and beliefs the group seeks to embody)
See Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149, for an example of a set
of management team values and beliefs.
• Meeting guidelines (under what conditions the team will and will not meet)
• Decision criteria (which types of decisions require consensus and how this
will be reached)
• Group norms (Skilled Facilitator ground rules)
�
The components of
the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach ad-
dress specifically the
behaviors required of the
top team and help its
members develop the
skills necessary to set
goals collaboratively.
Chapter 19 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams | 179
24_964948 ch19.qxd 3/3/05 9:50 AM Page 180
If they do not make a clear
choice about the values
the team seeks to live by,
then the executive team
charter is likely to be inter-
nally inconsistent and in-
consistent with the very
principles the top man-
agers are asking others in
the organization to follow.
The process for developing the written charter is no different from that of any
other team. However, I do find it even more important to address mental models
early on with an executive team. Team members at the top have frequently reached
their position by and been rewarded for using unilateral control strategies, and it is
important for them to understand this.
If they do not make a clear choice about the values the team seeks to live by, then
the executive team charter is likely to be internally inconsistent and inconsistent with
the very principles the top managers are asking others in the organization to follow.
Obviously, this is a recipe for disaster. The result will not be a collaborative organi-
zation but increased distancing, avoidance, and cynicism. So I tend to take more time
initially with executive teams to help them understand unilateral control and mutual
learning, as well as ground rules, before we undertake developing a charter.
References
Beyerlein, M. M., Freedman, S., McGee, C., and Moran, L. Beyond Teams. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2003.
Katzenbach, J. R. “The Myth of the Top Management Team.” Harvard Business Review,
1997, 75(6), 82–91.
Katzenbach, J. R., and Smith, D. K. The Wisdom of Teams. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press, 1993.
Mohrman, S. A., Cohen, S. G., and Mohrman, A. M., Jr. Designing Team-Based Organi-
zations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
180 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 181
�
Chapter 20
Using the Ground
Rules in E-Mail
Roger Schwarz
For many organizations, e-mail has become a primary method for communi-
cating. Compared with face-to-face conversation, e-mail presents additional chal-
lenges to communicating effectively. E-mail doesn’t convey your nonverbal
behavior and doesn’t allow you to observe others’ nonverbal reactions to your be-
havior. And it doesn’t allow you to immediately check others’ reactions and re-
spond accordingly. However, unlike real-time conversation, e-mail allows you to
review and edit what you “say” before the recipients “hear it.”
I use several steps for writing e-mail: (1) I think about what I want to say
before I start writing (or sometimes, by writing I figure out what I want to say),
(2) write my e-mail with the mutual learning approach and the ground rules in
mind, (3) review my message for congruency, and (4) hit the Send button when
I’m satisfied that my e-mail is congruent.
Keep in mind that you do not need to use this process for all your e-mail.
Many e-mails are short comments or questions about simple logistical matters.
The process I describe in this chapter becomes more valuable as your e-mail mes-
sages involve matters that may be ambiguous, involve people with differing points
of view, or are challenging in some other way.
APPLYING THE GROUND RULES
Many of the ground rules are used in the same way in e-mail as in face-to-face
conversation. Examples include explaining your reasoning and intent and focus-
ing on interests, not positions. However, some ground rules need to be ap-
proached differently because e-mail does not allow the same degree of interaction
as face-to-face conversation.
For a review of the ground rules, see Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Some ground rules
need to be ap-
proached differ-
ently because e-mail does
not allow for the same de-
gree of interaction as face-
to-face conversation. The
process here becomes
more valuable as e-mail
messages involve matters
that may be ambiguous, in-
volve people with differing
points of view, or are chal-
lenging in some other way.
181
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 182
Test Assumptions and Inferences
In face-to-face conversation, you can immediately test an inference or assumption
you are making. And if your inference or assumption turns out to be inaccurate,
you can immediately change what you had planned to say. In e-mail, testing infer-
ences and assumptions takes more time.
There are at least two approaches to this. First, you can state your assumption or
inference, test it with others, and wait for a response before continuing your
thoughts. The advantage of this approach is that you avoid spending time writing
on a subject that may be based on invalid information. In addition, to the extent
that your assumptions and inferences about other team members are inaccurate, you
avoid contributing to defensive reactions on the part of others by continuing to dis-
cuss your concerns about an issue that are based on invalid information. For exam-
ple, if you have assumed that a teammate had not followed through on her work,
you might write, “Susan, I have some concerns about not receiving your out-
lines last week. My concerns are based on my inference that you were going
to get them to me by last Friday at close of business, because you said you
would get them to me by the end of the week. Before I continue, I want to
check to see: Was my inference accurate?”
In the second approach, you also state your assumption and inference. How-
ever, you then continue your thoughts, stating that you are continuing assuming
that your assumption or inference is accurate but recognizing that it may not be.
The advantage of this approach is that if your assumption or inference is accurate,
you reduce the number of e-mails needed to convey your thoughts. For example,
you might write, “I think that we should use the Internet exclusively to publicize
the database because I’m assuming that most of our target population has
Internet access. Does anyone have any information about my assumption? If
my assumption is valid (and it may not be), then we could use the Internet in
several ways. First, we could . . . Second, . . . ”
Combine Advocacy and Inquiry
One purpose of this ground rule is to find out how others see things differently and
to use these differences to make better decisions. For example, in face-to-face con-
versation you might say, “I think we should begin the project by spending time
agreeing on our roles and how we will work together. I am suggesting this be-
cause I think if we spend a few hours in the beginning clarifying how we will
work, we can avoid getting bogged down a number of times later. Does any-
one see this differently?”
In e-mail, you would write the same message. Then you would be faced with
the same choice discussed in testing assumptions and inferences: whether to wait
182 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 183
for a response or continue your thoughts. The same advantages and disadvantages
apply here.
Share Relevant Nonverbal Information
Although it is less ambiguous when you express your feelings using words, in face-
to-face conversation, you can use tone of voice, facial expressions, and body lan-
guage to convey feelings. In e-mail you are limited essentially to words. To convey
this nonverbal information in e-mail, it’s necessary to convert the feelings in your
tone of voice, facial expressions, and body language into words. To do this, pay at-
tention to what you are feeling as you are writing an e-mail. Then describe the spe-
cific things that others have said or done (explain your reasoning and intent) that
lead you to feel this way. Check whether others see it differently. Also consider the
possibility that your feelings may result partly from your own behavior (for exam-
ple, you are frustrated because you did not raise an issue that needed to be raised)
or with something unrelated to the situation.
For example, you might say, “My understanding was you would personally
provide me the data by last Friday or find someone who could. Is that correct?
If so, I’m frustrated because by not receiving the data by last Friday, we missed
the November cutoff for submitting the proposal. I’m wondering, was there
anything I did that contributed to your not being able to submit the data?
Jointly Design Next Steps
Because e-mail is less interactive than face-to-face conversation, it is easier to act uni-
laterally. I jointly design next steps by suggesting a process and then asking others
whether that process meets their needs. For example, I might write, “I think that be-
fore we discuss solutions for the downsizing, we should identify our interests,
and then craft a solution based on them. Anyone see any problems with that
approach?”
Save Undiscussable Issues for Face-to-Face or
Telephone Conversations
Even with using the ground rules, e-mail still has limits, so I use the telephone or,
if feasible, face-to-face conversation for what have been undiscussable issues or is-
sues that I think may be difficult for me or for others to discuss. The other person’s
voice or, better yet, presence provides nonverbal data that we can use to test infer-
ences. Being in the same room (or at least on the telephone) also allows more
personal interaction.
Chapter 20 • Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail | 183
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 184
�
ANALYZING AND EDITING YOUR E-MAIL
Your ability to communicate effectively, either face-to-face or in e-mail, increases as
you become more aware of what you are thinking and feeling (your left-hand col-
umn) and are able to share your thoughts and feelings in a way that is consistent
with the core values and ground rules. Generally, the larger the gap is between your
e-mail message and your left-hand column, the less productive it will be.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Twenty-
Seven, “Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case,” page 235.
To narrow the gap, as you review your e-mail, compare it with your left-hand
column. Look for things that you are thinking and feeling but have not put into the
e-mail. Is your e-mail based on assumptions that you haven’t tested? Are you with-
holding relevant information?
Again, as in face-to-face conversation, simply sharing your left-hand column in
ways that are consistent with the ground rules is often not enough. In difficult con-
versations, we often use a unilateral control approach that makes it difficult to share
what is in our left-hand column. Consider, for example, if you are thinking, “This
person hasn’t done her assignment in two weeks, and I have had to do extra work
as a result. She is simply lazy. I know she is trying to get out of doing her share.” If
you were reluctant to share these thoughts in their current form, you would have
good reason. Doing so would likely contribute to making the other person defen-
sive and make the conversation unproductive. A more fundamental step you can
take to make it easier to share what is in your left-hand column is to begin to think
differently, that is, to use the mutual learning approach.
By beginning to change your frame of mind, you can change your feelings about
the situation and what you might say. For example, instead of believing that you are
right and others are wrong, consider that others have information that you do not
have and ask yourself and others, “What am I missing that others see?” If the effect
of others’ actions is to create a problem for you, assume that they meant to act ef-
fectively and did not intend to create this problem. This can lead you to point out
the problem that was created for you and then ask with genuine curiosity, “What
were you wanting to accomplish when you took this action?” In the long run,
changing the way you think about difficult situations will make it much easier to
share what you are thinking.
WHY BOTHER?
At this point you may be thinking that the process for writing and analyzing I de-
scribed is tedious and not worth the time. After all, the advantage of e-mail is its speed,
and, in fact, many e-mails often involve one or two comments on simple topics like
logistics (for example, where to meet). Although it’s always useful to use the ground
184 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 185
�
rules in e-mail (such as agreeing on what important words mean), simple e-mails don’t
require much analysis before sending them. The process of following the ground rules
becomes more valuable as e-mail addresses more complex topics or topics on which
people have differing or strong views or is challenging in some other way.
E-mail is fast. But speed that generates misunderstanding ultimately slows things
down as it creates new problems to solve. Using the ground rules and reviewing your
e-mail before hitting Send is an example of going slow to go fast.
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
Chapter 20 • Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail | 185
25_964948 ch20.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 186
26_964948 pt03.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 187
PART THREE
Deepening Your Practice
The chapters in Part Three are about refining your skills. They show many ways
to hone your diagnosis and intervention abilities so that you can effectively move
into a discussion, make a powerful process intervention, and then move back out.
You may find, as we have, that as you begin to use the Skilled Facilitator approach,
much of the work you need to do is in your own head: practicing until you can,
during the conversation, think of what to say, how to say it, and explain why. Re-
fining your skills requires deepening your personal awareness as well as increasing
the precision of your interventions.
For example, using the ground rules becomes much easier when you know them
and have lots of examples of times when they were or could have been used. For the
ground rules to become a useful template for diagnosing and intervening, you must
learn to diagnose quickly and accurately, learn to change your own conversation,
and then learn to invite others to use the ground rules. Chapters Twenty-One and
Twenty-Two address this process.
Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the Ground Rules,” summarizes tips
for enjoyable and productive ways to learn the ground rules by heart. Chapter
Twenty-Two, “Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation,” expands
on those learning tips to address ways to develop real-time diagnostic skills. This
chapter discusses opportunities to practice your diagnostic skills and then goes into
the deeper issue of managing your own internal conversation. It points out that a
critical component of being able to diagnose at the speed of conversation is being
able to clear your own mind so you can fully attend to what others are saying. The
chapter also offers suggestions for quieting your “inner critic” and becoming fully
present with a group, as well as a list of key words and phrases to listen for when
you are diagnosing group behavior.
The chapters on opening lines and dealing with jargon will help you think
about exactly what to say when you complete a diagnosis and are ready to intervene.
Chapter Twenty-Three, “Opening Lines,” focuses on ways to start each of the in-
tervention steps of the diagnosis-intervention cycle (steps 4 through 6). It also pro-
vides one or more opening lines for each of the nine ground rules. Chapter
Twenty-Four, “Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” points out that many Skilled
Facilitator phrases have a specific meaning to those familiar with the approach. How-
ever, the terms may not convey that meaning to others, who may feel that we are
speaking a foreign language if we ask them to, for example, “combine advocacy with
inquiry.” This chapter provides useful suggestions for reducing jargon and a chart
of jargon-free alternatives for key Skilled Facilitator terminology.
26_964948 pt03.qxd 3/3/05 9:51 AM Page 188
Chapter Twenty-Five, “Now What Do I Do? Using Improv to Improve Your
Facilitation,” builds on the themes of deepening your practice through fully at-
tending to others and being able to quickly and effectively respond at the speed of
conversation. Roger converses with improv instructor Greg Hohn as both draw par-
allels between what makes good improvisation and what makes good facilitation.
As they draw out principles such as “treat surprises as gifts” and “good lines come
from good listening,” you can see how methods that strengthen your ability to be
fully present in one situation expand your ability to intervene effectively in another.
Part Three concludes with two chapters about addressing mental models, the
deepest level of self and group awareness. Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules With-
out the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” addresses
the inadequacy of the ground rules alone to effect fundamental change. It clearly
explains why it is important for those of us practicing the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach to be aware of our own unilateral control tendencies while we help others
understand how the ground rules can be misused if the intent behind their appli-
cation is clouded by unilateral thinking. Chapter Twenty-Seven, “Writing and
Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case,” closes out the theme of deepening your prac-
tice by offering a practice methodology for helping yourself and others expand your
awareness of your mental models: the left-hand column case exercise. This is an ex-
ercise we use with clients in workshops and on our own to learn from past difficult
conversations and prepare for upcoming difficult situations. It helps us see and
change the thinking behind our behavior and then change our actions. Using a
sample case, the chapter demonstrates how to use this exercise and how to redesign
a conversation once you have spotted opportunities to incorporate the Skilled
Facilitator core values and principles.
188 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 189
�
Chapter 21
Ways to Practice the
Ground Rules
Anne Davidson
Whenever people ask us about how to learn to use the ground rules and core
values consistently, we usually answer, “Practice, practice, practice.” To fully use
the ground rules, you must work on how you think going into a conversation.
The issue of working on how you think is addressed in Chapter Four, “Understanding What
Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the
Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217.
But using the ground rules gets much easier once you know them by heart.
They then become your template for diagnosing and designing conversations.
Actually, they become a lens through which you view the entire world. But just
memorizing the list of nine ground rules is not much fun or particularly mean-
ingful. You need lots of examples in your head in order to use them yourself and
identify opportunities to use them with others at the speed of conversation. Here
is a compilation of suggestions from the Fieldbook authors, our colleagues, and
our clients.
DIAGNOSIS
As Peg points out in Chapter Twenty-Two, “Some Tips for Diagnosing at the
Speed of Conversation,” page 195, just listening to any conversation, radio, or
television program while attending to the use or nonuse of the ground rules is
excellent practice. Here are some other specific suggestions:
• Make or purchase a pocket-sized card listing the ground rules. 1 Keep it
handy. People are horrified to know that I kept one taped to my steering wheel
when I was first learning the ground rules. No, I did not read it while driving. I
had a long commute in stop-and-roll traffic each day. Listening to talk radio and
glancing down at the card during stops helped me learn the ground rules quickly.
189
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 190
• Pick one ground rule to listen for at a time. I often did this while listening
to the radio or watching television. For example, I would say to myself, “I am going
to see how many untested assumptions and inferences I can pick out in the next
thirty minutes,” or “I am going to look for all the places people advocate without
inquiring.” I made a game of this with some teenaged friends, and we kept little
scorecards during sit-coms. It helped me endure the shows they enjoyed, and we all
learned.
• For more intense practice, watch a movie that is particularly rich in di-
alogue, and diagnose the use and nonuse of ground rules. Two of my favorites are
Mindwalk (1991) and My Dinner with André (1981). In our training workshops,
we use segments of Twelve Angry Men (1957), which contains hundreds of exam-
ples of use and nonuse of principles similar to the ground rules. But the practice
does not have to be that serious. The opening scenes of Jerry McGuire (1996), for
example, demonstrate a lot of untested assumptions, including Jerry’s attempt to
“share relevant information” with his colleagues in the form of his new vision. There
are also a lot of missed opportunities to engage in joint design. And Good Will Hunt-
ing (1997) has a hilarious scene in which Will, played by Matt Damon, shares why
he is not taking a job with the National Security Agency. It is a masterpiece of ex-
plaining reasoning and systems thinking. Looking playfully at missed opportunities
to use the ground rules and core values helps the principles stick. And it’s fun to
think about how using them might have changed the story.
• During meetings, look for instances when people use and do not use the
rules. Keep your ground rules card handy as you do this. Think about whether people
are more effective when the conversation more closely matches using the ground rules.
• Display a ground rules poster. If one or more of your work groups is will-
ing to learn the ground rules with you, it helps tremendously.
• Tape actual meetings (with permission). Then go back and practice coding
use and nonuse of the ground rules. Coding means identifying which ground rule
was used (you can jot down a plus symbol and the ground rule number) or not used
(a minus symbol and the ground rule number). This is a useful practice for facilita-
tors and leaders because it most closely mirrors the actual situations in which
they will find themselves and speeds transfer of learning and comfort in trying
interventions.
• Find examples of cartoons that illustrate nonuse of the ground rules. The
humor of many cartoons hinges on not using ground rules principles. For exam-
ple, a client brought in a cartoon for his group about executives not agreeing on
what an important word meant. In the first panel, an executive directed an em-
ployee to “file these.” In the next panel, the employee was seen jabbing a nail file
through the center of each document. It was silly but memorable. One of my cre-
ative peers found at least one cartoon to illustrate every ground rule. We were just
completing our first Skilled Facilitator workshop together, and she gave a set of the
cartoons grouped by ground rule to each member of the class. I still see those
190 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 191
�
cartoons flash through my head sometimes when I am about to intervene or teach
a ground rule.
CHANGING YOUR OWN CONVERSATION
Making what you say consistent with the ground rules can be particularly chal-
lenging since we are all often blind to our own unilateral routines. Here are some
productive ways to practice redesigning your own part of the conversation:
• Pick one ground rule and look for opportunities to use it during a con-
versation. This kind of focused practice can help you master using the ground rules
over time rather than trying to think about them all at once.
• Tape-record meetings or conversations in which you know you will be speak-
ing or sharing your ideas (with the permission of other participants). Afterward, review
the tape and pick out instances where you think you could have productively used one
or more ground rules but did not. Write out what you could have said differently to be
more consistent with the ground rule. After doing this a few times, you will find that
the appropriate words will come to you more easily during the actual conversation.
• Reread and redesign your e-mails, voice mails, and memos. Before send-
ing out written communications or before releasing a voice mail message you record,
review it for consistency so that you can rewrite or rerecord it.
For more guidance on using the ground rules in e-mails, see Chapter Twenty, “Using the Ground
Rules in E-Mail,” page 181.
• Invite others to give you feedback. Ask them whether and how you are using
the ground rules. Of course, to do this, you will need to explain the ground rules
to them. An easy way to do this is to ask them to read a copy of the short article
“Ground Rules for Effective Groups.”2 Even if others are not interested in using the
ground rules themselves, they can often help you spot where you are or are not con-
sistent in your own use. I found the feedback from a few close friends and colleagues
invaluable in helping me catch myself when I failed to inquire or explain my rea-
soning. One of my colleagues got to the point that he would say to me at least once
a day after I made a statement, “And your reason is . . . ?” We would just both smile,
and I would correct my missed opportunity.
If others giving you feedback do not clearly understand the mutual learning
core values, they may give you advice on how to use a ground rule that is unilateral
or that contains a mixed message. Someone once told me to “be more convincing”
by giving more specific examples. I certainly had missed opportunities to share
relevant examples, but sharing them with the intent of persuading others is incon-
sistent with free and informed choice and internal commitment. Although the
advice was well intended, I had to reinterpret it to make my own behavior consis-
tent with the core values.
Chapter 21 • Ways to Practice the Ground Rules | 191
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 192
�
INTERVENING
Once you have practiced using the ground rules to diagnose conversations, it is not
as difficult to begin using the diagnosis-intervention cycle to invite others to use the
rules. Obviously, whenever you do this, you are practicing using the ground rules
yourself, because advocacy and inquiry, using specific examples, explaining your rea-
soning, and so forth are built into the cycle. But the additional, intentional practice
of saying the words to intervene on each ground rule is also helpful. People often
find it useful to:
• Practice and role-play with others. Create a learning group with the in-
tention of practicing the ground rules together. Many clients form “lunch and
learn” groups that meet weekly or monthly. Others who live and work near one
another gather regionally on a periodic basis to practice. It does not help to just
describe how you would use the ground rules. More productive is to code left-hand
column cases that people prepare and bring to the group or to role-play scenarios
suggested by group members. Then participants can give one another feedback on
how you did or did not use the ground rules. This approach has the advantage of
helping you practice diagnosis, changing your own conversation, and intervening
all at once.
See Chapter Twenty-Seven, “Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case,” page 235.
• Put one or two ground rules to practice on the bottom of printed meeting
agendas. Many of our clients work with groups that are committed to practicing
and using the ground rules. They have found it useful to practice one or two rules at
a time until the group masters them, and they have agreed to print the ground rules
to practice at the bottom of agendas they send out for regular meetings. Then group
members can review the ground rules before attending. At the end of each meeting,
the group critiques their use of the rule or rules they are trying to practice and then
agrees whether they need to continue practicing these rules at the next meeting or
whether they are ready to move on to others. As a group improves its skills, it is
helpful to identify patterns common to the group and to practice ground rules that
address those. One group I worked with had a pattern of advocacy without inquiry,
and it took a lot of practice to improve on it. Another had a habit of not agreeing
on decision rules and assuming that silence meant support, so we practiced Ground
Rule Nine for about six months.
• Tape-record meetings and review them as a group. This is similar to the
practice suggested in diagnosis, but here the groups can go back to instances where
they thought their discussion did not go as well as they wanted and then redesign
the conversation together. This helps everyone learn both diagnosis and interven-
tion. It often helps the group pick up on nonuse of multiple ground rules and on
patterns that lead discussions to spiral into unilateral designs.
192 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 193
• Link ground rules to a problem-solving or decision-making model. Many
groups adopt (or could adopt) a systematic problem-solving model that helps them
consistently define their goals, generate valid information, and consider multiple
perspectives before generating actions plans. Each step of a typical problem-solving
model can be linked to two or three ground rules that are particularly useful at that
step. The example in Exhibit 21.1 is a chart one of my clients produced that helped
him concentrate on practicing a few ground rules when working on each step. Of
course, all of the rules are always useful; groups should not limit themselves just to
one or two, but concentrating practice on a few at a time does seem to help in the
beginning.
Exhibit 21.1 Linking the Ground Rules to a Problem-Solving Model
Five Problem-Solving Steps Be Sure to Practice Ground Rules . . .
1. Identify the problem or goal.
Explain reasoning and intent.
Share all relevant information.
Test assumptions and inferences.
2. Analyze.
Focus on interests.
[Gather] and share all relevant
information.
Combine advocacy with inquiry.
3. Evaluate alternatives.
Test assumptions and inferences.
Explain reasoning and intent.
Discuss undiscussables.
4. Test-implement.
Jointly design next steps and ways to
test disagreements.
Use a decision-making rule that generates
the level of commitment needed.
5. Standardize.
Share all relevant information.
Test assumptions and inferences.
Jointly design next steps and ways to
test disagreements.
Use a decision-making rule that
generates the level of commitment
needed.
Source: Adapted from Kelly (1992).
Chapter 21 • Ways to Practice the Ground Rules | 193
27_964948 ch21.qxd 3/3/05 9:52 AM Page 194
Resources
Good Will Hunting. Miramax, 1997.
“Ground Rules for Effective Groups” article, pocket cards, and posters available at
www.schwarzassociates.com.
Jerry McGuire. Columbia/TriStar, 1996.
Mindwalk. Atlas Productions, 1991.
My Dinner with André. Fox, 1981.
Twelve Angry Men. MGM, 1957.
Notes
1. Ground rules pocket cards and posters are available from Roger Schwarz and
Associates, www.schwarzassociates.com.
2. The “Ground Rules for Effective Groups” article is available at www.
schwarzassociates.com.
Reference
Kelly, M. Everyone’s Problem Solving Handbook. White Plains, N.Y.: Quality Resources,
1992.
194 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.schwarzassociates.com
www.schwarzassociates.com
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 195
�
Chapter 22
Some Tips for Diagnosing
at the Speed of
Conversation
Peg Carlson
When people first learn the Skilled Facilitator approach, they frequently express
a sense of being overwhelmed by the speed of real-life conversations. After reading
(or hearing) about the diagnosis-intervention cycle and trying to put it into prac-
tice, they often ask, “How do you attend to all of the interactions in a meeting,
check them against the ground rules and core values to make diagnoses, and decide
whether and how to intervene, all without falling way behind the flow of the
discussion?”
In this chapter, I share tips for real-time diagnosis. These fall into two categories:
opportunities to practice listening to conversation with the core values and ground
rules in mind and the internal work you can do as a facilitator to increase your readi-
ness to hear the group’s conversation.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69, for an introduction to the process.
OPPORTUNITIES TO PRACTICE
Your initial focus is on attending to a conversation in a new way, using the core val-
ues and ground rules to interpret how people are communicating with each other.
Remove any expectation that you will (or should) be intervening in the conversa-
tion at this point. This will help to free your mind to consider only the data at
hand—the words and nonverbal cues present in the interaction—without concern
for next steps.
Through practice, I have learned to ”see” conversations in terms of the core val-
ues and ground rules. I liken this to the difference between how chess players and
nonchess players look at the same chessboard. I don’t play chess, so if someone asked
me to remember where the pieces were on a board, I’d have difficulty. I would have
Your initial focus is
on attending to a
conversation in a
new way, using the
core values and ground
rules to interpret how peo-
ple are communicating
with each other.
195
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 196
In my experience,
people often dis-
count the impor-
tance of these first three
steps, the “interior” side of
the cycle, in their haste to
figure out what to say to
help the group improve its
effectiveness.
to memorize the layout in some way, but without an understanding of the pieces
and the moves, it would just be rote memorization, and it would be hard to re-
member more than a few. By contrast, expert chess players have a perceptual set that
allows them to see the board in terms of patterns and potential moves.
Everyday Practice Ideas
As you go about your daily activities, there are many opportunities to practice
diagnosing conversations. Here are a few suggestions:
• Practice the first two steps of the diagnosis-intervention cycle (observe be-
havior, verbal or nonverbal, and infer meaning) by keeping a copy of the ground
rules and diagnosis-intervention cycle in front of you as you watch a television show
or listen to the radio. The plots of situation comedies, for example, are often based
on untested inferences. The dynamic of talk radio in many cases illustrates people
focusing on positions rather than interests, together with untested inferences. Since
intervening in the dialogue is not an option, this venue can help you concentrate
on diagnosis.
• You can listen to casual conversations almost anywhere: on an airplane, train,
or bus; standing in line at the grocery store; or driving a carload of kids to soccer
practice. I’m not talking about situations where you need to strain to hear what is
being said; for most of us, there are times during the day when we are exposed to
others’ conversations without being given a choice. Think of it not as eavesdrop-
ping but as an opportunity to practice your diagnosis skills. As with the television
and radio practice opportunity, this forum gives you a place to focus on diagnosis
more than intervention, given that it’s generally not considered socially acceptable
to intervene in strangers’ conversations (and violates the core value of free and in-
formed choice as well)!
• Another opportunity to practice listening for core values and ground rules is dur-
ing meetings where you do not need to be an active participant or facilitator. Jot down
a participant’s exact words when you infer that he or she has used, or not used, one of
the ground rules. You can also imagine whether, how, and why you might intervene,
but don’t be too concerned about what you would say to intervene at this point.
In my experience, people often discount the importance of these first three steps,
the “interior” side of the cycle, in their haste to figure out what to say to help the
group improve its effectiveness.
Remember that the intervention side of the cycle (steps 4, 5, and 6) simply
shares and tests openly the private diagnosis you have made. By training yourself to
listen for the core values and ground rules in regular conversation, you will be well
on your way to crafting an effective intervention.
196 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 197
Listen for Key Words or Phrases
Certain words or phrases are red flags that the speaker is about to say something in-
consistent with one or more of the ground rules. When I hear these or similar words,
I pay particular attention to the statement or question that follows. (For examples,
see Table 22.1.)
One Last Tip: An Opportunity Once Missed
Will Present Itself Again
One thing that allayed my fear of missing critical diagnoses in an ongoing discus-
sion was a growing appreciation of the principle of repeating opportunities. In con-
crete terms, this means that interactions tend toward fairly stable patterns.
Even if you see the relationship between a part of the conversation and the
ground rules too slowly to be able to decide on or plan an intervention the first
time something comes around in a discussion, chances are it will come around
again. For example, you may have observed group members making statements
without inquiring into others’ views. Or you may have noticed some members ask-
ing questions of others without explaining why they are asking the question, and
those being questioned appear to be getting defensive as a result. There is a good
chance that these interactions illustrate a pattern of how group members commu-
nicate with one another, and if you weren’t confident of your initial diagnosis, you
will get another opportunity. It’s not always necessary or desirable to intervene im-
mediately. In fact, sharing several examples of what you’ve observed can make your
diagnosis more understandable when you are ready to share and test it with the
group.
CLEARING YOUR MIND: THE INTERNAL
WORK NEEDED TO DIAGNOSE AT THE
SPEED OF CONVERSATION
The theme of the tips is practice. Getting to the point where you can diagnose at
the speed of conversation is not difficult if you see everyday conversations—at work
or home, on radio or television—as your potential practice field. This frequent prac-
tice is necessary, but not sufficient.
Getting over the hump to truly feel comfortable diagnosing conversations in
real time may involve some significant internal work as well. For some, the hump
is making high-level inferences about group members. In my case, the problem was
more often the internal conversation I was having regarding my own (perceived lack
of ) competence as a facilitator.
Here is an example. When I started to learn the Skilled Facilitator approach, I
was excited to have a new way to diagnose and help improve groups’ effectiveness
Even if you see the
relationship be-
tween a part of the
conversation and the
ground rules too slowly to
be able to decide on or
plan an intervention the
first time something comes
around in a discussion,
chances are it will come
around again.
Getting over the
hump to truly feel
comfortable diag-
nosing conversations in
real time may involve
some significant internal
work as well.
Chapter 22 • Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation | 197
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 198
Table 22.1 Listen for These Phrases
When I Hear Someone Say . . .
I Am Likely to Infer and
Test That He or She . . .
“Everyone thinks there is a
problem with X.”
Has one or more specific examples
to share (Ground Rule Three)
“When you implied that . . . ” Has made an inference about the
other person’s statement or motive
(Ground Rule One)
“Don’t you think that . . . ” Is using rhetorical inquiry; has a
statement to make but is asking a
leading question (Ground Rule Six)
instead of sharing his or her own
reasoning (Ground Rule Four)
“I believe the way to address
this is [proposes a solution].”
Has stated a position, but not shared
the interests behind it (Ground Rule
Five) or has advocated but not
inquired into others’ views (Ground
Rule Six)
“The manager is never going to
go along with that idea.”
Has made an untested inference
about the manager (Ground Rule
One) or has relevant information to
share about the manager’s interests
(Ground Rule Two)
“Let’s get back on track.” Has heard group members say
something that he or she thinks is
off the topic but has not shared
what it is (Ground Rule Four) or
checked to see if others agree that
the topic has shifted (Ground Rule
Seven)
“What Frank is saying is . . .” Is paraphrasing another group
member’s comments but is not likely
to check with that person to see if the
paraphrasing is correct (Ground Rule
Six)
198 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 199
as well as my own effectiveness as a facilitator. I liked the idea of using one set of
core values to guide effective behavior for me as a facilitator as well as for the group.
The problem was that once I learned that this was the standard I was striving for, I
began evaluating myself against this standard on a minute-by-minute basis through-
out a meeting. I would make an intervention and then the internal chatter would
start: “Did I just ask Bob to give an example when I didn’t ask Justine for a exam-
ple of what she was talking about? Maybe the group will now see me as biased in
some way, not treating all members equally.” Or, “I asked Molly if she was willing
to check out her assumption that Ted couldn’t meet for longer than one hour, but
I don’t think I tested my assumption that she was making an assumption! Was I
being unilateral?”
My overly enthusiastic internal monitor of my facilitation skills was getting in
the way of attending to the group. Each time I went “off-line” to reflect on some-
thing that had happened earlier, I risked missing something important that was cur-
rently occurring in the group.
While I was busy reflecting, I might have been missing a new statement or ques-
tion by a group member or data that would lead me to propose a new process or
way to frame the discussion. I was having trouble staying in the moment with the
group. My mind frequently seemed to be racing ahead or reflecting back instead of
focusing on what was going on right now. This pattern made it more difficult for
me to diagnose at the speed of conversation, which then increased my anxiety that
I was not being as effective as I could be. I seemed to be stuck in a self-fulfilling
loop. My effectiveness as a facilitator was reduced, but it wasn’t because I couldn’t
figure out what was going on in the group; it was because my focus on my own per-
formance was taking me away from what was happening in the group, and I was
missing important cues. The solution was not a new tool or technique; it was learn-
ing to be fully present with the group.
The concept that has been most helpful to me in turning off the internal
conversation and remaining present with the group is the Zen notion of begin-
ner’s mind.1 Beginner’s mind holds many possibilities; it comes without precon-
ceptions, judgments, and prejudices. For the Skilled Facilitator using the
diagnosis-intervention cycle, this takes the form of low-level inference, an appreci-
ation for the data of a conversation without the complex, and sometimes inaccu-
rate, structures added by unchecked assumptions that result in higher-level
inferences. Without these more elaborate ladders of inference, the mind is more
fully present to explore, observe, and see something as it is, more full of curiosity,
My overly enthusi-
astic internal moni-
tor of my facilitation
skills was getting in the
way of attending to
the group. Each time I
went “off-line” to reflect on
something that had hap-
pened earlier, I risked
missing something impor-
tant that was currently
occurring in the group.
Chapter 22 • Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation | 199
28_964948 ch22.qxd 3/3/05 9:53 AM Page 200
not answers. The notion of beginner’s mind is consistent with the mutual learning
model: both emphasize the importance of remaining open to new information, re-
maining curious rather than judgmental, and closely observing what is actually there
instead of our own feelings and beliefs about what is there.
Another fundamental aspect of beginner’s mind is to remain in the moment,
neither tarrying behind nor moving ahead of what is happening right now. As I de-
scribed in my example, early in my facilitation work I frequently found my thoughts
straying back to an earlier intervention or jumping ahead to anticipate what might
occur later in the meeting.
To remain in the moment, it helps to remember that any diagnosis is prelimi-
nary and subject to the confirmation (or disconfirmation) of the group. This frees
you from internal self-talk about your performance, because the data about whether
your diagnosis is appropriate and adequate are available only from the group itself.
Paradoxically, this willingness to share my assessment of my performance as a
facilitator has helped me let go of my concerns about it, which frees me to remain
fully attentive to the group and pay careful attention to what is happening.
Note
1. For a more complete explanation of this concept, see Shunryu Suzuki’s Zen
Mind, Beginner’s Mind.
Reference
Suzuki, S. Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind. New York: Weatherhill, 1970.
200 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 201
�
Chapter 23
Opening Lines
Roger Schwarz
When you begin to practice the ground rules and the diagnosis-intervention cycle,
one challenge is figuring out what words to say. If you have read other parts of this
book or The Skilled Facilitator, you have probably noticed that we begin our inter-
ventions in similar ways, using similar phrases. In short, we have a set of opening
lines. Each of us uses somewhat different language, but we all derive it from the
same core values and assumptions. Opening lines are useful because they get you
started. They answer the question, “What do I say when someone says or does X?”
Good opening lines can create a structure to make the rest of the conversation
more productive. But opening lines are not designed to get you through an entire
conversation. You can’t predict how someone will respond to you. So after you share
your opening line, you need to listen to how people respond and then decide how
to craft your next line in a way that moves the conversation forward effectively.
To make this approach work for you (and those you work with), you need
to feel comfortable with the words you are using. This means using the Skilled
Facilitator approach in a way that still sounds like you speaking rather than like
someone else who has inhabited your body (for example, me). Some people use
a two-step process to find their voice: they learn the opening lines and then begin
to incorporate them with their own style. Other people work on both tasks at
the same time; from the beginning they integrate opening lines with their own
language and style.
See Chapter Twenty-Four, “Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” page 207, and Chapter
Thirty-Three, “Finding Your Voice,” page 279.
Many of the opening lines I use are related to the diagnosis-intervention cycle
and the ground rules. Let’s look at some examples.
THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION CYCLE
The diagnosis-intervention cycle has opening lines for each intervention step.
Opening lines are
useful because
they get you
started. They answer the
question, “What do I say
when someone says or
does X?”
To make this ap-
proach work for
you (and those
you work with), you need
to feel comfortable with
the words you are using.
201
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 202
�
Step 4: Describing Behavior and Testing
for Different Views
My opening line for this step has three parts. I address by name the person or peo-
ple I am intervening with, repeat what I thought they said or did, and check if my
understanding is accurate:
Example A1: “Dennis, a minute ago you said, ‘The project can’t start until
next quarter.’ Did I get that right?”
Example B1: “Louise, I think you said, ‘Would it be better to let people
know sooner rather than later.’ Is that what you said?”
Sometimes I begin by explaining my reasoning and intent for the intervention:
Example C1: “Alain, I want to check out an inference I made. A minute
ago you said, ‘The problem is that the data are missing.’ Did I mis-
state it?”
I don’t begin by saying, “Excuse me” or “Let me interrupt.” If I have contracted
effectively with the group, the group has agreed that they want me to intervene, so
I don’t need to excuse myself for doing the job they asked me to do. And as long as
I wait until a person has finished speaking, I’m not interrupting.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69, on the diagnosis-intervention cycle
and Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103.
Step 5: Sharing Inferences and Testing for
Different Views
My opening line for this step has two parts: I share my inference about which
ground rule the person or people did not use but could have and test for different
views. Continuing from examples A, B, and C:
Example A2: “I heard you say next quarter won’t work, but I didn’t hear
you say which of your interests it didn’t meet. Did I miss anything?”
(Ground Rule Five)
Example B2: “I’m thinking you’re not simply asking a question, but that
you have your own view on your question. Yes?” (Ground Rule Six)
Example C2: “It sounds as if you’re thinking that Carmela isn’t going to
correct the data set. Is that what you’re thinking or something else?”
(Ground Rule One)
202 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 203
�
Step 6: Helping the Group Decide Whether and How to
Change Behavior and Testing for Different Views
This step has two parts. First, I explain my reasoning for asking the person to change
his behavior (that is, use either a ground rule or another part of the Skilled Facili-
tator approach), and then I ask if he is willing. In many cases, when the person is
familiar with the ground rules, I skip the first part:
Example A3: “I think it would be helpful to explain which of your inter-
ests the next quarter solution doesn’t meet so that the group can try to
incorporate them. Can you say what they are?”
Example B3: “Would you be willing to share your view and then ask oth-
ers if they have a different view?”
Example C3: “Do you want to check with Carmela to see if you’re right?”
GROUND RULES
Many of the opening lines I use stem directly from the ground rules. Following are
examples of opening lines without using the entire diagnosis-intervention cycle.
Ground Rule One: Test Assumptions and Inferences
When you’re making an inference about someone or when you think someone is
making an inference about you:
Many of the open-
ing lines I use
stem directly
from the ground rules.
“I’m thinking you’re concerned we won’t make the deadline if we add the
additional sections. Am I off?”
“My intent was not to create more work for you, but to ensure that the
readers have all the information they need. Still, I may have done some-
thing I’m not aware of. Can you tell me what I’ve said or done that’s led
you to think I’m trying to create more work for you?”
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, for an introduction to the ground
rules.
Ground Rule Two: Share All Relevant Information
When you think someone has more information than he or she has shared:
“When you say, ‘Not everyone will support it,’ it sounds to me as if you
have other information about this issue. If so, can you share it?”
Chapter 23 • Opening Lines | 203
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 204
Ground Rule Three: Use Specific Examples and Agree
on What Important Words Mean
When someone is talking in general terms:
“Can you tell me about a time when that happened so I can better
understand?”
Ground Rule Four: Explain Your Reasoning and Intent
When you don’t understand someone’s reasoning:
“Can you walk me through how you came to that conclusion? I’m not
following your reasoning.”
“When you said X, it didn’t make sense to me because . . .
“I see a potential problem with that process. Let me describe it and get
your reaction.”
Ground Rule Five: Focus on Interests, Not Positions
When you don’t understand why someone is proposing or rejecting a possible
solution:
“What needs of yours does the solution meet?”
“What needs do you have that the solution doesn’t address?”
Ground Rule Six: Combine Advocacy and Inquiry
When you think someone is asking questions without sharing his or her views:
“I’m thinking you’re not simply asking a question, but that you have your
own view on your question. If so, can you say what you’re thinking
about the issue?”
Ground Rule Seven: Jointly Design Next Steps and
Ways to Test Disagreements
When you have a process you want to suggest:
“Let me suggest a way to proceed and get your reactions. I suggest we do
X because . . . What problems does anyone see with this?
204 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 205
“I came to a different conclusion than you did. How about if we figure out
together how we came to different conclusions?”
“I’m not seeing how your comment is related to the topic we were
discussing. Can you help me see how it’s related?”
Ground Rule Eight: Discuss Undiscussable Issues
When you want to raise an undiscussable issue:
“I want to raise what might be a difficult issue and get your reactions. I’m
not trying to put anyone on the spot, but instead trying for us to work
better as a team. Here is what I’ve seen and what I think the issue is . . .
How do others see this?”
Ground Rule Nine: Use a Decision-Making Rule That
Generates the Level of Commitment Needed
When you want to clarify the decision rule:
“This is a decision I want us to make by consensus, because I believe it is
important that each of us is fully committed to the final solution. We
will each have important and different responsibilities for getting the
whole project to fit together. Does anyone think it’s unnecessary to reach
consensus?” [If no one thinks it’s unnecessary, continue.] “If we can’t reach
consensus, then I think Brian and I will have to make a decision by to-
morrow since we must report to the vice president. We would take into
account each of your interests and the information shared during our
discussions today. Any concerns about doing it this way?”
Chapter 23 • Opening Lines | 205
29_964948 ch23.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 206
30_964948 ch24.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 207
Chapter 24
Reducing the Skilled
Facilitator Jargon
Roger Schwarz
The American Heritage Dictionary defines jargon as “the specialized or tech-
nical language of a special trade, profession, or group” and “speech or writing hav-
ing unusual or pretentious vocabulary, convoluted phrasing, or vague meaning.”
The Skilled Facilitator approach contains jargon (such as “combine advocacy and
inquiry”) that has a specific meaning among those who know the approach and is
not clear to those unfamiliar with the approach. In the meaning of jargon, I don’t
include examples like “share all relevant information”; people may have different
views about what is relevant information, but the concept of relevant information
is widely understood and the words are familiar.
You might reasonably wonder why the Skilled Facilitator approach includes jar-
gon, given that it can create misunderstanding. My answer is that jargon can be
valuable for the same reason that it creates a problem: within the group using it, it
has a specific agreed-on meaning. Consequently, it serves as a shorthand way to ex-
press a more complex set of meanings. For example, in the ground rule “combine
advocacy and inquiry,” the meaning of advocacy includes sharing your point of
view, explaining your reasoning, expressing your interests, and identifying your as-
sumptions. The meaning of inquiry includes asking a question that is designed to
learn how others see the situation (including what they may see that you miss), with-
out embedding your own point of view in the question and without trying to sug-
gest what the correct answer should be.
Jargon can actually help those outside the group become aware that they may
not understand an important concept. If you used everyday phrases like, “share your
view and ask others what they think,” someone who was not exposed to ground
rules might reasonably think she knows what those words mean, but she will likely
have a different understanding of the phrase than what you meant to convey.
Unfortunately, using jargon without explaining it may cause others to feel that
they are excluded from some special in-group. They may infer you are using it to
show your expertise, cover up your lack of expertise, control the conversation in
some way, or act superior. People who have learned the ground rules in a workshop
207
30_964948 ch24.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 208
�
recognize this problem. They sometimes tell me, “We just don’t talk like that where
I work. No one uses the words inquiry or inferences. If I did, people would look at
me like I was strange.” This is the very issue that people comment on when they
come to a workshop that others in their organization have already attended. They
say things like, “I’m coming to the workshop partly so I can understand what my
teammates are really saying.”
Still, some people feel comfortable using the language of the core values and
ground rules and find that the people they introduce it to in their organizations are
also comfortable using the terms once they are defined. But don’t assume that oth-
ers’ comfort will necessarily be related to his or her level of education or nature of
his or her work. I facilitated a long-term change process for a city fire department
in which the employees quickly began using the language of the ground rules and
incorporated it into their work, yet many of them had no more than a high school
education.
If your group knows the language of the Skilled Facilitator approach, then you
can use the terminology if you choose. However, if some people in the group or
meeting do not know the language, either explain what the terms mean or use other
language. Table 24.1 shows some alternative language for describing and using terms
that are often considered jargon.
See also Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,”
page 131, and Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the Ground Rules,” page 189.
208 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
30_964948 ch24.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 209
Table 24.1 Reducing the Jargon
The Skilled Facilitator Terminology Alternative Language
CORE VALUES
Valid information Relevant information
Internal commitment Commitment
Compassion Empathy
GROUND RULES
Test assumptions and inferences Check your assumptions
“I’m inferring . . .” or “I’m assuming . . .” “I’m thinking . . .”
“It sounds to me as if . . .”
“I’m getting the feeling . . .”
“It looks to me . . .”
“I think you climbed the ladder “I’m thinking that you added some meaning to
[of inference]!” what was said.”
Share all relevant information
“Let me share my left-hand column . . .” “Here’s what I’m thinking . . .”
“What’s in your left-hand column?” “What are you thinking or feeling right now?”
“What’s running through your head?”
Explain your reasoning and intent “Would you share with us why you feel [or
why you want] . . .?”
“Can you say more about why . . .?”
“Would you explain your reasoning “Would you say what leads you to feel
and intent?” that way?”
“Can you say more about why. . .?”
Focus on interests, not positions Focus on needs, not solutions
“What are your interests?” “What is it about this solution that doesn’t
work for you?”
“Putting aside for now what the solution
should be, what needs have to be met for
the solution to be effective?”
“I heard you describe your solution, but I
didn’t hear what about it is important to
you. Can you share that?”
(continued)
Chapter 24 • Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon | 209
30_964948 ch24.qxd 3/3/05 9:54 AM Page 210
Table 24.1 (continued)
The Skilled Facilitator Terminology Alternative Language
Combine advocacy and inquiry Share your view, and ask what they think
State your view, and ask for reactions
“I’d like to advocate my point of view, “I’d like to share with you what I’m thinking,
then inquire as to what you think then get your thoughts.”
about it.”
“I heard you advocate, but not “I heard you share your view, but I didn’t hear
inquire.” you ask for others’ reactions.”
“I heard you inquire but not advocate. “When you asked your question, I’m thinking
Am I correct?” you have your own view on the issue. Am I
correct?”
“That sounds like a rhetorical “When you ask that, I’m thinking you have a
question.” Or “That’s a leading thought on that. Is that right?”
question.”
Jointly design next steps and ways Agree on next steps
to test disagreements Jointly develop next steps
“I’d like to jointly design our “I’d like to figure out a way together to move
next steps.” forward. Would that work for you?”
The diagnosis-intervention cycle
“I’d like to intervene on that.” “I want to check something out with you.”
210 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 211
Chapter 25
Now What Do I Do?
Using Improv to Improve Your Facilitation
Roger Schwarz
Greg Hohn
A few years ago I took a couple of courses in improvisation from Greg Hohn. Greg
is the director of Transactors Improv Co., the South’s oldest improvisational theater,
based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. I had always liked watching improv and had
even tried it a few times. I loved the thrill of spontaneously creating something with
others and of trying to make something out of the lines others gave me. So when I
signed up for my first improv course, I expected to learn a lot about improvisation
techniques—and I did. But I also learned a lot about myself and how I interact with
others when we are working together to create something.
After each improv exercise, Greg would ask us what we thought of our perfor-
mance. As I listened to others’ comments and reflected on my own comments, I
realized that what it takes to create good improv is similar in many ways to what it
takes to create a good facilitated conversation.
Recently, Greg and I talked about how improv and facilitation principles are
similar.
TREAT SURPRISES AS GIFTS
Roger: In improv, the only line you have to work with is the one that others have
given you. If your improv partner looks at the imaginary plate of food you are eating
and says, “When did you become a vegetarian?” that is the only line you have to
respond to. You can build on the line and play with it, but it is the only line you have
to work with.
I found that sometimes I didn’t like the line I was given, usually because I had
another line in my head that I wanted my partner to give me. The more I focused on
what lines I wanted others to give me, the less I was able to focus on what was pos-
sible. However, when I began to see the line I was given as a gift, I began to look
for the possibilities and make a connection with both the content of the scene and
the people I was creating improv with.
It’s similar with facilitative skills. The only lines I have to work with are the ones
my clients give me. By looking for the gift in each line, I focus more on what they
think is important and how I can work with them to explore that.
211
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 212
Greg: Expectation will hang you up. A pianist friend told me about going into the
studio to record one day and emerging distraught because he didn’t do what he
intended to do. Months later he listened to the tape of the session and realized that
what he did was better than what he set out to do.
There’s a fine line between accident and inspiration. Indeed you can treat them
as the same thing. Most people tend to be afraid of the unknown. In improv, you
treat it as an opportunity.
In my improv work, we focus on exploration rather than invention. Instead of one
person having an idea and manipulating others to follow him or her, there is a give-
and-take among the players so that they can discover something that not one per-
son alone could have come up with. Invention is about the ego, whereas discovery
and exploration are about the group.
An improviser who isn’t open to surprises isn’t open to true exploration and dis-
covery. Instead he or she is concerned with advancing a personal agenda. This is
equally true, I would imagine, for facilitators. Sometimes my students are frustrated
by a lack of syllabus and stated goals in my course, but I counter that I want us to
focus on the process rather than the outcome or product. And what if what they
need is different from the goal?
GOOD LINES COME FROM GOOD LISTENING
Roger: To generate a good line, you need to see the gift in others’ lines to you. To
see the gift, you need to listen carefully. The more carefully I listened to the lines
that my improv partners gave me, the better I was able to play off them rather than
simply create my own. For example, if my about-to-be-first-time-partner-in-crime
says to me, “I’m just not sure whether robbing the First National Bank will look good
on my résumé,” I can respond by playing off the absurdity of putting bank robbery
on a résumé, playing off her concerns about her noncriminal career, or explaining
how bank robbing requires a set of skills that many organizations value. All of these
responses make explicit some implicit message in my partner’s statement. If
my response relates to her concern, I build the relationship between us by focusing
on her concern, and we advance the scene at the same time.
In facilitative work, as I listen to people in the group discuss an issue, I ask
myself, “What seems to be under the surface of what they are saying?” “What
question can I ask or observation can I make to help people constructively share
the stories that lie within their seemingly meaning-packed comments?” When I listen
well, I get the gift that group members are giving me, and I return the gift by help-
ing them tell the real stories they want to tell.
Greg: Listening is crucial in improv because it is part of the give-and-take process
and it gets the players out of their heads. Usually people are formulating responses
instead of truly listening. When we listen, we learn. We explore and discover. When
we talk, it is often about ourselves and what we think we know or about the past
instead of the present. Therefore, if good improvisation relies on exploration, dis-
covery, and the group, listening cannot but help us, although it’s also important that
we carry our own weight and are assertive so that others can learn from and
respond to us.
212 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 213
IT’S A SYSTEM: THE LINE YOU GET IS
RELATED TO THE LINE YOU GIVE
Roger: In improv, there is a relationship between the line you give and the line you
receive. If you give your partners a good line to work with, you have a better chance
of getting a good line back that you can work with. What makes a good line in improv
does not necessarily make a good line in facilitation. For example, a good improv line
can have one person telling the other in great detail what is wrong with that person
as if it is truth. While a good facilitation line can involve specifics, it does not repre-
sent them as truth, but rather as a hypothesis to be explored.
With facilitative skills, if you’re thinking that people aren’t being forthcoming,
consider the lines you’re giving them. Are you genuinely inquiring, or are you trying
to get them to say what you’re thinking? Are you focusing on positions or exploring
interests?
Greg: This is one way that facilitation and improv may differ. Good improv is often
about bad psychology. For example, “you” statements are much more effective than
“I” statements because we’re giving our partners valuable information. They also
tend to make the emotional stakes higher. A better gift than wiggle room in improv
is to give someone indisputable proof that he or she did something or is insufferable
or what-have-you and that allows him or her to react to that truth. The value here is
as a negative example: you don’t want to do that while you’re facilitating.
BE SPECIFIC
Roger: As in facilitation, in improv, specifics give the actors and the audience mate-
rial to work with and move the conversation forward. If I begin by saying to my
improv partner, “Listen, Laurie, this just isn’t working out between us,” at some point
soon, one of us will need to get more specific. Laurie might say, “What do you
mean? Here we are strolling on the beach, laughing. I think we’re fine.” Without
specifics and details, the improv partners don’t know exactly what they are talking
about, and so neither does the audience.
With facilitative skills, specific examples help the group understand exactly what
each member is talking about and create shared understanding. Shared under-
standing enables the group to move the conversation forward.
Greg: Yes, in improv you need to get to the specific heart of the matter.
DON’T BE AFRAID TO TAKE THE
OBVIOUS ROUTE
Greg: When it comes to the obvious in improv, it is often simply the thing that fits
best. In improv and comedy, we often work with patterns, usually in groups of three.
The first two incidences of a thing set a pattern, and the third either confirms or
confounds the pattern. Either conclusion works. For example, two women are at a
dance, talking about how much they want men to ask them to dance. A man
Chapter 25 • Now What Do I Do? | 213
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 214
approaches and asks one to dance. They decline and continue to talk about want-
ing to dance. A second man approaches and asks to dance. He too is rebuffed. The
pattern continues, and the third time the women can either dance or not dance or
dance at the same time with one man. If the third man enters and asks if they want
to buy a house, well, that’s not going to fit. Even if that man says something “funny”
like asking them to watch his pet lobster, it’s still not going to be as effective as doing
the predictable thing. The audience and players are deprived of the resolution of the
dancing issue.
When we improvise songs, one of the most important things to do is create a
structure, and the structure involves patterns. Catchy tunes have a certain pre-
dictability, and when the familiar refrain returns, we tend to like that. It is obvious,
recognizable. A certain resolution of a measure may not be very original, but if it is
obvious, it is often what the ear wants to hear.
Roger: With facilitation or facilitative leadership, group members also expect you to
follow through on the obvious. When someone says, “Trust me, I just don’t think the
reorganization will happen,” an obvious question is, “What leads you to say you
don’t think it will happen?” When you or the group chooses not to follow up on the
obvious, the learning stops, and the group doesn’t reach closure on the issue.
RAISE THE STAKES: NAME THE ISSUE
AND ENGAGE IT
Roger: Facilitators and facilitative leaders show leadership by helping the group
name and engage important issues that the group may be tiptoeing around. In doing
so, they take important risks to help the team address the issues that really affect
it. For example, a facilitator might point out that each time the team leader shares a
view that is different from one that team members have expressed, team members
change their views to that of the leader. The facilitator would then ask others if they
saw the same thing and, if so, what led to that behavior. Is there a similar principle
in improv?
Greg: In one improv scene, I came onstage and got down on one knee, ready to
propose. The audience knew right away that the issue was high stakes. In improv,
leadership means raising important issues and engaging them rather than playing
it safe, no matter what the topic of the skit.
INCORPORATE MISTAKES INTO THE GROUP’S
EXPERIENCE AND LEARNING
Roger: One principle of the Skilled Facilitator approach is transparency, which
means that you explain to the group why you are doing what you are doing. So when
you make a mistake, you publicly acknowledge it and may even use it as an oppor-
tunity for the group’s learning. So, when you make a mistake and you’re aware of it
(or someone points it out to you), you also acknowledge it and can use it to move
the group’s learning and your own forward. For example, if you realize that you’ve
been asking certain group members and not others their opinions, you can point
that out to the group and ask group members whether they noticed and, if so, what
214 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 215
their reaction was. By talking about the mistake you made, getting others’ reactions,
and agreeing on what you and others will do differently next time, you and the group
model that mistakes can be opportunities for learning. Is there a similar principle
in improv?
Greg: If you start to enter the stage and suddenly realize two characters are hav-
ing an intimate moment, you can either stop, look embarrassed, and return to the
wings with your “mistake,” or you can burst in and be the nosey coworker or the
father-in-law who can’t bear to be alone for a moment or whatever. If you get all
mush-mouthed while trying to speak, you are now playing a character who is awk-
ward or drunk or has a speech defect. Again, there’s a fine line between accident
and inspiration. In improv, everything is happening now; it’s not written or supposed
to be anything, and therefore your mistakes aren’t mistakes but rather opportunities
or curves in the road.
TRUST THE PROCESS; DON’T CONTROL IT
Roger: I discovered that in good improv, just as in good facilitation, it’s important to
trust the process rather than control it. Facilitative work involves jointly establishing
a process and using it. I trust the process when I honor the core values and
assumptions. This means staying in a mutual learning approach and jointly design-
ing the process with the group. Rather than control the conversation to go where I
want it to go, I let the conversation emerge from the interaction among the group
members and me. When I do this, both the group and I learn more and are more
satisfied with the process itself.
Sometimes I got anxious in an improv scene. I worried about coming up with a
line that was useful and maybe even funny. Of course, the more I spent my energy
worrying about this and trying to push the conversation in a way that would give
me a “good line,” the less I attended to what my partners were saying and the less
likely I was to come up with a line that was funny or even moved the scene along.
Paradoxically, I remember that my line that got the biggest laugh from my class-
mates and you was one that I hadn’t even planned or remembered after the scene.
What does improv have to say about trusting the process?
Greg: Improv is about process, not product. It’s not about the ego’s invention but the
group’s exploration and discovery. Improv at its highest level produces that which is
so much greater than the sum of its parts.
Actors simply must believe in the process. If there were a simple way to do that,
then there’d be better improv in the world. Experience teaches this belief better than
anything else. When you do something and have no idea what it is or how it’s going
to turn out and then have it turn out better than things you’ve actually intended,
that teaches you to trust the process. Or sometimes you learn the hard way by
falling flat on your face while trying to hammer your square agenda through a round
opportunity.
The first step in gaining this experience and thus trust is to practice simple exer-
cises when the stakes are low. Once you become familiar with how wonderful
you (and others!) can be in the moment, you’ll want greater challenges and you’ll
develop that trust.
Chapter 25 • Now What Do I Do? | 215
31_964948 ch25.qxd 3/3/05 9:55 AM Page 216
Resources
www.appliedimprovisation.com. This Web site offers articles, books, and research about
improvisation, as well as links to events, discussion groups, and improv trainers and
consultants.
www.transactors.org. Transactors Improv Company director Greg Hohn writes a
“Mouthing Off” column on the company’s Web site, in which he shares his thoughts
about fundamental principles of improvisation. He makes his points eloquently, con-
cisely, and humorously. His writings about improv are equally relevant for facilitative
work. In his pieces about Applied Improv, Greg shows how improv principles and
techniques can help people become more effective in their organizations.
www.yesand.com. This Web site is a source for many things improv. It includes improv
events, improv readings, games, other Web sites, and a bulletin board for finding out
anything about improv.
216 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.yesand.com
www.transactors.org
www.appliedimprovisation.com
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 217
Chapter 26
Ground Rules Without
the Mutual Learning
Model Are Like Houses
Without Foundations
Sue McKinney
The Skilled Facilitator approach is known for its development of a set of
ground rules for improving group effectiveness. While the ground rules have great
value, on their own they are inadequate to bring about the kind of change needed
to fundamentally improve a group’s effectiveness.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
The ground rules are simply strategies for putting the mutual learning model
values and assumptions into practice. Without understanding and embracing the
mutual learning model values and assumptions that guide them, the ground rules
are little more than techniques.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Five,
“Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
THE LIMITS OF USING ONLY THE
GROUND RULES
Learning the ground rules without a thorough understanding of the foundation on
which they stand is like learning the vocabulary of a foreign language without a thor-
ough understanding of its grammar or trying to install new application software
without a supporting operating system. In other words, the ground rules help de-
scribe a new set of behaviors, but do not provide the deeper understanding of why
developing new behaviors is worthwhile.
�
�
While the ground
rules have great
value, on their own
they are inadequate to
bring about the kind of
change needed to funda-
mentally improve a group’s
effectiveness.
In other words, the
ground rules help
describe a new set
of behaviors, but do not
provide the deeper under-
standing of why develop-
ing new behaviors is
worthwhile.
217
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 218
The ground rules help us decide how to change our behavior. They are useful
in a specific moment as we decide what to say and how to say it. However, they will
not shift a person out of the win-lose mentality or away from the desire to achieve
a very specific outcome at any cost. This kind of shift occurs when we understand
that how we think directly affects how we behave. Understanding this means un-
derstanding our theory-in-use.
Two examples from my own life illustrate this point more clearly:
After I participated in a two-week Skilled Facilitator course, I was eager to
introduce these ideas to my workplace. As a trainer within a local munici-
pality, I had ample opportunity to teach these concepts to others. As it hap-
pened, I completed the class two weeks before my organization began the
intensive roll-out of a continuous improvement campaign. The hope was to
improve customer service through an emphasis on teamwork and empow-
erment. Phase 1 of the roll-out involved training all of the employees on the
basic concepts of continuous improvement. Phase 2 involved training for
the supervisors, and phase 3 was training the teams.
I quickly adapted the curriculum for the team training to incorporate an
emphasis on the Skilled Facilitator ground rules and the core values.
Sixteen teams were taught about team problem solving, team processes,
and team developmental stages. We did not incorporate any discussion
about theory-in-use or the basics of the mutual learning approach. I expect-
ed that each team would use the ground rules and core values to discuss
specific issues, including conflicts within the team, and improve their ability
to work together effectively. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.
Most teams never used most of the ground rules. The team I was facili-
tating did use them on occasion, but usually in a unilateral strategy to win. I
remember trying to reach consensus about whether to continue the meeting
past the scheduled end time, and one team member said, “I don’t agree, so
we don’t have consensus. Meeting over.” And he stood up and walked out of
the room. I inferred from his actions that the individual was using unilateral
control to meet his needs while ignoring the needs of other team members.
It was not exactly what I had in mind when I introduced the ground rules.
Another time, I asked a team leader to identify his interests underlying an
assignment he had delegated to his team. He refused to, stating simply, “I’ll let
them know if I like their solution or not.” In the end, he told the team what to
do, since their solution, he said, was “unrealistic.” Had he understood that
using the ground rules effectively was rooted in his use of the mutual learning
model, I think he would have realized that he had interests the team needed
to meet, the organization had interests the team needed to meet, and the indi-
vidual team members had interests that needed to be met in order for a last-
ing solution to be identified. This understanding would have led to a different
type of interaction with the team and probably a more successful conclusion.
The biggest shift that I see when people understand that the mutual learning
approach is the willingness to temporarily suspend judgment of another person or
group of people and work to fully understand one another.
218 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 219
This awareness does not come easily. People come to the approach with years
of history with other individuals whom they label “difficult.” “If you only knew
Joe,” they emphatically tell me, “you would understand why we have to be unilat-
eral. He is hopeless!” As long as they hold on to that label and the belief they must
manipulate Joe, it is unlikely they will be able to use the ground rules effectively.
Mutual learning occurs because of a deep belief that people are attempting to act
with integrity given their particular situation. Following this belief, it becomes eas-
ier to share one’s own reasoning, inquire into the reasoning of others, and probe for
full understanding. Differences become moments for learning rather than judgment
of the other person. Still, it takes a conscious awareness to stay in this frame of mind
and use the ground rules to increase individual and group effectiveness.
DEEPENING YOUR UNDERSTANDING
OF THE GROUND RULES
The ground rules can be understood and appreciated on several levels. Moving to-
ward mutual learning requires developing a deeper awareness of how to use each
ground rule as a strategy to support the mutual learning core values.
Ground Rule One: Test Assumptions and Inferences
This ground rule is fundamental to the Skilled Facilitator Approach. It supports re-
maining curious and acting consistent with the core value of valid information. The
first—and often the most difficult—step in using the ground rule well is to become
aware of the inferences we are making. Then we learn to test inferences in increas-
ingly challenging situations.
Becoming Aware of My Inferences
One of my early challenges was to recognize when I was making an inference. I
could always tell that I had made a negative inference when I felt my body getting
hot and my hands getting sweaty. This also usually indicated one of my “hot but-
tons” had been pressed. In less dramatic situations, I simply got angry or frustrated
with a person. Over time, I learned that this was another warning sign that I was
making untested inferences. Another indicator was when I became judgmental and
began to think I knew what was best for someone else or, at the least, what this per-
son needed to be doing.
Frequently I had the feelings before I recognized that I was making untested
inferences. For example, I would hear one of my superiors stating that the employee
team’s recommendation simply didn’t make sense and had to be overturned since
it didn’t take into account the political realities of the situation, and I would be-
come angry. My thinking can best be captured in the left-hand column format
(Table 26.1).
The biggest shift
that I see occurs
when people un-
derstand that the mutual
learning approach is the
willingness to temporarily
suspend judgment of an-
other person or group of
people and work to fully
understand one another.
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 219
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 220
Table 26.1 The Original Conversation: Not Testing Inferences
My Thoughts and Feelings Conversation
I’m proud of Team A. This was a
difficult problem to solve and they
did a great job.
Me: Having read Team A’s
recommendation regarding underground
cable improvements, what are your
reactions?
What do you mean it won’t work?!!
They put a lot of time and effort
into this project. If you kill their
recommendation straight out,
they’ll never want to work on
another team problem again.
[Untested inference.] And I
don’t blame them!
Superior: They obviously put a lot of
work into the recommendation, but it
simply won’t work.
Me: Why won’t it work?
Did you tell them about these
“political realities” ahead of time?
How do you know what the
citizens are going to put up with?
Superior: It doesn’t take into account
any of the political realities of the
situation. Citizens are never going to put
up with this kind of digging in their yard
even if it is legal.
Me: Did you share these parameters
with the team while they were working on
solutions?
Of course, not! You withheld vital
information and let them go on a
wild goose chase. [Untested
inference.] You don’t care about
this team process and whether
it succeeds. [Untested inference.]
Why do we even bother?!
Superior: No, I never thought about it.
Well, it is too bad they put all that work
into a solution that we cannot use.
It took me a while to realize that my angry feelings were often generated by
untested assumptions and inferences that I needed to verify. Many times, when I
have tested my inferences carefully, I discover that I misinterpreted the situation and
no longer had angry feelings.
A nonwork example of this came when I was expecting an important e-mail
that wasn’t forthcoming:
I am an equestrian rider and had the opportunity to ride with a well-respected
clinician in an upcoming dressage clinic. Dressage is a classical form of
horseback riding. These particular clinics are very popular, and it can be
difficult to get a riding time slot. I was anxiously waiting to hear if I would be
accepted into the clinic.
220 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 221
Unfortunately for me, the clinic organizer was waiting until the last
minute to put a schedule together with the confirmed riders. It was a prob-
lem for me because I was going on vacation the week before the clinic was
to be held. Normally, I would not choose to participate under such condi-
tions, but I was determined to ride with this particular clinician.
Because I had not heard from the clinic organizer by the day before my
vacation, I loaded up my new laptop so I could get e-mail during my vaca-
tion. The clinic organizer promised to e-mail everyone with the schedule as
soon as she had it. Every day of my vacation, I checked my e-mail. I was
getting totally frustrated that no e-mails were arriving. I had written the clinic
organizer once or twice, and she never responded. I began to feel as if I
were being blackballed. I must have done something wrong to anger the
clinic organizer, and now she wouldn’t let me in the clinic. Or someone had
told her something about me, and she wouldn’t let me in. None of these
thoughts made any logical sense whatsoever—I didn’t know the clinic orga-
nizer or any of her friends—but the dressage world has a reputation among
some as being a bit cliquish, so I made up the only story that made any
sense to me. Of course, there was one story I hadn’t considered.
I finally e-mailed friends who were riding in the clinic and found out it
had been postponed and that it looked as if I had been accepted to ride
when it did take place two weeks later. A week or so after returning from
my vacation, I was talking to a friend and bemoaning the lack of e-mail
communication with the organizer and wondering if I had done something
to make the organizer angry. My friend, who is a computer professional,
said, “Something like that happened to me once, and I had inadvertently
blocked the sender’s e-mail. Do you have a block on your system?” “I’m not
sure,” I responded. “My computer is new, and I have new e-mail software.”
“Check it,” she suggested. “It would certainly explain the problem.”
So I went home and opened up a folder on my e-mail software I had
never noticed before. It was labeled “Junk.” I opened it up, and there was
every e-mail ever sent to me by the clinic organizer. I was embarrassed.
For every test e-mail I had asked her to respond to, there was an answer.
She had been a faithful correspondent, and I had closed the door to an
obvious solution by wearing blinders created by untested inferences.
Humbly, I returned to the clinic organizer and begged her forgiveness for
bugging her over and over about not responding to my e-mails.
Theory-in-use makes a difference in how you test inferences. Used with a uni-
lateral controlling approach, testing inferences is simply a way of finding out who is
right and who is wrong. It’s part of keeping score in the win-lose mentality. Used
with a mutual learning approach, it changes how you experience others and yourself.
Becoming aware of my own inferences has been a liberating experience. As my
awareness increased, I began to see how many times I was actually making up sto-
ries about people’s intent so that I could explain their behavior to myself. Often my
stories were rather judgmental and viewed the other person’s motivation and intent
harshly. In short, making untested inferences about others led me to act in ways that
did not treat others with compassion.
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 221
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 222
�
My frustrations
were often self-
generated. As I
learned to test my infer-
ences as soon as I noticed
them, I gained energy by
not having to make up a
story to help me explain
other people’s motivations.
My frustrations were often self-generated. As I learned to test my inferences as
soon as I noticed them, I gained energy by not having to make up a story to help
me explain other people’s motivations.
By testing my inferences, I learned that there was often a plausible explanation
for things I didn’t understand. Over time I began to adopt the mutual learning as-
sumption that people are trying to act with integrity given their situation. As a result,
I found myself making fewer kinds of these negative inferences. I was beginning to
treat others with more compassion.
Working My Way Down the Ladder of Inference
It wasn’t until I was working with a local learning group that I began to recognize
my own strategy for processing inferences.
As a member of a six-person learning group dedicated to working on the Skilled
Facilitator approach, I would sometimes notice that I was becoming irritated by one
or two members. At this point in my own learning process, I was aware that I had
some data that were moving me up the ladder of inference to a feeling of irritation
and judgment. What I wasn’t sure of was what those data were. I began watching
what these particular members were saying and doing that seemed to bother me. I
vowed not to say anything until I could make an effective intervention using the
diagnosis-intervention cycle, which requires I can state the data on which I’m
making my inference.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
I began to take notes of what each group member was saying. And slowly,
awareness began to form. One member in particular bothered me because he seemed
to be taking a “superior” role within the group. He had much more experience with
the concepts in the Skilled Facilitator approach, having worked for several years with
a group in a different state that practiced the mutual learning skills. This was a def-
inite benefit to the learning group—to have someone with advanced knowledge—
so I wasn’t sure what exactly was bothering me about his interactions with the group.
I worked hard to suspend my judgment and to watch his behavior, what he was
actually saying and doing, to see what triggered my inferences.
Over time, I began to realize that this group member made unilateral state-
ments, did not inquire to see what the rest of us thought, and then continued to
talk, building on his unilateral statements as if they were factual and we were in
agreement. This made it difficult to follow his conversation because I was internally
arguing with one of his earlier statements. The problem was exacerbated by the fact
that he talked in large chunks of time (three to six minutes). It took me two or three
meetings to identify this pattern of behavior, and then I was willing to take the risk
to intervene (it felt risky to me at that time as I respected this group member and
didn’t want to anger him). It was through my intervention, set out in Table 26.2,
that I learned the power of using the ladder of inference.
222 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 223
Table 26.2 The Revised Conversation: Using The Ground Rules Effectively
Thoughts and Feelings Conversation Skill Used
Ugh. This feels risky. I hate Me: Burt, in one of our first meetings, Combine advocacy and
bringing up things like this. you asked all of us in the group inquiry.
But, he did ask, so I’m to give you feedback when we felt
assuming he will be open that you were acting inconsistently
to the input. with the mutual learning approach.
Is that correct?
Whew. Burt: Yes. I need the feedback Explain your reasoning
in order to improve in these skills. and intent.
Go to the data. This is Me: Okay. I am seeing something Share all relevant
easier than I thought in your behavior that is bothering information.
it would be. me, and I would like to share
what I’m seeing and how it Combine advocacy and
makes me feel and get your inquiry.
reaction. Are you okay with that?
Wow.You impress me. Burt: Sure, please do.
Me: A minute ago, you were Share all relevant
explaining your understanding of information.
the principles of mutual learning
and how to best apply them. I Explain your reasoning
cannot repeat you exactly, because and intent.
you talked for several minutes.
Do you recall what I’m referring to? Combine advocacy and
inquiry.
Step 4 of the diagnosis-
intervention cycle.
Yes, you did, and I still Burt: Yes, I think I was explaining Share all relevant
don’t agree with you. that you can argue vehemently for information.
your position and still act consistently
with the Skilled Facilitator approach. Use specific examples
and agree on what
important words mean.
Identify the assumption. Me: Yes, I think that was the subject. Share all relevant
He just goes on and on, What I noticed was that you started information.
and I won’t follow him by stating that everyone takes a
blindly! win-lose approach to conversations Step 4 of the diagnosis-
initially. Is that your recollection too? intervention cycle.
Hmm. I think he is correct. Burt: I think I actually said that many Share all relevant
That sounds more accurate. of us take a win-lose approach to our information.
conversations, but that doesn’t make
us unilateral.
(continued)
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 223
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 224
�
Table 26.2 (continued)
Thoughts and Feelings Conversation Skill Used
Me: Yes, that does seem more
accurate. What bothered me is that
Explain your reasoning
and intent.
you didn’t check that assumption. I
see that as an assumption, do you? Combine advocacy and
inquiry.
No, don’t you get it?
Wait, Sue, stay curious.
Burt: That being win-lose doesn’t
mean you are unilateral?
Combine advocacy and
inquiry.
Me: No, that many of us take a
win-lose approach to conversations.
Share all relevant
information.
Burt: Oh, yes, I guess that is an
assumption.
Me: Well, I didn’t agree with your
assumption, and then you continued
talking for a few minutes building an
argument hinged on our agreement
with that initial assumption. Since you
didn’t have my agreement, I quit
listening and just felt annoyed. Can you
understand how I could feel that way?
Share all relevant
information.
Explain your reasoning
and intent.
Combine advocacy and
inquiry.
That is what I thought.
Good to check with others.
Burt: Of course. I hadn’t stopped to
consider that first statement as an
Explain your reasoning
and intent.
I wonder if I’m the only
one that is bothered by this.
assumption—it just seemed factual.
But you are correct: I should have
checked. What do the rest of you
think? Did this bother you too?
Combine advocacy and
inquiry.
See The Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Rather than simply telling this person that he talked too much or that I couldn’t
follow his train of thought, I was able to map out what I heard, check to see if he saw
it similarly or differently, and then tell him why I thought it made it difficult for me
to respond to his ideas. Presented in this clear way, Burt was able to understand his
own behavior and the impact it had on me. He was also able to check with other
group members to see if this was unique to me or whether others also had this expe-
rience of him. His openness to the feedback was commendable, and I felt it was a
turning point for the learning group. We had finally come to the place where we
could begin intervening on our behaviors within the group rather than simply talk-
ing about interventions we had made or should have made on behaviors outside of
the group.
224 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 225
Some people see their inferences first and then have to backtrack to find the
data that triggered the inference. Over time, with practice watching the behavior of
others, I began to notice my inferences as I was making them, thus making an in-
tervention more quickly and on the spot.
As noted above, I have physical cues that I have shot up the ladder of inference.
In meetings, whenever I feel myself getting hot and my face feeling flushed, I know
that I have run up the ladder of inference. Instead of responding in anger, I am able
to use that cue to ask myself what has caused my inferences. I then use the ground
rules to explore my concerns and to have a conversation that strives toward mutual
understanding rather than simply letting off steam or strategizing to show I’m right
and the other person is wrong.
Ground Rule Two: Share All Relevant Information, and
Ground Rule Three: Use Specific Examples and Agree
on What Important Words Mean
The second and third ground rules are easy to understand, but it can be challeng-
ing to apply them. Together these ground rules suggest that specific names be
shared—something that I was not comfortable doing initially. Most of my life, I hid
behind generalities as I argued my points. I would point out dramatically that “the
employees” did not support the latest organizational initiative or that “management”
was making a bad decision. When asked, “Which employees?” or “Which man-
agers?” I thought to myself, “I don’t know!” or “I can’t say!” Many times, if I had
been specific, I would have named only two or three individuals, much less com-
pelling, in my mind, than “the employees” named as a unit.
Agreeing on what important words mean can be very powerful. I have noticed
that a lot of groups use the word respect in their ground rules. The ground rules state
something like, “Show respect for one another.” Interestingly enough, when I ask
individuals to tell me what “respect” looks like to them, in behavioral terms, they
come up with very different definitions:
Once, in a discussion about self-perception and how others in the organization
were seeing her, an employee and I discussed our different interpretations
of the word respect as demonstrated through her behavior at a meeting. I
described a meeting that we had both been in early that year. In that meet-
ing, I had noticed that she and her two colleagues were passing slips of
paper back and forth. Often they would smile upon reading the note or as
they passed it. I felt that this action looked rather juvenile; it reminded me of
high school girls passing notes in class. I felt it was disruptive and wondered
if some people saw it as disrespectful of the ongoing presentation.
I made the assumption that this employee didn’t mean to show disre-
spect, so I was curious what motivated her to pass the notes. I did not men-
tion this to her at the time, because I wasn’t her supervisor and had few
interactions with her; I didn’t feel it was my place to say anything. But as I
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 225
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 226
With the mutual
learning model as
my foundation, I
was able to be curious
about how she saw her
own behavior. And my
curiosity led me to raise the
issue in a way that I was
less concerned about gen-
erating negative feelings.
look back, I think that was a mistake on my part. Sharing this kind of infor-
mation and checking to see what her thoughts were about it would have
given me information, and her feedback could have provided valuable
learning for both of us.
During our discussion in my office, I asked if she remembered the
meeting and the actions I was describing, and she agreed that my memory
was accurate. I told her the meaning I made of the action and asked her
what she was thinking at the time, because I assumed that she was not
trying to be disrespectful during the meeting. She told me that she had
actually thought that she was being more respectful by passing notes to
her colleague than talking in whispers. Her colleague was from out of
the country and needed additional information periodically throughout the
meeting. I shared my belief that there is no one definition of respect and
that the group has to define what respect means to them. Therefore, it
wasn’t that she should or should not pass notes; my suggestion was that in
those kinds of situations, it would be most helpful to share the dilemma with
the group and ask what people were most comfortable with her doing (this
would be using Ground Rule Seven: jointly design next steps and ways to
test disagreements). I explained that had she done this, I would not
have made any inferences about her behavior at all or, if I had, I would have
been comfortable bringing them up in the meeting, since the subject
had been discussed by the group.
This example illustrates the difference between using these two ground rules
with or without the mutual learning model. Without the mutual learning model, I
would have been sharing relevant information and using specific examples in an
effort to show the employee that she was treating people with disrespect. Agreeing on
what important words mean would mean having her agree with my definition. With
the mutual learning model as my foundation, I was able to be curious about how
she saw her own behavior. And my curiosity led me to raise the issue in a way that
I was less concerned about generating negative feelings.
Ground Rule Four: Explain Your Reasoning and Intent
In order to reduce the chances that someone will make untested inferences and as-
sumptions about me, I have learned the value of explaining my reasoning when I ask
questions, make suggestions, or state my opinion. When asking, “Have you placed
my memo in the mail yet?” I’ve learned that adding the statement, “And the reason
I’m asking is that I found some mistakes in the memo, and I’d like to correct them
before you put it in the mail,” allows the person to answer me directly and clearly
without trying to read between the lines or guess what it is I’m really asking.
In addition, providing my reasoning allows individuals to respond to my spe-
cific concerns or thoughts and helps prevent them from making untested inferences.
For example, when I ask my assistant about earlier assignments, it is important to
give her my reasons so she can respond to each specifically. Let’s say that I asked my
226 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 227
�
assistant to get a letter out by the end of the day. After lunch, I come to her with a
follow-up question. Without sharing my reason for asking, my question might
sound like this: “Mona, have you gotten that letter out yet?”
When I share my reasoning, it goes like this, “Mona, have you gotten that let-
ter out yet? The reason I’m asking is that I found some typos in it that I want
to correct if you haven’t sent it already.” The second example provides Mona with
background information so that she isn’t left guessing why I’m asking about this
assignment. By sharing my reasoning, I reduce the chance that she will travel up her
own ladder of inference.
If I am using this ground rule in the service of mutual learning, I want to ex-
plain my reasoning and intent so that others can help me see what I may be miss-
ing. I assume that I might not have all the information and that there may be flaws
in my reasoning; I want others to help me see them. In turn, I want them to share
their reasoning and intent. Where we identify differences in our thinking, we can
genuinely explore the differences to jointly develop an approach that both of us
can commit to. But if I am using this ground rule without the mutual learning
model, my purpose in explaining my reasoning and intent is to get you to under-
stand and accept my point of view.
Ground Rule Five: Focus on Interests, Not Positions
One of the most powerful ground rules for me has been, “Focus on interests, not
positions.” A number of times when a group has been stuck I have suggested a
process based on this ground rule, and within minutes, the group is moving for-
ward again. For example, I was facilitating a cross-functional team responsible for
organizing a continuous improvement process within their organization:
See Chapter Fourteen, “Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words,” page
131, and Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,”
page 145.
The team had members from all levels within the organization, including
the CEO, some department heads, and front-line workers. It had created a
large subcommittee of nonteam members to create a reward and recogni-
tion program for the employees.
The subcommittee met for over six months and then presented a well-
thought-out recommendation to the team. When I placed their recommen-
dation on the agenda, I allotted it fifteen minutes. I assumed, incorrectly as
it turned out, that the larger team would quickly approve the recommenda-
tions. After two meetings and over two hours later, I realized the group had
become stuck in its positions. I suggested a special meeting to focus on their
interests in an attempt to make a final decision on the recommendation.
When the team gathered for the special meeting, team members were
able to list their interests quickly: offer rewards that are meaningful to the
employees; reward everyone who qualifies (to avoid competition); create a
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 227
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 228
system that is easy to implement; place the continuous improvement logo
on all reward items (a position); and create a system that motivates
employees to deliver good customer service.
The group then had to define important words and concepts to make
certain that we were all talking about the same thing. The most controver-
sial item was the first: “Offer rewards that are meaningful to the employees.”
The subcommittee had included specific items to use for rewards in its rec-
ommendation, including products such as shirts, briefcases, check covers,
and tote bags. The subcommittee wanted to offer the items to the award
recipients and let them choose the one they wanted. One of the vice pres-
idents took the position that all the rewards had to have the continuous
improvement logo on it. The subcommittee was adamant that they not have
the logo. The subcommittee had polled employees, who said they did not
want products with the logo on it as it made the item less useable, it was
“tacky,” and it was embarrassing to have the award logo on these items.
It was clear that the group needed to talk about the underlying inter-
ests driving the “must have the logo” position versus the “cannot have the
logo” position. The vice president stated that if taxpayer money was going
to be used to purchase products, he felt that it would be unethical not to put
the continuous improvement logo on them. Although everyone agreed that
they didn’t want to be unethical, not everyone agreed with his conclusion
that this would be an unethical action. However, individuals agreed to meet
his interest that products have the logo on them.
The subcommittee still felt that these awards would not feel rewarding
to all employees and suggested that some employees might throw the
items away. In an attempt to meet this interest, the team came up with a
new option: restaurant gift certificates. This would be an award of equal
value to the products being purchased and would give employees a non-
logo-identified item to select from. Although not everyone was thrilled with
the final result, everyone agreed they could support and help implement
the solution. The team members’ basic interests had been met through this
solution.
This process took only about fifteen minutes. Listing the interests helped
identify the specific sticking points and how people were thinking about the
recommendations differently. Instead of simply arguing for one solution or
another, the group shifted the conversation to one of the deeper drivers—in
this case, ethics and responsibility to the citizens as balanced with the
desires and motivational drivers of the employees. The solution was work-
able, and everyone felt fine with the result even though it wasn’t exactly what
they wanted. They felt okay because they understood the reasoning of the
others and recognized the value in trying to meet each other’s interests.
For groups using this ground rule without a solid foundation in the mutual
learning mental model, members list interests in an attempt to sway others to their
solution. In addition, the “interests” they name are more often positions—for ex-
ample, “The city manager says we have to use logos,” or “We don’t want logos be-
cause the employees don’t like logos,” neither of which shares what is the city
manager’s or the employees’ underlying interest. By naming positions as interests,
228 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 229
groups can continue to argue back and forth rather than seeking a deeper under-
standing of the underlying issues and trying to generate a solution that works for
everyone.
In contrast, when groups use this ground rule with an interest in learning, mem-
bers take a step back from their solutions and reflect on what is important to them
about their solutions, while simultaneously seeking to understand the underlying
drivers or interests of other group members. Genuine curiosity and compassion lead
group members to stay open to solutions that will meet everyone’s needs in the best
way possible.
Ground Rule Six: Combine Advocacy and Inquiry
This is another ground rule with words that I don’t commonly use: advocacy and
inquiry. I found this language relatively easy to alter for common use: I simply state
my opinion (advocacy) and ask others for their thoughts or reactions (inquiry).
Using this ground rule, I might say, “Given the impending layoffs, I’m think-
ing that we should create a new departmental structure. . . . What do you think
about what I’m suggesting?” or “I suggest that we take a ten-minute break now.
Is there anyone for whom that won’t work?”
For me, the key to using this ground rule came with the recognition that my
opinions are absolutely valid and it is helpful to ask others what they think about
my opinions. This ground rule is particularly helpful in groups that have trouble
sustaining a conversational thread in their meetings.
Over the years, I have noticed that different organizations have different trends
around this issue of advocacy and inquiry. Some organizations seem to have a culture
where employees state their opinions through the use of questions—for example,
“Don’t you think we should hold our meetings off-site?” (meaning: “I think we
should hold our meetings off-site”). “Wouldn’t it be a good idea to hire someone
with more experience?” (meaning: “I think we need to hire someone with more ex-
perience”). In other organizations, the culture seems to be to make statements with-
out asking for reactions or input. This was the case with one organization I
facilitated for a few years.
In this organization, facilitating a meeting was like watching the old “Point,
Counterpoint” segment on Sixty Minutes. Each person would make a statement,
and the next speaker would make another statement. Sometimes the statements were
connected, but often they weren’t. Group members would hold up their hands to
get in a queue so they would have a turn to speak. This process didn’t allow for a
natural progression of an interconnected dialogue. Using Ground Rule Six during
their meetings allowed group members to make their statements and then ask for
reactions to their specific ideas, so that the meeting began to flow from one thought
to the next rather than being a series of statements that never seemed to lead the
group in a clear direction.
Genuine curiosity
and compassion
lead group mem-
bers to stay open to
solutions that will meet
everyone’s needs in the
best way possible.
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 229
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 230
When learning is
the goal, genuine
questions come
easily as each person
seeks to better understand
the thinking and feeling of
others. Individuals thus
share their opinions clearly
and open themselves to
finding out what others are
thinking in response.
Those who use this ground rule without a solid understanding of the mutual
learning model often advocate and then ask questions to get others to agree with
their point. For example, they ask, “Don’t you agree?” or “Do you understand?” ver-
sus a question that genuinely seeks new information such as, “What are your
thoughts about what I’ve just said?” When used without the intention of learning,
the conversational thread is not generated, and the likelihood of true back-and-forth
dialogue is not created.
When learning is the goal, genuine questions come easily as each person seeks to
better understand the thinking and feeling of others. Individuals thus share their opin-
ions clearly and open themselves to finding out what others are thinking in response.
Ground Rule Seven: Jointly Design Next Steps and
Ways to Test Disagreements
For me, the greatest value of this ground rule has been the ability to jointly design
my conversations in a way that builds participants’ commitment to talking with me.
Giving another person negative feedback is never easy for me, but this ground rule
has given me an approach that has increased my comfort level.
For example, when I want to give someone negative feedback, I say something
along these lines: “Jerod, I want to talk with you about something you did
yesterday that upset me. I’d like to share with you the specifics of what I think
I saw and then check with you to see if you saw it differently. Once we agree
on what happened, I’d like to share my reactions with you and hear what you
were thinking. Finally, I’d like to talk with you about next steps for resolving
this issue, if we agree there is an issue to be resolved. Would you be willing to
talk with me about this?”
The joint design helps on two levels. First, it lays out exactly what I intend to
do in the conversation and asks the other person if that works for him or her, and,
second, it makes it clear that I don’t think my perspective is a fact and that I’m open
to hearing a different perspective. It has been my experience that after giving feed-
back in this manner and then asking the individual what he or she thought of my
feedback and how I delivered it, the person often tells me, “Sue, your feedback was
clear and fair, and I’m surprised to say that I didn’t feel at all judged.” The lack of
judgment is my aim, and I think this ground rule gives me the tools to achieve
my goal.
I have found that I cannot use this ground rule consistently if I am not open to
being incorrect in my perception of the other person’s behavior. If not used with the
genuine intention of sharing my thoughts and learning about the other person’s
thoughts, this becomes just another way to manipulate people into agreeing with
my perspective (or at least pretending to) and correcting the behavior as I recom-
mend they correct it. When I use the ground rule with compassion, I am able to
230 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 231
�
stay open to learning something new from the other person and coming up with
next steps that work for both of us, not just for me.
Ground Rule Eight: Discuss Undiscussable Issues
Undiscussable issues are rarely undiscussed. In my experience, I used to talk about
“undiscussable” issues a lot, just not in the presence of the individual or group that
was at the root of my issue. With friends, this resulted in lots of gossiping. I would
talk about my concerns regarding Jane (who had a psychologically abusive boyfriend
who would rarely let her spend time with me or our other friends anymore) with
everyone but Jane. I would talk to one family member about a familial pattern that
I thought problematic, but never raise the issue at family gatherings.
See Chapter Twenty-Eight “Holding Risky Conversations,” page 249.
Over time, I discovered the value of taking the risk to raise these kinds of issues
directly with the people I had the issues with. When done using the mutual learn-
ing model as a foundation, it is much less scary, as I learned over the years. In the
example regarding the learning group I shared above under Ground Rule One, “Test
assumptions and inferences,” it took me time to figure out how to raise the issue of
Burt’s behavior in the small group. When thinking unilaterally, I talked to others
about my problems with this group member and my feelings about how he acted.
Fortunately, I talked to people grounded in the mutual learning approach, who
pointed out that I might want to talk directly to Burt about his behavior. I realized
I was scared to do so. Yet I also realized that by not raising the issue, I was con-
tributing to maintaining the very problem I was complaining about. If I didn’t share
the information with Burt, he could not make a free and informed choice about
whether to change his behavior. Reflecting heavily on how to use this ground rule
with the intent of learning new information, I began collecting data and thinking
about how I could be curious instead of being right. This was a big revelation that
helped me raise the issue with compassion in a way that worked well for the group.
Using this ground rule with an understanding of the mutual learning approach gave
me compassion for myself and Burt.
Because of this compassion, I didn’t take my usual “I’m right, he’s wrong” ap-
proach. I took the time (several meetings) to watch the data generated in our con-
versations to determine what was causing me to react negatively. I stayed open to
the possibility that I might be misunderstanding the situation or that I might
be the only person reacting in this way to Burt. If I hadn’t had the grounding in
the mental models, I would have raised the issue to make Burt change his behavior
to suit me. Or worse, I may have asked him to leave the group or might have left
myself.
Using this ground
rule with an under-
standing of the
mutual learning approach
gave me compassion for
myself and Burt.
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 231
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 232
Ground Rule Nine: Use a Decision-Making Rule That
Generates the Level of Commitment Needed
This ground rule is frequently misinterpreted and its power unrealized. Newcom-
ers to the Skilled Facilitator approach may not appreciate the range of decision rules
that can be used within mutual learning or may underestimate the importance of
developing commitment to decisions.
Consensus versus Directive Decision Making
When individuals are first exposed to the Skilled Facilitator approach, they often
think that it requires that all decisions be made by consensus. This is not the case.
Directive decisions can be made in a manner consistent with the approach. Over
the years, I’ve had individuals tell me, “There are simply times I have to be unilat-
eral. Not all decisions can please everyone.” Although I agree with the fact that not
all decisions can please everyone, I don’t agree that we have to be unilateral in certain
circumstances. Instead, some decisions can be made as directives if the decision
maker shares what led her to make the decision in this manner; stays open to shar-
ing the reasoning of others and being questioned about it; and considers the im-
pact, intended and unintended, of being directive. If individuals with authority
repeatedly make directive decisions that have an impact on others, it can become
inconsistent with mutual learning. Directive decision making is best done in mod-
eration and with careful consideration for the long-term intended and unintended
consequences.
Interestingly, students who raise the question of being unilateral usually state
the need to do so in a crisis, often mentioning the police or fire departments as
places where decisions cannot be made as a group and must be unilateral. I have
also seen these agencies be directive in a manner that appears to be consistent with
the mutual learning approach. In such a fire department, for example, one person
is in charge of a squad or unit. This is the individual who gives commands during
a fire emergency. Everyone follows this person’s lead and does not question his or
her judgment during the incident. Once the fire is out and the firefighters have
returned to the station, they lead a critical incident review. In this meeting, all the
firefighters talk about what worked well and what didn’t work well during the ac-
tual fire event.
This is how they all learn and make changes to improve their work together.
Because the squad agrees to this process and have therefore internally committed to
it, it generates the level of commitment required for the job. This approach is con-
sistent with the mutual learning model. If there was no after-the-event review and
no one was allowed to challenge the squad leader’s decisions, this would be a uni-
lateral strategy.
232 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 233
Developing Internal Commitment
Following the mutual learning approach, group members develop internal com-
mitment to a decision or action step by discussing the issue, sharing their underly-
ing needs, and having those needs (interests) met as fully as possible by the group’s
final decision or action. If group members are routinely told what they are to do,
even if the reasons are shared and the decision can be questioned after the fact, their
internal commitment to the decisions and action steps will diminish over time. Peo-
ple invest their energy in areas where they have influence and the ability to shape
their work. If that ability to influence is taken away, investment diminishes.
In one municipal organization, the city manager assigned a small team to
plan an employee picnic to celebrate their work together. I encouraged the
city manager to share relevant information with the team such as budget
limitations and special locations that he might want, but he chose not to do
so. He wanted the team to have some freedom to explore their ideas. The
team was very excited about their assignment. They came up with some
new ideas to prevent the picnic from being another stale company event.
When they returned to the manager with all their innovative ideas, he was
displeased. He was upset that their budget of five thousand dollars was
much higher than he intended to spend and felt that they were being extrav-
agant in their choice of location, vendors, and food. He suggested that they
use the same location, vendors, and food that they had used in years past.
The team was devastated and stated to me later that they wished the man-
ager had just planned the picnic himself.
Contrast this experience with the previous one:
I once worked in a nonprofit organization that assigned me to create and
lead a team to select volunteers to live and work in Central America. The
director gave me her parameters, which included a few specific people to
serve on the team, some minimum requirements for the volunteers, and how
often we should meet as a team. For the next four years, I coordinated this
team, and we worked as an independent unit, selecting volunteers with
increasingly sophisticated data regarding the volunteers’ mental health, lan-
guage fluency, and other characteristics that we learned through experience
were important for selecting the best volunteers. As a team, we felt a
responsibility for this important task and a sense of pride when the volun-
teers we selected performed their jobs well.
Teams, as well as individual employees, that understand the interests of their
organization and their sponsors will have a greater chance of creating effective so-
lutions and recommendations. Withholding such information increases the likeli-
hood that supervisors and team sponsors will reverse team decisions when the
decisions do not meet their own interests.
Chapter 26 • Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model | 233
32_964948 ch26.qxd 3/3/05 9:56 AM Page 234
When groups seek
consensus using
the mutual learning
model, they recognize that
the goal is not consensus
itself but the underlying
internal commitment of all
members that it represents.
When groups do seek consensus without using a mutual learning approach,
group members in the majority may try to pressure group members in the minor-
ity to agree or give up their interests. Alternatively, group members in the minority
may decide to give up or compromise rather than find ways to integrate their in-
terests with those of others. When groups seek consensus using the mutual learn-
ing model, they recognize that the goal is not consensus itself but the underlying
internal commitment of all members that it represents.
CONCLUSION
The ground rules are necessary but insufficient to practice the Skilled Facilitator
approach. They derive their power and value from the core values and assumptions
of the mutual learning model. As you shift more toward the mutual learning
approach, you will probably discover that the same ground rules are able to help
you create results and relationships that weren’t previously possible.
234 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 235
�
Chapter 27
Writing and Analyzing a
Left-Hand Column Case
Roger Schwarz
When I work with clients, I frequently use left-hand column cases to help them
reflect on their theory-in-use. A left-hand column case is a written case in which the
case writer describes a difficult conversation he or she had and the thoughts and
feelings he or she had during the conversation.
By writing and analyzing a left-hand column case, you can (1) identify behav-
iors that are consistent with the mutual learning approach and with the unilateral
control approach, (2) identify the values and assumptions that you use to generate
your behaviors, and (3) identify the intended and unintended consequences of your
values, assumptions, and behaviors.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for an explanation of
espoused theory, theory-in-use, and the mutual learning and unilateral control models. See also the
Chapter Four sidebar on page 47 showing examples of the models in action in a left-hand column
case.
Left-hand column cases can also help you identify gaps between your espoused
theory and your theory-in-use. You can use left-hand column cases as a springboard
for reframing how you think about and act in difficult situations.
WRITING A LEFT-HAND COLUMN CASE
In one paragraph, describe an important but difficult conversation you have had
with a person or people in your work. The conversation should be one that you had
with the person face-to-face, wished you had handled more effectively, and are will-
ing to share with others who can help you learn about your behavior. The conver-
sation should involve people with whom you want to improve your working
relationship and should be representative of how you handle difficult situations. If
This chapter is adapted from Roger Schwarz, Analyzing and Facilitating Left-Hand Column Cases (Chapel Hill,
N.C.: Roger Schwarz & Associates, 2004).
A left-hand column
case is a written
case in which the
case writer describes a dif-
ficult conversation he or
she had and the thoughts
and feeling he had during
the conversation.
By writing and ana-
lyzing a left-hand
column case, you
can (1) identify behaviors
that are consistent with the
mutual learning approach
and with the unilateral con-
trol approach, (2) identify
the values and assump-
tions that you use to gener-
ate your behaviors, and (3)
identify the intended and
unintended consequences
of your values, assump-
tions, and behaviors.
235
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 236
you need to, change the names, positions, or any other information about the peo-
ple involved in order to feel comfortable discussing the case with others.
In a second paragraph, describe the strategy that you used during the conver-
sation. Include (1) what outcomes you wanted, (2) how you planned to have the
conversation to achieve those outcomes, and (3) what specifically it was about
the conversation that led you to describe it as difficult.
Next, on a new page, divide the page into two columns. In the right-hand col-
umn, type exactly what you said, what others said, and what you said next—in
short, the verbatim dialogue you had with the person or people. Do not write a gen-
eral description or summary of the dialogue because you will not be able to use it
to analyze your case. In the left-hand column, write down all the thoughts or feelings
you had, whether or not you shared them. The more thoughts and feelings you
write, the better. Write this dialogue for at least two to three typewritten pages. Don’t
worry if you cannot remember the exact conversation or your exact thoughts and
feelings. Write it as best as you remember it and fill in the gaps with what you think
you would have said, thought, and felt. Figure 27.1 at the end of the chapter shows
the sequence that I describe next.
Analyzing Cases in a Group
Although you can analyze your left-hand column case by yourself, you will
learn more by analyzing cases with a partner or with a group. If you use a
group approach, ask each person to come to the conversation having already
analyzed the case, or you can jointly analyze it together. In either case, the
group members share their observations along with those of the case writer.
The conversation is also an opportunity for members to use the Skilled
Facilitator approach as they give feedback and test their inferences about their
analysis.
If you will be discussing your left-hand column case with a group of fellow
learners, you may want to use a conversation that you had with someone who
is in the group. Writing this type of case can feel like a greater risk, but it can
also create greater learning for you and the group. If you choose to write a
case involving someone who will also be in the group, it is consistent with the
core values of the Skilled Facilitator approach to let them know you are writ-
ing a case that includes them and, if you are willing, to show them the case
(or at least the verbatim dialogue part) before you discuss it in the group. You
can also ask the person if you have accurately recalled the conversation.
Sometimes two or more people in a group have written their cases about the
same conversation they had with each other. This offers a great learning
opportunity because you can learn how each person’s unexpressed thoughts
and feelings during the same conversation leads people to interact in a way
that makes difficult conversations less productive than they could be.
236 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 237
ANALYZING THE CASE
I begin to analyze a left-hand column case by reading and analyzing the description,
strategy, and difficulty paragraph at the beginning of the case. Then I turn to the
verbatim conversation and thoughts and feelings.
Analyzing the Description, Strategy, and Difficulty
Sections
The first step in analyzing a left-hand column case is reading the case description,
strategy, and difficulty section. In this section, the case writer (which may be you)
describes the context for the conversation, the strategy he used to have the conver-
sation, and the difficulty that resulted. In this section, the case writer often offers at
least parts of his espoused theory for managing the conversation, identifying
elements that are consistent with either the unilateral control model or mutual learn-
ing model.
When you identify an element of the case writer’s espoused theory, underline
that element and label it. For example, if the case writer wrote, “I thought it was
important to keep the conversation focused on the facts and not get into people’s
frustrations,” you would underline it and write something like, “This looks like min-
imizing the expression of negative feelings in the unilateral control model. What do
you think?”
As you read through the case dialogue and left-hand column, you will look for
places where the case writer either put into use or did not put into use what he
espoused in the description, strategy, and difficulty section.
Analyzing the Left- and Right-Hand Columns
After you have analyzed the description, strategy, and difficulty section, you are ready
to read and analyze the left- and right-hand columns of the case. You might find it
easier to read through the entire case once so you can develop a sense of the overall
issues and then analyze it as you read through it a second time.
There are a couple of ways to analyze the conversation and thoughts and feel-
ings. I read the case from left to right, reading a left-hand column part, then the
corresponding conversation, then the next left-hand column part, and so on. Read-
ing in this way helps me see how the case writer’s thinking influences his actions
and how other people’s actions influence the case writer’s subsequent thinking. Some
of my colleagues prefer to read and analyze the entire right-hand column and then
read and analyze the left-hand column, making links between the two columns. If
you are reading someone else’s case, it’s often surprising (and sometimes very enter-
taining) how your understanding of the case changes when you read the thoughts
and feelings after you have read the verbatim conversation.
Chapter 27 • Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case | 237
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 238
There are several levels of analysis that you can conduct. I have grouped them
into three increasingly complex and powerful types: behaviors or individual events,
patterns, and structures.
Identifying Behaviors and Individual Events
Identifying behaviors and individual events is the simplest form of analysis. A
behavior or individual event (such as a thought) represents a single occurrence in
the case and in practice usually corresponds to a discrete chunk of the case writer’s
left- or right-hand column, usually in which the case writer is using or not using
one or more ground rule or core value.
Ground Rules. Analyzing how the case writer uses the ground rules is a basic
kind of analysis. As you read the case, note places where the case writer has said
things that are either consistent or inconsistent with the ground rules. To save
time, you can note the appropriate ground rule using its corresponding number on
the list (for example, testing assumptions is 1, share all relevant information is 2,
and so on). Place a minus sign in front of the number when the case writer has not
used a ground rule that you think would have been useful to use, and place a plus
sign in front of the number when the case writer has used a ground rule.
Sometimes you might place both signs in front of the number when the case writer
has partially used the ground rule. In general, I code only the case writer’s conver-
sation, although there are exceptions, which I describe later.
In order to code some ground rules, you need to look first at the case writer’s
left-hand column and then see how he or she shared or withheld thoughts in the
right-hand column. For example, the case writer often makes inferences and attri-
butions in the left-hand column. Look at the right-hand column to see whether the
case writer has publicly tested the inference he made. If he does, code it as a tested
inference; if he does not, code it as an untested inference and draw an arrow from
the left column to the right column. By comparing the left- and right-hand columns,
you can identify if the case writer is testing assumptions, sharing all relevant infor-
mation, discussing undiscussable issues, and explaining his reasoning and intent.
Missed Interventions. Sometimes a case is notable because the case writer
doesn’t respond effectively to others in the case. One example is if someone makes
a statement without explaining his reasoning and the case writer does not inquire
into the reasoning. Another example is when someone makes a general statement
and the case writer responds without asking for specific examples. The case writer
reduces his effectiveness by not asking others to use the appropriate ground rule.
In these situations, you can first code the noncase writer’s comments, such as “–4”
to indicate that the other person did not explain her reasoning. Then draw an arrow
pointing to that person’s comment and write a comment like, “This would have been
a useful place to inquire into the person’s reasoning. Do you see it differently?”
238 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 239
Core Values and Assumptions. When you analyze a case for the ground
rules, you are also implicitly analyzing it for the core values and assumptions
because the ground rules operationalize the core values. Still, there are times when
you want to note the core value or assumption specifically. For example, I will note
“–free and informed choice” when I infer that the case writer is withholding infor-
mation in ways that may reduce others’ free and informed choice around a central
issue in the case. I will note “–compassion” especially when the case writer’s left- or
right-hand column indicates not only a lack of compassion but also a punishing
approach, such as a case writer who is thinking, “I’m going to show you! You can’t
get away with that. You’ll learn not to fool with me.”
Inquiring into the Case Writer’s Behavior. Sometimes in addition to cod-
ing the ground rule that the case writer did not use, it is useful to inquire into what
led the person not to use it. For example, if someone does not test an inference, you
may write, “What led you to not test the inference?” or “What would prevent you
from testing the inference?” These questions are designed to start the case writer
thinking about his strategies and what led him to design the strategies as he did. You
can make these same kinds of inquiries for each level of analysis you do.
Identifying Patterns
Patterns comprise behaviors over time. In a simple pattern, the case writer acts in-
consistently with the same ground rules, core values or assumptions, or other parts
of theory-in-use over time. In more complex patterns, the case writer repeatedly uses
two or more of these elements in a certain way. Some patterns reveal themselves in
a short period of time—within one page of the case; other patterns may take longer
to surface.
When you identify a pattern in the case, note on the case each time the behav-
iors occur that make up that pattern. You can also place numbers by the examples
that form the pattern, so when you summarize the case, you can quickly refer to the
places where this pattern occurred.
Simple Patterns, Repeating Behaviors. Simple patterns occur when the
case writer repeatedly acts inconsistently with the same ground rules (or core values
or elements of theory-in-use). For example, the case writer may ask one easing-in
question after another or may continue to advocate his view without inquiry, or may
make repeated untested inferences.
Two or More Related Behaviors: Switching Unilateral Control
Strategies. A somewhat more complex pattern occurs when the case writer
switches between different unilateral control strategies. For example, a common
strategy is for the case writer to start out using an easing-in strategy or false inquiry
without advocacy. At some point, the case writer switches to an advocacy without
Chapter 27 • Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case | 239
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 240
inquiry strategy. This switch often occurs when the case writer is feeling that the
other people are not getting what the case writer is indirectly trying to say, or when
the other people respond defensively, or when the other people start to raise their
own issues directly.
Patterns of Interaction Between the Case Writer and Others. The
case writer’s behavior doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It is partly a response to other
people’s comments. In this kind of pattern, there is a repeated relationship between
the case writer’s behavior and others’ behavior. For example, in the pattern of esca-
lating advocacy, each time one person advocates his point of view, the other
responds with advocacy. In another pattern, when a person does not explain his
reasoning, the case writer inquires into the reasoning. When the reasoning doesn’t
make sense to the case writer, the case writer attributes to the other person that the
other person has questionable motives.
Identifying Structure
Structure is the deepest and most powerful level of analysis. Unlike identifying be-
haviors and patterns, when you identify structure, you help the case writer under-
stand a causal explanation for what is happening. To identify the structure, you show
how the case writer’s values and assumptions lead him to design certain strategies,
which in turn create certain consequences, which then reinforce core values and as-
sumptions. In left-hand column cases (and this work in general), the structure is
also created by the interaction between the case writer’s theory-in-use and actual
conversation and the other people’s theory-in-use and conversation. In other words,
each person puts his theory-in-use into practice in the conversation, and each per-
son uses others’ comments as data to respond to with their theory-in-use. In left-
hand column cases, we typically have only the case writer’s left-hand column, so we
focus only on the case writer’s theory-in-use. Sometimes it’s difficult to see the struc-
ture in the case. It can take several readings of the case before you begin to see the
structure emerge.
Generating Unintended Consequences. A central theme of these struc-
tures is that the case writer creates unintended consequences. For example, in an
effort not to embarrass someone, the case writer withholds relevant information
from that person or does not inquire into gaps in the person’s reasoning. In the
short term, the case writer achieves the intended consequences, but in the long
240 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 241
term, this creates unintended consequences. The problem may remain unsolved,
the other person may not be able to improve her performance, and the case writer
may end up frustrated.
Sometimes the case writer expresses surprise in his left-hand column that
these consequences occurred. Sometimes the case writer has a causal explanation for
the consequences but rarely does the case writer describe himself as contributing
to the structure.
Self-Fulfilling, Self-Sealing Processes. Self-fulfilling, self-sealing process-
es are a specific case of generating unintended consequences. In this situation, the
case writer gets the very unintended consequences he was trying to avoid. For
example, the case writer begins by making an inference that the other person
will get defensive. Consequently, in an attempt to make sure the other person doesn’t
get defensive, the case writer uses an easing-in strategy. The easing-in strategy leads
the other person to respond by giving short answers that are somewhat vague, per-
haps because the other person does not know why the case writer is asking these
questions. The case writer sees this as defensive behavior and attributes it to the
other person; he does not see how his own initial inference and resulting strategy
contributed to creating the very defensiveness he was trying to avoid. Having cre-
ated the self-fulfilling process, the case writer often makes it self-sealing by assum-
ing that he cannot talk with the person about her defensive behavior because she
would just get more defensive. As a result, the case writer has created a self-sealing
logic that prevents him from learning about how he contributed to the problem.
Writing a Case Summary
After you have made individual codings and comments in the case, write a sum-
mary of your observations and inferences. This is the place to describe how the case
writer’s values and assumptions led him to use certain strategies, which created cer-
tain consequences. Tell the story by referring to specific examples in the case, in-
quiring what led the case writer to think or say a particular thing. When you make
inferences about the case writer, identify them and test them out in the summary.
At the end of the summary, inquire whether the case writer sees any of your analy-
sis differently.
Figure 27.1 illustrates the process explained in this chapter and what your role
in this is.
Chapter 27 • Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case | 241
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 242
Figure 27.1 A Left-Hand Column Case
Situation
Recently there was a change in our manufacturing organization. The manufacturing manager
accepted a promotional opportunity in another division, creating an opening to replace her. That
-1 Is this an replacement was Steve, who up to that point was a colleague on the functional staff reporting to
inference, or has he the operations manager. Steve is informal in process and procedures, very adverse to told you this?
confrontation, and in my opinion, “obfuscates with data,” which results in confusion about
direction, intent, and responsibility. One of Steve’s first acts as the manufacturing manager was to
appoint two individuals to promotional positions rather than completing a competitive selection
process. This created mistrust and resentment in his direct reports and inconsistency in company
practice, and it established an environment of favoritism and a perception that Steve was going to
make his own rules.
-1 It looks like
you’ve already
decided that
something needs to
be recovered from.
Yes? If so, that
looks like “I’m right,
he’s wrong.”
Thoughts?
What was it about his
being your boss that
made it difficult?
Had there been
previous issues that
you had not discussed
with Steve?
-2 About what? I’m
curious what led you not
to say anything about
that.
-1 Untested inferences.
What led you not to test
this with him? I ask
because if your inferences
were correct, you didn’t
address why he didn’t want
to be there. I imagine the
I was pretty nervous, and had actually written
down a script so I wouldn’t lose anything.
Steve looked like he was open, but my feeling
was that the only time we have conversations is
when he’s done something wrong.
I could see that he was getting nervous, not
looking at me, and definitely didn’t want to be
here.
Ted: I wanted to meet with you about the
financial manager positions. There are a
couple of items that I believe need to be
resolved. First and foremost, I believe our
relationships must be built on trust, and my
style is to deal with things in a straightforward
manner. I also believe my role is to provide you
feedback, guidance, and counsel, even if it’s not
easy or comfortable. My purpose here is to
resolve what I feel now are inconsistencies,
The Conversation My Thoughts and Feelings
+mutual learning
model. “I have
some information,
others have
other information.”
+7? If correcting includes
places where you may be
wrong.
+2, +7 Dealing with
emotions. This is part
of sharing all relevant
information and
dealing with
undiscussable issues.
What, if anything, were
you concerned about?
-6, -7 Advocacy without
inquiry and no joint
design.
-3, -4, -5 Regarding
what? What leads you to
want to do this? What are
your underlying interests?
Unilateral control. I don’t
Goals, Strategy, and Difficulty
The goal for this conversation with Steve was to reach mutual understanding of his intent and
the impact of his actions, and develop a plan to “recover.” An additional goal was to develop and
strengthen our relationships, clarify my role, and establish a foundation of trust and respect. My
plan was to meet with Steve individually and talk through the information I had, clarify and
correct points of fact, and acknowledge and deal with the emotions that came with this situation.
The outcomes I wanted from the conversation were to agree on perceptions and establish the
environment he wanted to create, and clarify my role and how this type of situation should be
handled in the future. The difficulty of the conversation was in three parts: first, Steve was my
new boss, and our relationship had not been in great shape before he became my boss; second,
this was a confrontational situation that I knew he abhorred and I didn’t look forward to; and
third, the actions and behaviors Steve took really were setting an environment that was
inconsistent with our long-established and successful values and, from my point of view, would
not permit him to be successful.
conversation could be more
difficult.
-1 Untested inference.
What led you not to ask I felt like this was lip-service.
him about his response?
I sure am talking a lot, but I need to establish
-6 I agree that you need the foundation and the facts to make sure I have
to have the facts right and them right and we agree.
agree. I don’t see where
you asked Steve if you
are missing anything or
whether he agrees. Do
you see it differently?
see anything explicit here
provide you with feedback that I’ve received, about your wanting to
and discuss actions that I believe are necessary clarify points of fact or
to move forward in a positive way. hearing his point of view.
Thoughts?
Steve: Okay.
Ted: My recollection of our conversations -7 This would be a good
about the finance positions is that you place to jointly design
with Steve where to go indicated to me that you did not want to
first in the conversation.
reorganize the functions now, as it is important You decided yourself.
to maintain continuity, stability, and Yes?
momentum. I understood you to say that with
your experience on the financial task team and
+3, +4 You very through your contacts, you considered names of
specifically described
people you thought might be potential Steve’s action and his
reasoning as you
understood it.
242 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 243
-1 Untested inference.
-1 Untested inference. My
inference is that if Steve
is feeling annoyed and
angry, it may be because
he doesn’t understand
why you are going
through all this detail and
where it will lead. This
relates to my comment
that you have not been
sharing your reasoning
for bringing this up, nor
have you and Steve
jointly agreed to have you
go through all this detail.
Do you see this
differently?
What would prevent you
from testing your
inference?
Okay, we are on the same page. I’m somewhat
relieved and am gaining confidence or some
comfort.
candidates for the positions and resolved for
yourself that there weren’t any better
candidates than Jim and Peggy. Further, you
indicated you looked in the manufacturing
organization and didn’t see anyone who either
met the qualifications or would be a candidate.
You did have a conversation with Tom where
he expressed interest, but since you didn’t
believe it would be a promotion and he
indicated to you that was essentially the only
reason he would be interested, you mutually
agreed that he wasn’t a candidate for the
-4 Sharing your reasoning
and intent. I don’t see
where you are explaining
to Steve why you are
going through this.
-6? I’m thinking you may
be easing in. Thoughts?
-6 A good place to stop
and ask, “Have I missed
position. anything?”
Steve: Yup, that’s true. I did make phone calls
to people I thought would either be candidates
or know of people who would be candidates,
and with my years of experience, there weren’t
any people close to the skill set I need and the
organizational knowledge to maintain the
continuity.
I’m really sounding proceduralistic, and Steve is Ted: We also talked about the process—that
looking as if he’s feeling the same. for any promotional opportunity, a requisition
Starting to feel uneasy because Steve is starting
to look annoyed and somewhat angry.
is standard practice, that if you consider
candidates outside your organization a
requisition was required, and that if you were
going to limit the recruiting to your organization,
you should have a requisition, but could
go without one (which I recommended against).
Further, that if you were going to limit this to
manufacturing only, from a process standpoint
and a perception standpoint, you should talk to
direct reports, explain your thought process,
and understand if there are any candidates
for the positions who should be considered
before you make your decision.
During our subsequent hallway conversation at
your staff meeting, I understood you to say that
you had taken the input and had contacted your
staff and got understanding and agreement
about your direction or current thinking before
making offers. Based on that, I agree that
making offers to both and announcing to the
finance group the next day was okay. We
briefly discussed scoping level, and without
being able to resolve that at that moment and
your feeling the need to offer and announce
quickly, you indicated you would offer the jobs
at a B4 level. I agreed and indicated I would
look at the proper scoping level in the next
several days.
-6 Again, a good place to
stop and ask, “Have I
missed anything?”
-4 Sharing your reasoning
and intent. Again, I don’t
see where you are
explaining to Steve why
you are going through this.
-6 Again, I’m thinking you
may be easing in.
Man, is this guy lying or what? I’m really getting Steve: Yes, I did talk to my staff, and they all
nervous now because I don’t see any other indicated that Jim and Peggy were the right
Chapter 27 • Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case | 243
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 244
Figure 27.1 (continued)
Unilateral control model:
“The way I see it is the
way it is.” “My motives
are pure; those who
disagree have
questionable motives.”
I’m inferring that you feel
as if you’ve caught
someone partly because
you have eased into the
conversation until now,
and when you finally state
your concern here, you
don’t ask Steve whether
he has a different
understanding of what
happened (Ground
Rule Six).
-2 I think it’s relevant
information that you
are looking for any
explanation to
disconfirm your
inference that he
wasn’t telling you the Really uncomfortable silence. talked to each person and getting their truth. I’m curious: What
led you not to share understanding and input.
this?
I’m surprised that Steve’s actually pretty calm Steve: I have no reason not to be truthful with -8 Undiscussable
issue? and collected as he’s talking. I am a bit you. Let’s talk about how we got to this place. I
surprised at this wording of “I have no reason feel I did have conversations with all, but the
not to be truthful.” I would have preferred, “I discrepancy might be the context in which the My inference is that
you were surprised
because you believe
that he is not telling
you the truth and
therefore you don’t
expect him to be calm.
Is my inference off? If
not, I think it reflects
the unilateral control
model assumption that
“I’m right, he’s wrong”
and that “my feelings
are justified.” What do
you think?
Was this partly
because you wanted
to save face for
Steve?
Unilateral control
assumption: “I’m right,
you’re wrong.” Using a
mutual learning
approach, you could
describe exactly what
it is about his story
that does not make
sense to you and,
remaining curious, ask
him if he can put the
nonfitting pieces
together in a way that
does make sense to
you.
explanation than he’s not telling the truth. people for the position. But this process stuff.
It’s been my experience that it’s rare for a
requisition to be opened for this level of position.
I’m following the example of my previous bosses.
They’ve hired or appointed most of the people
in their organizations.
Major nervous, start stuttering a bit, and that’s Ted: Here are the issues that I’m having
making Steve even more uneasy. problems with. First, I received input from four
of your direct reports that they did not have a
I feel like I’ve just caught someone. It’s my conversation with you prior to your
boss!! Are you sure you want to continue with announcement, and in fact hadn’t heard that
this career-limiting discussion!! you were going to fill the jobs until after the
announcement was made. Another person
indicated he would have been interested in the
job, and two others indicated that they had
people in their organizations who were
interested. These folks expressed
disappointment in the process—that it appears
that your decision making is not inclusive or
participative and that you are sending a very
bad signal to the organization.
The words got caught in my throat. I’m really
looking for some, any explanation other than I feel that based on the input from these people,
he’s lied and that’s the end of our relationship. you weren’t truthful with me about having
didn’t lie.” discussion took place, where it took place, and
the manner. For example, I talked to Mark in
the hallway and was really telling him what I
I started to feel relieved and jumped quickly to was doing. He very possibly came away from
“I’ll accept that” even before he finished his that conversation not even remembering it
explanation. occurred or feeling like the decision was
already made and this was informational only. I
acknowledge that I’m much less formal than
Stacy, and it may not have been clear that I was
I started getting some confidence back and looking for input. Some of this may be
started listening more closely. You really did attributable to the difference in relationship,
talk to each, but because of the context, they where we used to be peers and now I’m their
may not have remembered? You’ve got to be boss. It may be that we were more open with
kidding! Who are you trying to fool, me or each other, they felt more comfortable sharing
yourself? Is this a way to save face? more, and now that I’m the boss, they may not
be as open. Does that make sense?
I really want this to work, and it’s really Ted: Yes, it does. I want to trust that we are
important that it does. I am jumping to accept, being honest with each other, and I can accept
but I’m not going to let this go without at least that you feel you did talk to each of your
an indirect statement that I’m not fully buying reports, but that based on how some of the
this. conversations took place, there might not have
been full recognition. I do believe that because
Unilateral control model: Act rational. I interpret your thoughts to mean you are sending Steve a mixed
message that says, “I am publicly accepting your explanation, but privately I don’t fully buy it.” I’m curious
what leads you to want to make it indirect. I ask because as an indirect statement, it is more likely that Steve
will misinterpret it. What concerns do you have about making it explicit?
+3, +4 You are specific
about your concerns that
Steve is not being truthful
and your reasoning
behind it.
-3 You do not state the
persons’ names, which
opens the possibility that
Steve and you are talking
about having talked with
different people.
-6 Advocacy without
inquiry.
-Saving face: When
you say, “Yes, it does”
make sense when you
are privately thinking,
Who are you trying to
fool, me or yourself?
I’m inferring that you
are acting to save face
for Steve to minimize
expressing negative
feelings (yours and
his) and to “make it
work.” Thoughts?
If you agree with my
thinking, then you end
up saving face at the
same time you are
privately thinking that
Ted is trying to save
face.
244 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 245
“I understand, he
doesn’t.” What data
are you using to infer
he doesn’t
understand? What
would prevent you
from sharing those
data and testing
your inference?
-1 Untested inference
“I understand, he
doesn’t.” What
would prevent you
from saying what
you think it is
about?
-2, -8? What is it
that leads you not
to be totally
convinced? What
would prevent you
from sharing this
with Steve and
jointly figuring out
what you would
need to hear from
him to be totally
convinced?
-1 What makes it “a
crock,” and how are
you seeing it as
being designed to
give him flexibility
to continue doing
what he has been
doing?
He really doesn’t understand how his actions
have affected him and the people in the
group. I don’t know Peggy very well, but this is a
really ugly thing to do to her, especially if it’s
unintentional and isn’t true.
Steve is really upset but doesn’t show it much.
Just his words and his acknowledgment that
this could have or did have a negative impact
on Peggy. This is the first time I really feel that
I’m getting a true reaction from Steve other
than annoyance or being uncomfortable.
Ted: What specific actions do you think should
be taken?
You don’t have it yet! It’s not about formality; Steve: I’ll just be more formal and make it clear
it’s about trust, honesty, relationships, decision that Peggy is the most qualified candidate.
making.
I’m feeling like I’m actually contributing,
providing suggestions and guidance. This feels
pretty good.
Good! You’re saying the right words. But I’m
not totally convinced.
Oh boy, this is a crock just to give him the
“flexibility” to continue like he has been. Did
we gain any ground during this?
I’m exhausted, a bit up, and ambivalent. I feel
good that I took the risk; at least it’s clear about
how I will approach these types of issues in the
future, so I’m “true to myself ” and I think that
there wasn’t clear understanding, there are
some negative impacts and feelings from your
reports. A specific example is that I heard from
two of your reports that you appointed Peggy
because of your relationship with her (they’re
saying things like you’re having an affair) and
not because she is the most qualified. In fact,
people are indicating that she isn’t the most
qualified and spreading some ugly rumors
about this.
Steve: Well . . . I don’t want anything to
negatively reflect on Peggy due to my screw-
up. And it’s important that my staff trust me
and that we work together. I guess I need to be
more formal and participative in my decisions.
Ted: I believe you have some direct
relationship and team building to do. I might
approach this by meeting with each of your
reports individually and privately and let them
know that you have received this feedback and
that you want to talk about it. I would then, in
your own words, explain how you came to your
decision, that you thought or felt that you did
review your plan with him or her, and ask them
their perception. This might be a good time to
talk about your style, changing role, and
probably changing expectations, and begin
developing your personal working relationship
with them. I would also help them understand
the basis for your decision on Peggy so that
whether they agree or not, there is at least
understanding about the basis for your
judgment or decision. Advocacy without inquiry.
Steve: Yeah, I don’t want to do this in a staff
meeting, especially when Peggy is there. I do
want this team to work closely together, to
function as a team, and for each to participate,
question, give ideas, and challenge. I don’t
want to follow procedures for their own sake, but
if I need to be more formal and procedural and
that results in better trust and teamwork, then
that’s good. If not, and it’s not obvious that it
helps the business, I must question and
challenge.
-6 Advocacy without
inquiry. This would be
a good place to ask if
he was aware of this
or if he had a different
understanding of what
happened.
-6 Easing in? I’m
inferring that you have
some specific actions
in mind. Am I off?
With the Facilitative
Leader approach, I
would advocate
meeting publicly as a
group assuming that
Steve’s actions had an
impact on the entire
group. This would
enable everyone to
hear the same thing at
the same time,
exactly what did not
happen originally. I’m
curious what leads
you to suggest
meeting individually
and privately. Is part
of it a desire to save
face for Peggy?
Chapter 27 • Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case | 245
33_964948 ch27.qxd 3/3/05 1:58 PM Page 246
Figure 27.1 (continued)
Steve moved a bit. I’m a bit down in that
there’s a long way to go, and I don’t know if we
will ever get there.
[We went on about our future working
relationship and began discussing styles, how
to bring up issues, and other topics.]
Ted-
I have some thoughts about how the conversation became difficult for you. I think you entered the
conversation with two important untested assumptions. One was that Steve didn’t like conflict, and the
other was that what he had done was definitely wrong and needed a plan to “recover.” I think this
combination made it difficult for you to openly question Steve and be curious when he saw things
differently from you or when you did not see how his story held together.
I see your assumptions playing out in several strategies you use in the conversation. First, you advocate
your view without asking Steve’s reaction. Second, you design the conversation unilaterally, without
finding out if Steve wants to have the conversation in the same way you do. Third, I think you use an
easing-in strategy. I think all of this contributes to what you infer as Steve’s feeling angry and annoyed.
Although you said that you wanted to discuss the emotions that came with the situation, when you
thought that Steve was feeling something negative, you chose not to test your inference. I think this
made it more difficult for you because you couldn’t find out what you might have been doing that was
contributing to his feeling annoyed or angry (assuming your inference was correct).
When Steve finally gets the chance to share his view of what happened, your assumption that “I’m right,
he’s wrong,” along with your concern that Steve doesn’t like conflict, makes it difficult for you to be
specific and curious about your differing points of view.
As a result, I see you first easing in to the conversation about what concerns you and then saving face by
not telling Steve that his explanation doesn’t make sense to you. This puts you in a situation where you
publicly accept his explanation but privately doubt it. By withholding this information from Steve, you
make it difficult for him to help you see things differently or for Steve and you to move forward together.
I think this accounts for your mixed feeling at the end of the conversation in which you feel good that
you raised the issue but don’t feel that it’s resolved.
What are your thoughts? Do you see any of this differently?
Roger
Source: This case was written by Ted Lang (a pseudonym) as part of a Skilled Facilitator workshop and used with his permission.
246 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
34_964948 pt04.qxd 3/3/05 9:57 AM Page 247
PART FOUR
Facing Challenges
The Skilled Facilitator approach offers valuable guidance for dealing with chal-
lenging situations like giving negative feedback, disagreeing with the boss, raising
undiscussable issues in a group, and holding other difficult conversations. Part Four
addresses reasons to engage in difficult conversations and offers specific steps and
examples. It also continues the theme of expanding self-awareness so that anyone
using this approach can see how they might contribute to the very problems that
frustrate them.
Without resolving problems about issues that matter, it is difficult to stay pro-
ductively engaged in a project or relationship. Chapter Twenty-Eight, “Holding Risky
Conversations,” covers when and why you might engage in a difficult or risky con-
versation and then gives you steps for doing so. The chapter closes with an example
of a risky conversation that was held productively using Skilled Facilitator ground rules
and core values. Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,”
helps us see how we might be contributing to the very difficulties we seek to resolve.
It suggests strategies to help shift our thinking to a mutual learning perspective in order
to hold challenging discussions productively. Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward
Difficulty,” highlights the ineffective strategies many people use to deal with difficult
conversations. It challenges the assumption that pointing out problems will cause con-
flict to escalate. By changing the way you think about conversations that seem risky,
you can learn to use the Skilled Facilitator approach to move directly toward difficulty
and resolve problems. This chapter includes an example of how to change a conver-
sation that might not go well when giving an employee negative feedback into one
where the supervisor and employee learn how to effectively change their behavior and
resolve their concerns.
The concluding chapters in Part Four address difficult issues that arise in work-
ing with groups. Chapter Thirty-One, “Responding to Silence and Interruptions
and Enabling Members to Talk with Each Other,” suggests ways to intervene when
group members either do not speak up or interrupt others who are speaking. It also
points out how facilitators and leaders reduce group member accountability by in-
tervening in ways that discourage group members from addressing concerns with
one another and, instead, talking with (and through) the person who started an in-
tervention. Chapter Thirty-Two, “Raising Issues In or Out of the Group,” discusses
what to do when group members approach you outside a meeting and ask you to
do something inconsistent with your role, such as raising their concerns for them
34_964948 pt04.qxd 3/3/05 9:57 AM Page 248
or getting a group to discuss or drop a particular subject. Here you will find guid-
ing principles for responding in these and similar situations in ways that model
mutual learning and increase group members’ accountability for addressing their
own issues.
248 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 249
�
Chapter 28
Holding Risky
Conversations
Anne Davidson
What makes a conversation feel risky to you? When do you find yourself debat-
ing whether to have a particular conversation or facing the fact that you need to
have a conversation but dreading it? We probably each answer these questions a lit-
tle differently based on our upbringing and organizational culture. But most often,
risky conversations include sharing negative feedback, especially with those we deem
more powerful than ourselves, like the boss, or those we love and admire, like a
spouse or good friend. Some conversations feel risky because we think we have a lot
at stake, like a long investment in a relationship or job. Others are risky because we
want to do something different from what we believe is anticipated or expected of
us. It helps to think clearly about what creates a risky conversation for you.
WHY HAVE RISKY CONVERSATIONS?
It is not necessary or even possible to have every potential risky conversation that
comes along. Yet often the risk arises from the fact that the issue we want to talk
about matters a great deal to us. Without resolving problems in relationships or with
groups, we cannot move forward or remain productively engaged. And once we
come to understand conversations systemically, we recognize that avoiding a con-
versation now is likely to create a bigger problem or threat later. In fact, we often
contribute to the very problems we complain about. Not having a conversation with
the boss about her behaviors that make it difficult for us to do our job is likely to
end up reflecting more on us than on the boss. Moreover, the counterintuitive no-
tion of moving toward conflict is actually more productive than avoiding it.
See Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward Difficulty,” page 261, and Chapter Forty-Two, “How to
Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page 335.
Everyone I have worked with in organizations has compelling examples of the
serious negative consequences created by avoiding difficult issues and uncomfort-
able conversations. So the first question to ask yourself is, “What are the possible
Everyone I have
worked with in
organizations
has compelling examples
of the serious negative
consequences created by
avoiding difficult issues
and uncomfortable
conversations.
249
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 250
�
consequences of not having this conversation?” If, in the long term, those conse-
quences could be as or more risky than forging ahead, then it seems irresponsible
to avoid the discussion.
HOW TO HAVE A RISKY CONVERSATION
Several of the chapters that follow offer specific guidance for particular kinds of dif-
ficult conversations. Here are some general steps that fit almost any conversation
that you may define as risky.
Step 1: Clarify Your Own Purpose and Intent
The first work you must do is with yourself. If your intent in having the conversa-
tion is unilateral, that is, to get someone else to do or believe something, your
approach is likely to increase defensiveness and fail to accomplish what you desire.
If you can enter the conversation with curiosity, to explore the situation and dis-
cover whether your view is accurate and how you can productively change your own
behavior, then you have a basis for moving forward. Knowing your own purpose
and intent toward the others involved is critical for being transparent. In their prac-
tical, readable book Difficult Conversations, Stone, Patton and Heen (1999) point
out that each difficult conversation is really about three things: what really hap-
pened, how you feel about what happened, and what this situation says about your
identity (how worthy, competent, or lovable you think you are). Getting clear about
how you are thinking and feeling will give you a window into whether this is a hot-
button issue for you, where you might be making untested assumptions and attri-
butions, and whether your feelings are based on valid data. The reflection questions
included in this chapter and the “Biases and Defensive Triggers” exercise in Chapter
Thirty-Three, page 281, may be useful guides to your analysis.
Step 2: Build a Foundation for the Conversation
Contracting for a risky conversation is even more important than contracting for
routine ones. If the conversation feels challenging to you, there is a great likelihood
that others who are involved will also think it could be difficult. These kinds of con-
versations take time. Going slow to go fast has even bigger payoffs because resolv-
ing an issue that feels risky is likely to strengthen a relationship and make it much
easier to address issues in the future.
See also Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103.
The first step in building a foundation is to agree about the purpose of the con-
versation. In a risky situation, this step may be a little longer than average, because
it is extremely important to highlight why you want to have the conversation as well
250 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 251
�
as what you want to talk about. Otherwise the other person involved is likely to
zoom up the ladder of inference, infer negative intentions on your part, and become
defensive before you even begin.
For an example of how to jointly design the purpose of a risky conversation, see “Beginning a Risky
Conversation” on page 253.
It is not helpful to start out saying, “I want to discuss your performance,” with-
out saying why and where you are headed. It is also useful to give a brief indication of
how you feel about the situation you are discussing, or at least share that it is difficult
or risky. In my experience, sharing your own fear helps all parties involved access com-
passion for one another and listen more for intent than specific word choices.
After sharing your reasons for wanting to have the conversation, your feelings,
and your intentions, you can jointly design a process for having the conversation. I
find it productive to suggest a process that offers each person involved an opportu-
nity to:
1. Share his view of what happened
2. Talk about how each feels
3. Clarify needs and interests
4. Jointly design solutions
Step 3: Stay Focused on the Jointly Designed Process
Whatever the process agreed on, stay focused and work through the steps. In risky
conversations, it can be easier to get off track by delving deeply into the history of a
situation. I suggest that you do this only as a way of clarifying issues rather than
going back and rehashing the specific problem or having old discussions again. Since
our reasoning is often faulty when we are fearful about a situation or frustrated about
a relationship, it is likely that our historical data are flawed. It is not productive to
spend a lot of time trying to agree about old matters. Instead, it is more useful to
stay focused on the current situation—what is going on now that makes you want
to have this conversation—and to work toward future changes.
Step 4: Agree to Monitor Progress and Discuss Again
The resolution to a risky conversation almost always involves both parties’ doing
something different, even if it is just the boss supporting skill development toward
a promotion. And when trying to change behavior, it helps to regularly monitor
progress and fine-tune actions with intentions. I have seen many groups agree
to what seem great processes for improvement, only to abandon their efforts later
Historical data can
be important to
illustrate patterns,
but don’t enter the conver-
sation with the intent to
right all past wrongs.
Chapter 28 • Holding Risky Conversations | 251
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 252
�
�One of the great
moments of truth
in my life was the
discovery that by having
the conversations I had
been avoiding, I not only
felt better about myself,
but others respected me
and valued my contribu-
tions more as well.
because they did not monitor and celebrate their progress. It is much easier to sus-
tain changes with regular feedback and refinement, so I like to end all conversations,
and especially ones that I have invested a lot of time and effort in having, with
an agreement about how we will monitor progress and when we will get back
together.
MOMENTS OF TRUTH
The risk of having a conversation is often overestimated, while the risk of not hav-
ing it is often underestimated. Tom Moore’s story in Chapter Thirty-Eight about
asking his boss whether he was about to be fired is a powerful example. Often the
data that lead us to assess the risk of engaging in a conversation are flawed, based
on third- and fourth-hand organizational stories about what happened to someone
else in another situation a long time ago. I frequently find these stories distorted and
sometimes even untrue. I suspect they continue to circulate as part of elaborate or-
ganizational defensive routines that rationalize our choice to distance ourselves from
situations and avoid risk.
See Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309.
Whether or not we think we will like what we hear, knowing where we stand
enables us to act. Not knowing leaves us stuck in a survival cycle of fear and avoid-
ance, guaranteeing that we fall short of our goals and dreams. At the same time,
taking small steps at first to build your muscles for having risky conversations is
wise. The more skilled you become at being consistent with the core values and
using the ground rules, the less risky conversations seem and the easier it is to have
difficult ones productively. One of the great moments of truth in my life was the
discovery that by having the conversations I had been avoiding, I not only felt bet-
ter about myself, but others respected me and valued my contributions more
as well.
See Chapter Fifty-Four, “Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models,” page 433.
But it is also important to remember that from a mutual learning mind-set,
every individual and group has a free and informed choice about whether to engage
in a risky conversation with you. As important as it is to do your own inner work
before such a conversation, it is also important to be able to let go if others decide
they are not willing to be as vulnerable. They may need time to do their own
reflection, and their choice may be different. Suspending judgment includes not
harshly evaluating someone who makes a choice different from your own. By
252 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 253
Reflection Questions to Prepare
for a Risky Conversation
1. Why do I want to have this conversation? Is my intent consistent with
mutual learning?
2. What are the potential consequences of not having this conversation?
3. What are the possible consequences of having this conversation?
4. What are my worst fears? What are my deepest desires? How likely
are my fears to manifest themselves? Am I unnecessarily focusing on
survival cycle thinking? What is the worst thing that could happen if
my fears come true? What hope might be realized if I do engage in this
discussion?
5. What data do I have that lead me to want to enter this conversation?
What untested inferences and assumptions am I making?
6. How am I feeling about this issue? Are my feelings justified? Can I
access compassion for myself and for the others involved? If not,
why not?
modeling your compassion, you actually increase the likelihood that this or a dif-
ferent risky conversation may happen in time.
BEGINNING A RISKY CONVERSATION
Here is an adaptation of a risky conversation, illustrating how to share your pur-
pose, intentions, and reasoning and invite the other person into the discussion. Con-
tracting for the discussion is the first step, even before you jointly design the actual
process:
The Strategy The Actual Conversation
Explain what I want to discuss Anne: Roxie, I would like to set aside some time this week for
and why. us to have a conversation about how you feel toward me given
your new role. I know that when I joined the department, you Be transparent about my assump-
had applied for the position I took. Pam and Liz have told me tions and the data I have, without
you were angry about that for a long time. I think we have going into unnecessary detail at
worked well together in spite of that, but now that you are my this point.
new boss, I am concerned about whether you have left-over
Test whether the inference on which hard feelings. Do you?
I am basing this conversation is
Roxie: No, no. It’s okay. accurate.
Chapter 28 • Holding Risky Conversations | 253
35_964948 ch28.qxd 3/3/05 12:37 PM Page 254
The Strategy
Explain my reasoning.
Share what I see as the consequences
of not having this conversation.
Share the relevant information that I
am afraid.
Advocate for having the conversa-
tion, and inquire into (jointly design)
whether the other person is willing to
discuss the topic I propose.
Seek to address the other party’s in-
terest (time) and propose a process
for meeting. [At the beginning of
the meeting, I would propose the
process for the actual discussion
that is set out above at the end
of Step 2, “Build a Foundation for
the Conversation.”]
Jointly design next steps.
Celebrate that she is impressed, and
mentally prepare to explore her con-
cerns and interests when we meet.
The Actual Conversation
Anne: I am not convinced that it is. Your voice is softer than nor-
mal, and you are looking away. I am concerned that if we don’t
work together productively, neither of us can perform as well as
we might. I can see why you might still have some hard feelings,
and it is scary for me to now be in the role of your subordinate.
I would like to talk through how we each feel and figure out how
we can best support one another in our work. Would you be will-
ing to do that?
Roxie: Well, I guess. But I am really busy getting settled, and I
have to hire a new assistant.
Anne: I would like to suggest that we plan to talk for an hour. I
have a process to suggest for our conversation. After an hour, we
can decide if this is a good use of our time. If so, we can continue
the meeting or plan another time to meet. If not, we can figure
out what, if anything, we can do differently. Would what I am
suggesting be agreeable?
Roxie: Yes. Let’s get together tomorrow at 4:00. You know, I am
pretty impressed that you would just come right in and address
this.
Reference
Stone, D., Patton, B., and Heen, S. Difficult Conversations. New York: Penguin, 1999.
254 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 255
�
Chapter 29
Exploring Your
Contributions to Problems
Roger Schwarz
Often we don’t recognize that we are contributing to problems. Sometimes the
problems we are contributing to are the same problems we are complaining about.
See, for example, Chapter Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own
Ineffectiveness,” page 335, where I describe how Henry reinforces his boss’s ineffectiveness by with-
holding information from him.
WHY IT’S HARD TO SEE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS
From a systems perspective, it makes sense that we don’t see our contributions to
problems. We often don’t see the effects of our actions because of the time lag be-
tween our actions and the consequences. When the consequences show up, we are
either not present to experience them firsthand (although we experience the subse-
quent effects) or we experience the consequences but don’t associate them with our
earlier behavior. In either case, we fail to make the connection.
It’s hard to figure out how you are affecting the system unless you understand
how the system that you are part of works. Anyone who has ever tried to fix some-
thing, only to find out that the fix created another problem, has experienced this.
And in social systems, it’s more difficult because the system consists of interacting
people.
You can’t understand the system by yourself. You develop your understanding
of the system and how you affect it by talking with the other people who make it
up and understanding how people interact to form the system. Kurt Lewin, the pi-
oneering social psychologist and founder of action research, said you should try to
change something if you truly want to understand it.
A human resource director felt that his direct reports were not solving prob-
lems based on all available information. For their part, the direct reports felt
that they had a difficult time getting all the information they needed. At a
meeting to address this issue, one of the direct reports said that the HR
We often don’t
see the effects
of our actions
because of the time
lag between our actions
and the consequences.
You can’t under-
stand the system
by yourself.You
develop your understand-
ing of the system and
how you affect it by
talking with the other
people who make it
up and understanding
how people interact
to form the system.
255
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 256
�
director routinely tried to get them to leave his office before they were fin-
ished talking about assignments. When I asked what the director did that led
them to think that, they all said that he tapped his pencil on his desk and
said, “uh-huh, uh-huh,” each time they tried to walk him through some prob-
lem that was occurring. When I asked what they thought the pencil tapping
and “uh-huhs” meant, all the direct reports said it meant that the director was
not interested and that he wanted them to end the conversation. They even
checked out their inferences—but with each other, not with the director.
Hearing this, the director said it didn’t mean he wasn’t interested; it was his
way of mentally making a note of the issues they were raising. The director
said he had wondered why people were leaving meetings prematurely, but
he had not made a connection between how these meetings had gone and
his concerns about his direct reports’ not solving problems adequately. By
not raising the issue with each other and exploring how it developed, both
the HR director and his team had continued to reinforce the pattern they had
established.
HOW WE CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEMS
There are many ways we contribute to problems:
• We make inferences and assumptions about the situation that are incorrect
but act on them as if they are true.
• We withhold information about other people’s behavior that would enable
them to change if they had it.
• We withhold information about our interests and needs and make it less likely
that others can take them into account.
• We act unilaterally without taking others’ interests and needs into account.
• We give people mixed messages, which makes it impossible for them to do
everything we ask for.
• We create structures or processes that have unintended consequences em-
bedded in them and then get annoyed when others create the unintended
consequences by following the structure or process.
• We react disproportionately to problems, exacerbating them or creating new
problems.
The drama triangle is another way to think about how we contribute to prob-
lems. In the drama triangle, we respond to situations by punishing others, rescuing
others, or acting as a helpless victim.
See Chapter Fifty-Three, “The Drama Triangle: A Unilateral Control Program for Helping
Others,” page 421.
256 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 257
�
LEARNING ABOUT OUR CONTRIBUTIONS
TO PROBLEMS
I think of three parts to learning about our contributions to problems: privately re-
flecting, reframing, and jointly exploring.
Privately Reflecting on Your Contributions
If someone hasn’t approached you to talk about the problem, you can privately re-
flect on your contribution before talking with others about the problem. Even if
you are approached, you can ask for time to reflect. By reflecting on your own con-
tribution, you can begin to reduce your blind spots.1 To the extent that you can
enter a conversation sharing what you think may be your contribution, you create an
environment for mutual learning.
Here are some strategies for reflecting:
• Begin to consider your contributions by starting with others’ contributions.
After you’ve identified how you think others have contributed to the problem,
ask yourself, “Do I behave in any of these ways myself, and can I acknowledge
that I do?” Sometimes we project or assign to others our own behaviors.
• Think about the issues or kinds of situations that lead you to respond defen-
sively. If you know what these issues are, see whether this situation matches
any of them. (If you don’t know what these issues are for you, you can ask
others who work closely with you or live with you.)
See the exercise on identifying your biases and defensive triggers in Chapter Thirty-Three, “Finding
Your Voice,” page 279.
• Identify how you are feeling about the situation and ask yourself, “What hap-
pened that made me feel that way?” Move down the ladder of inference from
your feelings to the specific behaviors that generated them. If you’re not sure
what generated them, you can explore this later.
• Ask yourself, “How did I respond when I felt that way?” Use the list above
and the drama triangle to identify specific things you did that may have con-
tributed to the problem.
Consider your private reflections as potential hypotheses to explore with oth-
ers involved in the problem.
Reframing How You Think About Yourself and Others
If you are finding it difficult to identify how you may have contributed to the prob-
lem, you may be operating out of the unilateral control model values and assumptions
instead of the mutual learning model.
Chapter 29 • Exploring Your Contributions to Problems | 257
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 258
�
�
The assumption in
the mutual learning
model is not that
you are necessarily con-
tributing to the problem,
but that you may be un-
aware of your contribution
and so it is more likely
than you think it is.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for an introduction to
the unilateral control and mutual learning models.
The assumption in the mutual learning model is not that you are necessarily
contributing to the problem, but that you may be unaware of your contribution
and so it is more likely than you think it is. By shifting toward the mutual learning
perspective, you move from seeking blame to looking for contributions, from need-
ing to defend to being curious about exploring, from being self-righteous to having
humility, and from simply focusing on others to being accountable for your actions.
In this way, you become more compassionate toward others and yourself. As you
begin to shift your focus, consider reflecting again on your contribution. You may
see things you missed before.
See Chapter Thirty-Four, “Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World,” page
287.
Jointly Exploring Your Contribution
After you have thought about your contribution, get together with others who are in-
volved in the issue. Whether it is one other person or several, getting the system in the
room makes it possible to put together a picture of how each part of the system is con-
tributing to the consequences. Here are some ways you can explore your contribution:
• Share your thoughts about how you think you have contributed to the prob-
lem and ask for others’ reactions. From a unilateral control perspective, this
would be the equivalent of giving ammunition to the enemy. In mutual learn-
ing, it is being a steward for jointly seeking understanding.
• Ask others to describe your contribution—for example, “Can you give me
some specific examples of what I’ve said or done—or not said or done—
that may have contributed to the problem?”
• If you have not identified any ways that you contributed to the problem, say
so and remain curious: “I’ve thought about ways that I may have been part
of the problem, but I haven’t come up with anything. Can you see any-
thing I’m missing?”
• Ask about the consequences of your behavior—for example, “I’m not un-
derstanding how what I did contributed to the problem. Can you explain
how it created problems for you or others?” If you have started the con-
versation because you see problems with others’ behaviors, ask, “I’m won-
dering if I’m contributing to the problems I’m concerned about. What,
if anything, do you see me doing?”
258 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 259
�
• Share your intent, and find out whether others inferred something else—for
example, “My intent in doing X was to . . ., although I can see now how
it didn’t work out that way. Given what I did, I’m wondering, what did
you think my intent was?”
• Jointly develop a story or map that causally explains how your and others’
contributions interacted to create the problem. After you agree on how the
situation was created, you can begin to jointly explore what changes in peo-
ple’s behavior will create the outcomes people want.
See Chapter Fifty-Six, “Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis,”
page 447.
• Be accountable for your actions. Acknowledge your contribution, and apol-
ogize for contributing to the consequences, even if you did not intend to cre-
ate them.
• Identify how you can support each other to make the changes you have agreed
to. Ask others to tell you as soon as possible when they see you acting in ways
that are contributing to a problem again.
Note
1. The blind spot is one of the four quadrants of the disclosure-feedback model
of awareness known as the Johari Window, developed in the 1950s by Amer-
ican psychologists Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham. There have been many
adaptations and instruments based on the model. See, for example,
http://www.teleometrics.com/info/resources_johari.html.
Chapter 29 • Exploring Your Contributions to Problems | 259
http://www.teleometrics.com/info/resources_johari.html
36_964948 ch29.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 260
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 261
Chapter 30
Moving Toward Difficulty
Sue McKinney
In the Skilled Facilitator approach, we advocate being direct and heading
straight toward difficult conversations. Many people fear doing this will escalate a
conflict, but to the contrary, we find that doing so usually defuses the conflict and
makes it more manageable to process. Of course, there is something you must do
first: before you can be direct and effective, you have to change the way you think
about difficult situations.
BEING DIRECT
I have given difficult feedback to employees in a variety of ways throughout my ca-
reer. Early in my career, I was accused of being “too direct” and “too blunt” and
hurting people’s feelings. Today, I am told that although I am “very direct,” I am
not judgmental, and the recipient is grateful to hear what I have to say. Table 30.1
compares my old version of being direct versus my new version of being direct.
In the two different versions of offering Jane feedback in Table 30.1, the biggest
change comes in my new thoughts and feelings. It is more important that my
thoughts and feelings change than that my words change since most people in-
stinctively sense the essence of the thinking behind what is being said. If I’m feel-
ing critical, as in the first example, it bleeds through when I talk about Jane’s being
sloppy and also in my voice, which is harsher in tone than in my second example.
In the second example, my thoughts are about learning. I am curious about and in-
terested in what Jane has to tell me. Thinking this way conveys a different message
from my earlier judgmental thoughts.
The second version of offering direct feedback does not involve being judg-
mental about Jane’s performance. My goal is to describe the problem, share my re-
actions, and hear her perspective. I work hard to suspend my judgment about Jane
and to honestly engage her in a conversation that might lead to my learning some-
thing new. In this case, I might learn that my quality standards are too rigid and in-
flexible or that if we set the standards together, Jane generates ones I hadn’t
considered or, at the very least, that if we set them together, Jane will be commit-
ted to making sure they are upheld.
Before you can be
direct and effective,
you have to change
the way you think about
difficult situations.
261
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 262
Table 30.1 Being Direct: Before and After Mutual Learning Thinking
Thoughts and Feelings Verbatim Dialogue
OLD VERSION OF BEING DIRECT
I hate having this conversation,
but her work is really slack.
Me: Jane, how are you doing? [Easing-in strategy.]
Jane: Fine. What’s up?
Your workmanship is terrible. It is
obvious you don’t pay attention
to detail. [Untested assumptions.]
Me: I need to talk with you about the photocopying
you’ve been doing lately.
Jane: Yes, what about it?
Anyone can photocopy accurately.
[Untested assumption.] I give her
the packet exactly as I want it. Why
can’t she get it right? I’ve done this
for years without a problem.
[I’m right and she’s wrong.]
Me: Well, the packets of materials are very sloppy.
The printing is crooked, upside down, folded,
and some pages are missing. It reflects badly on us
as an organization. You need to pay a lot more
attention. [Advocating without inquiring.]
Good grief. Let’s not get melodramatic
about this. [Act rational.]
Jane: What?! I may not be PERFECT like
YOU, but I’m doing the best I can!
NEW VERSION OF BEING DIRECT
I need to let Jane know that I’m not
happy with the quality of her work.
Me: Jane, good morning. I’d like to talk with you about
the quality of your photocopying lately. Do you have a
few minutes? [Advocating with inquiry, jointly
designing next steps.]
Jane: Sure, is there a problem?
Give her specific examples of what
I found when I proofed the most
recent documents.
Me: I took some time to proof the last two sets of
materials that you produced, and I found some basic
errors both times. For example, the printing is crooked
on the article regarding nonviolence, the consensus
article has the front and back pages turned upside
down, there are folds in the paper throughout four other
articles, and some pages from the orientation materials
are missing altogether. Were you aware of these things?
[Sharing specific examples, inquiring into her
perspective.]
Hmm. It seems that we have
different thoughts about what
is a major concern.
Jane: I did realize that some of it was a little crooked
and a few got folded. I didn’t think of it as a big deal
since it is still readable. I also saw that some of the front
and back pages got turned around, but I didn’t think that
was a major concern either. I did not notice that there
were missing pages. I agree that is a problem, and I will
try to check for omissions in the future.
262 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 263
Thoughts and Feelings Verbatim Dialogue
Check to see if she sees the
quality standards as different.
Me: I think we may have a different understanding of what
is an acceptable standard of quality given that you did not
think the printing issues were a “big deal” or a “major
concern” and I do. Do you think that is accurate?
[Advocating with inquiry into her thoughts.]
Good question. Jane: I think you are correct. We do have different
standards. Do you set them and I just have to agree, or
can we decide together?
I guess she probably wants to help
and since she has to implement
them, it makes sense.
Me: That’s a good question. I guess we should set them
together since we both have to live by them. What do you
think? [Advocacy with inquiry.]
What is too high with wanting
them done correctly?
Jane: Yes, I’d like to help set the standards for the same
reason. I think your standards are a bit too high.
Me: Okay. Can you help me understand what makes them
“too high”?
Huh. This is an interesting
perspective. I hadn’t really
considered these points before.
Jane: Sure. I think we should have the users set
the standard rather than have a 100 percent perfection
standard. I don’t think the users expect 100-page packets
with no mistakes. The time involved in getting to zero
mistakes isn’t worth it.
I don’t know how you could develop
a user standard.
Me: That is an interesting idea, but I’m curious how we
would determine the user’s standard. Do you have a
thought about that? [Genuine inquiry.]
Not a bad idea. We always think
we are the experts in what folks
need to know. This would give us
some valuable feedback. And
maybe my standards are stricter
than the average reader demands.
Jane: Couldn’t we simply include an evaluation of the
materials themselves and ask people to give us feedback
on the quality of printing? That would also give us the
opportunity to ask about the content of the articles and
whether they found them helpful.
Me: Great idea. I’m willing to try it.
Here is another example of the power behind changing my thoughts and feel-
ings. In the past, if I coded a person’s behavior as “lying,” I would probably think,
“He knows he is lying and he doesn’t care. He is totally out for himself.” Being di-
rect with this person and telling him that I knew he was lying and only out for him-
self would likely cause the conflict to escalate since these are only inferences and
attributions. Although my inferences may be accurate, it is much harder to test a
high-level inference like “lying” than it is to test a lower-level inference based on ob-
servable behavior. Unless I change my thoughts and feelings, it will be hard for me
to make a lower-level inference.
Chapter 30 • Moving Toward Difficulty | 263
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:58 AM Page 264
�
Unless I change
my thoughts and
feelings, it will be
hard for me to make a
lower-level inference.
See The Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,”
page 63.
Being direct with a high-level inference will likely be as problematic as many
people fear. However, if I can change how I think about other people, including this
specific person, I can be direct in a way that is likely to decrease the conflict (or, at
least, not unnecessarily increase it). I can see the behavior and say to myself, “Is Zack
lying? What leads me to think that? Well, Zack told me that he supported my pro-
motion, but the review committee told me that two of my three references said I
was not ready. I know Mary supported me fully, so I’m thinking Zack must be one
of the two who recommended against my promotion. I need to ask him about that.”
This kind of thinking leads me to a very different kind of “direct” conversation than
the ones I used to hold.
STRATEGY FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY
When giving direct feedback, being transparent about the strategy for the conver-
sation is also a big help. When giving feedback using a facilitative approach, I say
something like this: “Tom, I want to give you some feedback about your per-
formance in yesterday’s meeting. I feel a bit anxious about doing this since my
feedback isn’t totally positive. But I am interested in knowing if you see the
situation differently than I do. I’m interested in learning about whether I’m
off-base. Would you be willing to talk with me about this?”
In this approach, I am specific about the goal of the conversation—“feedback”
and “learning”—and am candid about my feelings in doing so—“anxious.” This
helps Tom understand what is on my mind.
If Tom is willing to talk with me, my transparency continues as I suggest a
process for offering the feedback: “I’m thinking that I could describe what I saw
in the meeting and see if you saw it the same way or differently. And based on
how we both see it, I could share my reactions and then hear your reactions.
I’m well aware that I may have seen the meeting differently than you did, and
I want to know if that is the case. What do you think of this approach to the
conversation?”
I’m explaining to Tom my thinking about the best way to share my thoughts and
hear his reactions. If it wasn’t clear to Tom before, I’m hoping that he understands
that I’m not telling him “how it was” in the meeting; I’m truly exploring my reac-
tions and checking to see if they are different from his, in hopes that we will both
learn. I believe this gives Tom specific information that allows him to participate fully
in the conversation. My intent is to avoid setting him up or manipulating him into
agreeing with me and changing his behavior to suit me.
264 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 265
THE DANGERS OF BEING POLITE
The Skilled Facilitator approach was counterintuitive for me. I was raised to be polite.
Being polite, in my world, meant that there are times when it is better to tell a white
lie than to be totally honest. When I was honest, people called me blunt and sug-
gested that I learn to be more tactful. With this feedback, I learned not to tell peo-
ple things that I thought might hurt their feelings. I learned to be honest, but only
to a point. It wasn’t always clear to me at what point I had crossed the line of polite-
ness to rudeness, so over time, I stayed further and further away from the truth.
The Unintended Consequences of Being Polite
There are some serious unintended consequences to this “polite” behavior. One of the
most common I have seen is poorly performing managers. Many times, I have seen
poorly performing managers continue to be promoted even though their behavior
doesn’t warrant it, only to get fired later because of incompetence. Or, conversely, a
poorly performing manager never gets the opportunity to be promoted because of a
lack of specific feedback about how he could improve his performance and qualify for
a promotion. In both cases, coworkers and supervisors often state that the manager is
a “nice person” and no one wanted to “hurt his feelings.” So instead, they all withheld
specific feedback that would have given the manager information on which to try to
change his behavior, or not, as he so chose. The point is not that they blocked his pro-
motion or got him fired; it is that they withheld relevant information that would give
the manager the free and informed choice about whether to change.
Saving Face
Another strategy I learned to try to avoid hurting someone’s feelings was to hint at
a problem. I hoped the offender would understand the subtle hints and correct the
problem to my satisfaction. This saved the other person from embarrassment and
me from the stress of sharing negative feedback. When asked if my friend’s strange
new hair style was “cute,” I responded, “It’s very hip, but I loved the way you had
it last year with the bangs. Didn’t you like that cut?” Or when dealing with a friend,
Sarah, who talked too much at social gatherings, I might say, “Isn’t it awful how
Betty is always talking on and on? She just doesn’t seem to get that others want to
talk too. I wish she would get the hint.” My hope was that Sarah would understand
the parallels and change her behavior as I suggested Betty should change hers. In-
terestingly enough, I have had many friends commiserate that this strategy isn’t
working for them. “I gave her a look! Why doesn’t she get it and stop talking!” or
“I told him over and over that I like Italian food. Why did he suggest we travel to
England this year?! Doesn’t he listen?!”
Chapter 30 • Moving Toward Difficulty | 265
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 266
Being direct without
judgment allows
everyone to have
all the relevant information
so that each can make free
and informed choices about
how to proceed. Withhold-
ing this information, even if
we think we are being kind,
prevents the other person
from having the option to
challenge our opinions or
accept them.
Avoiding conflict
doesn’t really mean
avoiding it; it means
postponing it, moving it
to another venue, or pro-
longing it (sometimes for
months or years). That’s
why we say, Move toward
the conflict.
I think the hinting strategy is frustrating, because it is based on our belief that
others can guess our secret motive. This actually involves both parties guessing: the
hinter has to guess what hints will work to get the response he or she desires, and
the person hinted to has to recognize the hints and guess what they mean. When
people do get the hints, they often ask, “Why didn’t you just say so?” expressing
their frustration at having to guess what the other person desires. Conflict often es-
calates using this strategy. If either party misses the cue, the other person gets frus-
trated and angry.
THE BENEFITS OF BEING DIRECT
Why does being direct help in these kinds of situations? Being direct without judg-
ment allows everyone to have all the relevant information so that each can make
free and informed choices about how to proceed. Withholding this information,
even if we think we are being kind, prevents the other person from having the option
to challenge our opinions or accept them.
The ability to suspend judgment temporarily is a learned behavior that takes
time and discipline to develop consistently. As I have developed this discipline and
consciously changed my thinking, my feelings have also changed so that I am no
longer fearful or anxious about handling difficult or conflictual conversations. In
addition, understanding the ground rules gives me the necessary techniques to ex-
press myself effectively.
OUR MANTRA: MOVE TOWARD THE CONFLICT
When we teach classes, we often say, “Folks, we encourage you to move toward the
conflict,” and people cringe and sometimes laugh in horror. In group settings as a
facilitator, I was always encouraged to avoid the conflict or to move deftly to a dif-
ferent topic. Pointing out a conflict was tantamount to chanting, “Fight, fight,
fight.” No one in his or her right mind would exacerbate a group in such a manner.
However, what I have discovered is that avoiding the conflict really doesn’t mean
avoiding it; it means postponing it, moving it to another venue, or prolonging it
(sometimes for months or years). By naming the conflict and moving the group’s
attention to it, you give group members a choice about how to handle it (assuming
they agree with your assessment that there is a conflict).
Naming a difficult issue does not always mean a group will choose to deal with
it openly, at that time or ever. It simply gives individuals the information to choose
their next step. Yet there have been many times when I have pointed out places
where group members seemed to be at odds with each other. I asked people to clar-
ify their stance and work through the differences. Then they were able to move on
quickly.
266 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 267
I have also frequently brought angry people together to talk in my presence:
In one organization where I worked, several supervisors were complaining
about the same individual. They came to me frequently to ask for help in
dealing with problems they were facing in their relationship with him. For a
while, I coached each supervisor individually, and then, seeing some pat-
terns emerging, I suggested all the supervisors request a meeting with this
individual to offer feedback to him as a group and request feedback about
their behavior from him. Anxiety was high as the meeting approached, but
the meeting went smoothly. Each supervisor was able to share the specific
behaviors that were causing concern, check to see if the individual in ques-
tion remembered events the same way, share the impact his behavior was
having on them, and ask for his perspective. As a group, they came up with
next steps to forge a better working relationship. Everyone in the meeting
learned the power of suspending judgment of one another, working from
the core values, and communicating using the ground rules. Everyone
agreed that this meeting, which lasted over three hours, was effective and
productive.
OUR EXPERIENCES OVER TIME
It has been my experience, and the experience of my colleagues, that as we practice
the facilitative approach in all life situations, conflict in general is reduced in our
lives. It seemed paradoxical to me that an approach that tells me to go directly to
individuals to discuss difficult issues and to approach conflict head-on would de-
crease the stress in my life and reduce the conflicts I have to manage. But this is ex-
actly what has happened.
The biggest change came for me when I learned to suspend my judgments and
go directly to a person with my concerns, open to the possibility that I may be see-
ing only a piece of the puzzle or that I may be wrong in my interpretation of the
situation. This approach allows me to stay more curious and to genuinely explore
another person’s perspective on an issue. I can acknowledge that I may have overre-
acted or hit a personal hot button, or I may find out my assessment was accurate
and the other person wants to make changes to our relationship as a result. So far,
I have never been sorry when I had the courage to go directly to the difficult issue,
name it, and deal with it openly.
As we practice
the facilitative
approach in
all life situations,
conflict, in general, is
reduced in our lives.
Chapter 30 • Moving Toward Difficulty | 267
37_964948 ch30.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 268
38_964948 ch31.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 269
Chapter 31
Responding to Silence
and Interruptions and
Enabling Members
to Talk to Each Other
Roger Schwarz
Sometimes group members become silent, interrupt each other, or address their
comments to the team leader or facilitator rather than speaking to the entire group.
This chapter looks at some ways of addressing these issues.
RESPONDING TO SILENCE
When group members become silent after someone makes a comment or asks a
question, my first response is to be quiet and wait. My strategy is not to make oth-
ers uncomfortable with the silence and get them to start talking; it’s simply that I
want to give people a chance to think about whether they want to say something,
including the introverted group members who naturally take more time to respond.
If I become uncomfortable with the silence and intervene, I reduce the chance that
others will respond.
After a period of time in which people have had ample time to answer (about
half a minute), I use the diagnosis-intervention cycle to name the silence and ask
what leads people to be silent.
I might say, “After John asked whether there were any problems with lead-
ership, no one said anything. I’m curious: What does the silence mean?”
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
Sometimes people respond by answering John’s question, and the conversation
continues on the current topic. Other times people respond by talking about why
they are silent without answering John’s initial question. For example, Pedro may
say, “It’s a difficult topic to discuss.” If Pedro doesn’t go on to explain what makes
�
269
38_964948 ch31.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 270
it difficult to discuss, I will ask, “Can you say what makes it difficult?” At this
point, I have shifted the focus of the conversation away from the original topic to
explore concerns about addressing the topic and what, if anything, is necessary to
do to return to it. If Pedro answers, I can ask if others see it the same way as Pedro
or have a different view.
After group members have identified what makes it difficult for them to discuss
the topic, I can then ask, “What needs to happen for you to be willing to dis-
cuss the topic?” This enables the group to identify what interests need to be met
to discuss the topic and to see how they can address these interests.
At some point, Pedro or other members may not want to say what makes the
conversation difficult to talk about. It’s important to balance your interest in iden-
tifying the cause of the silence with preserving members’ free and informed choice
to stop participating in the conversation. In practice, this means saying something
like, “I want to be clear that it’s your right to choose whether to continue the
conversation. Please let us know if you choose not to pursue it.”
DEALING WITH INTERRUPTIONS
Interruptions are the flip side of silence. We infer someone is interrupting when one
person starts talking while another person is still speaking. But interruptions are best
identified by the person being interrupted. If, for example, Joyce is talking and Ian
starts talking, I would turn to Joyce and say, “Joyce, it looked as if you were still
talking when Ian began to talk, yes?” Joyce might respond, “I was actually finished
with my thought,” meaning that Ian’s speaking did not prevent her from completing
her sentence and being heard. If, however, Joyce responds that she was still speaking
(implying she has more to say), then I can turn to Ian and say, “Ian, would you be
willing to let Joyce finish?” This intervention is based on the ground rule of jointly
designing next steps, because by interrupting, Ian has unilaterally controlled the con-
versation in a way that reduces Joyce’s ability to share all her relevant information.
If Ian were to continue speaking before Joyce or others were finished, I would
name the pattern of his behavior and ask about it: “Ian, I want to share a pattern
I’ve seen and get your reaction. Several times in this meeting when I pointed
out that you were talking before others had finished, you agreed and said you’d
be willing to let people finish. Yet you continued to do the same thing. Am I
off-base?” If Ian agrees with my assessment, then I continue, “What’s happening
that leads you to continue to interrupt?”
By my asking this question, the group learns what is causing the interruptions
(from Ian’s perspective) and can address it. For example, Ian may share that he has
another meeting in ten minutes and is feeling that this meeting is moving too slowly.
He may say that people are repeating themselves, which is wasting time. Whatever
he says temporarily focuses the group on the causes so that together they can figure
out how to address them.
270 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
38_964948 ch31.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 271
ENABLING MEMBERS TO TALK
TO EACH OTHER
When you intervene (as a facilitator, leader, consultant, or trainer), you draw the
group’s focus to yourself. This is temporarily necessary. But if it continues, you be-
come the hub of the conversation and group members talk to each other through
you instead of talking directly with each other. This is a problem because it increases
dependence on you and reduces the group’s ability to build its own capacity.
You can shift the conversation back to the group members by choosing your
words in your intervention. In the silence example above, after I ask Pedro what
about the topic is difficult, I remain the focus of the conversation by asking, “Do
others have a different thought?” However, I can remove myself from the focus if I
say to Pedro, “Would you be willing to see if others have a different thought?”
Assuming Pedro is willing, this leads Pedro and other group members to talk among
themselves. The principle for having the group become more active is to ask the
group member to make the remainder of the intervention instead of making it for
him. This makes the intervention more developmental. An extension of this is for
group members to use Ground Rule Six, “Combine advocacy and inquiry.” In this
way, they invite group members to respond to them and each other.
Using interventions to structure a process can also minimize your becoming the
focus of the conversation. Assume you want to propose that the group use a certain
problem-solving process. By describing the complete process at once and seeking
agreement to use it (rather than introduce the process one part at a time), you po-
tentially reduce the number of interventions you need to make later. For example, if
you are introducing a problem-solving model as an intervention, you might say
something like this: “I’d like to suggest a process for solving this problem and
get your reactions. I think it would useful first to agree on a definition of the
problem, then identify interests that need to be met in solving the problem,
next generate potential solutions, and finally decide on one or more solutions
given your interests. I’m suggesting this because I think it will increase the
chance that you will generate a solution that works well and that everyone is
committed to. Does anyone have any concerns about using this approach?”
Finally, if you are a facilitator, using the word we can lead to your being included
inappropriately in group conversations. If, for example, in a conversation about proj-
ect deadlines you say to the group, “What should we do to make the deadline real-
istic?” you send the message that you will be part of the decision and the content
discussion leading to it. By using the word you, you distinguish the group from your-
self and can remove yourself at least from the content of the discussion.
Chapter 31 • Responding to Silence and Interruptions | 271
38_964948 ch31.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 272
39_964948 ch32.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 273
Chapter 32
Raising Issues In or Out
of the Group
Roger Schwarz
If you’ve been a facilitator, you’ve probably had a group member approach you
outside the meeting and ask you to do something, such as raise an issue in the group,
make sure the group doesn’t discuss a particular issue, or steer the group conversation
in a particular direction. At other times you may have wanted to talk to a group
member alone, perhaps to ask this person to be more cooperative or less vocal. All of
these situations raise the potential for taking you out of the facilitator role, reduc-
ing team members’ accountability, and colluding with some group members against
the full group.
SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES
A few principles of the Skilled Facilitator approach can help you figure out how to
respond in these situations. One principle is that the group is the client. This
means that as a facilitator, you are responsible for helping the group as a whole rather
than helping a subset of the group. It also means that you respond the same way to
the group leader as you do to other group members. Another principle is that peo-
ple are responsible and accountable for their own information. This means that
they raise the issues they are concerned about in a way that others can inquire into
their reasoning. A third principle, which follows from the second, is to raise the
issue where others with relevant information are able to respond. This means
that if some group members are concerned that other group members are slowing
down the group, they raise their concerns in the full group because all group mem-
bers have relevant information about the issue. Together, the principles, which fol-
low from the core values and assumptions, guide your actions.
WHEN GROUP MEMBERS APPROACH YOU
Consider a group member, Shawn, who approaches you outside a meeting and asks
you to steer the conversation on the current topic, so that group members don’t
focus on outsourcing the graphics department. If you agree to do so, you act
Guiding
Principles
• The group is the client.
• People are responsible
and accountable for
their own information.
• Raise the issue where
others with relevant
information are able to
respond.
• Be transparent.
273
39_964948 ch32.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 274
�
inconsistently with the three principles and create problems for the group and your-
self. The accountability for raising Shawn’s issue shifts from him, where it belongs,
to you. Not raising the issue with the group prevents them from responding to
Shawn’s request before it is implemented. As a result, you would be treating Shawn,
instead of the full group, as your client. In other words, you would be colluding
with Shawn against the full group by unilaterally acting on his request without
checking with the full group.
To meet Shawn’s request, you would also have to act inconsistently with an-
other principle: be transparent. If another group member realized that you were
subtly steering the conversation and asked you why, it would be difficult to explain
your strategy and say, “Shawn asked me to raise it for him.” Your agreement with
Shawn probably includes an implicit (if not explicit) understanding that you won’t
attribute your action to him.
UNDERSTANDING THEIR CONCERNS AND
YOURS
Whether it’s a request to simply raise an issue for a person or to take an action with-
out explaining what you’re doing, responding to this kind of request involves ex-
plaining the consequences you see, being curious about the person’s interests (and
assumptions), and designing a way to meet those interests without creating the neg-
ative consequences I identified above.
You might say something like, “Shawn, if I did what you are asking, I think
it would create some problems for the group, you, and me. I’m happy to ex-
plain the problems I see, but first I’m curious what leads you to want me to
steer the conversation away from outsourcing instead of your suggesting to the
group that you don’t want to explore the outsourcing option.”
When Shawn responds, you can explore his interests and concerns and describe
yours as well. As we know from the unilateral control model, group members are
sometimes concerned about raising a difficult issue themselves because they want
to minimize the expression of negative feelings or want to save face for others, for
themselves, or both. They can’t see how to raise the issue in a way that would be
productive. At other times they are concerned that raising the issue explicitly will
make it less likely that the conversation will go in the direction they want.
Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, introduces the unilateral
control model. Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339, introduces develop-
mental facilitation.
If this were part of a developmental facilitation, you could help Shawn explore
his theory-in-use in depth and how it creates unintended consequences. In a basic
facilitation, it is sufficient to briefly explain the unintended consequences, explain
the limits of your facilitator role, and offer to coach the group member on raising
274 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
39_964948 ch32.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 275
the issue. You can say, “For a few reasons, I can’t do what you’re asking. If I did,
I would be accepting the responsibility for addressing your concern and unilat-
erally and surreptitiously directing the conversation to meet your interests in-
stead of the full group’s interests. As a result, the group wouldn’t get a chance
to decide whether they wanted to discuss the issue; they wouldn’t have a free and
informed choice. That’s inconsistent with the agreement I made with the group
about how I would act as a facilitator. Do you see any of this differently?”
If Shawn does, explore the differences. If he shares your view, you can say, “If
you think it’s important that the group not spend time on the outsourcing op-
tion, I encourage you to raise the issue. I’m willing to spend a couple of min-
utes now talking about how you can raise the issue. If you do raise it, I’ll be
there to facilitate the conversation and make it as effective as possible. What
are your thoughts?”
If Shawn is interested, you can spend the next few minutes coaching him on how
to raise the issue in the full group. This is completely consistent with the facilitator
role. As group members begin to take responsibility for addressing their own issues,
the group becomes more effective and less dependent on you as the facilitator.
IT’S THE SAME WITH GROUP LEADERS
Whether Shawn approaches you as a group member or as the group leader, you
would respond the same way. The group is still the client.
If the group leader recommended you, if he signs your check, or if he has in-
fluence over your career, it’s natural to feel more pressure to comply with his request.
But if you do this for the group leader, you send the message to the group that the
principles you espouse apply only when the situation isn’t difficult. This decreases
your credibility as you fail to model the very behaviors you are asking of the group
members. In the Skilled Facilitator approach, there is one set of principles that ap-
plies to all members regardless of how much power and authority they have.
IT WORKS BOTH WAYS
As a facilitator, approaching group members outside the meeting to ask them to
raise issues or to influence their behavior creates the same problems as when indi-
viduals approach you. And it often stems from the same concerns about wanting to
save face for others and yourself.
Consider a situation in which you think a group member, Tracy, is dominating
the conversation and preventing other members from speaking. By speaking to Tracy
outside the meeting, you shift the issue from the group members, where it belongs,
to you. If you approach Tracy alone during a break and ask her if she can give oth-
ers a chance to talk, you are unilaterally asking her to change her behavior based on
what are probably inferences you’ve made from watching the group’s behavior. You
In the Skilled
Facilitator
approach, there is
one set of principles
that applies to all members
regardless of how much
power and authority
they have.
Chapter 32 • Raising Issues In or Out of the Group | 275
39_964948 ch32.qxd 3/3/05 9:59 AM Page 276
might have noticed other group members sighing or shaking their heads when Tracy
starts to speak. But the only way to test the inferences is to ask the group members
directly about what their behavior means. And the only way to test the inferences
in a way that all the group members can hear all the relevant information is to do
it in the group with Tracy present.
If you raise the issue in the team meeting using the ground rules and the diagnosis-
intervention cycle, you enable all team members to share their relevant information
with each other. You might begin by saying, “I’ve noticed some people respond-
ing when Tracy speaks, and I want to check it out with you. Tim, Lee, and
Sierra, I’ve noticed that when Tracy has spoken in the last fifteen minutes,
you’ve either sighed or shaken your head. Did I see that correctly? [If they say
yes, continue.] I’m thinking that you may have some concern about what she is
saying or how often she is speaking. Am I misinterpreting? [If they say no, con-
tinue.] “Can you say what specifically Tracy is doing that concerns you?”
By intervening in this way, you operate from and model the mutual learning
approach. Instead of seeking to save face for group members and yourself, you help
group members create an environment in which they can be accountable to address
the issues that affect them.
276 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
40_964948 pt05.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 277
PART FIVE
Seeking Your Path
Learning to use the Skilled Facilitator approach effectively requires a lot more
than memorizing the core values and ground rules. Because it builds on mental
models and deeply held values, the learning journey is lifelong and highly individ-
ual. Part Five begins with Chapter Thirty-Three, “Finding Your Voice,” which of-
fers some thoughts and tips for developing your authentic and unique way of
integrating the Skilled Facilitator into your life.
The remaining chapters in Part Five share stories of what happened when peo-
ple began to learn and use the Skilled Facilitator approach. In Chapter Thirty-Four,
“Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World,” Sue McKinney
addresses questions individuals frequently have when they attend an off-site work-
shop and then go back to their organizations as the only person trying to use the
Skilled Facilitator approach: “What will happen when I start using the skills and no
one else understands what I am trying to do?” or “Can you use these skills if the
other person does not know them?” Sue and Peter Hille also offer advice on going
back to your organization in Chapter Thirty-Five, “Introducing the Skilled Facili-
tator Approach at Work,” and Chapter Thirty-Six, “Bringing It All Back Home, or
Open Mouth, Insert Foot.” Here they share their own lessons learned when they
returned “home” after a workshop. In Chapter Thirty-Seven, “A Carp in the Land of
Koi,” Susan Williams describes her first efforts and highlights the principles that she
is finding particularly useful over time.
40_964948 pt05.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 278
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 279
�
Chapter 33
Finding Your Voice
Anne Davidson
Like the shaman, the Zaddik instructs by metaphor, by indirection, not by teaching the
pilgrims to be more like him, but to be more like themselves.
—Sheldon B. Kopp, If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!
When people begin to learn the Skilled Facilitator approach, they frequently have
two reactions. First, they despair of ever being able to “sound like Roger” (or Anne
or Peg or Sue or any of our other associates and long-time practitioners). Usually
they are somewhat abashed at their own initial efforts to use the core values and
ground rules quickly and fluently. A second reaction is that they do not want to
sound like us. They think our language is esoteric and stilted. They say they cannot
imagine using the language of the ground rules in their day-to-day work environ-
ments. Or perhaps they have experienced a colleague returning from one of our
workshops and “inferring them to death,” so they believe using the principles will
not be well received.
See Chapter Twenty-Four, “Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” page 207.
Both concerns are legitimate. We usually respond by speaking about finding al-
ternative language and practicing the skills. These are helpful strategies. We are quick
to point out that attending a Skilled Facilitator workshop is just the beginning of a
learning journey. All of us are still learning. None of us became fluent until we prac-
ticed for years. And we still make mistakes and get tangled up in our own words
sometimes. But I think the initial questions and our answers focus on producing or
not producing specific behaviors. I believe the more fundamental question is how
to find your own voice within this approach.
JOURNEYING INTO DEEPER SELF-AWARENESS
Finding your voice is more a pilgrimage than a journey. I mean pilgrimage not in
the sense of a trip to a holy shrine, but in the sense of a long journey or search with
exalted purpose—a search for truth or wisdom. And as Sheldon Kopp points out in
279
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 280
�
Most of us, wishing
to learn, confuse
being taught with
learning.
It is your unique
synergy of the
Skilled Facilitator
approach with your gifts
that will create your
authentic message and
delivery.
his profound If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! (1972), most of us, wish-
ing to learn, confuse being taught with learning. We are often socialized to think
that if we mimic the teacher until we master the behavior, we can produce the same
results. But copying a charismatic guru is more likely to produce an empty, ritual-
istic parody than the lively, spontaneous mastery of true substance and inspiration
(Kopp, 1972). I believe that in addition to practicing and finding your own words,
you have to find your unique identity within this approach. Only then do you speak
with an authentic voice. And when you begin to train that voice, the specific words
you choose become less important, because people more readily feel your deeper
presence and hear your genuine intent.
How you discover that voice and let it emerge depends very much on your per-
sonal story and your unique learning style and gifts. The short answer is to find a
reflective practice and one or more ways of deepening your knowledge of self. There
are many alternatives, from meditation, yoga, and journal writing, to using instru-
ments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) or Firo-B. Some people find
that just developing awareness of the left-hand column adds enough to their expe-
rience for them to gain deep insights. For others, their reflective practice is linked
to their spiritual practice. What is helpful is highly individual.
See Chapter Fifty-Five, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,”
page 437.
The more self-awareness you develop, the more present you can be in the moment
while you are facilitating or in conversation and even while observing. And the more
present you can be, the better able you are to tune into your thoughts and choose how
you want to respond to a situation. It is your unique synergy of the Skilled Facilitator
approach with your gifts that will create your authentic message and delivery.
In this chapter, I offer some specific suggestions that work for me or that others
recommend. I hope you will experiment. I offer two cautions before you begin. First,
I encourage you not to discount who you are and what you already know when you
come anew to the Skilled Facilitator. You do want to reflect deeply on the core val-
ues and your own consistencies and inconsistencies, yet do this with loving com-
passion and curiosity. Reflect mindfully about what you want to keep and what is
no longer serving your purposes.
Second, know that a part of the journey is to be out of touch with your own
voice. Each of the primary authors of this book struggled in learning to use the ap-
proach consistently. Each of us at times used the language and the ground rules in
ways that we later realized were unilateral or inauthentic. We learned because we
created defensiveness, got gifts in the form of unintended results, or had colleagues
kind enough to question us when something felt off about our intent. It will be a
while before your voice can hit the right notes consistently. The first step is to quiet
the mind so that you can nurture it. The power of your growing self-awareness will
be spontaneity with the approach and the ability to improvise.
280 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 281
TIPS FOR FINDING YOUR VOICE
Here are some activities and practices that helped me and others reflect mindfully and
authentically integrate the Skilled Facilitator approach into our work and our lives.
Lifeline Exercise
Use the lifeline exercise in Exhibit 17.1 (page 154) to renew your awareness of your
personal strengths and talents. Expand question 5 to ask yourself how you can in-
tegrate the Skilled Facilitator into your strengths and talents. What are some things
you do well that might be enhanced by integrating the ground rules and core val-
ues explicitly? How might your strengths enhance the way you use or explain the
approach? How might you modify approaches you know and use well to be more
consistent with the Skilled Facilitator approach?
Hot Buttons and Defensive Triggers
Periodically complete the exercise in Exhibit 33.1 to identify your biases and de-
fensive triggers. This is useful during or soon after your initial exposure to the Skilled
Facilitator and intermittently as you uncover layers of your own unilateral thinking
and behavior.
Exhibit 33.1 Exercise: Identifying Your Biases and Defensive Triggers
Facilitators need to be aware of their systematic biases and personal issues (for
example, needs for control or status) to reduce the chance that these biases and
personal issues will distort their diagnoses and reduce their ability to intervene
effectively. This exercise is designed to help you identify your biases and hot
buttons. Here are the steps:
1. By yourself (or with someone who knows you well and whom you trust to give
you honest feedback), identify the following:
• Things that people do that really bother you
• Group situations that you find embarrassing and/or threatening
• Things that you really dislike about yourself
• The values and beliefs that you consider most important
• Prejudices that you have
2. Take one or more items from the list. Think of a situation in which the items
decreased your ability to accurately diagnose and intervene in a group. Think
about how your feelings about that issue may have led you to make untested
inferences and attributions about one or more people in the group.
Source: The author of this exhibit is Dick McMahon.
Chapter 33 • Finding Your Voice | 281
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 282
Five Key Principles and Reflection Questions
It is helpful to know the ground rules in order to intervene and code behavior, but
I have found it more useful in developing my own approach to focus on the core
values. I also like to frame my approach as five key principles: Compassion,
Curiosity, Transparency, Commitment, and Accountability. Try asking yourself as
you develop this approach:
• Am I being compassionate toward myself and the others in the room?
• Am I staying open and curious? What is it I want to learn, know, or question?
• Am I sharing what I am really thinking? Am I modeling the transparent way
we want to work together?1
• Am I committed to being here and doing this work with those present? How
am I showing that? Am I working with those present in ways that help them
find their own answers rather than telling them what to do?
• Am I holding myself accountable for my contributions to this encounter? Am
I doing anything that others could and should do for themselves? Am I work-
ing in ways that decrease dependency on me in the long run? Am I holding
others fully accountable for their choices?
These are also useful reflection questions to ask after a conversation or facilita-
tion (Was I . . . ? Did I . . . ?).
Self-Assessment Instruments
Instruments like the MBTI or the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument2 can be
helpful in deepening your awareness of how you learn and how you communicate,
as long as you use them as a mirror for reflection, not as a definitive description of
your personality. It helps me, for example, to understand that my Intuitive prefer-
ence has created a strength in explaining broad concepts to others and in thinking of
metaphors that help people grasp concepts. My ENFP skills are valued for inspir-
ing people. But my language and interventions do not have the precision of Roger’s.
Knowing my dominance and preferences for taking in and thinking about infor-
mation helps me value my own voice, but I also know when I need to sing backup
or ask someone else to do so.
Mindfulness Practice
Breath work, mind-body practices like yoga and tai chi, and most forms of medita-
tion offer guidance in stilling the mind and learning to be present. My own use
of Skilled Facilitator skills is greatly enhanced by yoga practice. When I practice
282 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 283
�
regularly, I have more energy for attending to others, my concentration improves,
and the chatter of worrying and planning is silenced. Learning to let go, to breathe
into postures and play edges, also creates metaphors that I often use in my own mind
as I listen carefully to dialogue.3 Without cultivating some form of mindfulness, it is
very difficult to fully hear your left-hand column thoughts, discern the aspects of
your own voice that you want to enhance, and have the presence to incorporate
changes in the moment.
Journaling and Drawing
Writing and drawing are excellent ways to access our own unconscious thoughts and
desires. I find that reflective journal writing also helps me access my thoughts about
myself and my experiences, especially when completed soon after a facilitation or
early in the morning when I am fresh.4
Conscious Practice
People frequently tell me that one of the barriers to finding their own Skilled Facil-
itator voice is that they cannot practice using the approach frequently enough. I am
always surprised and confused about how to respond, because I find every conver-
sation an opportunity to practice. I can always use the principles to shape my own
conversation or use any conversation as an opportunity to attend more fully to my
left-hand column thoughts and to know myself better in this and similar situations.
This skill does require some reflection after a conversation. For years, I wrote notes
to myself during meetings about how to say what I was thinking, even if I had no
intention of saying those things then. After a while, I found I could say the things I
wanted fluently because of my paper practice. And when conversations did not go
well, I often wrote out ways that I thought I could have communicated more clearly
and in my own words, without jargon. Gradually I was able to frame what I wanted
to say quickly enough to respond during a conversation.
See also Chapter Twenty-One, “Ways to Practice the Ground Rules,” page 189.
Attending to Language
I recommend attending to language. There are numerous unilateral concepts em-
bedded in the way we phrase sentences and the words we choose. We often use the
imperative voice with others, even when we want to give them informed choices—
for example, “Get that up on the flip chart” instead of, “I think it would be helpful
to get that up. Do you?” or “Would you be willing to ___________ because I think
that would be useful.” Many of the words we choose have metaphors embedded in
Chapter 33 • Finding Your Voice | 283
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 284
them that can lead us down the slippery slope of sounding unilateral even when that
is not our intention—for example, “Capture that on the easel, would you?” or “Let’s
talk about how to deploy this plan.”
Authentic intention comes across more powerfully than word choice, but word
choice can create confusion in our own minds as well as create confusion about our
intentions in the minds of others. Another way to practice consciously is to tape-
record yourself in conversation (with permission of all parties, of course) and do
your own critique and redesign after the fact. I sometimes ask myself, “What other
words could I have used there that might sound more like my personality?”
CONCLUSION
Finding your own way of expressing the Skilled Facilitator principles and techniques
takes work. The work is hard partly because it is as much about letting go of old
voices as it is about discovering new ones. The unlearning can be demanding and
humbling. But doing that work will pay rich dividends for your own personal
development and peace of mind. Every year that I mindfully practice, I find that I
reach a few more high notes.
Resources
Cameron, J, with Bryan, M. The Artist’s Way. New York: Putnam, 1992.
FIRO-B Self Scorable. Palo Alto: CPP, 1996. FIRO-B PROFILE. Palo Alto: CPP, 1989.
Available to qualified users. [www.cpp.com.]
Herrmann International. The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument. Lake Lure, N.C.:
Herrmann International, 1989. [www.hbdi.com].
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Self-Scorable. Palo Alto: CPP, 1998. Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Form Q. Palo Alto: CPP, 2001. Available to qualified users. [www.cpp.com].
Progoff, I. At a Journal Workshop. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1992.
Tolle, E. The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. Novato, Calif.: New World
Library, 1999.
Notes
1. See Kopp (1972, pp. 20–27) for some helpful thoughts about transparency.
2. There are a number of useful instruments available that are well tested and
validated, for example, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the Firo-B, and the
Hermann instruments. See also Chapter Fifty-Five, “The Skilled Facilitator
Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” page 437.
3. Readings in this area, such as Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of NOW (1999) may
offer places to begin your personal practice of mindfulness.
284 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.cpp.com
www.hbdi.com
www.cpp.com
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:00 AM Page 285
4. For guidance in journaling techniques and visual expression, see Julia
Cameron’s The Artist’s Way (1992) or Ira Progoff ’s At a Journal Workshop
(1992).
References
Cameron, J., with Bryan, M. The Artist’s Way. New York: Putnam, 1992.
Kopp, S. B. If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! New York: Bantam, 1972.
Progoff, I. At a Journal Workshop. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1992.
Tolle, E. The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment. Novato, Calif.: New World
Library, 1999.
Chapter 33 • Finding Your Voice | 285
41_964948 ch33.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 286
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 287
Chapter 34
Being a Mutual Learner
in a Unilaterally
Controlling World
Sue McKinney
When people first learn the Skilled Facilitator approach, they often express con-
cern about using the skills at work when no one else will understand what they are
trying to do. They express fear and trepidation about trying to change when others
will still be acting unilaterally. They worry that others may interpret their new be-
haviors as new strategies for manipulating them. My experience is that these fears
are well founded. People do misinterpret new behaviors through their unilateral
lenses. At the same time, I can still change my behavior to act more consistently
with the Skilled Facilitator approach in this environment.
The first thing I had to learn was that I couldn’t change myself overnight, I
couldn’t change the organization overnight, and I couldn’t change anyone else either.
But I wanted to. I wanted to wave a magic wand and make my world mutually
learning. Over time, I learned that I was most successful when I attempted small
changes: testing an assumption I was making or asking someone if he or she would
test an assumption; sharing my reasoning or asking someone about his or her think-
ing; or asking a group to identify the interests underlying the solutions they were
proposing. Later, I learned that while practicing the ground rules was helpful, chang-
ing my perspective from judgmental to curious made the most profound impact on
my ability to stay consistent with the model under stressful conditions.
It is harder to practice the approach and master the skills when you are the only
one in your work environment trying to apply the model. One of the challenges is
that coworkers know who you are, or at least think they do, and they don’t always
support attempts at change since that may require that they change too.
When people don’t know you and you are the only person practicing the skills,
you may have a better chance of success simply because others don’t see using mu-
tual learning skills as a change in your personality. Instead, they see this approach
as a part of who you are.
Practicing the
ground rules was
helpful, but even
more helpful was changing
my perspective from judg-
mental to curious.
One of the chal-
lenges is that
coworkers know
who you are, or at least
think they do, and they
don’t always support
attempts at change since
that may require that
they change too.
287
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 288
I’ve been in both situations. I found it much easier to be the solo practitioner
of the mutual learning skills in a new environment. There I walked in the door and
tested assumptions, shared my reasoning, and was curious about the perspective of
others, and others just saw this as an aspect of my personality. When I attempted
to use the skills with people who already knew me, I encountered much more re-
sistance to my attempts to use the ground rules and follow the core values. I believe
that this may have to do with the years of history that people who know me have
had with me. In the past, I reacted unilaterally in all kinds of situations. People de-
veloped beliefs about who I was as a person and what I thought and how I would
react in different situations. Given these layers of assumptions and inferences about
my behavioral motivations, when I tried to behave differently in similar situations
after my training, I think some people had a hard time believing I had fundamen-
tally changed my beliefs and thinking. I think they thought it was a new strategy or
trick to get them to do what I wanted. In those situations, I simply had to stay cu-
rious and continue trying to practice the new approach to demonstrate that the
change was a permanent one.
SEEKING SUPPORT FOR CHANGING
YOUR BEHAVIOR
When you are trying to change your behavior in an environment where people
already know you, there are steps to make it easier. One is to let others know that
you are trying to use some new skills and would benefit from feedback about how it
is going. Another is to find someone who can provide you with support and coach-
ing. An outsider can reflect with you on comments you may receive from cowork-
ers, supervisors, and direct reports who are trying to respond to your changing
behavior.
A couple of years after I took the training, one of my colleagues who had just
come through the Skilled Facilitator training invited me to join a learning group
that would be meeting about one hour from where I lived. As the only person in
my organization practicing the skills, I felt isolated, so I instantly agreed to partici-
pate. I participated in this learning group for about six months. Being in the group
was helpful for many reasons: it kept the material in front of me, I saw how others
were using it, I felt supported in my struggles to master the skills, and we had the
opportunity to intervene with one another when we were not acting consistently
with the approach. The learning group used left-hand column cases, role play, and
dialogue to practice the skills and talk about what was working and what was not
working. It was a good use of time.
One of the challenges for everyone is that changes are usually erratic and not
always productive. As you try to produce behaviors that are consistent with the
Skilled Facilitator approach, you may not always succeed. While you may not be
288 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 289
successful on the first try, you can always ask for people’s patience and request that
you try a previous conversation again. As I practiced, I began to ask for what I came
to call “redos”: going back to someone after having an ineffective conversation and
asking for the opportunity to have the conversation again so I could try to stay con-
sistent with the facilitative values and ground rules. No one ever turned me down
for a redo, and the conversation always went better the second time.
It is important to recognize that many of the individuals giving you feedback
will be operating in a unilateral model, so their feedback comes in that form. It can
be a formidable task to translate this unilateral feedback into information that
can help you act more consistently with the mutual learning model. For example,
I’ve heard comments like this: “I don’t like it when you keep asking me if I ‘see it
differently.’ You clearly want it your way, so why do you ask?” Such a statement and
question requires me to note that the speaker is making an inference: that I want it
my way. Instead of getting upset about being misunderstood (because my intent is
not to have it my way), I focus on what I’m doing that is causing the person to think
I’m not genuinely interested in his or her perspective. It may be the repetitive use
of the question, “Do you see it differently?” or it may be that when the person an-
swers with a different perspective, I always challenge it, arguing that my perspective
is more accurate, or it could be something else that I’m not aware that I’m doing.
Asking for feedback and receiving it openly models a new way of expressing the core
values. Expecting some of the feedback to be unilateral can help you prepare for that
eventuality.
YOU CAN CHANGE ONLY YOU
As I began to pay more attention to my own unilateral behavior rather than being
focused on changing others, I began to notice things in myself that I hadn’t seen be-
fore. For example, every so often when something was said, I started to feel hot and
almost sweaty or tingly, from my head to my toes. I began to recognize the mean-
ing of this on two levels: as anger that had been triggered and as a likely clue that I
was making an untested inference about something that was just said. I found that
I wasn’t always good at recognizing my own inferences and assumptions and this
hot feeling was a useful cue. Over time, I could more quickly figure out what specif-
ically had been said that was leading me to make a negative inference about some-
one else. With experience, I began to realize that a lot of the time, my anger was
unjustified and that when I lowered my inference and tested it, I found that I had
misinterpreted or misunderstood the situation.
As I learned to recognize when a hot button had been pushed, I also found it
useful to notice what kinds of comments push my hot buttons. I began to recog-
nize that I had some deeply held beliefs about myself that when challenged caused
me to become defensive and angry. One of my beliefs is that I am able to be an
It is important to
recognize that
many of the individ-
uals giving you feedback
will be operating in a unilat-
eral model, so their feed-
back comes in that form.
With experience, I
began to realize
that a lot of the
time, my anger was unjus-
tified and that when I low-
ered my inference and
tested it, I found that I had
misinterpreted or misun-
derstood the situation.
Chapter 34 • Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World | 289
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 290
effective advocate for employees while also understanding and representing the top
management viewpoints. When someone in a meeting contradicts what employees
have said to me, I immediately start to get angry. For example, employees had told
me that they like their organization but get frustrated when management doesn’t
take their requests seriously. In a meeting, a top manager stated that the employees
are “whiners who don’t appreciate what they have in this organization.” I knew (the
key word here is knew, a red flag that I’m becoming unilateral) that wasn’t true. I
immediately got hot and was ready with a quick retort. In time, I was able to
monitor my reactions when we got into a discussion about employee perspectives,
knowing that I was prone to overreact to comments about the employees that I per-
ceived as at all negative.
Over time, as I employed the skills more consistently, I began to notice that I
experienced less conflict with others. In reflecting on this, I realized that by
testing my assumptions about others and sharing my reasoning with them, there
was less “story” telling than there had been in my life previously. Here is an example:
I was facilitating a large meeting and made a summary statement to the
group. When I finished, one of the executives said she had a different per-
spective and made a statement that sounded identical to mine (in concepts
rather than exact wording). I was confused by her statement and was think-
ing, “Isn’t that what I just said! Isn’t she listening?” (this was my story or
explanation of what led her to make the statement). But remembering my
skills, I asked her, “Bonnie, it sounds as if you think what you just stated is
something different from what I stated. Is that accurate?” She said it was. I
replied, “Then I’m confused, because your statement sounds the same as
mine.” I turned to the group and asked what others thought: Were these two
different ideas or the same ones? The group gave their response, and both
Bonnie and I learned more about each other’s perspective. Instead of being
angry, I learned. In addition, this kind of exchange changed how people
viewed me. Instead of discounting Bonnie and saying, “Bonnie, that is what
I just said,” and trying to move the group along, I acknowledged her state-
ment, stayed open to the fact that I might be misunderstanding what she
said, and explored both of our perspectives more fully. In response, Bonnie
never felt belittled, misunderstood, or ignored. These small exchanges,
compiled over time, changed the way people viewed me.
NO GUARANTEES FOR SUCCESS
There are, of course, times when modeling mutual learning yourself will not resolve
a situation. In my case, I tried to use the skills in a top-down, command-and-
control environment, in which I was fairly new and not skilled at acting consistently
with the mutual learning model:
In this organization, the CEO requested I attend the training, my supervi-
sor supported the concepts and attempted to give me feedback, and I had
290 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 291
an outside mentor-coach who helped me reflect on my behaviors and how
I was acting consistently or inconsistently with the Skilled Facilitator
approach. Even with all of this, I ran head-on into a wall with the CEO.
The CEO was attempting to change the organizational culture from
top-down decision making to decision making at the lowest level possible.
This cultural shift required that employees be willing to make decisions on
their own and occasionally challenge their supervisors. He often com-
plained that even among his own department heads, no one would openly
disagree with him. He expressed frustration that once he stated his opin-
ion, most, if not all, the department heads would agree with him.
Knowing that he wanted this cultural shift and understanding his frus-
tration with the department heads’ lack of willingness to challenge him
openly, I, as the hired change agent, took it on myself to act in ways I
believed modeled behaviors consistent with mutual learning and consistent
with his desires. In meetings, I would openly disagree and challenge
his thinking. Unfortunately for me, this was never greeted with enthusiasm
and was often quickly and tersely squashed. After a particularly harsh
encounter, I went to the CEO to talk about this issue. I felt that acting con-
sistently with the mutual learning model required me to share my concerns
with the CEO and try to figure out how we could work more effectively
together. I shared my dilemma with him. As I saw the situation, I knew he
wanted the culture to shift and wanted employees to disagree openly and
challenge his thinking. I believed he wanted me to change the culture,
and he agreed this was true. I thought that the best way I could do this was
to model the behavior he was seeking, and he thought this made sense.
Yet when I attempted to do so, he appeared to get angry and quash my
attempts. He agreed this had happened; he considered my behavior as
challenging him, and he did not like it. I asked him if he had thoughts about
how I could resolve this dilemma. He did not.
SEEKING YOUR OWN BEST PATH
It was shortly after this encounter that I decided to begin looking for a new job. I
wanted to work with leaders who might feel challenged by me but would view such
challenges as worthy of reflection that might lead to behavioral change. Although I
think it is possible to be a successful solo practitioner, changing your behavior and
thereby encouraging different responses from others, I also think you may choose a
different route.
There are times when finding more fertile ground for practicing and mastering
the Skilled Facilitator approach makes sense. This is a choice each one of us makes
given our temperament, interests, career goals, and other needs. Whatever choice
you make, as long as you are committed to practicing Skilled Facilitator core values
and skills, there will be settings that are more challenging and others that are more
supportive to your attempts to act consistently with the approach. Deciding how
to create the most conducive environment is up to each of us.
There are times
when finding more
fertile ground for
practicing and mastering
the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach makes sense. This
is a choice each one of us
makes given our tempera-
ment, interests, career
goals, and other needs.
Chapter 34 • Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World | 291
42_964948 ch34.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 292
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 293
Chapter 35
Introducing the Skilled
Facilitator Approach at
Work
Pitfalls and Successes
Sue McKinney
At the end of a Skilled Facilitator workshop, we often hear from participants
that this approach has completely altered the way they view the world. Unfortunately,
many first efforts to share the approach are still built on a unilateral mind-set.
A DISMAL FIRST ATTEMPT
I took Skilled Facilitator training shortly after beginning a new job as an employee
trainer for a local municipality. A few weeks after the training, I began working with
an external consultant who had been previously engaged by the organization to
introduce an ambitious continuous improvement process with an emphasis on team-
work. We had plans to train sixteen teams within the first few months of rolling out
the new concept. I insisted that we include training on the sixteen ground rules for
all teams.1
The consultant was understandably reluctant to change the training materials
and process that he had developed for this organization. I told him that this new
way of facilitating groups was wonderful, and we had to do it or miss out on a great
opportunity. He eventually agreed that it might be useful and suggested that we
change the wording of the ground rules since he found them to be full of jargon
and hard to understand. I stood my ground and explained that they could not be
changed, as they were copyrighted. Moreover, my colleagues had told me that the
ground rules as written worked in their municipalities and urged me not to under-
estimate the ability of employees to understand and use the ground rules as written.
The consultant asked me why I was being so rigid about this approach. I don’t
remember the exact word that he used, but dogmatic was probably close. Eventually
293
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 294
�
he acquiesced, and I added the sixteen ground rules to our training curriculum. All
the teams went through a two-day class that included a four-hour overview of the
core values and ground rules. At the end of the class, I asked the teams if they would
be willing to use the ground rules (allowing for free and informed choice, I thought).
Overall, people thought they made sense and agreed to use them with their teams.
Over time, it became obvious that few, if any, of the teams were using the
ground rules. The two teams I worked with used them only when I brought them
up. No one demonstrated an interest in or the capacity to use the ground rules with-
out my assistance. It became clear to me that my approach for introducing them
had not worked.
In the spirit of the self-critique, I can now reflect on how many of the ground
rules I had ignored in my zealous effort and how, in those heady days directly fol-
lowing my training in the Skilled Facilitator approach, I had not yet fully internal-
ized the meaning of the mutual learning model. While I was trying to act with
intellectual integrity by maintaining the language of the Skilled Facilitator ground
rules exactly as it was presented, I didn’t have a deep enough understanding of the
mental models to understand that my attempts to introduce the concepts were ex-
tremely unilateral. Unilateral control can trigger defensiveness and resistance, and
this case was no exception. When the external consultant asked questions, I never
heard a word he said. I wasn’t being curious about his perspective, that is, engaging
in honest inquiry. I ignored his attempts to share the relevant information about
the groundwork he had already laid for this effort. Because I wasn’t interested in
what he had to say, we did not jointly design next steps.
I have since learned that this is an easy trap to fall into. Another colleague of
mine, Tom Moore, also took an enthusiastic approach to introducing the ground
rules in the department he led. He came back to work after his training with Roger
Schwarz with Skilled Facilitator ground rules pocket cards stuck in his front shirt
pocket, gleefully handing them out to everyone he encountered like a new father
handing out cigars. He told everyone that this was the “new way” for himself and
the department to behave. His employees were rather unimpressed with his newly
found leadership approach and figured this would pass soon. Over the years, Tom
modified his unilateral approach to introducing the ground rules and was able to
change the entire department’s way of doing business to be more consistent with
the Skilled Facilitator approach.
See Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309.
A MORE SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT
A few years later, I took a job as the director of organization development in a mid-
sized international nonprofit organization. During the hiring process, I was chal-
lenged to explain my philosophy and interest in bringing Skilled Facilitator skills to
294 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 295
the organization. I felt that I had to share enough information so that the hiring
manager could make a good decision about hiring me, yet I was aware that there
was no way, without immersing himself in learning the approach, that he could fully
understand the implications of my using it.
During the interviews, I was candid about my core values, the ground rules, and
the generalities of mental models and theory-in-use. I explained that I wanted to
work with an organization that was interested in using this approach. I wanted to in-
terview the organization to see if I thought it was fertile ground for adopting mutual
learning. I told the hiring manager that I thought it would take a while for the or-
ganization to learn enough about the approach to determine if it wanted to try to
use it. I also told him that if the organization should decide in the future not to use
the approach, I would probably choose to leave myself since it was my goal to work
with an entire organization that would use this approach to communicate, train, and
develop policies and procedures.
Happily for me, the hiring manager offered me the position. Entering in this man-
ner gave me a much stronger foundation than I had in the municipal organization I
had just left. Over the next year, as employees watched me model the skills, they began
to imitate some of the things that I said in meetings. For example, when meetings
began to bog down in discussions over what to do next, I would suggest the group
members identify the underlying drivers for the solutions each was proposing. I told
them that I called these drivers “interests,” and that once we identified them, we might
have a better chance of finding a solution that would meet many or all of them. This
often helped a meeting move along more effectively, so over time, individuals would
get into similar situations and say something like, “I’m going to play Sue for a mo-
ment and suggest we identify our interests so we can come up with a solution we can
all live with.” I don’t think they fully understood my approach, but they understood
what worked and they attempted to apply the skills themselves. This was a huge bonus
when we began Skilled Facilitator training throughout the organization.
After working with me for a year, the executive team felt they had enough in-
formation to offer the training to their middle managers to see what the middle
managers thought. When the entire first group that had attended the training rec-
ommended that others take the workshop, the executives agreed to offer the train-
ing throughout the organization, including staff from each overseas office. Today,
this organization continues to offer the training and continues to challenge itself to
live consistently with the core values and ground rules.
A SUCCESSFUL APPROACH IN A LARGE
ORGANIZATION
Over the past seven years, I have watched a large organization slowly embrace Skilled
Facilitator concepts, train hundreds of employees, and adjust some policies based
on the influence of Gail Young, a Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Land Use
Chapter 35 • Introducing the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work | 295
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 296
and Environmental Services division staff member. Gail, one of my mentors and
colleagues, recently shared her approach to introducing the Skilled Facilitator con-
cepts into the organization. She explained that she never consciously set out to
change the organization or the people in it. After going through the Skilled Facili-
tator class, Gail recognized that she wasn’t being internally consistent, and this both-
ered her. She felt that the goals she had in conversations had been manipulative, and
she didn’t like that about herself. She made the commitment that she would become
more internally consistent—to be a person with integrity. That personal decision
led to gradual, sustainable organizational change.
Having made the commitment to change her own behavior, Gail felt it was im-
portant to let those she worked with most closely know what she was doing. This
was initially difficult, since she was the only one in her organization who had been
through Skilled Facilitator training. Her first step was to share information about
the approach with the other members of her division’s leadership team. She shared
a basic article about the core values and ground rules, explaining that this was the
foundation of her new approach to communication. She asked team members who
were willing to read the article and give her feedback when they thought she was
acting more or less effectively than she had in the past.
The leadership team agreed to do this. For Gail, leadership meetings became a
place for trying out new skills. Instead of assuming that she understood others’ points
of view, she was curious and explored their thinking and checked to be certain her
perceptions were accurate. She shared her reasoning, explored theirs, and focused the
group on their underlying interests. The team was intrigued by these changes, and
after a few months, they expressed interest in attending training themselves.
Even before they went through training, team members began to mimic what
Gail was saying. A member would ask, “Shouldn’t we look at our interests before
we try to solve this problem?” or “Are you making an assumption about that?” After
the first Skilled Facilitator training in the organization, class members came up to
Gail and said, “Oh, now I get it! I understand why you talk this way.” This was
almost identical to my second attempt introducing the approach in the small non-
profit where I worked.
Since that successful first training, Gail’s organization has continued to offer
training two or three times a year. Internal trainers have been developed. And now
the initiative is spreading to the city government in a partnership between the county
and city organizations.
I have learned a lot from this example and I love what Gail has to say about her
style: “It is important to me that every individual chooses their own direction and
changes. I chose and needed support from my friends, but I never expected others
to choose the same path. This is a fundamental belief for me. For me, it defines hav-
ing dignity and respect for others.”
296 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 297
THE POWER OF MODELING NEW
BEHAVIORS AND BELIEFS
While it may seem like a truism, the best way to introduce the Skilled Facilitator
approach into an organization is through methods that are consistent with its core
values and the mutual learning model. Tom Moore and I learned the hard way that
unilaterally telling people that the Skilled Facilitator approach was the best way to
operate a business was not only inconsistent with the approach but a good way to
build resistance. Like Gail, we have both learned the value of changing ourselves.
By initially concentrating on growth of self, it became possible to more fully
appreciate the full breadth of the Skilled Facilitator approach and avoid the easy trap
of adopting the unilateral control model in an attempt to drag a recalcitrant world
into enlightenment. These changes can introduce new issues, such as long-time
coworkers’ recognizing and wondering about the difference in one’s communica-
tion style and language. By recognizing these issues and gaining the participation of
those coworkers in one’s learning, as Gail did, we can begin the process of model-
ing behavior within the organization. Ultimately, changing ourselves has allowed us
to model this different way of communicating, handling conflict, and making
decisions. In changing our own behavior, we have been much more successful at
helping others see the value of the Skilled Facilitator approach.
Note
1. In the first edition of The Skilled Facilitator (1994), there were sixteen ground
rules. In 2002, the second edition reduced the list to nine ground rules.
By initially concen-
trating on growth of
self, it became pos-
sible to more fully appreci-
ate the full breadth of the
Skilled Facilitator approach
and avoid the easy trap of
adopting the unilateral
control model in an at-
tempt to drag a recalcitrant
world into enlightenment.
Chapter 35 • Introducing the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work | 297
43_964948 ch35.qxd 3/3/05 10:01 AM Page 298
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 299
Chapter 36
Bringing It All Back
Home, or Open Mouth,
Insert Foot
Peter Hille and the Staff of the Brushy Fork Institute
When Peter Hille first mentioned that he had been to a workshop and learned
new facilitation techniques, my first thought was, Mercy, he’s always wanting to learn
something new—something new to make my life more complicated.
PETER’S EXPLANATION
At the end of our week of Skilled Facilitator training, I had the opportunity to do
one more role play: how to introduce what I had learned to my colleagues back
home. I volunteered to give it a try, confident that my staff would be receptive. Pri-
vately I was thinking, “This should be easy.” My partners in the role-play had other
ideas. As I started to lay out the new ideas and techniques I’d learned, they began
to pepper me with questions and loaded comments. Wait, I thought, my real staff
won’t react like this. Then I looked around and realized they were all doing a pretty
good job in the role play, and I was in for a challenge when I got back home.
I direct Brushy Fork Institute, a community leadership development program
with a staff of four, and facilitation is central to our work. Many of our operating
principles are grounded in what I consider to be the mutual learning model, such
as recognizing that our participants, not we, are the real experts on their commu-
nities. However, the Skilled Facilitator approach has provided a new and concrete
way for me to think about how to operate in ways more consistent with those core
principles. Role-playing how to present this to my staff helped me realize that even
given a supportive conceptual framework for this in our organization, I would need
to be thoughtful and creative in introducing the approach. One of the key learn-
ings from the role play was that if the head of the organization goes off and learns
a new approach, there is a limit to how much free and informed choice the staff has
in experiencing the effects.
299
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 300
If the head of the or-
ganization goes off
and learns a new
approach, there is a limit
to how much free and in-
formed choice the staff has
in experiencing the effects.
I started with a written communication so I could be mindful about how I in-
troduced the topic. Within the memo, I tried to use some illustrations of the ground
rules, pointing back to my own statements to show how they work:
Hi, folks,
I’d like to share with you all some of what I learned at the workshop last
week. The workshop was intense, challenging and rewarding. I got some good
insights into my own facilitation style and some ideas about how to become more
effective. I’m interested in putting these into practice. As I try to get my head
wrapped around some of these process techniques, I’d like to engage anyone who
is interested in helping me evaluate both the techniques themselves and how well
I am doing at implementing them. By the way, in case you were wondering, in
this experiment I’m the guinea pig!
This model is based on four core values and ten ground rules [there were ten
at the time]. They are:
Core Values
1. Valid information
2. Free and informed choice
3. Internal commitment
4. Compassion
Ground Rules
1. Test assumptions and inferences.
2. Share all relevant information.
3. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean.
4. Discuss undiscussable issues.
5. Focus on interests, not positions.
6. Explain your reasoning and intent.
7. Combine advocacy with inquiry.
8. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements.
9. Keep the discussion focused.
10. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed.
My observation is that none of this is inconsistent with Brushy Fork’s
approach, but I find it is more explicit in some aspects. It also provides some con-
crete ways to think about operationalizing these ideas. I wanted to share all this
with you on the front end, since it is relevant information (see Ground Rule Two,
above). My intention is to give you enough information to help you make a free
and informed choice about how much you’d like to engage with me in exploring
300 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 301
this model. (I’m explaining my reasoning and intent—Ground Rule Six, above—
and also trying to honor the “free and informed choice” value.) I won’t be asking
for anyone’s buy-in on this until you’ve had a chance to check it out yourself and
have any questions answered.
A good way to start into this would be for you all to read a little bit about
this model. There is a short article, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach,” at this
Web site:
http://www.schwarzassociates.com/sfa.htm
Also, I have another short article on the values and ground rules. Let me
know if you’d like to see that.
I’d like for us to get together so I can flesh this out by sharing some of what
was presented at the workshop. We could also look at a video they shot at the work-
shop of me facilitating and being critiqued, which would give us some concrete
examples of how this method works. Then we could discuss this approach and talk
about how it fits with what we do. I think we should set aside a time to do this
rather than just try to fit it into a regular staff meeting—perhaps two or even three
hours. How does this sound to each of you? (By the way, I’m combining advocacy
with inquiry: Ground Rule Seven, above). If you have other suggestions about how
we might proceed, or if you have any questions, please let me know.
With that beginning I thought I could go ahead and start to talk about the model
and use some of the ground rules in our staff meetings while we worked up to tak-
ing a staff retreat to get more in-depth. It wasn’t easy, as one staff member observed:
“At first, Peter was unsure about how to share what he had learned.” Another was
more pointed: “And because Peter wasn’t yet good at what he was teaching, his be-
havior seemed stilted and fake. ‘Tina,’ he drawled, ‘should I infer from what you said
that . . . ?’ I thought he had lost his mind—and that I’d lose mine if I had to put up
with much of that.”
Somehow we all survived for a few weeks until we could take a day to get into
the approach in more depth. I shared my left-hand column case ahead of time, as
well as Roger’s memo explaining how to write one, and encouraged everyone to try
their hand at writing one of their own. I suggested that viewing my role-play video
from the workshop might be a good way for the rest of the staff to get a sense of
how the training worked and to have some entertainment at my expense.
We began our retreat with some good food and coffee, then started exploring
some of the dilemmas for facilitators from the workshop. This helped everyone get
into the shared mind-set of seeing that we could benefit from better tools to help us
solve such problems. From there, we spent some time talking through the values,
ground rules, unilateral control and mutual learning models, and the diagnosis-
intervention cycle. We had carved out enough time for this so we could talk, reflect,
and apply all this to our work. And everyone did enjoy watching me fumble through
the videos.
Chapter 36 • Bringing It All Back Home, or Open Mouth, Insert Foot | 301
http://www.schwarzassociates.com/sfa.htm
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 302
STAFF COMMENTS
When Roger asked me to write about sharing this with my staff, we both thought it
would be good to hear from them also. As I asked them to share their observations,
it was gratifying to find they have all found the Skilled Facilitator approach useful:
As time went on and I saw Peter applying these new ideas, I realized that
what he was doing is the same thing I do at home. When I see one of my chil-
dren sulking in a corner, I ask questions to learn what is going on in their
heads. I also recognized that the rules Peter was initiating were simply a kind
and gentle way of treating people and getting the most out of discussion.
Not only did I start to appreciate this new way of facilitating at work, but
I began to notice in my personal life how often people ignore these rules. I
know that often I don’t comprehend a situation because I take what I hear
with preconceived ideas and without seeking clarity by questioning. I am
more careful now, and my life is less confusing. Questioning to understand
is much better than jumping to conclusions—often wrong conclusions.
No, I didn’t win the lottery and I wasn’t elected president and George
Clooney hasn’t asked me out yet. But I have become more willing to ask
questions and to offer necessary information to others, so my communica-
tion skills have improved. I guess it’s okay to learn something new every
once in a while.—Tina Collins
My initial impression was positive, but I was unsure how I might use the
ground rules in my work or life. My reaction to Peter’s bringing ground rules
to a staff meeting was that if it can help improve how we work together, I
am all for it. Peter was very careful about introducing the concepts and was
mindful of its being new to us. The one ground rule that really impressed
me was, “Test assumptions and inferences.” I have a tendency to make
high-level inferences based on my biases. This occurs at work but seems
especially true for me at home, where I am quick to make assumptions in
conversations with my wife. I began to test assumptions and inferences and
asked my wife to help by pointing out instances when I made inferences
without support. Using this ground rule as a framework, we have improved
our communication.—Van Gravitt
When Peter introduced the ground rules for effective groups, I was in the
midst of dealing with a problem. I had been working with a team in the
Brushy Fork Leadership Development Program. Three months or so into
their project, they encountered a conflict that threatened to divide the group
based on county politics.
My first impulse was to tell them what I thought they should do, but as
a facilitator, I was supposed to resist providing my opinion and instead give
them techniques through which they could resolve their own issues. Peter
and I had a discussion about how to apply the ground rules for effective
groups, particularly focusing on interests, not positions; explaining the rea-
sons behind one’s statements, questions, and actions; and discussing
undiscussable issues.
302 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 303
I felt that the ground rules worked well for that group, but I wasn’t sure
whether I still had a good handle on them. I didn’t find the ground rules for
effective groups easy to remember, so I kept them posted on the wall in my
office, near my computer where I might refer to them when I was talking or
sending e-mail to group members. Still, I wondered whether I would ever
begin using them intuitively, particularly in group situations where I was a
member.
For me, the ground rules have been more difficult to incorporate in my
own situation, so I figure I will have to become very intentional about using
them. Being so intentional makes the process feel a little forced. Learning
to apply the ground rules will take time as I work to interpret and internal-
ize what each rule means.—Donna Morgan
PETER’S CONCLUSION
As for me, I’m still struggling to implement the model in my day-to-day work, both
in and out of the office. At a recent follow-up session, Roger assured us that we
shouldn’t expect to master all the ground rules at once. I can say that at least we es-
tablished a solid foundation within our staff that provides a supportive environment
for all of us to keep working on it.
Chapter 36 • Bringing It All Back Home, or Open Mouth, Insert Foot | 303
44_964948 ch36.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 304
45_964948 ch37.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 305
Chapter 37
A Carp in the Land of Koi
Susan R. Williams
I work in a mission-based company—one that is somewhat progressive compared
to other counterparts in the industry. I attended the Skilled Facilitator workshop
with the aim of absorbing the approach to help me edit a revised version of The
Skilled Facilitator. Although I did hope to walk away with some useful skills, I felt
it necessary to try to keep some sort of objective distance. How impossible that
turned out to be.
I found myself realizing that the Skilled Facilitator approach was at the heart of
honest and open communication practices that could and should be used in all
human interaction. This was an exciting approach—one that as soon as you learn
it seems so simple. Now why can’t we all behave this way all the time?
Once through with my week-long immersion, I returned to the workplace,
ready to work with Roger Schwarz on the book and put the ideas into practice: on
my team, in meetings, with folks on the street. We would have honest communi-
cation, we would have no inference ladders, and we would tell it like it is. Now, it’s
important to know that before leaving for the week-long Skilled Facilitator train-
ing, we attendees were asked to write up our own personal left-hand column cases.
Since I pride myself on authenticity and always thought I was using a direct ap-
proach, the fact that my left-hand column case clearly showed how incongruent my
thoughts were to my action was disconcerting. And yet, once through the training,
I thought the knowledge and best intentions would work to help me override any
unilateral control behaviors that might occasionally rear their head.
Being a generally enthusiastic person, I returned to work to start putting the
behaviors into practice. What I quickly realized was that this was work. Although I
explained the approach to others (and some people were familiar with the approach
simply because of the book), my own style often worked against me.
One thing I think about the Skilled Facilitator approach is that it forces one to
slow down and consider someone else’s point of view all the time. I realized quickly
this could get in the way of my goal—whatever it happened to be at the time. (The
unilateral control model rears its head.) This was all well and good if time or pres-
sures to get things done were not breathing down my neck, but how could decisions
that needed to be made be made fast enough if I had to worry about everyone else?
More important, what was in it for me? (Unilateral control rears again.) And finally,
I found myself
realizing that the
Skilled Facilitator
approach was at the heart
of honest and open com-
munication practices that
could and should be used
in all human interaction.
One thing I
think about the
Skilled Facilitator
approach is that it forces
one to slow down and con-
sider someone else’s
point of view all the time.
305
45_964948 ch37.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 306
The things that
have stayed with
me are giving
people the benefit of the
doubt and speaking up
when there is a problem,
and I now have a much
greater awareness of my
own biases.
what if I found myself in a unilateral control environment and had the only mutual
learning viewpoint? I was supposed to model the behavior, be the voice of reason,
no assumptions. But I found myself getting frustrated.
I finally realized that what I was “modeling” was really a disguised version of
unilateral control behavior. For shame. This stuff was hard and often felt not very
satisfying. Without the group there to guide me (as I had had that week), I found
I trampled all over what I learned. I could pat myself on the back when I reached
congruence between what I thought and said, questioned people to test my own as-
sumptions, but usually I could do this only with people I trusted. If I did not have
a feeling of trust, it was much, much harder, and I am sure I often operated out of
the unilateral control model without even knowing it.
This is not a success story of how I overcame all of my biases. But I do think it
is a success story of the small sort. First, the awareness I now have of my own biases
is much greater. Although I do not always follow the ground rules, at least I now
know the choices I make along the way. Rather than justifying my behavior on the
basis of my being right, I recognize how I might be feeling defensive or threatened—
and hence my behavior. Sometimes I catch myself and change course, and some-
times I don’t.
Perhaps the two things that have stayed with me from my intensive week are
giving people the benefit of the doubt (testing inferences) and speaking up when
there is a problem (discussing undiscussable issues). Because inferences and as-
sumptions are so often second nature, to me as well as to many others, it has been a
real eye-opener to see how rampant they are in daily work practice. I tend to think
that as in a family, daily interaction breeds certain expectations that then breed
assumptions that stay or become ingrained unless we challenge ourselves to take
action and change the conversation. This is difficult to do every day.
As for undiscussable issues, it has been interesting and trying at times, but for
the most part helpful, to honestly raise something that feels uncomfortable or that I
just want to avoid. This is especially tough because it is a weakness of mine: I am an
avoider, a pleaser, and I don’t want conflict. But these issues have a way of raising
themselves if they are not addressed, and so I have tried to tackle this one head-on
when necessary.
306 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
46_964948 pt06.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 307
PART SIX
Leading and Changing
Organizations
Many of our clients are using the Skilled Facilitator approach to create significant
change in their organizations—change in how they lead and manage their organiza-
tions. We refer to this as the Facilitative Leader approach. Some started out with this
intention; others evolved toward organizational transformation as they gradually began
to practice Skilled Facilitator methods and came to see their power and potential. We
know of no organization that fully embodies the Facilitative Leader approach, but
we see many individual leaders (formal and informal) working with their colleagues
to move in this direction. Part Six describes some of their experiences and delves more
deeply into the concepts and dilemmas that arise when engaging in this type of
fundamental organizational change.
In Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” our col-
league Tom Moore shares his learning over nine years of using the Facilitative Leader
approach in his organization. In Chapter Thirty-Nine, “Learning to Live Our
Philosophy,” Betsy Monier-Williams describes her experiences as her organization
begins to use the Facilitative Leader approach.
To create fundamental change, team members need to learn how they contribute
to reducing their team’s effectiveness and what they can do to improve its effective-
ness. Roger addresses different aspects of this systemic issue in three related chapters.
In Chapter Forty, “Helping a Team Understand the System They Created,” he uses a
case study to show how to help a team identify causes of its dysfunctional behavior
and how to help them create a more effective team. In Chapter Forty-One, “‘I Can’t
Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does,’” he explains how team members contribute
to their team’s ineffectiveness by assuming that they can use the Facilitative Leader
approach only if their boss uses it first. He provides steps for talking with your boss
about using the approach. Finally, in Chapter Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contribut-
ing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” he describes how we contribute to
the very problems with our bosses (and organizations) that we complain about. Again,
he provides steps for raising these issues with your boss to start contributing to solving
the problems.
The subsequent four chapters examine developmental facilitation, the continuum
that begins with helping groups learn to use Skilled Facilitator approach skills for them-
selves and continues into deep-level personal and organizational change. Anne Davidson
46_964948 pt06.qxd 3/3/05 10:02 AM Page 308
and Dick McMahon, in Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” describe
how developmental facilitation differs from basic facilitation and the challenges that
individuals, groups and organizations, and the facilitator face in doing this work. They
continue in Chapter Forty-Four, “Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions,” de-
scribing the kinds of theory-in-use interventions required in developmental work and
sharing the dilemmas that arise when trying to change deeply embedded organiza-
tional defensive routines designed to protect people from experiencing embarrassment
and threat. Jeff Koeze, in Chapter Forty-Five, “Introducing the Core Values and
Ground Rules,” illustrates the successes and challenges of introducing the Facilitative
Leader approach and sustaining learning.
Joe Huffman’s organization started an effort to become a learning organization
using Facilitative Leader principles in 1996. In Chapter Forty-Six, “From Learning
to Lead to Leading to Learn,” he shares his experience as a city manager joining an
organization where the top management team was already engaged in using the
approach. His chapter and Chapter Forty-Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat
Facilitative Leader,” by Jeff Koeze, demonstrate some of the advantages, challenges,
and issues that arise when organizations implement the approach.
The next four chapters consider how the approach can be used to improve orga-
nizational policy, structure, and procedures. In Chapter Forty-Eight, “Integrating the
Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and Procedures,” Roger and
Anne discuss some of the unintended consequences that often arise from current
organizational policies and practices (such as human resources, accounting, and
finance) and offer a process for exploring how policies might be changed. In Chapter
Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach,” Peg Carlson
examines how the use of anonymity in 360-degree feedback undermines the very
consequences it is intended to create. She shows how to redesign 360-degree feedback
systems to create learning and increase accountability. In Chapter Fifty, “Implement-
ing a 360-Degree Feedback System,” Bron Skinner shares an example of how he used
the Skilled Facilitator approach to improve his 360-degree performance feedback and
what happened when he received negative anonymous feedback. Peg explores the
anonymity issues further in Chapter Fifty-One, “Do Surveys Provide Valid Information
for Organizational Change?”
Part Six concludes with thoughts on how to extend the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach. Our clients routinely ask us whether the approach works in cultures outside
the United States. In Chapter Fifty-Two, “Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach in
Different and Multiple Cultures,” Anne offers examples of our success and challenges
and suggests ways to talk about the approach in other cultures.
308 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 309
�
�
Chapter 38
Daily Challenges of
a Facilitative Leader
Tom Moore
I am the director of the Wake County Public Library, the county that includes
the city of Raleigh, North Carolina. The library has seventeen branches and serves
more than 700,000 residents. I have introduced the Facilitative Leader approach to
my organization over the past nine years. I began by telling staff that I was trying
to use the skills and asked them to point out when they thought I wasn’t using the
skills or being consistent with the values I professed.
See Chapter Forty-Six, “From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn,” page 367, and Chapter
Forty-Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader,” page 377, for other stories of facili-
tative leaders’ introducing the approach in their organizations.
There were two instant problems. The first was whether staff could trust me to
be true to my word in that I would welcome criticism. They had no experience with
my being receptive to criticism of any kind. The second problem was that I was so
unskilled in the facilitative leader role that I was never consistent with the core val-
ues for any length of time. Concurrently, I was unaware of my own inconsistency.
There was enough inconsistent behavior to keep a team of staff busy full-time point-
ing out those inconsistencies. While I was sincere in my attempt to involve staff in
my change process, I was so entrenched in my unilateral control model behavior
that it was difficult for them to see the changes I wanted to make.
In hindsight, I can track what happened. I was so repelled by my own unilat-
eral control behavior as identified through my left-hand column case and feedback
from my coach and mentor that I began to act in a give-up-control way.
See the give-up-control model in Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,”
page 33.
Instead of giving direction, I said things like, “You decide,” or “I don’t care;
whatever you think is best.” I appointed committees to address problems. I only
vaguely defined the problems and set few, if any, parameters. For example, I set up
a committee to establish guidelines for checking out library materials. I told them
There were two
instant problems.
The first was
whether staff could
trust me to be true to my
word in that I would
welcome criticism.
309
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 310
In spite of all of the
dilemmas that con-
tinue to surface,
the Facilitative Leader ap-
proach is a powerful way
to lead an organization.
Mistakes are no longer
covered up; instead they
are opportunities for learn-
ing. They are discussed so
they won’t be repeated.
We share our reasons for
our actions or statements
in ways that prevent mis-
understandings.
to solve the problems that existed and that they all needed to agree on the solutions.
I did not identify the problems beforehand and did not establish parameters for ac-
ceptable solutions. When the committee presented its first guidelines, my heart sank.
They had proposed rigid rules that made it difficult to check out library materials.
In seeking to punish abusers, they set up rules and regulations that limited all users
in ways that, in my mind at least, did not prevent the abusers from circumventing
the rules but would make it more difficult for those who would follow the rules.
I was truly caught on the horns of a dilemma. I had appointed the committee (I
actually said, “Whoever is interested can be on the committee”) and told them that
whatever they decided would be acceptable. What they proposed was not accept-
able to me. If I let the committee’s decision stand, citizens would receive poorer ser-
vice; if I told the committee that its decision was not acceptable, I would be acting
inconsistent with the autonomy I gave them.
What I found out was that the give-up-control model was no more effective as
a way of operating than was the unilateral control model. The problem was that I
didn’t realize that I was acting in a give-up-control way. It was very difficult for me
to back up and start over, especially since the committee was committed to its de-
cisions. The only thing I could do was try to explain how I had not given good pa-
rameters or direction to the committee and then to identify what the parameters
should have been. I did that and gave them to the committee. I believe that most
of the committee members thought that I just didn’t like their conclusions and rec-
ommendations. This was just another way for me to get what I wanted. “Why didn’t
you just tell us what you wanted in the first place?” they asked. Although I was try-
ing to be a facilitative leader, I had facilitated nothing. The way I worked with that
committee could hardly be called leading either.
This is the challenge of the Facilitative Leader approach. It usually requires a
radically different way of acting and thinking as a leader. Those you lead are skeptical
at best when you begin. Many are just plain unbelieving. As I have said, my orga-
nization has been implementing the Facilitative Leader approach over the past nine
years. Various managers have accepted this way of thinking and acting at different
times. Some announced what they were doing. Others didn’t; they just tried to im-
plement the leadership approach. Regardless of the way they started, almost all were
met with skepticism and doubt from the staff they worked with. Each of them
moved from unilateral control behavior to give-up-control behavior, even when they
knew others had been unsuccessful when they did that. I believe that the move to
the give-up-control model was unconsciously deliberate. Each of us had the un-
spoken desire to prove that the way we had acted before wasn’t so bad.
In spite of all of the dilemmas that continue to surface, the Facilitative Leader
approach is a powerful way to lead an organization. Mistakes are no longer covered
up; instead they are opportunities for learning. They are discussed so they won’t be
repeated. We share our reasons for our actions or statements in ways that prevent
misunderstandings.
310 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 311
Our organization has powerful conversations. Recently the leadership team that
I work with spent an hour showing me the consequences of the actions that I pro-
posed to take. I believed that I could present facts and figures about a service that
we wanted to offer in such a way that the county manager would be forced to agree.
He had already said he was not willing to commit the resources necessary to offer
that service. I thought that I had information that if I made it public, he would have
no choice but to agree. They demonstrated that I would have to enter into a win-
lose type of battle, and that if I did, I couldn’t afford to lose. They also pointed out
that the person I would want to do battle with couldn’t afford to lose either. What’s
more, they pointed out, he had much more power than I have. The group framed
its advice in a unilateral control perspective. I believe they did that because that is
the way that I framed the solution in the first place. We had a blunt discussion about
negative consequences that would result from my proposed actions. They pointed
out the unilateral control aspects of what I wanted to do. Perhaps this is a typical
conversation when a supervisor speaks to peers, but these team members are orga-
nizationally my subordinates. In other organizations, I believe that conversation
would have taken place in the break room or the hallway—anywhere that I wasn’t.
We have these types of discussions because we have explicitly agreed to talk
about the tough issues and thoroughly examine consequences of proposed actions.
We have found out it is much less painful to have these conversations before we
act than it is to have them after we have acted and are trying to fix the unintended
consequences.
We still face daily challenges. Why is it that I can see that your behavior is not
facilitative but can’t see the same behavior in myself (at least not while it is occur-
ring)? Sometimes the challenges are comical when we reflect on them.
During one meeting of our leadership team, the discussion became rather
heated. Voices were raised, and a number of untested inferences and assumptions
were made. The conversation was rapid, with different individuals talking at once.
Suddenly one of the group in a very loud voice said, “Everybody is shouting! You
all are making untested assumptions! This is no way to use facilitative leadership!”
The individual was then silent, as was the rest of the group. The intervention
worked, for everyone lowered their voices, checked out assumptions and inferences,
and took turns speaking. It was only on reflection that we could see that the person
who made the intervention engaged in all of the behaviors that the intervention was
about. She yelled. She did not test her own assumptions and inferences out (that
the rest of us were not testing out our assumptions and inferences). And, of course,
she had to talk at the same time that others were talking in order to get her message
in. This is not the only time that I have seen this happen. I don’t know why, but we
engage in the very behavior that we want to stop in order to make it stop.
At other times, the challenges are more vexing. Why does it take so long to learn
how to act using Facilitative Leader skills? Is it really this hard, or am I a slow learner?
In my experience, the Facilitative Leader approach is not a cookbook method. Many
We still face daily
challenges. Why is
it that I can see
that your behavior is
not facilitative but can’t
see the same behavior
in myself (at least not
while it is occurring)?
Chapter 38 • Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader | 311
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 312
leadership models or skill sets seem easy to learn and almost simplistic to apply. They
are like recipes in a cookbook. Add a pinch of salt, a dash of nutmeg, two cups of
flour and milk, and baking powder. Mix it all up, and you’ll have dough of some
kind. It’s so easy once you get the hang of it that you can make the dough without
looking at the recipe. You can make variations and know it will result in different
but still good dough.
The Facilitative Leader approach is not so much based on formula as it is based
on matching values and actions explicitly. Before I learned about it, I said that I be-
lieved in at least two of its core values: sharing relevant information and seeking in-
ternal commitment. I just didn’t act consistently with those values. I wasn’t aware
that I didn’t act consistently with those values either. In order to use the approach,
I had to make the core values explicit and keep them in my awareness. I then had
to pick actions that were in alignment with those core values. The ground rules are
actions that are consistent with the core values of the approach. They are not like
the recipes of other leadership models, for they are effective only when used con-
sistently with the core values.
When I was introduced to the Facilitative Leader approach, it seemed foreign. I
was asked to do things that I never considered before. I remember talking to Roger
Schwarz one day about my fear that I was about to lose my job. He asked me a num-
ber of questions about why I felt that way, but all that I could say was that it was a
feeling that I got from the manager. Finally, he said, “Why don’t you ask him?” I can
still feel the stark terror that suggestion evoked: “Why would I ask him if I was in
danger of losing my job? That would be stupid!” Roger replied, “Who better than
the manager can tell you whether you are in danger of losing your job? What’s the
worst that could happen?” I thought and said, “He would say yes.” And then Roger
said, “At least then you would know where you stood. You would no longer be in
this netherworld of not knowing. And by knowing, you could then take some ac-
tion—even ask the manager himself what you could do to not lose your job.” The
logic was so simple and clear that I could think of nothing to counteract it.
The next week I made an appointment with the manager to check out my worst
fears, and they were confirmed. When the manager said I was indeed in trouble and
in jeopardy of losing my job, I panicked. To this day, I cannot remember the rest of
our conversation. This meant I had to request another meeting with him to find
out what I could do differently to continue in my job. That was eight years ago. The
manager who was ready to let me go pointed to my department two years later as
an example of effective leadership and a role model for other departments. By prac-
ticing the Facilitative Leader approach, I was able to better meet my manager’s ex-
pectations and improve the way that my organization operated.
I have to work hard every day to be a Facilitative Leader. Every day I have fail-
ures. One of them was the time I said to a team member in a very large meeting for
all to hear, “What part of no don’t you understand?” Occasionally I have successes.
Sometimes the successes are much more spectacular than the failures. One was the
312 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 313
time when our division was praised for having the best budget preparation and pre-
sentation because we used our facilitative skills in putting that budget together. It
was no longer necessary to play budget games because we shared how we constructed
our budget and why we put different amounts in each line. Sometimes the successes
are just quiet, satisfying, and ongoing, like the time my supervisor said to my team
and me, “I like coming to your meetings because you always speak so openly to each
other. I feel at ease here.” This was high praise in my mind.
Practicing the Facilitative Leader approach has been the hardest thing I have
done in my adult life. I can no longer operate on automatic pilot. I must be aware
of the core values and the actions I need to take to be consistent with them at all
times. Sometimes it is easier now than it was at the beginning. Most often, it still is
very difficult in tense, difficult situations. I do not regret having taken this path,
and I would not consider another. My life is richer for the experience, and my or-
ganization is better poised to face the challenges that each day presents. As leaders
of the organization learn more and continue to practice applying the core values,
the organization becomes more effective in diagnosing problems and finding solu-
tions that have the fewest unintended consequences. Work has become enjoyable
again, for we know we can use this approach no matter how difficult the situation is.
We also know that we have support from each other in those difficult situations.
Chapter 38 • Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader | 313
47_964948 ch38.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 314
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 315
Chapter 39
Learning to Live
Our Philosophy
Betsy Monier-Williams
This chapter describes some of the issues that arise when an organization attempts
to change from a traditional to a mutual learning leadership style. In particular there
are stories about espousing “free and informed choice” while in reality denying em-
ployees free choice. Acting unilaterally about mutual learning is another example of
an issue that occurred more than once as my organization, a worldwide aerospace
and industrial supplier, shifted toward facilitative leadership. By using my personal
experiences, I hope my words paint a picture of my journey as a change agent for the
Facilitative Leader approach.
ENTHUSIASM OUTPACES COMPETENCE
On returning from the Skilled Facilitator Intensive Workshop, I wasted no time in
telling everyone all about it. The Facilitative Leader approach fit so well into both my
personal and work life that I was excited to share it with others. I believed if others
would only try it, they would see the benefit of the approach too. I found it hard to
listen to someone say the approach wouldn’t work for him or her before he or she had
even taken the workshop. It was difficult to ask genuinely curious questions as to why
it wouldn’t work for them when what I really wanted to say was, “Yes, it would. Just
give it a try!” Most of the time I didn’t ask the genuine question, I instead told them,
“Yes, it would. Just give it a try!” I preached the gospel of facilitative leadership to any-
one who would listen and quickly earned the title “Schwarz disciple.” The first time
I heard my new nickname was a revelation for me. Sharing my experiences wasn’t the
issue; the problem was I was unilateral about it. Being unilateral about mutual learn-
ing was a recurring experience during my early days of using the approach. It happened
because I was so excited at my newly found skills that I did not realize I had not
changed my thinking to a mutual learning state of mind. Being aware that I was still
acting from a unilateral mind-set was the first step in my journey of effecting change
within the organization.
About two weeks later, I walked into the office of the vice president and gen-
eral manager to tell him about my workshop experience. I told him that aside from
315
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 316
the company paying for my master’s degree, sending me to the Skilled Facilitator
workshop was the best money he ever spent on me. He leaned back in his chair,
raised his eyebrows, and said, “Really? Why?” I told him about the left-hand column
case analysis, the skills practices, and the realization that I’d been a lousy facilitator
for the past year. Before the workshop, if a team member mentioned something I
thought was irrelevant to the discussion, I would yell, “Time out. We’re off-topic;
we need to get back on track.” I got the group back on track, but at a price. I
effectively shut down the team member who dared to voice an opinion (which
turned out later to be very relevant to the topic) not only for one meeting but for
many more meetings thereafter.
My old unilateral facilitative style also included convincing the minority to agree
with the majority’s decision so we could achieve consensus and move on to the next
topic in a timely manner. Without a true consensus decision, the implementation
of the decision often went awry when the minority again voiced their opposition.
The Skilled Facilitator workshop helped me realize there was a more effective way
to facilitate. The general manager was pleased that I came away with such an eye-
opening experience. I left saying that he “had to go to this workshop.” (I was still
struggling with being unilateral about mutual learning.) He said he’d think about
it. My next stop was my mentor’s office, our financial manager. She helped me to
develop my financial acumen, as well as expand my leadership skills. She was a step
ahead of me. She had heard stories from my boss and was already interested in at-
tending the workshop.
BROADENING THE EXPERIENCE
Two months later, the financial manager, the general manager, and half the execu-
tive staff attended the Facilitative Leader workshop. I believe that was the beginning
of our organization’s embracing the Facilitative Leader approach. Three months later,
the remaining half of executive staff attended the workshop. During the final day
and a half of the workshop, the entire executive staff, twelve managers, met as a team
to begin practicing their skills. It was their collective choice to use the ground rules
to become a more effective team. After that day-and-a-half meeting, the executive
staff returned to question me as to when the next workshop would happen so they
could send their employees. The approach was beginning to take hold. The next
move was to offer the Facilitative Leader workshop on-site so there were more op-
portunities for employees to attend.
UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING
A JOINT APPROACH
I began to work with Roger Schwarz and his associates, Anne Davidson, Sue
McKinney, and Peg Carlson, to develop my skills as a workshop instructor. At the end
316 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 317
of each Facilitative Leader workshop, there is a discussion about integrating the Fa-
cilitative Leader approach with other approaches being used in the organization. Roger
says that you are likely to find that “some of your organization’s structures, systems
and processes are inconsistent with the core values and ground rules.”1 We were no
different. It was how one specific inconsistency came about that sticks in my mind.
The general manager, my boss at the time, and I agreed that all the facilitators in
our organization had to attend the Facilitative Leader workshop in order to continue
acting as facilitators. He and I believed the skills learned in the workshop were critical
to creating self-empowered work teams. To that end, all nineteen of our facilitators
were informed of our decision. Over the course of the next year, the facilitators began
to attend the workshop.
During one of the workshops, I stood in front of the participants, including my
organization’s facilitators whom I worked with over the past two years, and began the
“integration” discussion. I emphasized that identifying the inconsistencies in our or-
ganization’s structures, systems, and processes was the first step, and continued on to
say that I identified some inconsistencies within the organization. I felt proud not only
that I had found some inconsistencies, but also that I was making an effort to change
them. I thought I was a true facilitative leader! And then I noticed a couple of facili-
tators rolling their eyes and whispering to each other. I made some inferences about
what they were saying, so I decided to check with them: “I noticed that you were
rolling your eyes when I mentioned changing the inconsistencies, and I’m thinking
you have a comment on that. Is that right?” One facilitator replied, “Yes!” “Would
you mind sharing with the group what it is you’re thinking?” I asked. “Sure! One of
the core values is free and informed choice, and you say you follow the Facilitative
Leader approach, right?” “Yes,” I answered. “So how is it that you, as master facilitator,
made the decision to require all facilitators not only go through the Facilitator Leader
workshop but also that we have to use the skills in order to remain a facilitator? I don’t
see any free and informed choice being offered to the facilitators.” There I was, exposed
for all to see. Roger’s words came back to haunt me.
My boss and I created a systemic issue. We made a systemwide decision that was
inconsistent with the approach we were asking the facilitators to use. We “required”
the facilitators to use the skills, when they should have had the free and informed
choice to use the skills. It’s no wonder the facilitators were confused and upset. Be-
cause my boss and I were viewed as champions of the Facilitative Leader initiative,
it was important that we acted, and were viewed by our peers as being, consistent
with the approach. It was eight months between our decision and the facilitators’
pointing out the inconsistency to me. My inference is that during those eight months,
the facilitators must have thought me a hypocrite. The phrase “perception is reality”
comes to mind. Although I wasn’t purposefully denying the facilitators free and in-
formed choice, it seemed that way to them and that’s all that mattered. In learning
my lesson, instead of requiring the facilitators to use the Facilitative Leader approach,
the facilitators and I jointly designed a set of accountabilities, which may be achieved
My boss and I
created a systemic
issue. We made a
systemwide decision that
was inconsistent with the
approach we were asking
the facilitators to use.
Chapter 39 • Learning to Live Our Philosophy | 317
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 318
through the use of many different facilitative tools, one of which is the Facilitative
Leader approach.
TOP-DOWN TEAMING
In 2001, our organization created work teams. After fifty-some years of advocating
and rewarding individualism, teaming was a huge cultural change. It was a direct de-
cision from management, with no input from the employees, who would be required
to work in the teams. In shifting to a team culture, we experienced the typical trends
of acceptance: early adapters, the majority, late adapters, and those who would never
be comfortable working in teams. To deal with the last group, I sometimes pulled
the naysayers into a spur-of-the-moment conversation and “sold” teaming to them,
advocating all the reasons that they should participate. Although I professed the need
for team member input, I wasn’t genuine. The issue, as I saw it, was an organizational
norm that said feedback was necessary and appreciated, but in practice feedback was
never listened to or used. If the employees (team members) were asked for input dur-
ing our conversations, it was only so I could respond with reasons that they were
wrong. Instead of finding out why teaming wasn’t working for them, I pushed the
concept of teaming over and over again. When the employees wouldn’t agree with
me, I told management that we should get rid of them because they would never get
with the program.
Over the course of the next three years, it became apparent that without our
employees’ internal commitment to teaming, teaming would struggle to be suc-
cessful. As I, as well as others, started to use the Facilitative Leader approach, many
team members sat back with a “show-me” attitude. The teams shared their opinions
and needs when asked, but waited to see if I was going to cut them off or listen to
them. To quote Miguel de Cervantes’ Don Quixote, “The proof is in the pudding.”
Team members have said they see a change in me and in some of their managers.
They feel that we are genuinely concerned about their interests and needs, and they
are right. I believe that by modeling Facilitative Leader behavior every day, it’s pos-
sible that others may see you differently.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Another issue that came to the light early on was our performance review system.
This is a particularly important issue because it so closely aligns with my organiza-
tion’s objectives, particularly the vision that employees treat each other with mutual
respect and trust. To me, mutual respect and trust means having the compassion to
tell people the truth about their performance, in the hopes that they may choose to
change their behavior for the better. Our management team espoused the idea that
employees can choose to improve themselves if given appropriate feedback, includ-
ing feedback about areas of concern and areas for improvement. In reality, what
318 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 319
most employees received was only positive feedback. Any negative or constructive
feedback was couched in anonymity, and often without specific examples. Man-
agement expected employees to change, but without honest feedback and specific
situations, most employees were unable to do anything about their performance.
My personal experience with this occurred in 1999 when my previous boss
phoned in my performance review while I was at one of our West Coast facilities.
He told me I was doing a good job, said what my salary increase was, and asked if I
had any questions. Not knowing specifically what I had done well, I was unable to
purposefully repeat those processes. Any concerns he had about my work were not
addressed, leaving me clueless as to how I could improve my performance. The
process left me frustrated and angry. So much for performance reviews being a sys-
tem for employee development.
Two years later, I moved into a new role in the organization, with a new de-
partment and a new boss. I have seen improvement in our annual performance re-
view system. In 2003, our management team took on performance management as
an initiative. Honest feedback is the cornerstone of the initiative. My boss attended
the Facilitative Leader workshop and is attempting to use his newly acquired skills
on a daily basis. My last annual review followed a much different process from the
one I have described. This year, my boss and I began by filling out separate assess-
ments of my performance. I e-mailed him my assessment, and we jointly scheduled
a convenient time for the discussion. At the onset of the discussion, my boss shared
the fact that he found my review a bit more daunting than those of his other em-
ployees. When asked why, he replied, “Because you live, breathe, and teach this
Facilitative Leader stuff, so I know if I don’t share my reasoning, you’re going to ask
me all kinds of questions.” He was right. After a moment of laughter, we jointly de-
signed the process we would follow for the performance discussion. We covered my
strengths and my areas for improvement and developed my strategic initiatives for
the upcoming year. We each had specific examples for every topic we discussed, in-
cluding feedback from select internal customers whom I met with in person prior
to my formal review. At the end of our conversation, we talked about how we could
do the review better next year. One suggestion was to include my select internal cus-
tomers in the formal review so my boss and I could hear all the feedback at once,
thereby validating information and considering any performance trends.
From start to finish my review was an incredibly satisfying process. It wasn’t the
perfect facilitative approach to a performance review, but it was the next step to-
ward a more facilitative review system.
ELEMENTS OF CHANGE
It takes much more than bosses and their employees attending a workshop to change
a corporate culture that has evolved over five decades. The approach requires fun-
damental changes in thinking and in our values and assumptions. I believe our shift
Chapter 39 • Learning to Live Our Philosophy | 319
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 320
Not everyone con-
sistently used or
was successful
with the Facilitative Leader
approach all the time, but
what was important was
each person’s internal
commitment to change.
toward a more mutual learning leadership style was the combination of four events.
First, my coworker and fellow master facilitator, Greg Zolnowski (who took the
Skilled Facilitator Intensive Workshop first and then encouraged me to go), and I
worked at the midlevel of the organization to champion the approach with our fa-
cilitators and teams. In our daily conversations, he and I began to share our rea-
soning for asking questions; we asked others to share their reasons. During team
meetings, when team members made inferences or assumptions, Greg and I would
encourage them to check out their inferences with others. We generated interest
among the facilitators and team members by modeling the Facilitative Leader ap-
proach and demonstrating its positive consequences. Second, the executive staff
chose to use the Ground Rules for Effective Groups for their team meetings. They
too saw positive consequences in the form of more internal commitment to deci-
sions and the resolution of previously undiscussable issues. Third, the executive staff
chose to promote the approach by sending their employees to the Facilitative Leader
workshop, disseminating the learning downward through the organization. Finally,
the company committed to building internal capacity by investing the time and
money necessary for Greg and me to become trainers and coaches of the Facilita-
tive Leader approach.
What made these four events possible is the most critical aspect of the change:
in every event I’ve mentioned, the individuals involved made a free and informed
choice to practice the Facilitative Leader approach. They tried to make the change in
thinking, their values, and their assumptions part of their daily routine. Not every-
one consistently used or was successful with the Facilitative Leader approach all the
time, but what was important was each person’s internal commitment to change.
The shift from traditional to mutual learning leadership doesn’t happen overnight.
It is a journey for anyone who embarks on it.
During a recent registration for the Facilitative Leader workshop, a couple of
our managers asked that certain employees attend the workshop based on their per-
formance reviews. They felt the employees “needed the workshop.” When I probed
about their “needing the workshop,” the managers said the approach would “fix”
the employees’ communication or personnel problems. I inferred that the managers
were expecting the employees to use the approach after the workshop. Red flashing
lights went off in my head. The managers were creating an issue similar to the one
I created with the facilitators: they were espousing the Facilitative Leader approach
with its free and informed choice and in reality not allowing their employees the
free choice to use the approach.
I believe the managers’ intent was to truly help the employees, not create con-
fusion for them. You may be wondering what happened. I don’t have a conclusion.
I have a meeting with the managers to discuss the inconsistency I see, but until I
hear what they were thinking, we have no answers.
320 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 321
Throughout the journey, I have learned one person can make a difference. Not
everyone around me has been through the Skilled Facilitator workshop, but that
doesn’t stop me from using the approach. I found that by modeling the approach,
others begin to mimic me. I hear team members say, “Here’s what I’m thinking . . .
But what do you think?” They may not know about being a mutual learner, but
they are using specific examples and sharing their reasoning more often. My hope
is that their experience with the Facilitative Leader approach may later lead them to
make an informed and free choice to embrace it. It happened to me. It continues
to happen to our organization.
Being unilateral doesn’t go away overnight. In emotionally charged situations,
I still struggle to think about the situation from a mutual learner’s perspective. I
often don’t succeed. Thankfully, I’m not alone. At work, Greg and I still coach each
other every day; we are lifelong learners. Our boss, the operations manager, along
with the financial manager and our general manager, believe our facilitation is an
integral part of our organization’s progress toward a successful team-based environ-
ment. Greg and I believe we are making a difference, one person at a time.
Note
1. The Skilled Facilitator, pp. 16, 335.
Chapter 39 • Learning to Live Our Philosophy | 321
48_964948 ch39.qxd 3/3/05 10:03 AM Page 322
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 323
�
Chapter 40
Helping a Team
Understand the
System They Created
Roger Schwarz
See Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255.
In other chapters in this fieldbook, we have explored how group members
make contributions to their system and how undiscussable issues reduce a group’s
effectiveness. A team I worked with explored both of these issues after just learning
the Facilitative Leader approach. The team consisted of the vice president of one of
several major corporate divisions and about half of his direct reports. He had re-
cently moved into his position from another part of the corporation. The team was
eager to practice the new mind-set and skill set they had just begun to develop. My
task was to help them understand how they had created the ineffective situations
they found themselves in and how they could reduce them in the future.
UNDOING THE TEAM CONSENSUS
The team began by discussing undiscussable issues that had been dragging the group
down:
One undiscussable issue was raised by John, the vice president and team
leader (I have used pseudonyms to honor my agreement with the organi-
zation). He said, “I want to talk about the fact that whenever we make a con-
sensus decision in our team meetings, one of you comes to me after the
meeting and tells me we need to rethink the decision.”
John explained that the team agreement was to make strategic deci-
sions by consensus given that it was essential that all team members be
committed to them. He went on to explain that at some point, every person
in the group had come to him asking him to change a group decision. He
said that if any group members wanted him to, he would give specific
323
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 324
I said, “If John
is a formidable
advocate, I
don’t understand why
responding to him one-
on-one after the meeting
would be any easier. I
would think it would be
harder because you
don’t have the potential
support of other group
members. What am I
missing?”
examples of which group members came to him on which issues. A couple
of team members then volunteered that they had come to John after the
group had made a decision. The group agreed that at some point, every-
one had done this.
John went on to describe the negative consequences of this pattern for
the group. He said that it had slowed the division’s ability to meet its goals
and eroded the group’s ability to work as a team.
I asked the team members what was it that led them to come to John’s
office after the meeting instead of raising their concerns in the meeting.
One member, Dan, said that John was a formidable advocate and it was
hard to respond to him in the full group setting. A couple of other group
members agreed. That didn’t make sense to me.
I said, “If John is a formidable advocate, I don’t understand why
responding to him one-on-one after the meeting would be any easier.
I would think it would be harder because you don’t have the potential
support of other group members. What am I missing?”
Lee began to explain that it wasn’t John that was the concern; rather
it was a combination of other concerns. First, there was at times a win-
lose approach that team members used with each other. They were con-
cerned that other team members would shoot down their idea in the
team meeting. Another team member added that by going to John after
the meeting, he increased the chance of having the decision go his way.
Other team members agreed. The teams’ conversations were marked by
a lot of advocacy with little inquiry so that it was easy to get an idea quick-
ly dismissed.
Second, team members were reluctant to be fully open and honest
about their differences of opinions because they were concerned about
hurting others’ feelings. By going to John after the meeting, they thought
they were being compassionate; the issue could be addressed indirectly
rather than having to air differences of opinion openly.
I asked what happened when people went to John after the meeting
to raise concerns about decisions that had already been made by con-
sensus. The team members said they shared additional information with
John about their concerns. They said John told them that the group need-
ed to hear this additional information and told them to raise it at the next
meeting. John agreed that he had said this to the group members. I asked
the team members, “What do you infer when John tells you that?” The
team members replied that John was implicitly endorsing their point of
view on the issue because he had told them the group needed to hear
their additional information. In essence, by acting unilaterally and going to
John, they thought they had a better chance of prevailing on the issue. I
said, “John’s right here. Would you check that out with him?” When they
did, John said that he was not endorsing their point of view. He was sim-
ply trying to get them to honor the process they had agreed to and go back
to the group.
When team members went back to the group and raised the issue
again, sometimes the new information did change the decisions, but more
often the discussion continued. As a result of people sharing additional
324 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 325
information in the subsequent discussions, the same decision was reached
but with greater commitment.
I said, “John, you described this as a pattern of behavior over time
with different group members. What I’m curious about is how you
contribute to maintaining the pattern. I say this because when a team
member came to you the first time after the group had reached con-
sensus, you might have responded in a way that the behavior didn’t
continue. Instead, it spread to other group members. So can we look
at your contribution?”
John said that he did not tell people he was frustrated with them when
they came to his office after the group had reached consensus. He didn’t
tell them because he considered it part of his role; he didn’t like it but
thought it was his job to hear people out. Sometimes John wondered
whether he was contributing to the problem, so occasionally he would
leave the meeting, thinking that would help.
PIECING TOGETHER THE SYSTEM
To move from a team’s story to helping the team understand the system it created
involves a number of steps. Here are the steps I often use to accomplish this:
Step 1: Ask the Team to Tell Their Story
As one person starts to tell the story, others add their details and different perspec-
tives. Seek agreement on what happened, and identify any areas on which members
cannot agree. If something doesn’t fit together for you, ask about it, as I did when
I didn’t understand why people would approach John one-on-one rather than in the
full team. Don’t worry if the story initially doesn’t seem to fit together perfectly. It
may be that there are some missing pieces that either you or the team members have
yet to identify.
Step 2: Identify Key Decision Points
Throughout the Story
As the team tells the story, identify key decision points. In the consensus story, I saw
a few key decision points: (1) when team members framed the team meetings as op-
portunities to persuade others they were right and to minimize expressing negative
feelings; (2) when team members decided that they could not “get their way” in the
team meeting; (3) when they chose to approach John after the team had reached
consensus; (4) when John responded to the first team member who approached him;
and (5) when John responded to subsequent team members who approached him.
Don’t worry if you have difficulty immediately identifying the key decision points;
they may not become clear until the story has completely unfolded.
I said, “John, you
described this as
a pattern of be-
havior over time with
different group members.
What I’m curious about is
how you contribute to
maintaining the pattern. I
say this because when a
team member came to
you the first time after the
group had reached
consensus, you might
have responded in a way
that the behavior didn’t
continue. Instead, it
spread to other group
members. So can we look
at your contribution?”
Chapter 40 • Helping a Team Understand the System They Created | 325
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 326
�
�
Step 3: Explore the Process That Team Members
Used to Take Action at Key Points
Identify the values, assumptions, and inferences they used as the basis of their ac-
tions or decisions. This includes helping members use the ladder of inference to
identify what data they used as the basis of their inferences and how that led them
to take the actions they did. For example, team members believed they had a bet-
ter chance of influencing the decision and avoiding conflict by acting outside the
group, and their inferences about John’s response contributed to their belief. Un-
derlying this belief was a more fundamental team member value of controlling the
conversation to have one’s own position win.
See the Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,”
page 61.
Step 4: Identify the Consequences
of the Key Decisions
Ask team members what happened as a result of their actions. The facilitative leader
approach provides a number of consequences to look for: (1) quality of decision
making, (2) commitment to decisions, (3) time for effective implementation, (4)
working relationships, (5) personal satisfaction, and (6) organizational learning.
John’s team initially identified the first consequences as occurring in their team. The
unilateral control model and mutual learning model provide more detailed conse-
quences such as changes in understanding, trust, and defensiveness.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33. You can also use the
Group Effectiveness Model (see Chapter Two, The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and
Chapter Fifteen, “Using the Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135) to ask about specific areas in
which there might be consequences, such as goals, roles, or boundary management.
By asking the team as a whole, team members learn how their individual ac-
tions created consequences they were unaware of. This is how John learned that
when individual team members approached him after the consensus decisions, his
actions helped maintain the pattern of behavior he was complaining about.
Step 5: Create a Causal Story;
Test Your Story with the Team
In this step, you create a story that causally explains the initial story that the team
told; you test your story with the team. The story that team members tell in step 1
is the “what happened” story. It is told at the level of behaviors: who did what and
when. It may also include patterns of behavior over time. The story you tell at this
326 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 327
�
step is the “how did it happen” story. It gives team members insight into the struc-
ture they created that led the events to unfold as they did. It causally links how peo-
ple think and feel with how they act and the consequences they create (the three
parts of theory-in-use).
To identify themes in the story, see the Laws of Systems Thinking sidebar in Chapter Seven,
“Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
The unilateral control model provides places to look for creating the causal story.
In this case, a short version of the story might go something like this:
(1) Team members enter team meetings with the belief that the goal of the
meeting is to persuade team members to adopt their position on the strate-
gic issue. They also believe that open disagreement would create negative
feelings among them. (2) To enact these beliefs, they use a number of uni-
laterally controlling strategies, among them strongly advocating their views
and not inquiring about others’ different views. (3) Because various team
members are using the same unilaterally controlling strategies, when team
members find that their strategies are not working because others are
using the same approach more effectively, they cannot raise this issue
without calling attention to their own unilaterally controlling approach. (4)
So when team members are particularly committed to their positions on a
particular issue and their point of view does not prevail, and they cannot fig-
ure out a way to engage others without creating negative feelings, they
offer their false consent in the meeting. (5) Then they seek to influence the
group by engaging John’s support as the head of the team. They believe
that John will respond favorably to the additional information they present
to him after the meeting. (6) When they talk to John individually, he is con-
cerned that the group did not get all the information it needed to make a
good decision, and so he tells the team member to raise the additional
information in the next strategic meeting. John is also frustrated that the
team member did not raise this information in the initial meeting. But he
does not say that he is frustrated and doesn’t ask the team member why
he didn’t raise the issue initially. Instead John sometimes tries to solve the
problem unilaterally by leaving the meetings, but he doesn’t make his rea-
soning and intent transparent. (7) Because John asks the team members
to raise the issue again, they incorrectly infer that John supports their posi-
tion on the issue, which, in the team members’ minds, validates going to
John after the meeting and leads them to expect John’s support at the next
meeting. (8) On some occasions, the team did change their decisions on
a strategic issue to be more in line with the view that the team member had
expressed to John after the initial meeting. This reinforced the process that
John had been frustrated with. (9) As this pattern developed over time, the
implementation of strategic decisions was delayed, as was the shared
leadership that John wanted to create among his team. From John’s per-
spective, shared leadership wasn’t possible if his direct reports couldn’t
trust each other and went behind each other’s backs.
Chapter 40 • Helping a Team Understand the System They Created | 327
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 328
Keep in mind that
the causal story
you tell includes a
set of hypotheses.
The question
here is, “At what
points in your
story could you have
significantly improved
the outcomes if you had
been able to think or act
differently?”
Keep in mind that the causal story you tell includes a set of hypotheses. Because
it is a causal explanation, by definition it includes inferences you make about the
values and beliefs that people held, which led them to act as they did. By testing
your inferences with the team members, you check the validity of the inferences and
modify them as appropriate.
The causal story you share will probably not complete the puzzle. If you and
the group are curious, it will raise more questions for you and the group to consider.
For example, what led John not to raise this issue in the group after he saw it hap-
pen several times? Did team members see how people kept on coming back to the
group to raise issues after they were decided? If so, what led them not to say any-
thing? Was it because they used the same strategy at times? Was it because they
thought John sanctioned it and did not want to confront them? The answers of team
members to these questions provide the team with a richer understanding of its
theory-in-use and how it creates unintended consequences.
By creating a causal story, you help the team move to the next step: identifying
leverage points for change.
Step 6: Identify Leverage Points for Change
When the team has a causal understanding of how they created these unintended
consequences, they are able to identify the key leverage points for change. The ques-
tion here is, “At what points in your story could you have significantly improved
the outcomes if you had been able to think or act differently?”
These leverage points are often related to the key action points in step 3. Often
the greatest points of leverage occur early on in the story with team members’ values
and beliefs. In the example, the causal chain is set in motion by the value that team
members have about winning. To the extent they see their goal in the strategic plan-
ning meetings as having their position prevail, they are likely to use unilaterally
controlling strategies, whether they are the goals in this example or others. If instead
they begin to think about the meetings using a mutual learning frame, the strate-
gies they use, as well as the consequences, will be different. This change sets in place
many other changes. Two other leverage points for change are when people are
frustrated enough to offer their false consensus and when they approach John after
the meeting. By changing what occurs at these points, the team can change the
consequences.
Step 7: Explore What Needs to Happen to Change
In this step, you explore with the team what would need to happen so team members
can significantly change the course of events by thinking and acting differently. In this
example, the team and I identified several things. Team members agreed to raise their
328 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 329
�
concerns and frustrations they had with the meeting in the meeting rather than go to
John afterward to influence the process and outcome. They agreed that when they saw
other team members offering consensus that did not seem genuine, they would inquire
about it in the meeting and explore the causes. John agreed that if a team member did
come to him after the meeting as team members had in the past, he would both
express his frustration and be curious about what led the team member not to follow
the team’s new agreement. Most fundamental, the team agreed to begin to move from
unilateral control to a mutual learning frame. This included asking team members to
help each other see when they were acting unilaterally and to help them change. This
shift would have significant impact on many of their interactions. In the strategic issues
meetings, it would, among other things, reduce the chance that team members would
seek to win and would increase the quality of conversation and decision making in
the team meetings.
For tools that teams can use to create these changes, see Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the
Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103; Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your
Contributions to Problems,” page 255; Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward Difficulty,” page 261;
Chapter Thirty-Two, “Raising Issues In or Out of the Group,” page 273; Chapter Forty-Two,
“How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page 335; and Chapter
Forty-Four, “Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions,” page 349.
Chapter 40 • Helping a Team Understand the System They Created | 329
49_964948 ch40.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 330
50_964948 ch41.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 331
Chapter 41
“I Can’t Use This
Approach Unless
My Boss Does”
Roger Schwarz
When some people learn about the Facilitative Leader approach, they say, “This
would be really useful to use with my boss, but I can’t use it unless she knows it.”
Sometimes people go further and say, “I can’t use it unless my boss uses it.” When I
explore these comments with those who made them, we find that their own rea-
soning often prevents them from introducing the approach to their boss.
Of course, it’s much easier to use the approach when someone else knows it—
and, especially, uses it—whether it’s your boss or someone else. In these situations,
you don’t need to explain fully why you are using the ground rules and core values
(that is one reason we offer on-site workshops in which teams learn the approach
together). But this concern that others don’t know the approach does not seem to
be the main one, because they are often not concerned about trying the approach
with people other than their boss who don’t know it.
WHAT IS IT ABOUT A BOSS?
When I ask what it is about using the Facilitative Leader approach with their boss
that makes it more difficult, people often say their boss doesn’t listen to them or say,
“You don’t know my boss!” They go on to say that their boss has power over them
and can negatively affect their career. Sometimes they talk about how others have
“challenged” the boss and faced negative consequences. Often, but not always, their
concerns are based on untested inferences.
As I explore this more with them, it becomes clear that part of their theory-in-use
includes a belief that if another person has more power than they do, they can’t get that
person to listen. Essentially, their reasoning is, “I can be more successful getting other
people to use a mutual learning approach when I have the power to unilaterally con-
trol them.” Or, “If someone has power over me and uses a unilateral control approach,
then it is risky to introduce the Facilitative Leader approach to them.”
331
50_964948 ch41.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 332
�
�
�
See the unilateral control model in Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,”
page 33.
In either case, they are asking for some assurance that they won’t pay a price for
trying to use the Facilitative Leader approach with their boss (or others who have
more power than they do). This is a reasonable thing to want, but no one can grant
that request except the boss.
TALKING WITH YOUR BOSS
If you’re in a similar situation, what you can do is have a conversation with your
boss about your using the Facilitative Leader approach in a way that reduces the
risks or your concerns. You can’t control how your boss will react, but you can con-
trol how you think and act. By changing the way you think about and act in your
conversation with your boss—by sharing relevant information and enabling both
you and your boss to make a free and informed choice—you increase the chance
(there are no guarantees) that your boss will react differently. This reduces your risk.
Steps for Talking with Your Boss
1. Tell your boss that you’ve learned some things about how you can work more
effectively and would like to talk with her about using these with her. Ask if
she is interested in talking about the approach so she can see if she has any
concerns about your using it with her.
For beginning the conversation, see Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for
a Conversation,” page 103; Chapter Twenty-Eight, “Holding Risky Conversations,” page 249;
and Chapter Thirty, “Moving Toward Difficulty,” page 261.
2. If you believe you are taking a risk or have concerns about how your boss
will react to this conversation, share these concerns. Be sure to identify and
test with your boss any inferences or assumptions you are making that lead
you to have these concerns. If you need some assurance from your boss in
order to reduce your risk and continue the conversation, explain why you
are asking for the assurance and ask if she is willing to give it.
3. Briefly explain the Facilitative Leader approach. Give some specific examples
of how you had thought and acted less effectively in the past with your boss
and what the consequences were for you, your boss, and others. Ask for your
boss’s reactions, and check whether she has any different views.
For ways to introduce the approach, see Chapter Thirty-Five, “Introducing the Skilled Facilitator
Approach at Work,” page 293; Chapter Thirty-Six, “Bringing It All Back Home, or Open Mouth,
Insert Foot,” page 299; and Chapter 45, “Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules,” page
361. See also Chapter Twenty-Nine, “Exploring Your Contributions to Problems,” page 255.
332 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
50_964948 ch41.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 333
4. Explain how you would have acted differently and how that might have
changed the interaction between you and your boss, as well as the conse-
quences. Point out that by changing your behavior, at times you would be
asking your boss to change her behavior by either providing different infor-
mation (such as her interests or reasoning) or asking you questions. Ask your
boss for her reactions.
5. Ask your boss what concerns, if any, she has about your using this approach
with her. Explore the concerns, and jointly design solutions.
6. Ask your boss if she is willing to give you feedback when she thinks you are
acting inconsistently with the approach you want to use.
7. Summarize the agreements you think you have made and check for differ-
ent views.
This is a simplified view of the key steps in talking with your boss about using
the Facilitative Leader approach; it does not go into the nuances of that conversation.
For example, step 4 deals with the systemic notion that by changing your behavior,
you implicitly ask the other person to change too. I also haven’t said anything about
asking your boss if she wants to use the approach herself. The point is, your boss
doesn’t have to adopt the approach for you to use it. What is required is to change the
way you think and act, in both your leadership role and your conversations with
your boss.
Chapter 41 • “I Can’t Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does” | 333
50_964948 ch41.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 334
51_964948 ch42.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 335
Chapter 42
How to Stop Contributing
to Your Boss’s and Your
Own Ineffectiveness
Roger Schwarz
When people learn the Facilitative Leader approach, they often say that they
are less effective than they could be with this approach because of their boss’s be-
havior. And yet they act in ways that increase the chance that the boss will not
change his behavior. Here’s an example of how it happens:
Henry sees his boss, Arthur, doing things that create a problem for Henry
and Henry’s direct reports. When Arthur delegates assignments to
Henry, Arthur doesn’t share all the relevant information that Henry needs
to complete the assignments. As a result, when Henry completes the
assignment and reports back to Arthur, Arthur doesn’t accept the assign-
ment as completed; instead, he shares additional information that requires
Henry to make changes in something he viewed as completed. Henry often
thinks that this is information that Arthur could have shared initially. This
requires Henry to do the same work twice, which often leads to Henry’s
missing the assignment deadline, having to shift deadlines for other
assignments for Arthur, or cutting back on the quality of his work. Because
Henry and his direct reports often work on the assignments as a group,
Arthur’s actions affect Henry’s direct reports’ schedules as well. He has no
idea why Arthur withholds important information from him.
Henry hasn’t said anything to his boss about this pattern of behavior.
He has tried giving Arthur feedback in the past on similar issues, and
Arthur just got annoyed at him. Nothing improved. And he’s heard others
say that Arthur doesn’t take feedback well. Henry has decided not to raise
the issue with Arthur.
However, Henry talks with his peers and others about the problems
that Arthur creates. And he shares his frustration with his direct reports
when they keep asking why they have to rework assignments.
335
51_964948 ch42.qxd 3/3/05 10:04 AM Page 336
�
�
When we don’t
share our view of
the system with
others in the system, we
withhold relevant informa-
tion that can enable others
to change their behavior.
CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEMS
YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT
If you think systemically about the situation, Henry actually contributes to the prob-
lem that he is complaining about. It is possible that Arthur is not aware of how his
behavior creates negative consequences for Henry and his team. In systems, cause
and effect are separated in time and space, so we often don’t make the connection
between our behavior and its consequences
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
Arthur may not see that the delays on other projects or the lower-quality work
stem in part from the choices that Henry has had to make when faced with the re-
work. In fact, Arthur may not even see his asking for rework as a problem, in which
case he wouldn’t associate it with any negative consequences.
In systems, everyone sees a part of the system. Henry sees how Arthur’s be-
havior creates what he considers unnecessary rework and slipping deadlines. He sees
these consequences because he experiences them directly. If Arthur doesn’t experi-
ence the consequences directly, the way he learns about them is from others. Simi-
larly, Arthur sees things that Henry may not see. For example, Henry’s assumption
that Arthur is withholding information may be inaccurate. Rather, things might be
occurring at or above Arthur’s level that lead him to give Henry additional infor-
mation that he did not have when he initially gave Henry an assignment. Similarly,
for Henry to understand this, he needs to learn about it from Arthur because Henry
does not live in Arthur’s part of the system.
By withholding his concerns from Arthur, Henry prevents Arthur from learn-
ing more about the consequences of his behavior. It also prevents Arthur from mak-
ing a free and informed choice about whether he wants to change his behavior. By
withholding the information, Henry reduces the chance that he will get the change
he seeks.
Our reasoning for withholding our view of the system is often flawed.
Henry has reasons for not sharing the information with Arthur, but his reasoning
may have flaws. When he or others have given Arthur feedback, Arthur has gotten
defensive. Yet if Henry and others who gave feedback to Arthur did so using the
unilateral control model, then we could reasonably predict that they would generate
defensiveness in Arthur. If this is the case, then Henry has helped create the defen-
siveness in Arthur that he uses as a reason for not giving him feedback. Henry’s rea-
soning is self-sealing: it enables him to attribute the problem to Arthur and seal off
the possibility of learning that the way he gives the feedback creates defensiveness.
See the consequences of the unilateral control model in Chapter Four, “Understanding What
Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
336 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
51_964948 ch42.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 337
In other words, Henry has not created the necessary conditions to test whether
Arthur’s defensiveness stems from Henry’s behavior. To do so, Henry would need
to give Arthur feedback using the mutual learning model and see if Arthur still gets
defensive.
It’s not fair to complain privately but withhold the feedback. It’s unreason-
able for Henry to continue to complain about Arthur while not giving Arthur the
feedback. If Henry decides not raise the issue with Arthur, he also needs to recog-
nize that his silence contributes to the problem and therefore he gives up the right
to complain. You can’t continue to hold people accountable for their behavior if you
haven’t been accountable for talking with them about it.
HOW TO STOP CONTRIBUTING TO YOUR
BOSS’S INEFFECTIVENESS
The process for talking with your boss about these issues is the same as talking with
anyone else, although the conversation with your boss may feel more threatening.
Here are the steps.
These are the basic steps. Other chapters contain useful advice on how to approach the conversa-
tion. See also Chapter Twenty-Eight, “Holding Risky Conversations,” page 249, to get started.
1. Tell your boss the issue that you want to talk with him about and briefly ex-
plain your interests in talking about it. Ask him if he is willing to do so.
See Chapter Nine, “Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation,” page 103.
2. Suggest a process (the following steps) and ask if he has any concerns about
the process.
3. Jointly redesign the process to meet his interests and yours.
4. Describe the pattern of behavior you are seeing, and give specific examples.
Include how you may be contributing to the consequences. Test any as-
sumptions and inferences you are making about the situation. Ask for dif-
ferent views. Reach agreement on what has happened.
See Ground Rule One and the Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for
Effective Groups,” page 61.
5. Describe the consequences you see for you, your boss, and others. Ask for
different views. Reach agreement.
6. Explore the potential causes of the problem. Be curious and compassionate
about what leads your boss to be in this situation.
�
�
�
Chapter 42 • How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness | 337
51_964948 ch42.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 338
�
7. Clarify each of your interests, and jointly design solutions that address the
causes and meet each of your interests.
See Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,” page
145.
338 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 339
Chapter 43
Developmental Facilitation
Anne Davidson
Dick McMahon
Developmental facilitation helps leaders, groups, and organizations create fun-
damental change in the way they operate. Facilitative leaders learn to shift their men-
tal models, rigorously reflect on their own behavior, model the core values, and
coach others in developing mutual learning skills. Organizations that seek to be-
come more collaborative, transformative, or flexible or to become learning organi-
zations must develop these same skills more broadly in work groups and teams. They
must also change their policies, procedures, and ultimately all other elements of their
formal and informal structure to be consistent with the vision and values they adopt.
DEVELOPING LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
In The Skilled Facilitator, Roger distinguishes developmental facilitation from basic
facilitation. According to his definition, in basic facilitation one intervenes to help
groups solve problems or complete tasks; in developmental facilitation, one also seeks
to help groups learn process skills. He states, “In developmental facilitation, the group
seeks to develop its process skills while solving problems. . . . Consequently, if other
difficult problems arise, the group remains less dependent on a facilitator than be-
fore” (p. 50). The facilitator’s interventions are “designed to help the group learn how
to diagnose and improve process. A fundamental difference between basic and de-
velopmental facilitation is doing something for a group in the former case and teach-
ing a group how to do the same thing for itself in the latter case” (p. 51).
Since the time Roger wrote this description of developmental facilitation, he
and we have recognized that that it did not fully capture the range and depth of our
view of developmental facilitation.
Essentially, we see developmental facilitation as facilitation aimed at helping
people reflect on and change their behavior and thinking, including generating deep-
level personal and organizational learning. The work is designed to help group mem-
bers and organizations reflect on and change their mental models and core values.
It fits squarely within Richard Beckhard’s definition of organization develop-
ment (2001): “Today I define OD as a ‘systemic and systematic change effort, using
behavioral science knowledge and skill, to transform the organization to a new state’”
Essentially, we see
developmental fa-
cilitation as facilita-
tion aimed at helping
people reflect on and
change their behavior and
thinking, including generat-
ing deep-level personal
and organizational learn-
ing. The work is designed
to help group members
and organizations reflect
on and change their mental
models and core values.
339
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 340
�
(p. xi). We think there is a continuum of developmental facilitation that involves
both individual and group learning at each choice point. Possible beginning and
ending points might be as shown in Figure 43.1.
This expanded continuum of developmental facilitation involves doing a num-
ber of things differently from what we do in more basic facilitation. It also demands
more skills from facilitators and creates special challenges for all involved. This chap-
ter offers an overview of these differences, challenges, and some final thoughts about
the critical elements of successful developmental efforts.
Differences Between Basic and Developmental
Facilitation
Clients seldom call requesting developmental facilitation. Instead, groups may ex-
press an interest in doing more in-depth team building, a desire to create a less-
hierarchical, more flexible organizational culture, or a wish to solve problems so that
they stay solved. Or we may begin doing basic facilitation with a group whose mem-
bers realize during the process that their efforts are limited if they do not go more
deeply into their values, beliefs, mental models, and defensive routines. Once the
goal begins to look like personal and organizational transformation, the conversa-
tion changes into a much lengthier contracting or recontracting discussion. We shift
the focus of our work to generating a set of shared group values, helping group
members behave consistent with a philosophy of mutual learning rather than uni-
lateral control, and seeking to understand how individual and small group defen-
sive routines become elevated to the level of organizational defensive routines. At
the same time, we address broader structural issues, such as role and task definition,
boundary management, and organizational policies and procedures.
See Chapter Eleven, “Basic Facilitation,” page 115.
Figure 43.1 Developmental Facilitation Continuum
Help group learn Help group learn and intervene on Help group diagnose and solve Help group identify
ground rules:
develop ability to
self-facilitate most
conversations
mental models and basic theory-in-use
issues; develop ability to self-facilitate
conflicts and problem solving.
broad systems problems and
change policies and programs to
be consistent with shared values;
identify and address dilemmas
and change deeply
held personal and
organizational
defensive routines;
help group develop
skills for teaching
others and leading
organizational change
and transformation
340 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 341
�
Complex, Repeated Contracting Process
In a typical basic facilitation, the contracting process takes one to three hours, in-
cluding the contact conversation and a planning meeting. In a developmental situ-
ation, those same conversations occur but require a more detailed description of
what to expect. We find it difficult to describe (or anticipate) just how deep the work
will go. It is challenging to explain to someone what it will be like to do this level
of work when he has never thought carefully about how his own thinking con-
tributes to problems.
We believe the most successful approach is to describe to groups the challenges
inherent in developmental work, share examples of learning activities a group might
engage in (such as left-hand-column case discussions), and suggest that the group
work for a set number of sessions and then review the contract. Also, the contents of
the contract are different. Usually this is not only a facilitation contract. The work
is a blend of training, consulting, coaching, and facilitation. After some training in
mental models, systems thinking, and ground rules, for example, a group can make
a more informed choice about whether and how applying this knowledge might
help them attain their goals.
A developmental facilitation contract is actually a contracting process that occurs
in stages and is regularly revisited and reshaped.
Deeper, More Time-Consuming Interventions
Interventions that foster personal and organizational transformation are frequently
based on individual theory-in-use and core values, group and organizational values
and beliefs, the Group Effectiveness Model, and systems thinking. (Other chapters
in this book delve into using these interventions.) In each case, engaging in the in-
terventions places much greater emphasis on self-reflection. Participants are called
on to modify their whole behavior design system. We think it is important to dis-
cuss the level of self-revelation and risk that will likely be involved. Groups need to
commit to doing this kind of work together and to be clear that they can revisit their
choice along the way if the risk seems too great.
See Chapter Fifteen, “Using the Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135; Chapter Seventeen,
“Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149; Chapter Forty-Four, “Guidelines for Theory-
in-Use Interventions,” page 349; and Chapter Fifty-Six, “Applying the Skilled Facilitator
Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis,” page 447.
These interventions also take longer to complete, and there is less likelihood
that the group will accomplish multiple substantive tasks during any single session.
Often what seem like simple agenda items turn into rich theory-in-use or systems
interventions that can consume much group time yet produce substantial group
learning and future group process improvements. It seems that frequently when
The work is a blend
of training, consult-
ing, coaching, and
facilitation. After some
training in mental models,
systems thinking, and
ground rules, for example,
a group can make a more
informed choice about
whether and how applying
this knowledge might help
them attain their goals.
Chapter 43 • Developmental Facilitation | 341
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 342
�
�
groups think they can make a quick decision, they are most at risk of trying to use
a unilateral or nonsystemic approach. As a consequence, we believe it is critical to
share what we see as the sufficient number and length of meetings needed for the
group to make substantive progress. We do not have a fixed amount of time to
suggest. One to two full days per month for a group of seven to eight has served us
well. Without contracting for sufficient time, you create a situation that leads to sig-
nificant intersession loss of learning and continuity. Groups that contracted with us
for too little time tended to be less effective. Failure was inevitable.
In reality, developmental work requires months or years of effort, depending on
the goals. Often, tangible successes are small until there is substantial time invest-
ment. It is easy to lose heart or momentum in the face of daily business pressures.
We think it important and useful to be clear from the start about the significant
time investment and to help groups reframe how they think about investing time.
Discussing the systems law of “go slow to go fast” is helpful here.1
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
Clarifying and Intervening on Organizational Values
and Beliefs
Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149, highlights the usefulness
of assisting developmental groups in clarifying their core ideology—their purpose and guiding
principles.
In working with top management teams at organizational or divisional levels,
this intervention is one of the foundations of our approach to developmental facil-
itation. While a group’s values might also include the core values of mutual learn-
ing, being a bit more specific about values relevant to the particular group and
context is important. A statement of purpose, values, and beliefs is the template
against which policies and procedures can be examined and redesigned to be con-
sistent with mutual learning. It is not always enough to say you want a policy that
builds in valid information, free and informed choice, internal commitment, and
compassion. It is necessary to get more specific: if values are to be good stewards
of resources and also to provide innovative customer service (which often requires
more resources), how does a particular policy or decision balance those values while
at the same time being consistent with mutual learning? Sorting out the choices and
options is a productive conversation that unearths layers of interests, assumptions,
and theory-in-use issues.
Clarifying values and beliefs is also a time when developmental work can feel
risky to those engaged in it. Most of those we work with have a well-developed set
342 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 343
of values that they feel comfortable with. It may not be particularly pleasant to have
those values and assumptions challenged. Yet we have found no way to sustain per-
sonal or organizational change without fundamentally questioning values and be-
liefs in a way that can create vulnerability. As with deeper interventions in general,
the need to face fear and threat is a critical aspect to discuss early and often during
developmental facilitation. Without addressing the perceived risk explicitly, partic-
ipants may feel set up or manipulated.
Intervening on Organizational Defensive Routines
By organizational defensive routines, we mean all the policies and practices designed
to prevent people from experiencing embarrassment and threat. These policies and
practices work to unilaterally protect people and at the same time cover up the fact
that people are being protected. Covering up the fact that these routines exist makes
the causes and unintended consequences of the routines undiscussable (Argyris,
1994). Common organizational defensive routines include not disagreeing with su-
periors in public, not telling superiors how you think they may be contributing to a
problem, and not raising issues about the competence of a work team member. The
cover-up is that people deny these things are going on, avoid discussing them, or
rationalize that this is “just the way things are in all organizations.” Table 43.1 is a
chart we developed for members of one organization to help us test our diagnosis
of some of the defensive routines we had inferred.
Table 43.1 Defensive Routines Chart
Espoused Value Defensive Routine
Autonomy, empowerment,
responsibility
People not held accountable for quality of work.
Not hurting people’s feelings: unilateral
protection, rescue.
Competence Being in charge makes you impervious to
criticism. The competence of bosses is seldom
questioned, or the person offering the critique is
discounted in some way.
Quality work, good
stewardship of resources
Not confronting performance issues and
inefficiencies (for example, excessive overtime).
Learning organization Resist learning, at least technical learning,
because competence is assumed; to need more
knowledge or information is considered
admitting a weakness.
By organizational
defensive routines,
we mean all the
policies and practices de-
signed to prevent people
from experiencing embar-
rassment and threat.
Chapter 43 • Developmental Facilitation | 343
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 344
The aim of devel-
opmental facilita-
tion is to change
these ingrained patterns of
behavior to create more
productive consequences.
It can be uncom-
fortable to try to
behave consistent
with mutual learning val-
ues when we have a his-
tory with someone or when
the organizational policies
and procedures still have
unilateral assumptions em-
bedded in them.
According to Chris Argyris (1990), defensive routines become embedded in or-
ganizations as a result of individuals’ using the unilateral control model to guide
their interactions: “Because most individuals use these actions, the actions become
part of the fabric of everyday life. And because so many individuals use these ac-
tions frequently, the actions become organizational norms. The actions come to be
viewed as rational, sensible, and realistic” (1990, p. 25). In other words, the actions
become self-fulfilling and self-sealing. And the negative consequences are usually
not immediately apparent. It may seem that we got through a difficult meeting with-
out anyone getting upset or got the group to agree to do what we wanted. But after
some delay, the problems resurface. The delay may extend weeks, months, or years,
so we may not connect subsequent negative consequences to earlier defensive strate-
gies. Yet in the long run, defensive routines breed ineffectiveness, cynicism, and
hopelessness, a condition Argyris describes as “organizational malaise” (1990, p. 60).
The aim of developmental facilitation is to change these ingrained patterns of
behavior to create more productive consequences. The end point on the develop-
mental facilitation continuum is to change deeply held personal and organizational
defensive routines to lead to organizational change and transformation. Yet seeing
and understanding the dynamics involved in these routines is difficult. It often re-
quires a lengthy facilitation engagement and observation of groups while they are en-
gaged in their day-to-day work. Without observing actual behavior, facilitators often
see only espoused theory or hear rationalized interpretations of events. Identifying
and changing defensive routines is one of the highest-leverage and most challenging
interventions we engage in. We believe we are still learning how to do this effectively.
CHALLENGES FOR INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS,
AND ORGANIZATIONS
The discussion of differences between basic and developmental facilitation alludes
to some of the special challenges faced in doing this work. These are summarized
in Table 43.2. In addition to time and personal risk issues, it is often unclear just
what is going on or what progress is being made until facilitators and participants
stay with the process for awhile. Individuals must face their fear of change and the
personal discomfort at being beginners who perform inexpertly in front of peers,
subordinates, and superiors. And for a time, it may seem as if the new approach is
taking longer and getting fewer results. This is part of what we mean by tolerating
high levels of ambiguity. For extended periods, we may also not be clear what de-
fensive routines are at work. It can be hard to determine whether their existence as
organizational norms is influencing a group to continue them or whether group
members personally have these defensive patterns and are promulgating them in
the organization. The truth is often some of both, and being unclear can be un-
comfortable. It can also be uncomfortable to try to behave consistent with mutual
learning values when we have a history with someone or when the organizational
policies and procedures still have unilateral assumptions embedded in them.
344 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 345
�
Table 43.2 Challenges of Developmental Facilitation
Challenges for Individual Challenges for Groups Challenges for
Group Members and Organizations Facilitators
Developing tolerance for taking Investing the time necessary Facilitators face all the same
risks, being vulnerable in front for interventions and clear challenges as individual group
of peers and boss progress members plus the following:
Appearing incompetent while Getting a realistic picture of the Needing even deeper awareness
learning new skills commitment, making a fully of personal hot buttons, defensive
informed choice to support the routines
effort
Dealing with past history with Determining and sharing Needing broad knowledge and
others; recognizing that past data guiding values experience in organizational
are flawed because of how we change, systems thinking, and all
were thinking when we perceived aspects of the Skilled Facilitator
them approach
Engaging in deep personal Tolerating high levels of Balancing offering expertise with
reflection ambiguity not creating unnecessary
dependence
Facing emotions that interrupt Working in an environment where Balancing work with individuals
efforts to design new behaviors policies are inconsistent with and groups in blended roles
intent and require complex (trainer, coach, facilitator,
overhauls consultant)
Accepting feedback nondefensively Avoiding paralysis as a result of Managing tendency over time to
the realization everything affects become more group member
everything else than facilitator
Sustaining commitment in the Recognizing when issues have
face of perceived threat and an crossed the bounds of facilitation
unknown result into need for therapy
If we have had a difficult relationship with a coworker in the past, it is virtually
a given that we have made a series of high-level inferences and attributions about
him or her. These often drive a feeling that it is impossible to use or even try to use
mutual learning ground rules or core values in conversations with that person. We
want to behave in a new way but feel trapped in old patterns based on years of faulty
data that are hard to erase. Performance appraisal processes are an excellent organi-
zational example of how people can feel trapped trying to behave one way (share
valid information) but being required to follow a policy to the contrary (keep all
feedback anonymous).
See Chapters Forty-Eight through Fifty-One for examples of this dilemma and possible ways to
address these inconsistencies over time.
Chapter 43 • Developmental Facilitation | 345
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 346
Developmental fa-
cilitators need more
knowledge and
experience in the areas of
organizational change,
personal development, sys-
tems thinking, mental mod-
els, and all the aspects of
the Skilled Facilitator
approach.
Another challenge can occur when groups begin to improve their ability to think
systemically. Seemingly straightforward problems, like improving work completion
rates, can turn out to be knotty systems issues. Performance coaching conversations
can turn into examinations of how other parts of the system contribute to poor
outcomes. It is easy for groups to get paralyzed and give up, especially when it is also
difficult to measure some of the outcomes sought (increased learning, improved per-
sonal satisfaction, enhanced commitment). We do not have easy answers for these
challenges and dilemmas. Each situation may require a somewhat different response.
We do find that it helps to name the issues and address them explicitly.
SPECIAL CHALLENGES FOR FACILITATORS
Facilitators face all the same challenges as individual group members plus some spe-
cial ones that come with their role. The facilitator’s role is usually a blend of trainer,
facilitator, consultant, and coach. It can be challenging to be clear about what role
one is in at a given moment and figure out how to behave appropriately in that role.
It is tempting to resort to an expert role in the frame of trainer or consultant and
increase the group’s dependence on the facilitator. We agreed to become consultants
for one group we facilitated when they wanted to design and complete a mutual
learning hiring process for selecting a new team member. It was fun and invigorat-
ingly different, and it produced great results. But for months afterward, we found
the team members deferring to us as facilitators in making decisions they should
and could make for themselves. We should probably have been more alert to this
possibility, addressed it in advance, and diagnosed the changed behavior more
quickly when it occurred. The group’s dependence slowed their progress for several
months.
Developmental facilitators need more knowledge and experience in the areas of
organizational change, personal development, systems thinking, mental models, and
all the aspects of the Skilled Facilitator approach. One must hold in one’s head mul-
tiple diagnostic frames and select appropriately from among them, even in the face
of ambiguity. One must also be able to remember patterns of behavior over long pe-
riods of time and craft complex theory-in-use and systems interventions using those
data, with specific examples. The ability to diagnose and intervene at this level of
complexity grows with practice.
Clients tell us that much of their learning comes from seeing facilitators model
the Skilled Facilitator approach in actual situations. We agree that this is important,
not only for clients’ learning but in order to be credible advocates for our approach.
Developmental situations are much more challenging and often require modeling
the skills at increasingly difficult levels, such as when someone is highly emotional.
We think it is helpful to master some basic facilitation skills and then move into
more developmental work, particularly if one is not already a trained and experi-
enced organizational development practitioner.
346 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 347
�
�
Deeper awareness of personal strengths, hot buttons, and defensive routines is
also demanded during developmental facilitation. It is easier to get hooked in your
own issues when intervening on theory-in-use. Sometimes it is tempting to jump to
conclusions about organizational defensive routines that might be more a projection
of your own past work experience than a clear view of the current situation. Needs
for acceptance and the natural friendships that develop when you work with a group
over long periods can create a tendency to become more group member than facili-
tator. This can be a delicate boundary to manage. Familiarity helps you spot and in-
tervene on defensive routines and deeper individual issues, but you can also get
sucked into the defensive routines yourself. In one memorable situation, we realized
that after a long period of working with a group whose defensive routine included
not preparing for meetings, we also stopped preparing. Being accepted and com-
fortable with the group made our inconsistency with what we espoused harder to see.
Working with a cofacilitator can address some of the challenges. It helps to have
a knowledgeable partner who can offer feedback, think through issues while the
cofacilitator is intervening, and engage in reflection after group meetings. Devel-
oping detailed process notes together after group sessions significantly increased our
learning and the effectiveness of our work with groups. In developing the notes, we
clarified our diagnoses, our concerns and ideas, and our own patterns of effective-
ness and ineffectiveness. We discussed at length our own contributions to the group’s
difficulties, and we have also shared these notes with our clients. They can then help
us test our thinking in a manner consistent with mutual learning. It was during our
process note discussions that we identified, for example, that we had gotten sucked
into the group’s “no preparation” routine.
Finally, it is important to know the bounds of your own skills. Occasionally de-
velopmental work can raise issues that should be dealt with by a trained counselor or
therapist. The bottom line is to know when you have reached the limits of your
competence and the limits of appropriate facilitation.
For guidance on recognizing limits of your skills, see Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative
Coach,” page 457, on coaching.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
We don’t know of an organization that has completely transformed as a result of de-
velopmental facilitation. We do have examples of a number of sustained efforts that
have produced impressive results.
See Chapter Thirty-Eight, “Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader,” page 309, and Chapter
Forty-Six, “From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn,” page 367, for some examples.
We work with a number of clients engaged in training all or most of their work-
force in Skilled Facilitator principles, and we can tell many stories of leaders who
Chapter 43 • Developmental Facilitation | 347
52_964948 ch43.qxd 3/3/05 1:06 PM Page 348
Exhibit 43.1 Developmental Facilitation Success Factors
• Explicit set of personal and organizational values and beliefs
• Experienced, knowledgeable facilitators who can model mutual learning
• Committed participants willing to learn and take time for the effort to grow
• Individuals willing to take risks in the service of their personal learning
• Individuals willing to engage in rigorous self-reflection
• Clear, regularly renewed work agreement
• Skills training for group members and, ultimately, the organization
• Measures of group growth and successful organizational development
• Group leadership (whether or not at the top organizational level) involved in
coaching others and striving to model behavior consistent with mutual
learning values and beliefs
have transformed their own lives. Our efforts are fairly new by developmental stan-
dards and, of course, take time. We have seen some efforts begun and abandoned.
We don’t think there is one right place to start developmental work in an organiza-
tion or one set way to approach the process. But highlighted in Exhibit 43.1 is a list
of factors we believe that successful efforts share. Helping individuals and groups
learn and develop deep awareness is the most rewarding work we do. We believe
using Skilled Facilitator principles as our guide holds great promise for improving
the way organizations set and reach their goals and the way people are treated while
engaging in these efforts.
Note
1. See “Not Enough Time” in Senge and others (1999) for an additional way
to reframe how groups might think about time and adopt strategies for
addressing time limitations.
References
Argyris, C. Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall,
1990.
Argyris, C. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning.” Harvard Business Review, July-
Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
Beckhard, R. Foreword. In E. E. Olson and G. H. Eoyang, Facilitating Organization
Change: Lessons from Complexity Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2001.
Senge, P., and others. The Dance of Change: The Challenges to Sustaining Momentum in
Learning Organizations. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
348 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 349
�
Chapter 44
Guidelines for Theory-
in-Use Interventions
Anne Davidson
Dick McMahon
Engaging in developmental facilitation requires intervening on theory-in-use
issues. The level of deep personal reflection that fosters facilitative leadership does
not occur until people examine how their mental models drive their behavior.
Theory-in-use interventions help initiate and guide this reflection. We also use these
interventions to help groups and organizations develop by examining the values and
assumptions embedded in their processes and structures.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, to explore the distinc-
tion between what people say and do and the gap between espoused theory and theory-in-use, and
Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
You intervene on theory-in-use when you help an individual or group explore
their core values and assumptions or explore how the core values and assumptions
you infer from their behavior differ from what they say they value or intend (The
Skilled Facilitator, p. 163). Theory-in-use interventions also help people see how
their actions produce unintended consequences. They may see others become wary
or angry in a conversation or see people distort the intention of an organizational
policy (for example, by using inefficient processes to increase billable hours). When-
ever unintended consequences can be identified, there is an opportunity to exam-
ine how the theory-in-use guiding the related actions or decisions contributed to
the outcome. In other words, these interventions help people move from blaming
others to seeing how they cocreate difficulties and then to designing ways to shift
their contribution to influence positive change.
Following is a description of a time when a facilitator might engage in a theory-
in-use intervention, including what the facilitator would say. After the example, we
examine the steps of a theory-in-use intervention and offer additional guidelines.
349
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 350
EXAMPLE: INTERVENING ON TOM’S
THEORY-IN-USE
Tom is a member of a work team committed to using mutual learning core values.
Sandy is the team’s developmental facilitator helping group members change their
thinking and behavior to be consistent with their intentions. Tom often volunteers
to serve as scribe during team meetings. Sandy observes that when Tom is at the flip
chart, he usually writes up exactly what group members say, even if it is off track.
Sandy and other group members find themselves frequently trying to get the group
back on track during meetings. Many times people start suggesting solutions while
the team is still trying to define an issue. Sandy infers that Tom’s writing up off-topic
comments contributes to the group discussions’ getting off track. Tom has just
written up what looks like a solution to the problem the team is working on while
the team is engaged in brainstorming a list of interests that need to be met for a
solution to be acceptable. Sandy has an agreement with the group that he will raise
theory-in-use issues when he thinks it will help group members to do so. He
decides to begin a theory-in-use intervention with Tom:
Sandy: Tom, I noticed that you wrote up Sallie’s suggestion that the group just
adopt the XRAY software package as the standard. That looks to me like a solution
rather than an interest. I understood that the group is still brainstorming interests.
Am I missing something?
Tom: Hmmm. No, I guess it is a solution.
Sandy: Do you see it the same way, Sallie, or differently?
Sallie: Maybe it is . . . I guess so. I was jumping ahead . . .
Sandy: I think this is also a pattern when you are at the flip chart, Tom. I think that
frequently you write up comments that are at a different step of the problem-solving
process than the one the group is working on, and this contributes to the whole dis-
cussion getting off-track. Later you have to back up and revisit earlier steps, or I and
other group members spend a lot of time intervening to refocus the group on what
they agreed to discuss. I’d like to share a couple of other examples and see if you
agree this is what happened. Are you willing to do that?
Tom: Sure, if it will help the group.
[Sandy shares examples, and Tom and the group agree with Sandy’s view of what
happened and the consequences for the group discussion.]
Sandy: I believe it is important to explore Tom’s and the group’s thinking that leads
this to happen. Can we take some time now to do that? [The group agrees to do so.]
Tom, you agreed that you write up exactly what each group member says even if it
is not apparently related to the discussion, and you do not check out whether or how
it is related. Have I got that right?
350 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 351
Tom: Yeah, I guess so.
Sandy: What were you thinking in these situations? Did you see the comments as
off-track, and if so, what led you to put them up without asking about them?
Tom: Well, I did think the comments were unrelated or at different steps of the
problem-solving model we use. But I think that a good scribe puts up people’s exact
words.
Sandy: Can you say what you think might happen if you call attention to the fact
that comments are off-track and don’t write them up?
Tom: Well, I think that might embarrass them in front of the group. Wouldn’t you
have felt uncomfortable if I told you your solution was off-track, Sallie?
Sallie: Well, a little maybe.
Sandy: I am not suggesting you say exactly what you just said, Tom. We can spend
some time in a minute, if you like, thinking about what you might say. But first I would
like to explore what leads you not to say anything. I think that unless we get at your
thinking, it will be hard for you to say what you need or want to in these situations.
Do you agree with my reasoning, or do you see this differently?
Tom: I can see your point.
Sandy: Okay, so what were you thinking would happen if you said you thought
Sallie’s comment was a solution rather than an interest?
Tom: I did not want to call attention to the fact that Sallie was making a mistake.
That would embarrass her in front of the whole group.
Sandy: What are you afraid will happen if you do that?
Tom: Well, I think she would get upset and not say anything else, and she has pretty
good ideas. Plus she would be mad at me and embarrass me somehow when she
is scribing or leading the meeting.
Sandy: I would like to propose a different way of thinking about this situation and
then get your reaction. Is that okay? [Tom says yes.] I believe that not identifying off-
track suggestions is inconsistent with your values of mutual learning. It looks as if
you are saving face for Sallie in this case and also unilaterally protecting yourself. I
see this as more consistent with the value of staying in control by minimizing the
expression of negative feelings. As a consequence, Sallie and the other group
members do not learn, for example, the distinction between defining a problem and
offering solutions or the importance of completing each process step before trying
to solve a problem. Sometimes you may also lose the opportunity to see how some-
one’s comment is, in fact, on-track and useful. In the long run, the group may make
ineffective decisions. Do you agree with my reasoning, or do you have a different
view of what is happening and the consequences?”
Chapter 44 • Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions | 351
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 352
�
�
Tom: I can see what you are talking about. But this is hard. What could I do differently?
Sandy: Well, I think the first thing is to begin to think differently about what it means
to point out to someone that his or her behavior is ineffective—that he or she is, for
example, on a different step of the problem-solving process. Instead of thinking
about embarrassing someone, you could assume that the person wants to learn
how to improve his or her work, even if the learning creates some discomfort. If you
assume that all of us make mistakes sometimes and that these are not sins but
opportunities to learn, then you can think about how much better it would be to learn
now rather than to keep making the same mistake over and over. And you can think
about how important it is for everyone in the group to learn and perform at your best
so that you produce top-quality work. What is your reaction to what I am saying?
As a result of this discussion, Tom agrees to work with Sandy to design what to
say in the future when he believes a comment is off-topic. Sandy may also want to
take this opportunity to raise a group defensive routine: the group is engaging in
behavior similar to Tom’s. They are not raising with Tom the fact that he is writing
off-track comments, thereby saving face for Tom. Tom’s and the group’s behavior
looks like a deeply embedded pattern of unilateral protection. Sandy could test his
inferences around this and help the group see how each party contributes to the
group’s routine. Then Sandy could help the group design how they will raise issues
with one another so they do not collude to keep this routine in place. Going to this
next level has the advantage of helping the group recognize other times when they
may unproductively protect one another. Recognizing this as a group routine also
reduces the risk of retribution Tom raises when group members intervene with one
another.
See Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
THE INTERVENTION PROCESS
Here are the basic steps we use to guide theory-in-use interventions and some ex-
amples of how Sandy applied them:
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
1. Describe the behavior that triggered your intervention and explain the
reason you believe an intervention is important. (This step makes step 3 of the
diagnosis-intervention cycle transparent, including explaining reasoning and intent.)
This often means stating that a theory-in-use issue seems relevant to the discussion
and checking to see if the individual and group are willing to explore it. You might
say something like, “I think it would be helpful to explore your thinking behind
352 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 353
[what was said] because . . . Would you be willing to do that?” If the group is
familiar with the terminology, you might say, “I think there may be a theory-in-
use issue here that it would be useful to explore. I’d like to say what I think
that is and see if others think similarly or differently. Would the group be will-
ing to take some time to do that now?”
Other inquiries you can combine with explaining your reasons for the intervention
include: “Would you be willing to explore your reasoning about this?” and
“Would you be open to examining the assumptions behind your reasoning?”
Sandy in the example already had a contract with the group to intervene on theory-
in-use, so he could easily wait until step 2 to jointly design with them whether to spend
time on such an issue now. First, he described what he heard and saw, and he checked
to see if others agreed with his inference that Tom had written a solution on the flip
chart when the group was working on interests. He needed to start there in order to be
certain this was a valid example of the pattern he believed he was seeing.
2. Assuming the answer is yes to exploring theory-in-use or a standing agree-
ment to do so, state the pattern of behavior observed and test for different views.
(This is step 4 of the diagnosis-intervention cycle, including explaining reasoning and
intent.) It is especially important to describe behavior and test for agreement here be-
cause you are generally using a fairly complex or long statement as the basis for your in-
ference, and identifying a theory-in-use issue is a high-level inference.
Sandy identified the pattern of putting up off-track comments and explained
his reasoning by sharing the consequences he thought it had for the group. He
needed to test two things with the group: whether they agreed that his examples
accurately represented Tom’s and the group’s behavior and whether they agreed with
his inference that the pattern had a negative impact on the group. If the group
agreed, as they did, he could proceed. If the group saw the situation differently, then
Sandy would need to engage in inquiry to understand how and why their views
differed. Useful inquiries to include at this step are:
“Do you remember it the way I described or differently?”
“Did I describe what happened accurately or not?”
“Do you think these behaviors have the effects I described, or do you see
a different outcome?”
“Do you think the pattern I described affects your work, and, if so, how?”
3. Ask each individual involved to explain the reasoning that leads him to
take this approach. Continue to explore embedded assumptions and inferences.
This will often involve testing several levels of assumptions, including assumptions
about longer-term consequences of raising or not raising an issue.
Chapter 44 • Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions | 353
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 354
Sandy tested what Tom thought would happen if he pointed out that Sallie’s
comment was a solution and also what he thought the consequences would be if
she were in fact embarrassed. Useful inquiries to include might be:
“What are you thinking but not saying? What is in your left-hand column
[if the person has worked with left-hand column cases]?”
“What past experiences led you to think about these kinds of situations in
this way?”
As an alternative, you might state what you see as the theory-in-use operating. Then
invite the person who made the relevant comments to explore with you whether your
inferences could be correct. Or you might inquire into what others see as the theory-
in-use that is operating (as long as this is not a leading or manipulative question) and
ask the group to explore with you what is going on. (These alternatives basically re-
verse steps 3 and 4 of the intervention. See the examples in the next step.)
4. Share your theory-in-use inferences. (This is step 5 of the diagnosis-
intervention cycle.) Use this step to connect the theory-in-use discussion to unilat-
eral control versus mutual learning core values, action strategies, and consequences.
If the group has adopted explicit values built on mutual learning, you may link to
one of those values as well. Point out potential inconsistencies between espoused
values and the theory-in-use at work. In other words, theory-in-use interventions
should help the group explore potential mismatches between what they intend and
what they are likely to get.
Sandy points out to Tom’s group, for example, that trying to minimize the ex-
pression of negative feelings (a unilateral assumption) leads Tom to adopt a strategy
of saving face when others’ comments are off-track, resulting in (consequences) lost
learning opportunities in the short run and in ineffective decisions in the longer term.
Sandy might say, for example:
“I think you may have some assumptions about saving face for participants
by not calling attention to the fact that their statements are off-track.
Do you think that these assumptions are driving your behavior, Tom?’’
“I’d like to describe what I think your reasoning might be here and then
get your reaction. I am guessing you are thinking that . . . [describe the
theory-in-use inferred].”
“This thinking looks to me as if it is inconsistent with the core value of . . .
Are you seeing it the same way I am or differently?”
“Unilaterally protecting others is one way we minimize expression of neg-
ative feelings. We may do that so we can stay in control. In other words,
354 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 355
there is an underlying assumption that if we call attention to the fact that
a participant is off-track, we will embarrass that person. If we embarrass
this person, he or she or other group members may express negative feel-
ings. When that happens, we assume we will no longer be in control of
the meeting. Do you think that reasoning might be at work here?”
5. Help the group decide whether and how to reframe their thinking and
redesign their decisions to be consistent with their espoused values and beliefs.
(This is step 6 of the diagnosis-intervention cycle.) At this stage, it is often useful
for the facilitator to offer a different way to frame the issue at hand. There are usu-
ally conflicting assumptions about the need to unilaterally protect others, the abil-
ity of others to handle difficult feedback, whether people are well intended, and so
forth. By reframing the cruel consequences that result from not giving people ac-
curate feedback about their behavior, for example, the facilitator can help groups
explore the flaws in their past logic and make an informed choice about whether to
consciously adopt a different set of assumptions.
Sandy helps Tom and his group think about the consequences of covering up
mistakes and not learning versus learning and improving individual and group per-
formance. It often helps at this step to separate short-term from longer-term con-
sequences of ineffective strategies, such as poor job performance and loss of
employment as the trade-off for not embarrassing someone in the moment. Or
Sandy could discuss the way we discount others by assuming they are too emo-
tionally fragile to handle honest feedback and how inconsistent this is with
most people’s desires to learn and grow. Assuming those involved agree they want
to change their thinking, Sandy could also make statements and ask questions
like these:
“What other assumptions might you make that would lead to a different
action and possibly get different results?”
“I would like to propose a different way of thinking about [this issue]. . . .
What flaws, if any, do you see in this logic?”
“If you were designing your statement [approach] to be consistent with the
group’s values, what would you do?”
To help group members practice what to say once they begin to shift their
thinking, it is most useful to have them say the actual words and phrases they think
would be consistent with the new frame on the situation. We may offer to model
an example and then have others try their own or ask if they would like to come up
with one or more examples and get feedback.
Chapter 44 • Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions | 355
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 356
�
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THEORY-IN-USE
INTERVENTIONS
In our experience,
theory-in-use is
most easily seen
when groups go about
their work, engaging in the
necessary content conver-
sations they would usually
have but with skilled facili-
tators present.
Effective theory-in-use interventions require listening carefully for untested as-
sumptions driving any decision-making process. In our experience, theory-in-use is
most easily seen when groups go about their work, engaging in the necessary con-
tent conversations they would usually have but with skilled facilitators present. The
facilitators can then intervene when they see possible theory-in-use issues that may
be creating gaps between the values and intentions that are espoused versus the val-
ues and assumptions embedded in actions and policies.
Theory-in-use may show up at any of three levels: (1) as an individual issue,
such as Tom’s trying to unilaterally protect Sallie in the opening example; (2) as a
group defensive routine, such as the group members not openly disagreeing with
the boss or confronting Tom about his ineffectiveness; or (3) as an organizational
routine, such as a policy that is inconsistent with a group’s core values. Over time,
groups can see how reframing a theory-in-use issue in one situation, such as unilat-
erally protecting people who make off-topic comments, can translate into more ef-
fectively handling another situation, like giving one another performance feedback.
Contract First
It is particularly important to contract with a group or individual to make theory-in-
use interventions before making them. These interventions go to a much deeper
level than basic ground rules interventions. Therefore, they are generally more time-
consuming, require more openness and reflection on the part of group members,
and involve more perceived risk or threat to participants. Normally you wouldn’t
be making theory-in-use interventions in a basic (one- or two-day) facilitation be-
cause usually you have contracted with the group to complete a specific task, not
for personal or group development. Also, a basic facilitation is less likely to produce
the kinds of data needed to support theory-in-use interventions (such as patterns of
behavior over time or values reflections).
To contract clearly with a group, the group needs an introduction to the con-
cept of mental models and to the specific models of unilateral control and mutual
learning. This helps them understand the distinction between espoused theories and
theories-in-use. It is important to communicate these concepts in a way that group
members understand what you mean. This generally includes carefully defining
terms and sharing specific examples and stories.
See the Mental Models, Theory-in-Use, and Espoused Theory sidebar in Chapter Four,
“Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
It is important to hold an open discussion about advantages to the group from
theory-in-use interventions and possible consequences such as personal risk and
356 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 357
�
additional time investment. Only then can group members make a somewhat in-
formed decision about whether they want to pursue theory-in-use discussions. Re-
contracting will also be necessary along the way, because until the group gains some
experience with this kind of intervention, individuals cannot make a truly informed
choice about their participation.
Theory-in-use interventions are much easier and clearer in groups that have an
explicit set of group values. This way the relationship between espoused values and
their theories-in-use can be clearly described. We often use the example of honesty
to talk with groups about how they may espouse a value like this but have a theory-
in-use that leads them to behave inconsistently with this value or to situationally
define the meaning of the value. For example, most of us have a theory-in-use of
unilaterally protecting others from potentially embarrassing information about their
behavior. We think it is okay to avoid sharing this information or to tell a white lie
when asked about it. Yet most of us are blind to how this is inconsistent with the
honesty we espouse, even though other people usually see the discrepancy. Talking
through simple and common gaps like this helps a group grasp the basic concept
and, over time, move toward deeper and deeper examinations of inconsistencies with
all of their espoused values.
Follow the Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
The pattern for theory-in-use interventions follows the six steps of the diagnosis-
intervention cycle just like any other intervention. In fact, it is even more impor-
tant to use the steps of the cycle for two reasons. First, these interventions are almost
always based on a pattern of behavior over time or on a complex set of interrelated
assumptions. Every group member needs to know the data you are working from
(the actual words and actions) and the inferences you are making in order to follow
your interventions. Because you are intervening on deeply embedded assumptions
that often reside below the level of conscious thought, it is usually necessary to go
around the cycle several times before completing a theory-in-use intervention. Sec-
ond, because they require more personal disclosure, there is a greater chance that
theory-in-use interventions will raise defensiveness. Using the cycle precisely usually
lowers the likelihood of defensiveness because the group or individual with whom
you are intervening can clearly follow your logic.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
Step 5 of the cycle (sharing inferences and testing for different views) may be
repeated a number of times even when other steps are not. This step usually be-
comes a series of explanations and questions designed to help the initiator explore
the reasoning behind his or her actions or to explore alternative assumptions that
might guide a redesign.
Chapter 44 • Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions | 357
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 358
�
Use Ground Rules During Your Intervention
During theory-in-use interventions, make statements and ask questions consistent
with the ground rules. Sandy in the model conversation helped group members
test assumptions and inferences, gave specific examples, and explained the reasoning
and intent behind his statements, questions, and actions. In using the diagnosis-
intervention cycle, he combined advocacy and inquiry by stating his observations
and inferences and then testing them. He also jointly designed with the group and
with Tom whether to spend time on this intervention and the order in which to dis-
cuss the topics (for example, examining Tom’s thinking before helping him figure out
what to say). It is important for the facilitator to model the ground rules because this
sets a tone of mutual learning and helps the group learn how to use the ground rules
effectively to discuss potentially difficult topics when the facilitator is not present.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Start Where the Gap Is Most Obvious
We routinely advise facilitators to start where the gap is. Theory-in-use issues can
be especially hard for individuals and groups to discern. Starting at the level where
the gap between espoused theory and theory-in-use is most obvious helps groups
follow your reasoning as you intervene. They also better understand the conse-
quences of not addressing these gaps. If the most obvious gap is that a policy is in-
consistent with mutual learning core values, we find it most productive to start the
intervention at this structural level. After talking through the assumptions behind
the policy, it is easier to explore the values and assumptions of individuals who
support the policy.
In one memorable example, a group was developing stricter and stricter travel
policy regulations that had the unintended consequence of causing people to spend
hours of expensive and unproductive time on paperwork. Many tried to circumvent
the policy rather than comply, and their attempts were met by increasingly tight reg-
ulations and further deteriorating compliance. By starting at the level of intended
versus unintended consequences, the group involved was able to explore the values
and assumptions embedded in the policy (people are not trustworthy and must be
tightly controlled). This led to an exploration of the theory-in-use of the manager’s
promoting tighter controls and his assumptions about how people develop com-
mitment to do the right thing. Although he espoused commitment, his actions em-
phasized compliance. It would have been hard to raise and discuss this individual’s
theory-in-use without first helping him and his group see how it played out in the
organizational structure.
358 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 359
In another similar situation, group members routinely deferred to the boss in
team meetings. We began our intervention at the level of the group defensive
routine, which led to helping individuals explore values and assumptions about
disagreeing with the boss. Again, the data were in the group behavior and were less
obviously related to one particular individual, so we started the intervention with
the group. The group and the facilitator could then jointly design whether it was
appropriate to pursue a theory-in-use issue at one, two, or all three levels.
There is no one right place to start a theory-in-use intervention. We recom-
mend you start where the patterns present themselves. Over time, individuals and
groups develop the capacity to discern and examine increasingly subtle and difficult
theory-in-use issues. They learn to reframe their core values and assumptions in
ways that ultimately increase the effectiveness of the entire group or organization
and everyone involved in it.
Chapter 44 • Guidelines for Theory-in-Use Interventions | 359
53_964948 ch44.qxd 3/3/05 10:05 AM Page 360
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 361
Chapter 45
Introducing the Core
Values and Ground Rules
Jeff Koeze
Koeze Company is a small, family-owned nut and chocolate manufacturing and
marketing company, with about thirty-five employees, founded in 1910. In Sep-
tember 1996 I joined the company, which my father owned and had run for the
prior thirty years. Every employee in the company has been trained in the use of the
core values and ground rules, and several, including me, have been through the pub-
lic version of the Skilled Facilitator Intensive workshop. This chapter describes how
I became interested in introducing the core values and ground rules to Koeze’s and
how we worked together with Roger Schwarz to introduce the approach.
BACKGROUND
In May 1996 I was a professor in the Institute of Government at The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill specializing in health care law. Roger Schwarz, Dick
McMahon, and Peg Carlson were faculty colleagues of mine. I was familiar with the
Skilled Facilitator approach from working with them, had taken a two-week group
facilitation course, and watched as Roger attempted, and ultimately failed, to
persuade his faculty colleagues and the administration of the Institute to adopt the
core values and ground rules for faculty meetings (the staff, however, did decide to
use the approach). But because faculty traditionally work essentially alone and be-
cause I’d never had substantial administrative or managerial experience, my famil-
iarity with the approach was largely academic and my skill limited.
In May 1996 I resigned to join Koeze’s, and we hired Roger to facilitate a series
of meetings over the course of several months in which my father and I, and all the
employees who reported to my father, worked to define my role in the company
and plan the process by which I would eventually assume my father’s position.
Roger’s task in these meetings was for the most part basic, not developmental,
facilitation, but those involved had information on which to assess Roger and his
approach.
361
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 362
�
�
COMPANYWIDE ROLLOUT
As the transition work came to an end in the spring of 1997, I raised the possibil-
ity that the transition group adopt the core values and ground rules for our day-to-
day work together outside the transition. We spoke about it in a meeting in March
and scheduled Roger to provide some in-depth training in May. This was, in effect,
a transition to begin developmental facilitation to help us develop a Facilitative
Leader approach in the organization.
See Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
A planning group worked out a proposed schedule by conference call, and
Roger then provided a memo to the entire group outlining the assignment for the
training, including writing a left-hand column case based on a difficult conversa-
tion that had happened at work.
See Chapter Twenty-Seven, “Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case,” page 235.
Once the left-hand column case was proposed, some objections came forward.
One member of the group chose not to participate at the outset. The others joined
Roger in a conference call to discuss their concerns, which revolved primarily around
the risks of opening old wounds in the group. Reflecting later, a couple of employ-
ees spoke about anxiety over completing a case. One wrote several but was willing
to share only the least difficult of them with the group.
After speaking to Roger about their concerns, each of the group members agreed
to do a case. Several of the written cases involved difficult issues between members
of the group; one was particularly interesting because two people chose the same
conversation, so we got to see both “left-hand columns.”
After this training and the agreement of those involved to use the core values
and ground rules, the group had an interest in bringing the training to the entire
company. We invited three people who had not been involved in the transition
group to join in the planning of that training with a few of the original group.
Working with Roger, we decided that we should schedule a meeting for the entire
company to discuss the core values and ground rules and give everyone the chance
to make an informed choice about participating. That meeting was held in early
June, and later in the month Roger returned to do the training. Everyone partici-
pated and agreed, at the end, to use the core values and ground rules.
Members of the original transition team had similar perspectives on the degree
to which they were free to decline to participate in these activities. A couple said that
they knew they had the option to refuse, although that might require them to even-
tually leave the company if they found themselves more and more out of step with
the developing corporate culture. Almost everyone said they felt real pressure to “get
with the program” of the new corporate president, and they all assumed others did
362 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 363
as well. This was tempered by the (incorrect) assumption that the use of the core val-
ues and ground rules would prove to be yet another passing management fad. None
of these thoughts, by the way, was raised during the introduction process itself.
REFLECTIONS ON THE INTRODUCTION
The central feature of the rollout of the core values and ground rules at Koeze’s was
attention to choice at each step of the process. At each step—hiring Roger to con-
sult on the transition, switching to developmental facilitation with the transition
group, and adopting the core values and ground rules companywide—employees
were offered choices, their input was sought, and concerns were addressed.
I do wonder if they knew what they were getting into, although several have
said that they immediately perceived that the core values and ground rules would
require anxiety-inducing changes in behavior. From my experience in the Skilled
Facilitator course and my work with Roger and his colleagues over many years, I
knew that there was important information about the mutual learning approach
that could be grasped only by living it. A ground rule such as “combine advocacy
with inquiry” sounds harmless enough. In fact, the only ground rule that sounds
truly scary is “discuss undiscussable issues.”
A change in theory-in-use can be deeply transformative and lead to a funda-
mental shift in ways of thought and behavior. There is no easy way to tell somebody
what that is like or what it may mean for that person.
CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINED LEARNING
The transition group knew from the moment that Koeze’s adopted the core values
and ground rules that we needed to continue to improve our skills. The issue was
how. Continuing to bring Roger and his colleagues in on an ongoing basis was be-
yond our means financially, and at the time, there was no public training geared
specifically to facilitative leadership or management. So the transition group met to
discuss whether to send staff to the Skilled Facilitator public workshops.1
We decided that this was the best option and that we could afford to send two
people. Our consensus was that they should be our production manager and direc-
tor of human resources that first year. Since then we’ve sent one or two people each
year. We have provided some basic training and review of the ground rules on an
ongoing basis internally. We’ve also used Roger and his colleagues to facilitate on
some particularly difficult issues, particularly when our most skilled people cannot
do so because they are directly involved with the issue at hand.
Our expectations of each other are that we will use the core values and ground
rules in interactions with each other at all times. Our success in meeting those ex-
pectations is mixed. As might be expected, we vary widely in skill, commitment,
and discipline. Our growth has been hindered by the lack of the consistent
A change in the-
ory-in-use can be
deeply transforma-
tive and lead to a funda-
mental shift in ways of
thought and behavior.
There is no easy way to
tell somebody what that is
like or what it may mean
for that person.
Chapter 45 • Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules | 363
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 364
In spite of the work
involved, the group
members said they
would not choose to give
up the core values and
ground rules learning and
the practice.
involvement of trained outsiders to continue with developmental facilitation and
skill building. We’ve also failed to do some of the things we could do to improve on
our own. I’ve explored, but not committed to, Chris Argyris’s (1993) suggestion of
taping and transcribing conversations. And our self-critiques quickly became per-
functory, and being therefore useless, have mostly ceased.
Nevertheless, there is some anecdotal evidence that things are different now. A
new employee with many years of experience with large automotive and furniture
companies recently said that he was amazed at how open and direct we are. My
feeling is that in some cases, our training has allowed to us tackle difficult issues,
especially those involving pay and performance, that might have been avoided or
handled badly in the absence of our skills.
I believe that we think a little better because of our care to examine assump-
tions and inferences. After a recent meeting that involved a philosophy professor,
he commented that he was struck by hearing people so consistently ask others about
inferences and that he wished that the philosophy faculty were as careful in their
meetings.
I’m unsure of the significance of the next story, but perhaps it indicated a comfort
among the core group with the change. At my father’s retirement party in 1997, the
employees performed skits. One included a parody of the core values and ground rules
based on my father’s favorite sayings. Among them were: “It’s my way or the highway,”
“Who signs your paycheck?” and the ever-popular, “Whose name is on the building?”
Yet I still see us acting unilaterally to protect others. I still see us saving face,
avoiding difficult conversations, acting defensively, and otherwise routinely lapsing
into the unilateral control model. In fact, notwithstanding all of our training, I re-
cently described the avoidance of delivering negative information concerning the
performance of others as a core feature of Koeze’s culture.
FAILING FORWARD
When I asked several of the original transition group to comment on their experi-
ence with the core values and ground rules, two related themes came through. The
first was that even six years into the learning, old habits of thought and speech die
hard, if at all, so using the core values and ground rules remains a difficult challenge.
It is a process that involves much failure, but in general, we are failing forward.
Yet in spite of the work involved, all said they would not choose to give up the
core values and ground rules learning and the practice. This raises the question of
what motivates them to keep going. An answer lies in the other common theme:
the core values and ground rules give them voice. With this training, they have tools
to express themselves when they otherwise would have felt the need to keep silent,
and with our mutual agreement to use them, the playing field for expression has
been leveled—not completely, but enough—to give them a real sense of being
obliged to speak up, not stay silent, and a real expectation of being heard.
364 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 365
Note
1. For information about Roger Schwarz & Associates’ public and on-site work-
shops, go to www.schwarzassociates.com.
Reference
Argyris, C. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Chapter 45 • Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules | 365
www.schwarzassociates.com
54_964948 ch45.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 366
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 367
Chapter 46
From Learning to Lead
to Leading to Learn
Joe Huffman
AS I PEER OUT MY WINDOW in Laurinburg, North Carolina, early one morning,
I see that nearly a foot of snow has fallen overnight in a city that seldom
sees snow. I am the city manager, and someone calls me to ask if I am
going to close the offices to the public and administrative personnel for the
day. With safety uppermost in mind, I quickly reply, “Close city hall.” I believe
I have managed well, responding quickly and decisively. If I had failed to do
so, others would say I lacked leadership.
One week later, my decision comes back to haunt me. Employees start
to ask if administrative personnel should be paid for the hours they did not
work because their offices were closed. If I say yes, the employees who did
have to work that day, laboring under difficult conditions to clear streets and
repair utility lines, will feel slighted. If I say no, city hall employees whose
offices were closed will be forced to use a vacation day. Some don’t have
much vacation and might greatly resent having to use it without having a
choice in the matter. Had they known they would be forced to take vaca-
tion, they might have chosen to come to work, despite the difficult condi-
tions. Both sides blame me.
I am frustrated. I think I am a good leader. I have in my head a clear
model of what makes an effective leader: someone who can respond
quickly and effectively under difficult circumstances, someone who can be
heroic, and someone who can also empower and involve employees.There
is no policy to guide me. I made what I thought was a good, quick decision.
Now I will have to spend precious hours revisiting what I did, hearing both
sides of a debate in which it seems there will be winners and losers, no
matter what I decide. How could such a simple decision have the unin-
tended consequence of making so many people unhappy? What are the
long-term consequences of their dissatisfaction?
This is not a new situation for me. How many times have I found myself putting
out fires created by earlier decisions I thought were good ones? How many of us as
leaders do this over and over again? Why do employees come to expect managers to
make these types of decisions? Can’t they answer these questions themselves? Isn’t that
what employee empowerment is all about? But no, we need order and control, don’t
we? There should be rules. Without rules, there would be chaos. Or liability issues.
367
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 368
Or both. I am stuck in a dilemma. If I am honest, I admit that I have been stuck like
this many times before. I am leading the way I was taught to lead. I am applying the
latest concepts. I am not dictatorial. I involve employees in decisions that affect them,
yet in a crisis I take clear action. But it is time-consuming, not personally satisfying,
and doesn’t work as easily as most of the books say it will.
I found a way out of this particular dilemma. In fact, I believe I have found an
alternative to the management techniques that many leaders find so limiting. I think
I have discovered a way of leading that builds employee accountability, addresses many
dilemmas previously thought unsolvable, and helps create an organization dedicated to
learning and becoming more responsive to those it serves. This solution is more than
mere management technique. It is a journey of self-discovery that I believe will enrich
anyone who undertakes the voyage. It broadens and deepens understanding of human
interactions and exponentially increases the ability to make sound decisions based on
good data that will be understood and supported by others.
LEARNING TO LEAD
My understanding of management principles was shaped initially during my enroll-
ment in a master of public administration program and then over nine years as
manager of the town of Elkin and then the City of Havelock, both in North Carolina.
In these positions, I understood the limitations of hierarchical relationships and at-
tempted to mitigate their impact by developing strong professional and interpersonal
relationships with employees. I also remember feeling that I really did not know how
to apply what I understood might be a better way of functioning in organizations.
In retrospect, while I involved others in the organization to some extent, I re-
ally employed what I now know as the unilateral control model. In essence, I made
use of talented people to help me make decisions or recommendations. I did not
leave myself very open to changing my own ideas and opinions, and I basically left
the existing hierarchical channels in place to accomplish tasks.
In the mid-1990s, several things occurred that caused me to think about my
management style. On a few occasions, the management team of employees I was
working with would cause me to significantly change my decision or recommenda-
tion because of their thoughts on a matter. During one meeting on prioritizing new
positions for the upcoming budget process, for instance, I advocated for a new tech-
nology position while the majority advocated for a new fire chief. We decided to
recommend the fire chief position. Although at first I felt I had acquiesced to the
group, I realized over time that the priority ranking made by the group was better
than I would have done alone. What’s more, later dramatic improvements in the
fire department came from recommendations by the new chief, while delaying the
creation of the technology position had no adverse results.
After a few years, I began to want more challenge in my career, yet I did not
know what that might be. I read several influential management books, including
368 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 369
Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990), which focuses on creating learning organi-
zations. I agreed with some of the ideas presented but had difficulty understanding
how to implement them.
In 1998, I learned that the city manager position in Laurinburg was open.
While researching the position, I found that the city was involved in an organiza-
tion development effort based on the concepts in Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990),
as well as on the work of Chris Argyris as developed by Roger Schwarz. When I read
an article in “Popular Government” describing Laurinburg’s learning organization
initiative (Davidson and McMahon, 1999), I thought being involved in this type
of activity would come naturally and that it might be a fairly easy way to find what
I sought. During my employment interviews with the mayor and city council, I told
them that I had experience working with a management team and that I would be
very comfortable with the Laurinburg learning organization approach.
THE LAURINBURG EXPERIENCE
Any notions that I understood what was going on in Laurinburg or that learning
the required new skills would be easy were quickly proven wrong. At first, I relied
heavily on the management style I had used for the previous decade. Although the
Laurinburg management team members responded to me ably, I sensed there was
something more to this management technique than just reading a book and agree-
ing with a list of values and beliefs.
The management team, often assisted by developmental facilitators Dick
McMahon and Anne Davidson, behaved very differently from other groups I had
worked with. Dick and Anne had been helping the team for three years, during
which the group had learned ways of behaving and speaking that seemed foreign to
me. Looking back, I suspect the first few months must have been difficult for the
group because I did not understand just how much I did not know. Slowly I began
to catch on.
Leading Without Giving Up Control
Early on I learned that as city manager, by virtue of participating in this effort, I was
not giving up control. The management team had chosen to make substantive deci-
sions by consensus, although this was not a requirement for learning organizations.
At first, I did not see how consensus was consistent with upholding my responsibilities
to the city council under the council-manager form of government. Over time, I came
to understand that better decisions could be made using consensus, particularly when
addressing policy issues. In Laurinburg, we reached consensus after analyzing data,
advocating our various views, and inviting disagreement. I learned that a group that
was effective did not negotiate or defend positions with a win-lose attitude. Instead,
when someone presented an idea or advocated a position, he or she also stated reasons
Chapter 46 • From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn | 369
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 370
�
and shared data. The team engaged in a dialogue in which they questioned the data
for clarification. If others provided new data, the group might come to a different de-
cision. If one member did not agree with a course of action, that person needed to
share why he or she disagreed and provide data. If new data made a difference, a
change could jointly be considered. If the data were not shared, the position of the
dissenter became indefensible.
The benefits of this process became more and more apparent to me. A memo-
rable example involved the dilemma of the snow day closing:
The management team wanted to use an employee committee to develop
an office closing policy because it seemed appropriate that those most
directly affected be involved in its creation. We also thought the employees
would have interests and information we did not know about that would
help to create a sound policy. For its part, management team members had
legitimate interests that the committee needed to take into account. Without
sharing their concerns and parameters, the management team would be
abdicating its responsibility. To create a new inclement weather policy, the
employee committee was given a list of management team interests that
would need to be met.
See Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,” page
145.
When the management team received the proposed policy, one of the
team expressed discomfort with it. However, with some discussion and
clarification, it became apparent that the proposal met the management
team’s interests. It would have been difficult to defend not supporting a pol-
icy that met its interests, particularly given the need for the management
team to model behavior consistent with its values and beliefs. By the time
I proposed the policy to the council, I was very comfortable advocating for
its passage, and I shared that employees had played a strong role in its
development.
The council adopted the policy unanimously. Had we used a different process, it
is likely that the policy’s shortcomings would not have been discovered until
implementation.
Seeing Inconsistencies
As I developed understanding of learning organization concepts, I began to see in-
consistencies in the behavior of others. I was somewhat surprised whenever I saw
someone who had received training behaving inconsistently with our espoused val-
ues and beliefs. But it was some time before I learned that I too contributed to prob-
lems and began to see my own inconsistencies. During discussions, I found that I
often recognized when others were not giving the reasoning behind their statements.
370 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 371
Only later was I aware that I too would make statements or challenge someone’s
opinion without clearly sharing my thinking.
Also, I acted inconsistently by not testing inferences that I was making about
another’s reasoning and not asking for clarification when necessary. In becoming
more aware of how I contributed to problems, I began a transition that I have heard
best described by Anne Davidson as the move from “unconscious incompetence”
to “conscious incompetence” to “conscious competence” and then to “unconscious
competence.”
Continuing to Learn
I found it particularly useful to practice my new learning with those also exposed to
the same concepts. Employees and others trained in sessions the city offered were
usually willing to tell me when they thought I or others in the organization were not
“walking the talk.” Through this joint process in self-discovery, I have become more
aware of both my effective and ineffective behavior patterns and the consequences.
One of the best examples involved an employee who attended one of the initial
Learning Organization Concepts training sessions.
I had heard from others that this employee thought the effort was not worth-
while. At one of the breaks, I asked him for feedback. He readily told me of
what he saw as inconsistent behavior among management team members.
His specific concern was a process the management team had used dur-
ing a utility extension project. He thought the management team’s decision
to survey residents about the quality of the city’s wastewater line installa-
tion should have included others in the decision-making process. In partic-
ular, he thought he should have participated in the decision because he
was an inspector on the project and would have been directly affected by
the citizen feedback.
I asked him if we could discuss the matter with the training group, and
he agreed. The result was a productive discussion concerning his belief
that the management team had not involved others to the extent necessary.
He also shared other perceptions he had of the management team.
Although not all the issues discussed were resolved, understanding the
perceptions of others in the organization made me aware of the importance
of modeling consistent behavior and the need to reflect on the conse-
quences of behavior inconsistent with our espoused principles.
Including the Governing Board
In February 2001, the city council attended a training session on systems thinking
as part of its annual retreat. One of the ideas shared by Dick McMahon was that the
management team would be framing issues they brought before the council based
on their learning organization training. Recommendations to the council would likely
It was some time before I
learned that I too con-
tributed to problems and
began to see my own
inconsistencies.
Chapter 46 • From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn | 371
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 372
include information that supported as well as argued against each possible course of
action. In this way, the council would ultimately be responsible for making the de-
cision. This approach would run counter to a unilaterally controlling philosophy of
protecting the council from unpleasant information or trying to get its support by
withholding information. Credibility and commitment to decisions now seemed
more likely as a result of sharing all relevant information from the beginning of the
council’s decision-making process.
CONTINUING CHALLENGES
After most facilitated meetings of the management team, the group reflects and
learns by identifying those things done well and those things that could be changed
or improved. In the same spirit, I list some of the challenges I have experienced thus
far in my own learning.
Helping Others See Their Inconsistencies
One of the advantages I enjoyed in coming to Laurinburg was that I had no prior
history with individuals in the organization. Because I had not interacted with
them before my introduction to the learning organization principles, I did not have
to redesign how I would behave with people accustomed to years of inconsistent
behavior from me. Nevertheless, others in the organization still see inconsistencies
in my behavior as I begin to apply training to real-life situations. Since I am in a
learning mode (the essence of the effort), I understand that from time to time, I
engage in unproductive or defensive behavior. Some of the employees who have
been exposed to the training say that they also see inconsistencies in management
team behavior.
I have used some of these discussions to understand how I can do a better job of
modeling and behaving consistently. However, I have only recently begun to help
others understand their own contribution to the problems they raise. I believe that
one of my next steps in assisting Laurinburg’s development as a learning organization
is to help others understand how they jointly create nonproductive designs (either
consciously or otherwise) through inconsistent behavior.
One of the key opportunities for learning is to assist employees in designing
difficult discussions, and the management team has agreed to assist employees across
traditional organizational boundaries. This means that a police officer can decide to
discuss an issue with the finance officer rather than with the police chief. Or any
employee can come to me without this being interpreted as trying to undermine or
“tattle” on his or her department head. What is interesting is that when I help an
employee design a difficult conversation without taking his or her side and ask him
or her to use the learning organization principles, the employee learns through
372 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 373
�
�
experience and I develop my skills simultaneously. Furthermore, if I adhere to the
principles, I can model the approach and help sustain the effort by showing that I
consider the approach legitimate and worthwhile. This goes for the entire manage-
ment team.
See Chapter Forty, “Helping a Team Understand the System They Created,” page 323, and
Chapter Forty-Two, “How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness,” page
335.
I believe that modeling is the best approach to reduce the likelihood of a
defensive, nonproductive response to feedback on inconsistent behavior. This re-
quires learning not to become unnecessarily defensive myself. For example, if I had
perceived the wastewater inspector’s initial comments as a threat and reacted
defensively, I may have stifled his willingness to discuss his concerns and reinforced
his opinions about the management team’s behavior. Similarly, by responding to
perceived inconsistencies in my own behavior in a nondefensive manner, I could
model how productive introspection might occur. Using skills for productive prob-
lem solving is particularly useful when negative feedback is necessary. Because these
skills do not come easily and take a great deal of time to master, any manager ded-
icated to these efforts must be willing to make a significant commitment to the
learning.
Working Outside the Organization
It can be difficult to apply learning organization principles in interacting with those
outside the organization. Even when you successfully eliminate the jargon, your be-
havior can be confusing to those not familiar with the approach.
See Chapter Twenty-Four, “Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon,” page 207.
For example, one of the Laurinburg management team practices that I found par-
ticularly impressive when I arrived was adherence to certain ground rules. These
ground rules guide participants to, among other things, share relevant information
and discuss undiscussable issues. Since private, negative conversations about others are
generally unproductive, the team tries to reframe their thinking and to share their
thoughts and concerns about one another’s behavior. In an environment charged with
emotion or political maneuvering, someone not aware of the intentions behind the
attempt to discuss difficult issues may misinterpret our course of action as a lack of
empathy or blatant disagreement. I have personally found that my inclination to share
information with the governing board or the management team has from time to time
been misunderstood by those unfamiliar with learning organization principles. It is
challenging to clearly explain one’s reasoning and intent.
Chapter 46 • From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn | 373
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 374
�
Taking Too Much Time
Another problem is the perception that learning organization decisions take too much
time. Given the effort necessary to apply systems thinking and shared decision mak-
ing, it should be expected that well-thought-out actions will take longer than those
involving one person or reliance on existing policy. When I first arrived in Laurinburg,
an employee advised me that a particular decision was taking too much time and that
I should make a decision. I inferred that the employee thought I was not performing
my duties as manager and that I had somehow relinquished my power to others. My
inference caused me to question whether I was handling the matter properly. Although
my personal belief is that the role of the manager in a learning organization is greatly
enhanced over the more traditional role, the possibility exists for those observing to
conclude that the manager is not performing as a leader. This may be attributed to
employees’ seeing leaders as experts, not as learners.
For a discussion of time, see Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
Organizational Support
Finally, I believe that my involvement in Laurinburg’s learning organization effort
has completely changed my perspective. To say that I believe I have become a more
effective local government manager would be an understatement. My perspective
on human interaction has changed because of what I now consider a lifelong jour-
ney. I believe that I cannot unlearn these practices. While I have no intention of un-
learning this behavior because I have found it to be so worthwhile, I suspect others
who experience this learning may not find the same rewards if they relocate to an
organization that does not use or fully support these principles and practices. Sup-
port among like-minded colleagues is an important part of learning the thinking
and skills required.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I strongly advocate that managers learn and use learning organization practices. The
rewards and insights are many and varied. I have grown personally, and I believe I
have increased my effectiveness as a city manager. Here are a few recommendations
from my learning:
1. Work with trained facilitators who have experience in learning organization
efforts. In my case, the use of faculty from the Institute of Government at
The University of North Carolina and the involvement of a consultant have
been invaluable in the Laurinburg effort.
374 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 375
2. Set up a process to identify those organization members who should take a
lead role in jointly designing how you proceed.
3. Educate the governing board about the benefits at the time they are asked to
support the initiative.
4. Meet openly. If others in the organization have access to the group and can
see the effort firsthand, they will gain understanding and will be less likely
to feel disconnected from the process.
5. Involve those in the learning organization initiative in related training. For-
mal workshops and selected readings should promote understanding and
broaden perspectives. Discussing organizational learning with others involved
in similar efforts should also prove beneficial.
6. Practice. The best way to practice involves using the behaviors with others.
For those who are not familiar with the effort, explain your reasons. Other-
wise, they might not understand the behavioral changes.
And, finally, take the risk. There is no way anyone can move forward in this
effort without some risk. By the very nature of our positions, I suspect we managers
are predisposed to assume a high level of risk. As I shared with my peers while serv-
ing on a panel at the North Carolina City/County Manager’s Conference in 2000,
“I am not saying that if you don’t involve yourself in a learning organization effort,
you are insecure. However, I do think that if you are insecure, you probably don’t
want to involve yourself in this type of learning.”
Although the personal risks of undertaking such an effort are real, they are min-
imal when compared to the risks associated with continuing to manage the way we
have always managed and suffering from poor communication, a lack of learning,
and unintended consequences.
References
Davidson, A. S., and McMahon, R. R. “One City’s Journey Toward More Responsive
Government.” Popular Government, 1999, 64(2), 12–29.
Senge, P. M. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday, 1990.
Chapter 46 • From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn | 375
55_964948 ch46.qxd 3/3/05 10:06 AM Page 376
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 377
Chapter 47
Reflections of a Somewhat
Facilitative Leader
Jeff Koeze
In Chapter Forty-Five, I described a bit about my relationship to Roger Schwarz
and his colleagues and about how I came to introduce the Facilitative Leader ap-
proach to the company I own and have served for six years. While I could tell stories
of successes and failures, telling of those seems less urgent to me now than exploring
why I have continued to struggle to practice the mutual learning model, followed
by reflections on the pressures that guarantee that this struggle will never end.
Roger places choice at the center of personal and organization ethics by includ-
ing “free and informed choice” as a core value. What seemed rather unexceptional
the first time I read it I now view as radical—philosophically, politically, psycholog-
ically, and ethically. My reasons are a discussion for another book, but the ethical
argument is most meaningful for me and can be summarized as follows: to attribute
the ability to others to make choices and to act in a way that maximizes their ability
to do so is to respect them; to control and manipulate is a failure to treat others with
respect; it is, to borrow a phrase, to treat others as a means, not an end. This is, to
my mind, unethical.
My own experience with facilitative leadership leads me to believe that Roger’s
couching of the mutual learning model in terms of effectiveness is at best a half-
truth. I doubt it has or could be shown that this approach makes groups or indi-
viduals more effective, by Roger’s or anybody else’s definition of the word. The case
that unilateral control was ineffective for Koeze Company, let alone for other fa-
mously top-down organizations (GE, Microsoft, IBM, EDS, Procter & Gamble, to
name a few) is hard to make. I also doubt that a person who has worked with, re-
flected on, and seen the transformative effects of this approach would intentionally
return to a style based on unilateral control, even if it seemed necessary, and not ex-
perience the return as an ethical failure.
Whether or not you share my ethical commitment to the core value of informed
choice or have some other motivation to pursue facilitative leadership, every facili-
tative leader must come to understand that there are powerful pressures to suppress
or deny the possibility of such choice. I’ve divided these into everyday perceptions,
class and power, refusals and inadequacies, and everyday decision making.
To attribute the
ability to others to
make choices and
to act in a way that maxi-
mizes their ability to do so
is to respect them; to con-
trol and manipulate is a
failure to treat others with
respect; it is, to borrow a
phrase, to treat others as a
means, not an end. This is,
to my mind, unethical.
377
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 378
EVERYDAY PERCEPTIONS
We can begin with our ordinary perceptions. At the personal level, we commonly
feel our choices constrained by outside forces: our economic circumstances, our
genes, our past, our relationships, and others. How often do we describe our be-
havior as mandated rather than chosen: “I have to go to work,” not “I choose to go
to work”?
Moreover, in the workaday world, you, like me, may find constraints, or our be-
lief in them, comforting and, much of the time, necessary. We need to leave a certain
number of assumptions in place, certain social roles and expectations unquestioned,
and certain habits unexamined just to get through the day. “Testing assumptions and
inferences” must be tempered by the judgment to know what issue to raise, when, and
why, and, perhaps more important, what reasons will be sufficient to allow a difficult
question to remain unasked or unanswered.
It is then a short step from leaving a question unasked to forgetting that it can
be asked at all. For example, at least three or four times a year, an employee will an-
swer an inquiry from me about why we do or don’t do something with, “That’s the
policy.” Rarely can they identify where the policy is written, who created it, when
it was created, or, obviously, why it was created. Citing policy is, of course, an easy
way of avoiding a difficult question or issue, but my experience is that my employ-
ees actually come to believe that some of these “policies” exist in as concrete a way as
a desk or a chair. At least at first, they are genuinely surprised that I would propose
questioning them.
CLASS AND POWER
The political traditions of the United States make most (but by no means all) of us
reasonably comfortable with the idea that individuals are, or at least should be, free
to make our own choices in the political realm, the marketplace, and our personal
lives. But the corporate world is hardly known as a bastion of democracy, and
Koeze’s traditionally was no different. At my father’s retirement party, the employ-
ees teased my father about his unilateral control theory-in-use by doing a parody of
the ground rules based on some of my father’s favorite sayings. When I assumed the
job of CEO, he gave me a three-foot-long replica of a judge’s gavel engraved with
the words “Consensus Tenderizer.” Sometimes our employees didn’t care much for
my father’s unilateral control theory-in-use, but I’m fairly sure few in our non-union
(in fact, fairly militantly anti-union) workforce viewed him as unjust. After all, his
name was on the door. Why shouldn’t he be able to do whatever he wants?
What is more, there are advantages for the employees to holding this view. As
Peter Block (1993) points out, in return for giving up control, we also escape from
responsibility for the behavior of the organization, our fellow workers, and even
ourselves.
378 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 379
The Facilitative Leader approach can confront subordinates with choices that
they would prefer to believe, or pretend, that they do not have. Comfort in not hav-
ing a choice has come out in conversation in every organization I’ve ever worked
for; in fact, I’m sure it has come out of my own mouth: “Why can’t this be done?”
answered by, “They won’t let me.” “They” are some group of powerful but anony-
mous people: management, lawyers, the human resource department, and the more
powerful and farther away, physically or organizationally, the better. This statement
can always be interrogated using the ground rules, but the naturalness and comfort
of this thinking are demonstrated by the fact that it is used routinely in an organi-
zation such as Koeze’s in which there is no “they”; there are only about thirty of us,
all working within a single building. Moreover, it is routinely used with me, who
holds the power to overrule any “they” a Koeze’s employee could refer to.
Issues of choice are complicated when there are large differences in social class
involved. Business books, and The Skilled Facilitator is no exception, are written
about professionals, by professionals, and for professionals. Professionals are, in gen-
eral, comfortable with and see benign intent in the general distribution of power,
wealth, and opportunity in our society. They have heard about the short end of the
stick, but they rarely have seen it.
Roger has said to me, and I believe him, that he has had success with his approach
across the blue collar–white collar divide. I believe him; I have also. Still, it must be
acknowledged that substantial differences of power, wealth, and status automatically
call into question the notion of free and informed choice in a way that conversations
between equals do not. How these issues play out can be extraordinarily subtle. I am
just beginning to learn to address such issues, but my guess is that dealing effectively
with them will ultimately require facilitative leaders and followers to surface and to
engage in conversation around political, economic, and social issues that they are used
to seeing dealt with only in slogans and thirty-second television ads. And in some cases,
the slogans may be the only language and knowledge they have. (The same might be
said about conversations structured around race; I’ve never had the experience of using
this approach in that context.)
REFUSALS OR INADEQUACIES
In The Skilled Facilitator, Roger writes of the facilitative leader, “By modeling the
approach, you can give people experience with it so that they may later make an in-
formed and free choice to embrace it.” (p. 343) Yet there are people who are ex-
tremely comfortable in rigid hierarchy. There are people who are exceptionally
averse to conflict; in fact, the possibility of conflict paralyzes them. There are peo-
ple who are utterly uninterested in learning, especially about themselves. There are
people who are absolutely self-interested. There are people who are relentlessly con-
crete in their thinking—all action, no talk. There are people who aren’t comfortable
The Facilitative
Leader approach
can confront subor-
dinates with choices that
they would prefer to be-
lieve, or pretend, that they
do not have.
Chapter 47 • Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader | 379
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 380
�
in groups, are inarticulate, are intellectually limited. There are religious and politi-
cal ideologues. You have, will, or do work with such people.
For a discussion of using the Skilled Facilitator approach with different personality types, see
Chapter Fifty-Five, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,” page
437.
Sometimes these people must be removed from the group, or the company, for
the commitment to mutual learning to be sustained, or just for the work to get
done, even if the leader’s relative lack of skill contributes to their failure. Ideally, the
group would learn to raise and discuss even serious job- or career-threatening inad-
equacies and refusals among members, along with group members’ contributions
to it.
But the risks for individual members are high. High as well is the members’ con-
fidence that if they wait, somebody else—somebody with more power and thus, it is
thought, less at risk—will deal with the problem—perhaps publicly but more likely
privately. And in the moment that the one is removed for the good of the many, the
suspicious, the doubting, the angry, and the bitter may think, with some truth, “See,
nothing has changed.” Others might think the same with a sense of relief.
EVERYDAY DECISION MAKING
Let me state the obvious: not everyone can be involved in every decision that affects
them or about which they might have relevant information. Equally obvious is that
not everyone can contribute to deciding whether consensus or some other decision
rule is appropriate for every such decision. From the perspective of those not con-
sulted, the decision rule has the structure, or at least the feel, of having been decided
unilaterally by others, as will the matters that are up for discussion and debate in
the first place. As obvious as this is, faced with a steady stream of nonchoices, one’s
belief in and commitment to choice erodes constantly.
A common solution to this problem is to emphasize a more abstract choice: that
of committing to an organizational statement of mission, or vision, or values. As
long as that choice has been made, the inability to make choices about the myriad of
other issues may be easier to accept. But ultimately, I don’t think this works. First,
decisions rarely flow with inevitable logic from such broad statements, and second,
the decision at hand might always be the one that calls for the mission, vision, or
values to be reconsidered.
And as a practical matter, how realistic is the opportunity to reconsider the mis-
sion, vision, and values likely to be? Any organization that takes the notion of choice
and internal commitment seriously eventually comes around to questioning its mis-
sion, vision, and values. If they are written down, they are reexamined; if not, they
finally get put on paper. For those involved, participating in vision and mission work
380 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 381
�
can be creative, fun, liberating, commitment building, and empowering. But it
seems almost inevitable that the vision will eventually be taken to command com-
pliance or allegiance down the road. And if that happens, one of the facilitative
leader’s best tools for encouraging choice and internal commitment begins to
become the enemy of both.
See Chapter Seventeen, “Developing Shared Vision and Values,” page 149.
Consistent with the core values and ground rules, the process that creates the vi-
sion engages voices from throughout the organization. The process may also include
shareholders, customers, suppliers, even community members. Then the vision is
printed, put on the walls, placed on little plastic cards, and sent out in press releases.
And the next day, the organization changes. A new employee is hired. Another learns
from experience and thinks of a revision. An inconsistency appears. The process, how-
ever, does not begin again; practically, it cannot. To some extent, to some people, at
some times, the vision becomes undiscussable. It is transformed from something that
a group created to a thing that others must simply accept.
SUMMING UP
Roger has an answer to every issue I’ve discussed here: “Use the core values and the
ground rules to raise and discuss them.” And he is absolutely right. But I have two
parting thoughts. The first is that this is much easier said than done, and little in
most managers’ background or training will prepare them for where such conversa-
tions, done well, will lead. The second is that this work is never done.
The structures of the unilateral control model are embedded in our thoughts,
our language, and our social institutions. They seem almost part of the air we
breathe. As we try to create areas of freedom, choice, and commitment, the walls
that limit them seem to reconstruct themselves right before our eyes. The task is
Sisyphean. And absolutely necessary.
Reference
Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,
1993.
The structures of
the unilateral
control model are
embedded in our thoughts,
our language, and our
social institutions. They
seem almost part of
the air we breathe.
Chapter 47 • Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader | 381
56_964948 ch47.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 382
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 383
�
Chapter 48
Integrating the Skilled
Facilitator Approach with
Organizational Policies
and Procedures
Roger Schwarz
Anne Davidson
The Skilled Facilitator approach can be used to improve not only individual
and group behavior but also organizational policy and procedure. In fact, the qual-
ity of group process and conversation is influenced by the structure within which
they occur. When leaders in organizations commit to mutual learning core values,
they begin to feel at odds with the formal and informal organizational practices that
seem inconsistent with their values and beliefs. And the extent to which organiza-
tional practices are at odds with mutual learning values influences how difficult it
will be for individuals to change their behavior. Sustained organizational transfor-
mation must be systemic. It depends on both personal development and changes in
organizational practices.
See Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
Many important and difficult conversations that set or influence organizational
practice occur in the nonoperating functions: human resources, risk management, fi-
nance, and legal services, for example. These are important functions to examine
because the values, beliefs, and assumptions that drive policy decisions are often
deeply embedded in what is considered good professional practice in these areas.
And policies generated within or among these areas are often in tension with the
principles of the Skilled Facilitator approach.
This should not be surprising since many of the practices in these areas are de-
signed to avoid some past or potential threat. Given that most people use a unilat-
eral control mental model under conditions of threat, they adopt organizational
policies and procedures that have elements of unilateral control embedded within
Many important and
difficult conversa-
tions that set or
influence organizational
practice occur in the non-
operating functions: human
resources, risk manage-
ment, finance, and legal
services, for example.
These are important func-
tions to examine because
the values, beliefs, and as-
sumptions that drive policy
decisions are often deeply
embedded in what is con-
sidered good professional
practice in these areas.
And policies generated
within or among these
areas are often in tension
with the principles of the
Skilled Facilitator approach.
383
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 384
�
them. These unilateral values and assumptions generally remain unexamined and
unchanged when practices (formal and informal structure, policy, procedure) are
revised.
For examples of common organizational practices that have elements of the unilateral control
model embedded in them, see Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled
Facilitator Approach,” page 391, and Chapter Fifty-One, “Do Surveys Provide Valid Information
for Organizational Change?” page 409.
TYPICAL ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
Here are a few examples of typical practices from organizations that we and our col-
leagues have worked with:
1. If a team member is not performing adequately and the supervisor is taking
progressive disciplinary action to address the performance, the supervisor can’t share
with other team members that she has taken these actions or what they are. She can
state only that she is “handling the issue.” This is true even if the other team mem-
bers initially raised the performance issue with the entire team and team leader pre-
sent, and if the team members continue to provide the member and leader feedback
about that team member’s performance.
2. If a team member is fired for poor performance or conduct, the team leader
cannot tell the other team members what that team member did to get fired. In
some organizations, the supervisor cannot even state that the employee was termi-
nated, but can state only the last day the person will be working. If other team mem-
bers ask whether they have engaged in the same behavior as the person no longer
working, the supervisor cannot answer the question in a way that reveals any of the
other person’s behaviors. The person who was terminated can tell other team mem-
bers whatever he wants.
3. Supervisors cannot share performance or pay information about one em-
ployee with others. In one example, one team member, Janet, complained to her su-
pervisor that another team member, Tami, had received pay raises for the previous
three years. Janet, who had received no pay raises in the three years, complained that
her performance was better than Tami’s and that therefore she also deserved a pay
raise. In fact, the supervisor had not given Tami a pay raise during the past three
years, but Tami had told Janet that was the case. The supervisor could not tell Janet
that the information she received from Tami was incorrect. In some public sector
organizations, pay and recent pay increase information is public information. In
other organizations, it is closely held, and telling others someone else’s pay or last
pay increase is prohibited, even if it’s your own pay.
384 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 385
4. Department heads prepare their annual budget requests independently and
then submit them to the finance director. Each advocates for as much as he or she
can, knowing there will be subsequent cuts. The finance director consolidates the
requests and takes them to the chief operating officer, along with his or her recom-
mendations for cuts. They then go to each department head individually to tell each
one how much (and, in some cases, where) to cut their budgets. Department heads
never see one another’s requests or detailed line item breakdowns. Most feel the
process is unfair and assume cuts are based in part on favoritism, so they try to out-
maneuver one another by the way they present and justify their budgets. They some-
times make tenuous or questionable links to the chief operating officer’s or finance
director’s favored initiatives. This process of competition, inflated requests, and hid-
den agendas is commonly referred to as the budget game.
5. Line employees are required by the risk manager to wear safety equipment
at all times. Safety equipment is purchased for employees based on standards de-
veloped by the risk manager and several department heads, even though employees
often say their particular jobs require less or less expensive equipment. Employees are
responsible for equipment maintenance. They are disciplined, including being sent
home without pay, if they are caught working without the appropriate safety equip-
ment. The risk manager hires detectives to videotape employees working to see if
they are complying. Employees believe they know their jobs better than manage-
ment does and could select less expensive and more appropriate options. They resent
being spied on, and they make a game of seeing if they can break the rules with-
out being caught.
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THESE PRACTICES?
These practices and others like them are often well intended. Frequently they stem
in part from a need to consider employees’ rights to privacy. The right to certain
privacies is a basic one (in the United States), and employees do not relinquish all
of their rights to privacy when they work in an organization. Organizations
also avoid risk and ensure their own stability and survival by complying with
laws, generally accepted accounting practices, and a host of other professional best
practices.
These interests often align to support existing policies. For example, a policy
that prevents a manager from sharing what he is doing to address an employee’s per-
formance issues also protects that employee’s privacy, reduces the risk of liability as-
sociated with possibly violating privacy, and potentially avoids difficult conversations
that the manager might have to have with other employees who want to know what
the manager is doing about the situation. So what’s the problem?
Chapter 48 • Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and Procedures | 385
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 386
�
The problem is that
in an attempt to
maximize the inter-
ests of reducing exposure,
maintaining privacy, and
avoiding difficult conversa-
tions, these policies create
the unintended conse-
quences of reducing group
and organizational effec-
tiveness. From the Skilled
Facilitator perspective, in
many of these situations
relevant information is with-
held, so employees are left
making inaccurate and
untested inferences, which
can lead them to make
less informed choices and
to be less committed to
those choices. This can re-
duce the effectiveness of a
leader-team relationship,
the team as a whole, and
the organization in general.
The problem is that in an attempt to maximize the interests of reducing expo-
sure, maintaining privacy, and avoiding difficult conversations, these policies create
the unintended consequences of reducing group and organizational effectiveness.
From the Skilled Facilitator perspective, in many of these situations relevant infor-
mation is withheld, so employees are left making inaccurate and untested inferences,
which can lead them to make less informed choices and to be less committed to
those choices. This can reduce the effectiveness of a leader-team relationship, the
team as a whole, and the organization in general.
Here are some of the unintended consequences from the examples at the be-
ginning of this chapter:
1. The supervisor can’t share with other team members that she has taken any
performance (or conduct related) personnel actions in regard to another employee. This
creates a situation in which team members are left making inferences about whether
and how the supervisor is addressing the team member who is having a problem. It
makes undiscussable the poor performance that team members were likely to have
not only seen but also brought to the attention of the leader. It also creates the
unintended consequence of removing team support to help that person improve,
and so it increases the chance that the person will be fired or moved. In essence, the
policy has the effect of making important and difficult performance issues undis-
cussable after the manager begins formal action.
2. A team leader cannot tell the other team members what led a team member to
be terminated or whether he was in fact terminated. The unintended consequence of
this policy is that other team members are again left making inferences about
whether their own performance or behavior is potentially problematic. This is
especially true if the team members have incorrectly inferred that the team member
was fired for behavior that they too are engaging in. The leader misses an opportu-
nity to help team members understand more about performance expectations and
instead enables misunderstandings and concerns to develop.
3. Supervisors cannot share an employee’s performance or pay information with
other employees. In the example in which Janet had incorrect information that Tami
had received a raise, the unintended consequence is again that employees are left
with incorrect information, which they use to make other incorrect conclusions
about the supervisor. By not correcting this inaccurate information, supervisors keep
the invalid information and its consequences operating. Janet is likely to continue
to believe she had been treated unfairly, eroding her relationship with the supervi-
sor. She is also likely to share her frustration with other team members, affecting
the supervisor’s credibility with the entire work group.
For examples of using a performance management system consistent with the Skilled Facilitator
approach, see Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach,”
page 391, and Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System,” page 403.
386 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 387
4. Department heads prepare their annual budget requests independently to meet
their own interests and try to get the largest budget possible by playing budget games.
This kind of budget process not only withholds information; it limits the depart-
ment heads—key organizational leaders—from learning about critical organizational
issues and opportunities. It reinforces the traditional silo mentality that often causes
leaders to work at cross-purposes and limits their understanding of interdependence.
They are subsequently blamed by those above and below them in the organization
for not thinking systemically when, in fact, they lack important information that
would lead them to see key interrelationships.
5. Line employees are required to wear provided safety equipment. Their behavior
is secretly monitored, and they are disciplined if they are caught working without it. The
intention of this policy is to keep employees safe, and employees do have valid
information about why the equipment is needed. However, the organizational prac-
tices of selecting the equipment for employees and of trying to catch employees
breaking the rules reduces commitment to following proper procedure and removes
much employee accountability. Rather than encouraging one another to follow safety
procedures and taking responsibility for choosing and maintaining the proper equip-
ment, line employees push back on risk management’s control and paternalism by
deliberating breaking safety equipment and consciously breaking the rules. Rather
than collaborating to reduce personal and organizational risk, the two sides are en-
gaged in escalating, expensive conflict. The more the employees resist following the
rules, the more the risk manager tries to gain control by tightening standards and
increasing the monitoring activities. And the more he does these things, the more
resentful the employees become and the more energy they put into finding creative
ways to circumvent the risk manager’s actions, creating a classic and unintended
vicious cycle. The result is lost productivity and reduced job satisfaction.
INTEGRATING ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
WITH THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
Integrating policies, procedures, and structures with the Skilled Facilitator approach
includes exploring the interests underlying the practices. It also includes examining
the unintended consequences that practices are creating at each level of the system
and exploring how they might be changed to incorporate mutual learning values
and assumptions. Here are steps to take.
Identify the Source
Find out whether the policy or procedure in question stems from a law or a gener-
ally accepted industry or professional practice, whether it is a formal or informal or-
ganizational policy, or whether it is actually not a policy but a norm in the
Chapter 48 • Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and Procedures | 387
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 388
�
organization. A policy that originates in law is obviously more difficult to change
than a policy developed independently by an organization or a policy that is a norm.
Do not assume that a practice is a formal policy or law simply because someone says
it is. Validate the information; ask the relevant people to see the written version. In
our experience, organizational members sometimes cite something as policy or law
because they have been told it is policy or law; yet when they are asked, no one is
able to produce the source material.
For examples of the power of policies, see Chapter Forty-Seven, “Reflections of a Somewhat
Facilitative Leader,” page 377.
Identify Any Elements That Are Within Your Control
If a practice is actually a norm or a guideline that you have discretion to adapt, con-
sider adapting it so it reduces unintended consequences. One of our client organi-
zations has adopted a collaborative budget process where everyone involved sits
down together annually and develops an organizational budget. Department heads
frequently offer funding to other departments with more critical needs. All feel re-
sponsible for presenting a fair and realistic budget that reflects organizational rather
than departmental priorities. After several years of collaborative budgeting, this
group says they no longer play budget games, the budget process is faster overall,
they engage in better long-range planning and capital budgeting, and the role of the
finance and budget staff has moved from control of others to support and involve-
ment in decision making. The group members see themselves as partners rather than
competitors.
Understand Exactly What the Policy Says
and Does Not Say
If the policy is written, examine it and learn firsthand what it says and does not
say. If the policy is based on law, explore whether the policy is more restrictive than
the law requires. In the case of Janet and Tami, the manager was led to believe that
he could not share Tami’s current pay raise information with Janet. Yet his organi-
zation was a governmental agency covered by a state statute stating that current pay
rates and most recent increases are public information. If a policy seems more re-
strictive than your understanding of the law on which it is based or if the way a pol-
icy is implemented seems more restrictive than the policy itself, find out whether
that is the intent. If it’s not, you may have more freedom to share relevant infor-
mation. If a policy is not written, explore with the people responsible for it what it
requires.
388 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 389
�
Explore the Interests That Generated the Practice;
Share Your Interests and the Unintended
Consequences You See
We think of policies and procedures as positions. Underlying every position is a set
of interests that the policymakers are trying to meet. Be curious about the interests
that generated a particular procedure. Share your interests that you see not being met
by the policy, including the unintended consequences you do see. Ask for reactions.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61; Chapter Sixteen, “Helping
Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,” page 145; and Chapter Twenty-Six,
“Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page
217.
Explore Redesigns to Meet the Interests
Explore whether and how a policy can be implemented so that it meets the interests
you have identified and reduces the unintended consequences. For example, in the
case of privacy rights, the policy might be implemented in a way that gives people the
option to share their own information or reveal their identity. In the case of the safety
equipment, one client group changed their practice with the intention of increasing
commitment and accountability. They jointly designed a new procedure with em-
ployees that included giving employees an allowance from which they could purchase
their own personal safety equipment, choosing designs of their own liking from an
approved list. Equipment damage went down, and compliance increased dramatically.
Consider Sharing Interests in Policy Statements
When policies come up for review in a learning organization we work with (either
because they are not meeting organization needs or are perceived as being inconsis-
tent with the values), the management team or a selected group of employees are
given the task of reviewing the policy and identifying the interests that a new pol-
icy must satisfy. When a new policy is written, the interests that it is attempting to
meet are stated in the first paragraph. Then the guidelines are given. Providing the
interests has the added benefit of reducing the number of rules needed because it is
frequently less important that an exact process be followed than that the interests
be met. There are usually several acceptable ways to meet the stated interests, and
providing choices significantly increases commitment to following desired practices.
Chapter 48 • Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and Procedures | 389
57_964948 ch48.qxd 3/3/05 10:07 AM Page 390
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 391
�
Chapter 49
360-Degree Feedback
and the Skilled
Facilitator Approach
Peg Carlson
I have been intrigued by 360-degree feedback for a long time, both by the idea
of it and by the apparent gap between its potential to create behavior change and
its implementation. It’s a good example of what happens when we espouse a mutual
learning approach but then create a structure based on the assumptions of the uni-
lateral control model.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
A primary objective of 360-degree feedback (also called multi-rater or multi-
source feedback) is to give individuals relevant information about their performance
from a variety of perspectives. This process recognizes that an individual works in a
system, and many people in that system—peers, direct reports, supervisors, and
customers—have valuable information about the focal individual’s strengths and
weaknesses. Its underlying premise is that people can improve their performance by
learning and incorporating this feedback. On its face, this is very compatible with
the Skilled Facilitator ground rule, “Share all relevant information.” As it is usually
implemented, however, valid information is often lost.
A considerable amount of research has focused on the apparent failure of multi-
source feedback to produce performance improvement. One review of many such
studies found that feedback was almost as likely to have a negative as a positive ef-
fect on future performance (Kluger and DeNisi, 1966). Proponents of 360-degree
feedback have investigated various factors that may affect the focal individual’s use
of the feedback. These factors include the size of the gap between self-ratings and
ratings from others and whether the feedback is purely developmental or is being
shared as part of a performance evaluation. I think these studies have failed to iden-
tify the central problem with the way 360-degree feedback is carried out.
391
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 392
Although its es-
poused purpose is
consistent with the
core values and outcomes
of the mutual learning
model, its design and im-
plementation are based on
the core values, assump-
tions, and strategies of the
unilateral control model.
The result is that these
feedback programs often
get the opposite results of
what they intend.
Although its espoused purpose is consistent with the core values and outcomes
of the mutual learning model, its design and implementation are based on the core
values, assumptions, and strategies of the unilateral control model. The result is that
these feedback programs often get the opposite results of what they intend.
EXAMPLES OF DILEMMAS WITH 360-DEGREE
FEEDBACK
To illustrate some of the dilemmas associated with 360-degree feedback, here are
two examples from my consulting experience. In the first, multisource feedback was
used in a developmental context as part of an executive education program; in the
second, it was used in an evaluative context in a chief executive’s performance eval-
uation. Both show the types of issues that can arise for the individual who is trying
to understand the feedback she has received:
I first encountered 360-degree feedback when I served as a coach in exec-
utive education programs, helping participants sift through and interpret the
feedback they received. The participants were generally excited about
the power of this tool and looked forward to discussing their feedback. I was
enthusiastic as well. This process appeared to have the potential to help
the focal managers (those who received the feedback) achieve real insights
into their managerial style. As I worked with individuals who received
feedback from their direct reports, peers, and bosses, however, I noticed a
troubling pattern: the 360-degree feedback process didn’t seem to provide
guidance to all of the participants in the way I had expected it would.
Typically the people who received the lowest marks on their managerial
skills also had the most difficulty figuring out what they were doing that was
ineffective and how to do it differently. At least some of the problem
appeared to stem from the way the feedback was compiled and presented.
As with virtually all other 360-degree feedback instruments, the survey
used in the executive education program promised confidentiality to the
raters if they were direct reports or peers of the focal individual; their iden-
tity would not be revealed. Supervisors were not promised confidentiality,
as a person usually reports to only one boss. This was done to increase the
likelihood that people would provide honest feedback to the ratee. Raters
were assured that both the numerical ratings and the written comments
they provided would be shared without attribution and the focal individual
would not be able to identify the source. When there are a sufficient num-
ber of raters, averaging numbers so individual raters are not identified is a
simple task. Making a written comment anonymous is not so simple, since
written comments may contain information that is not known to all of the
raters. As I met with executives individually to discuss their feedback, it
became evident that the way in which raters ensured that their comments
could not be traced back to them caused problems for the managers who
received low ratings.
392 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 393
The managers who were rated highly got lots of specific comments
reinforcing their performance. When people gave negative feedback to a
manager using the 360-degree tool, however, they appeared to take addi-
tional steps to hide their identity.They would omit written comments or write
the comments in such a general way that there was no chance they could
be identified. For example, a rater would comment, “Needs to provide more
direction,” instead of, “It would have been helpful if Bill had specified the
parameters on the XYZ project, because our team did a lot of unnecessary
research on ways to reduce costs before we found out this had already
been decided.” The executives who received this vague feedback were
frequently confused and had questions about what the comment was refer-
ring to. I could offer only partial assistance. Although I may have been able
to discern some of the themes across raters’ comments, I obviously could
not fill in the missing specifics. We could merely compare untested
inferences. It seemed that the managers who received low marks on their
managerial skills—the very ones who most needed specific examples to
figure out what was ineffective in the past and how to improve in the
future—were the least likely to receive specific information.
The governing board of a nonprofit decided that it needed to collect infor-
mation about the director’s performance from a variety of sources in order
to conduct a thorough evaluation. The board’s motives were good; the
members felt that they saw only a small fraction of the director’s overall
work in their interactions with her, and they wanted to get useful input on
her extensive work with other community agencies, regional councils, and
others. Board members interviewed selected individuals (including some of
the nonprofit’s employees) and asked each for his or her view of the direc-
tor’s performance in various areas. The individuals were assured that these
conversations were completely confidential and the director would never
know who said what.
During the performance evaluation, the board ran into problems when
sharing ratings of the director’s performance that were partially (or largely)
based on feedback from others. In many instances, these ratings had
been based on one or more specific examples of the director’s perfor-
mance that the board had learned about from employees and outside
peers. Because it promised confidentiality to these people, the board did
not want to be too specific for fear that the director would know who pro-
vided the information—and that the confidentiality agreement would thus
be violated.
As a result, the board was frequently vague and spoke in generalities
about the director’s need to improve her performance or make changes in
her managerial style. Board members explained that they couldn’t be very
specific for the reasons just listed. “That’s all right,” the director said. “I can
go back to my employees and peers and ask them for more information
about how I can improve my performance. “Oh, no, you can’t do that,” board
members replied. “If you do, they will think you’re on a witch hunt and just
trying to find out who said what so you can retaliate.”
Chapter 49 • 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach | 393
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 394
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS
How is it that a
process intended
to give people use-
ful feedback to improve
their effectiveness fre-
quently prevents them
from getting the informa-
tion they need to improve
their effectiveness?
What is going on here? How is it that a process intended to give people useful
feedback to improve their effectiveness frequently prevents them from getting the
information they need to improve their effectiveness?
Using the Skilled Facilitator approach, I believe there are three main issues to ex-
amine, all based on a unilateral control theory-in-use: (1) an emphasis on unilateral
protection for both raters and ratees, resulting in a process that promises confiden-
tiality to raters; (2) an overall organizational structure that defines accountability dif-
ferently for different players in the system; and (3) a series of mixed messages that
are undiscussable, thus blocking individual and organizational learning.
A Mental Model That Believes All Parties Need
to Be Protected
At first glance, 360-degree feedback appears to be the ultimate learning tool: it
acknowledges that many people have relevant information about an individual’s per-
formance and that the focal individual can benefit from learning all these perspectives
and adapting as needed. This appears consistent with the mutual learning model; how-
ever, a core assumption embedded in virtually all 360-degree feedback processes is that
both raters and ratees must be unilaterally protected from any discomfort they may feel
about participating in the process. This assumption is consistent with the unilateral
control model, and the logic goes something like this: raters won’t give honest feedback
if they think the target individual will know the source, both because they don’t want to
hurt this person’s feelings if they have negative comments and because they’ll be afraid
that the person will retaliate in some way. Therefore, their identity needs to be con-
cealed for their protection. Also, the person receiving the feedback won’t receive it in
the spirit it’s intended if she knows who said what; she will focus on the source, get de-
fensive, or rationalize away the feedback because she believes the rater holds a grudge
against her. So the focal individual must also be protected for her own good.
I don’t mean to minimize the very real problems associated with creating a
process for people to give—and receive—constructive feedback. The point is that a
unilaterally controlling (or unilaterally protecting) mental model tends to produce
the very outcomes that we want to avoid. In the case of the 360-degree feedback ex-
amples, that means that the process actually limited learning and potentially increased
misunderstanding and defensiveness between parties rather than reducing it.
Withholding the Identity of the Rater as a Means to
Obtain Honest Feedback
Guidance on what constitutes good feedback is fairly consistent: it needs to be timely
and specific, and it needs to focus on the behavior, not the person. It’s not sufficient
to say, “Gina, you need to improve your attitude.” In order for feedback to be
394 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 395
�
helpful, Gina needs to understand exactly (1) what behaviors have led you to infer
that her attitude needs improving, (2) in what situation you observed these behav-
iors, and (3) what an improved attitude would look like in behavioral terms. This
guidance is not unique to the Skilled Facilitator approach, but it is consistent with
the approach.1
In 360-degree feedback, the principles for giving feedback come up against the
mental model of unilateral protection. As a result, virtually every multisource feed-
back process aggregates the raters’ responses by group to protect the confidentiality
of the source (for example, subordinates, peers). The only responses that can be
traced to an individual rater are those of the supervisor, since most people have only
one boss. Protecting the identity of raters is a fundamental part of the design of every
360-degree feedback instrument I’ve found. (If someone is familiar with an alter-
nate design that identifies raters, please let me know.) The assessment tool usually
explains at some length how no individual’s ratings will ever be revealed to the
person being rated; for example, since the ratee might recognize handwriting,
the completed instruments are sent to a third party for compilation.
This desire to maintain confidentiality has a cost. A vague, general comment
does not constitute valid information as defined in the Skilled Facilitator approach
(nor does it comply with general principles of effective feedback). Identity of the
rater is relevant information, along with specific examples. One of the tenets of
the Skilled Facilitator approach is that people should be accountable for their ideas,
since the individual who presents an idea is the source of relevant information and
can be sounded out for more information if needed. The individual receiving the
anonymous feedback has little to act on to get the valid information needed to bring
about change in his or her job performance. In the quest for honest feedback, it
appears that useful feedback is sometimes sacrificed. Our perceptions of others’
behavior are filtered through our own experience and so often filled with untested
inferences and attributions that our opinion is meaningful primarily as a way to
begin a two-way conversation. The 360-degree feedback process is not designed to
encourage this conversation; in fact, it acts to prevent it.
For an example of the consequences of confidentiality in 360-degree feedback, see Chapter Fifty,
“Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System,” page 403.
Defining Accountability Differently for Different
Members of the System
Accountability means “accepting and meeting one’s personal responsibilities, being
and/or feeling obligated to someone else or oneself, or having to justify one’s actions
to others about whom we care.”2
A dilemma in multisource feedback is that all parties appear to want low ac-
countability for themselves but high accountability for others. For example, research
The 360-degree
feedback process
is not designed
to encourage a two-way
conversation; in fact, it
acts to prevent it.
Chapter 49 • 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach | 395
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 396
�
A dilemma in multi-
source feedback is
that all parties
appear to want low ac-
countability for themselves
but high accountability for
others.
This message
says, in effect, “We
encourage you to
go back and ask for clarifi-
cation and specific exam-
ples from your direct
reports and peers if you
receive feedback that is
unclear to you.” How ex-
actly is this supposed to
occur, given that the infor-
mation was originally ob-
tained through promising
confidentiality to raters?
shows that raters are most comfortable giving ratings when they’re not accountable
for them (not identified), and ratees are most comfortable receiving ratings when
raters are held accountable. Similarly, focal managers prefer that 360-degree feed-
back be shared only with them and want it to be used for developmental rather than
evaluative purposes.
Both researchers and practitioners using multisource feedback have noted that
behavior change does not necessarily follow a 360-degree feedback process, and pro-
ponents have turned their attention to mechanisms for holding focal managers ac-
countable for changing their behavior as a result of feedback (for example, Walker
and Smither, 1999). Much less is said, however, about holding raters accountable
for the feedback they provide. I see a systemic problem here. The managers receiv-
ing the feedback are held accountable for changing their behavior, even though they
may not get the specific examples that would be truly helpful. The raters, mean-
while, are not held accountable for the ratings they provide. This design essentially
removes the responsibility for direct communication between rater and ratee. In
fact, it contributes to a climate where people feel that others cannot be trusted; oth-
erwise, why must everyone be protected? Moreover, it can breed cynicism about the
possibility of organizational change, since the people providing the ratings may
think, “Well, I’ve done my part and given him feedback. Now it’s his job to improve
his performance.” They don’t recognize that the feedback they’ve provided may sim-
ply raise awareness that there is a problem without helping the person determine
what to do differently. And a 360-degree instrument that promises confidentiality
helps support the idea that they’ve done their part and nothing more will be
expected of them.
See Chapter Fifty, “Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System,” page 403.
Undiscussable Mixed Messages That Limit Learning
Several mixed messages are embedded in 360-degree feedback. One is the idea that
this process is a way for people to receive good honest, constructive feedback and
the way to do this is to promise confidentiality and thus limit the amount of valid
information that people actually receive. Consultants and human resource profes-
sionals who are counseling people on how to get the most out of the feedback they
receive frequently deliver the second mixed message.
This message says, in effect, “We encourage you to go back and ask for clarifi-
cation and specific examples from your direct reports and peers if you receive feed-
back that is unclear to you.” How exactly is this supposed to occur, given that the
information was originally obtained through promising confidentiality to raters?
This mixed message has all the hallmarks—and subsequent negative consequences—
of an organizational defensive routine, as described by Chris Argyris (2000):
396 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 397
• Send a mixed message (“I want you to get good specific information, and the
best way to do that is to protect you from knowing who said what”).
• Pretend it is not mixed (“This tool will give you great insight into the
strengths and weaknesses of your managerial style as perceived by others”).
• Make the mixed message and the pretense undiscussable (“We encourage you
to go directly to your raters for clarification of any feedback”).
• Make the undiscussability undiscussable (“Now that I’ve explained how this
will work, is there anything else you want to talk about?”).
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
It’s a considerable journey from the traditional 360-degree feedback design to Cathy’s
story later in this chapter. Concerns about defensive reactions by managers or re-
taliation may also be very real. What this means is that an organization should not
simply jump into 360-degree feedback cold, without doing some of the hard work
to prepare participants for the process. A few ideas for steps to move an organiza-
tion along that journey follow. They are not guaranteed techniques for improving
how feedback is given and received in any organization, but they are offered in the
spirit of changing the conversation in a way that increases learning, reduces unilat-
eral protection, and supports accountability and free choice.
Acknowledge and Discuss the Dilemma
The issues I’ve raised here are dilemmas: no choice is 100 percent positive, and all
courses of action have some potential negative consequences associated with them.
If you share my view that the traditional 360-degree feedback design limits learning,
one step is to explain the dilemma you see to others and inquire as to whether they
see it similarly or differently. If you have examples from your experiences as a rater
or a ratee that have shaped your perspective, you can share these examples and en-
courage others to share theirs (whether or not they support your view). Identify and
discuss concerns that lead people to not want to be accountable for their ratings. Peo-
ple may have concerns about defensiveness and retaliation from the individuals re-
ceiving the feedback. By getting at some of the causes, the organization can begin to
see if they can create conditions that reduce or prevent the need for anonymity.
Be Accountable for Your Own Ratings
If you are asked to participate as a rater in a 360-degree feedback process, identify
yourself as the source of any comments you provide, and invite the target individ-
ual to contact you to discuss the ratings in more detail. Depending on the level of
Chapter 49 • 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach | 397
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 398
security imposed by the 360-degree technology, this can require some creativity. Our
colleague Tom Moore found that he was unable to add his name to his ratings
(the technology was set up to guarantee anonymity), so he simply embedded his
name in the actual comments by referring to himself in the third person: “Tom
Moore thinks that . . .”
Enable Others to Make an Informed Choice About What
They Are, and Are Not, Willing to Share
Even if people are not ready to fully disclose their specific examples in an open
forum, you can help them make informed choices about what they are willing to
share. For example, in the board’s performance evaluation of the director described
earlier in this chapter, board members recognized the bind they had put the director
in and discussed ways to avoid this situation in the future. They still wanted to get
feedback from people outside the nonprofit and didn’t feel ready to ask each person
to be identified by name. They came up with the following statement to begin each
information-gathering interview: “The board’s goal is to give specific feedback that
will help the director improve her performance. Since this may include particular
examples to illustrate a point, it is possible that she may guess the source of the in-
formation from the example, even if we do not mention the source by name. We
ask you not to say anything to us that you are not willing to have shared with the
director.” Knowing this, individuals may choose not to share certain examples, but
it helps the board avoid basing its evaluation (consciously or unconsciously) on in-
formation that is not available to the director.
USING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
TO REDESIGN 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK
Even if your organization’s method for providing 360-degree feedback is inconsis-
tent with the Skilled Facilitator approach, there are ways you can modify the process
to align it with the core values and turn it into a richer opportunity for mutual learn-
ing. Here is the story of a participant in one of our Skilled Facilitator workshops
who did just that:3
Cathy was excited by what she had learned in the Skilled Facilitator work-
shop and was intrigued by the potential of integrating the core values into
organizational processes that were already in use in her high-tech compa-
ny. As a manager, she had been receiving 360-degree feedback for a cou-
ple of years, and although she felt that she got some valuable information
out of the process, she also felt that the feedback was just scratching the
surface of what she could really learn from the data.
The next time Cathy was scheduled for 360-degree feedback, she pro-
posed some changes to the standard process. First, she requested that
398 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 399
raters complete an evaluation of her managerial strengths and weaknesses,
just as before. However, instead of then sending the evaluation to a third
party who would compile the data and present the aggregate results to
Cathy, she asked that the raters bring the completed form with them to a
group meeting with her and the other raters. In doing this, Cathy was asking
her raters to participate in a process that she believed would create valid
information. Instead of trying to guess what a particular comment meant or
what the rater was basing his or her evaluation on, Cathy would be able to
ask the person directly.
Both Cathy and her raters reported that this was by far the riskiest 360-
degree feedback process they had ever participated in. The stakes were
high on both sides. Cathy’s raters were concerned that they might hurt or
embarrass her with some of their comments, and they were making them-
selves vulnerable to future retaliation from Cathy if she did not accept the
feedback well. Cathy was concerned about her ability to respond without
defensiveness to whatever she might hear in the session; she was aware
that her response to the feedback would greatly affect the others’ willing-
ness to participate in anything like this in the future.
Despite their concerns (and because they understood what she was
hoping to accomplish), Cathy’s raters agreed to complete their forms and
discuss them in a group forum. In the meeting, the group went through the
questions one by one. Each person gave his or her rating and a brief expla-
nation of the reason behind the rating, usually including an example.
Several things happened as a result of this group conversation about
Cathy’s strengths and weaknesses as a manager.
First, as Cathy’s raters shared the examples that led them to their eval-
uations, they found that they sometimes remembered things differently or
had different perspectives about Cathy’s actions. In some cases, this led
people to change their original ratings.
Second, because everyone was able to hear everyone else’s ratings
and examples, the group was able to help Cathy identify patterns in her
behavior. For example, one person said, “I see you get really directive
sometimes, even though you seem to prefer a collaborative style most of
the time.” Another chimed in, “Yes, I’ve noticed that too, and I tried to figure
out when it happens. I think it’s when we’re nearing a deadline. When we
get to a certain stage in the project, it seems as if you don’t want to hear
any more input. Have we read you correctly on that?” If Cathy had received
ratings and comments from each person through the standard aggregated
responses, it would have been much more difficult to identify these kinds of
patterns.
By having everyone hear and discuss her feedback together, Cathy
created a professional development support group for herself. Since all the
raters—her direct reports, peers, and boss—now knew the areas she was
working on, they were able to give her specific feedback in future interac-
tions. For example, after a meeting about an upcoming project deadline,
one of her employees said, “You just did a really nice job of listening when
we talked about how the production delays may affect our deadline. I know
that’s one of the things you’ve been working on, and it shows.”
Chapter 49 • 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach | 399
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 400
When they had completed the discussion, Cathy and her raters agreed
that this was not only the riskiest 360-degree feedback session they had
ever had, it was also the most valuable. By discussing her coworkers’
perceptions of her in a forum where she could hear their specific examples,
inquire into their reasoning, and add her own perspective, Cathy gained
much greater insight into her own strengths and weaknesses as a manag-
er than she ever could have learned from a sheet of ratings and unattrib-
uted comments. Her raters learned some valuable lessons as well: the
importance of being accountable for the feedback you give to another per-
son, being open to the possibility that people can interpret the same situa-
tion quite differently, and seeing the power of a group network to support
an individual’s change efforts.
Cathy’s experience may give you ideas for how to redesign your own feedback
sessions in a way that is consistent with the Skilled Facilitator approach. Or you
may be reading this story and thinking, “In the next lifetime maybe!” If your or-
ganization seems a long way from being ready for the kind of group dialogue Cathy
used, remember that there is a lot of groundwork that can be laid before tackling
360-degree feedback. Just as we don’t recommend that workshop participants re-
turn to their organization and begin practicing the ground rules by raising the most
difficult undiscussable issue at Monday morning’s staff meeting, this is probably
not going to be the first organizational intervention you’re going to tackle. By
“being the change you want to see” in your organization and using the core values
and ground rules in your interactions with others, you can begin to create a climate
in which others may feel ready to take the risk, and engage in mutual learning
with you.
Notes
1. See, for example, Sloan R. Weitzel, Feedback That Works: How to Build and
Deliver Your Message.
2. For an excellent discussion of accountability issues in multisource feedback,
see Manuel London, James W. Smither, and Dennis J. Adsit, “Accountabil-
ity: The Achilles’ Heel of Multisource Feedback.”
3. Roger Schwarz first related Cathy’s story in Chapter Sixteen of The Skilled
Facilitator (2nd ed.). The main points in this story reflect Cathy’s report of
what happened; however, the quotations are approximations of the group
conversation and were not directly obtained from group members.
400 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 401
References
Argyris, C. Flawed Advice and the Management Trap: How Managers Can Know When
They’re Getting Good Advice and When They’re Not. New York: Oxford University Press,
2000.
Kluger, A. N., and DeNisi, A. “The Effects of Feedback Interventions on Performance:
A Historical Review, a Meta-Analysis, and a Preliminary Feedback Intervention
Theory.” Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 119, 254–284.
London, M., Smither, J. W., and Adsit, D. J. “Accountability: The Achilles’ Heel of
Multisource Feedback.” Group and Organization Management, 1997, 22, 162–184.
Walker, A. G., and Smither, J. W. “A Five-Year Study of Upward Feedback: What Managers
Do with Their Results Matters.” Personnel Psychology, 1999, 52(2), 393–423.
Weitzel, S. R. Feedback That Works: How to Build and Deliver Your Message. Greensboro,
N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership, 2000.
Chapter 49 • 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach | 401
58_964948 ch49.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 402
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 403
�
Chapter 50
Implementing a 360-
Degree Feedback System
Bron D. Skinner
In 2002, Roger Schwarz came to the Department of Family Medicine at The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and addressed the faculty about perfor-
mance assessment as a way to enhance personal development and learn about one’s
self. One anonymous negative comment in the feedback that I received, as assistant
residency director of the family practice residency program, particularly caught my at-
tention. I had begun to preach the value of forgoing anonymity and the importance
of applying the Ground Rules for Effective Groups to this process and decided that
this was an opportunity to use my own experience as a faculty development lesson.
For a discussion about the problems of anonymity in feedback, see Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-
Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach,” page 391. For the ground rules, see
Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
I wrote an extensive e-mail that I sent out to the faculty membership in which
I tried to demonstrate the difference it would have made to me had I been given the
identity of the individual who made the comment. I made an effort to go through
the ground rules systematically and touch on each one in the way I thought it might
apply:
From: Bron Skinner
Organization: Department of Family Medicine, UNC-Chapel Hill
To: Family Medicine Faculty
Subject: Some Faculty Development Around Feedback
We are all going through the annual exercise of Career Development
Reviews. As part of that process, we instituted a revised peer evaluation
process, which I feel is much improved over what I experienced last year.
The comments were more thoughtful and relevant. The suggestions for
improvement were things I could seriously consider doing something
about, and they help me to think about how I can focus my energy.
403
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 404
Because that is the case, the most negative comment I received has
troubled me for a couple of reasons. It was a difficult piece of feedback to
receive because it basically refutes a self-perception I have that I strive to
provide service to those who need to interface with the residency program.
Had the comment not been relevant or meaningful, I would have shrugged
it off. However, it strikes at the heart of what I hope I am able to provide in
my position with the residency. The other troubling aspect is that the person
who made it chose not to identify himself or herself. Had he or she done so,
I could have worked to heal the wounding by having a dialogue with that
party. So as I wrestled with my feelings and my desire to come to some res-
olution in myself, I thought it might be valuable to open up a discussion
about such comments as a form of faculty development and that by so doing
I could turn something troubling into a positive good for all of us.
I would like to do this by using it as an example for improving the out-
come of our feedback by applying the principles that Roger Schwarz spoke
with us about in his presentation on feedback for learning. First, let me share
the comment, which came under “Areas of Improvement”: “Not a problem
solver when I’ve worked with him on residency issues. Tends to tell me it’s
my problem and I’ll have to figure out how to fix it, when it is something that
he was to be coordinating. An ‘I’ll figure it out and get back with you’ would
be so much more productive than an ‘it’s not my job’ kind of attitude.”
My first knee-jerk reaction is to want to apologize profusely for what-
ever behavior has prompted such feelings. I view this as a pretty damning
condemnation of whatever communication style it was that generated this
observation. However, this observation does not square with my feelings
about the way the majority of my interactions with people evolve. So defen-
sive ideas pop up as well. Still, something prompted this, and I want to
honor the depth of this reaction and deal with it responsibly. So I would like
to understand what this is about and see if there is something I can change
in the way that I work with people to avoid generating such reactions in the
future. A defensive stance will not help me accomplish that.
However, by not identifying himself or herself, this individual has
denied me an opportunity to really learn something about myself. I don’t
have any idea where this comment could be coming from. So it tends to just
sit there like a festering sore with no way to heal it. I believe I could heal it
by having a dialogue with the individual to learn more about what prompt-
ed it in the first place.
Using a few of the ground rules that Dr. Schwarz left with us, I would
like to examine what would be gained by such an approach. I’ll give the
ground rule and a brief explanation of how applying it could help in this
instance:
1. Test assumptions and inferences. It would be very helpful to know
what assumptions and inferences were being made by this person.
There may be an assumption that what he or she brought to me is
my responsibility when I don’t perceive such to be the case. There
might be an inference that I was shucking the responsibility for
handling something I should have handled when I did not even
404 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 405
understand that I was being asked for anything more than informa-
tion on which the person could act.
2. Share all relevant information. I could learn what circumstances
brought on this person’s perceptions. He or she may have come to
me at a time I was stressed and preoccupied to a point that I could
not focus on helping them. It may have been a single instance or a
number of instances. The latter would be more concerning since it
would be indicative of a pattern. It might be that whatever I was being
asked to do was truly not in my purview to provide.
3. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean.
The context that generated this person’s perception seems all impor-
tant. What wording led this person to feel I had the attitude that it was
not my job to help him or her? It’s possible I said words meaning one
thing and they were interpreted to mean something quite different.
4. Explain your reasoning and intent. By not knowing the reasoning and
intent of the person who made this comment I have no idea what
process of logic brought him or her to the conclusion that I was being
unhelpful. I also do not know the intent of this comment. Is it made
because the person is just angry because he or she didn’t get some-
thing from me he or she thought I should give? Then this comment
becomes something less constructive and more a way to get back at
me anonymously. Or is this person sincerely and compassionately
hoping that by offering this feedback, I will gain insight and grist for
my mill toward a better me?
There are five other ground rules that we would apply as we worked
toward an agreement about how to get our respective needs met and for
us to arrive at a better understanding about how to interact in a productive
way with one another. They are as follows:
5. Focus on interests, not positions. We would identify the ways in
which our interests concur and develop a way to behave that most
fully fulfilled our mutual interests.
6. Combine advocacy and inquiry. We would share our points of view
and take time to inquire into the other person’s perspective on how
to handle future requests for assistance.
7. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements. We would
find what each of us thought could be done to improve the outcome
of our interactions and identify differences of opinion.
8. Discuss undiscussable issues. There may be something about me
that bugs this individual. Or perhaps he or she has a way of approach-
ing me that sets me off. We would explore what that might be.
9. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment
needed. We would establish what principles would apply in deter-
mining what I would and would not be expected in the future to do in
response to requests for help.
Chapter 50 • Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System | 405
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 406
I hope that the individual who made this comment will feel encouraged
to come and have a conversation with me about whatever led to the per-
ceptions expressed in the feedback. If he or she does not so choose, I offer
my apologies for any behavior that may have prompted the feelings.
Without further information and insight, my fear is that I will continue to
stimulate such responses in people. So if there is anyone else who might
have observed behaviors that would lead to a perception that I am unwill-
ing to be helpful, I invite you to come and talk with me as well. I truly want
to work better with everyone here. I will in the absence of any further data
from anyone be working to enhance my self-observation and to heighten
my sensitivity to what might be happening in my interactions with others to
promote the perception of unhelpfulness.
Finally, I hope that baring my soul in this manner will have a salutary
effect on the way that we handle feedback among the members of our
community.
I would like to see a dialogue closer to the time of the offensive behav-
ior rather than waiting until we have peer evaluations to put them out. I
believe that the more open we can be about such things and the more will-
ing we are to help one another to improve through our commitment to excel-
lence, the more exciting and satisfying our lives and work together can be.
I am optimistic that engaging in this kind of dialogue can initiate and pro-
mote career development in the best sense—namely, by encouraging the
formation of a community of trust where we can reach out to one another
with loving kindness and promote our growth as individuals while we plod
along on our way to a career as a better doctor, educator, researcher, or
whatever else.
Thank you all for your kind attention to this process.
Bron Skinner
I received no further communication from the individual who wrote the anony-
mous feedback. I received assurances from some that they had not experienced such
behaviors in their interactions with me, so I gained some confidence that this was
most likely an isolated case. I did hear from one faculty member who indicated that
she had not written the note but had been able to identify with the sentiments con-
tained in them with respect to our interactions. We had both worked on a project
to implement Spanish immersion into our first year of residency training. I was not
surprised when she indicated that she had had some concerns about our interac-
tions. I had not been totally comfortable with her approach to the project either.
But neither of us had made an opportunity to address our mutual discomfort.
We subsequently had a very useful conversation about our interactions during
the project and identified the behaviors that had generated the feelings. We spent
some time identifying the misperceptions and assumptions we each had made that
had contributed to our discomfort with one another. It turned out largely to be a
function of radically different work styles, which were really quite complementary.
406 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 407
�
Her approach is open, creative, outside-the-box, and open to possibility. Mine tends
to be more linear, analytical, and limited by boundaries I perceive. I needed her cre-
ativity to get the project to happen, and she needed my linearity to make sure the
details were covered in its implementation. When we could view it this way, we
could then see how to use our respective strengths to work cooperatively together.
See Chapter Fifty-Five, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,”
page 437.
The following year, we did the Spanish immersion, and it went much more
smoothly for both of us because we had taken the opportunity to have a conversa-
tion about how to work together effectively. That success stemmed from a willing-
ness on both our parts to work in a nonblaming way through the perceptions we
had of one another.
Chapter 50 • Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System | 407
59_964948 ch50.qxd 3/3/05 10:08 AM Page 408
60_964948 ch51.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 409
Chapter 51
Do Surveys Provide Valid
Information for
Organizational Change?
Peg Carlson
Survey-guided organization development refers to the process of using ques-
tionnaires to systematically collect information from organization members and
feeding back the data to individuals and groups at all levels of the system (French and
Bell, 1984). The goal is to “facilitate development by taking a snapshot of the orga-
nization and supervisory workgroups, presenting the picture to relevant groups, and
giving them a benchmark against which to improve” (Born and Mathieu, 1996,
p. 400). Survey questions typically cover such topics as communication, supervisor-
employee relations, pay and benefits, organizational climate, and career opportunities.
This type of organizational intervention started in the late 1940s and remains a pop-
ular method of initiating organizational change by external and internal consultants
and change agents.
Surveys can generate a tremendous amount of information about employees’
experience in the organization and how they are thinking and feeling about their
work. Much has been written on how to develop good survey questions and ana-
lyze the results, as well as how to use surveys to facilitate organizational change (see,
for example, Church and Waclawski, 1998). However, the most significant diffi-
culties I have encountered in using surveys as part of an organization development
process are not addressed by traditional guidance on how to develop and conduct
surveys. These conflicts stem from my attempts to act consistent with the core val-
ues when using surveys to guide organization development.
In theory, the core values and survey-guided organization development share
the same goal of generating valid information. In practice, the information surveys
provided and the methods used to generate that information are not consistent with
the core values.
During my graduate work at the Survey Research Center at The University of
Michigan, I developed an appreciation for the value of a good survey, especially for
establishing baselines and trends over time in large populations. Surveys such as
In theory, the
core values and
survey-guided
organization development
share the same goal
of generating valid infor-
mation. In practice, the
information surveys pro-
vided and the methods
used to generate that infor-
mation are not consistent
with the core values.
409
60_964948 ch51.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 410
�
From the Skilled
Facilitator perspec-
tive, however, this
anonymity limits the validity
of the data. The goal is to
give specific, usable infor-
mation to make changes,
but the use of objective rat-
ing scales and anonymous
comment sections on sur-
veys limits the gathering
of valid information about
what is really occurring, in-
cluding symptoms, under-
lying causes, and possible
consequences. Moreover,
anonymity masks the very
information that is needed
for feedback to make
changes.
Monitoring the Future have provided a wealth of information about teenage health,
drug use, and other important issues. My concerns are about surveys used to gather
data as part of an organizational change process and the increasing reliance on them
as a tool for individual behavior change. In this chapter, I identify areas where I
think standard survey practice clashes with the Skilled Facilitator approach and offer
my thoughts on the consequences of that clash.
COMPONENTS OF SURVEY-GUIDED
DEVELOPMENT
Although there is variation in how specific surveys are developed and administered,
some elements are virtually universal. These standard survey components include
promising respondents anonymity, aggregating responses by work group or depart-
ment, presenting feedback to small groups, and developing a plan of action based
on the survey findings.
Promising Anonymity and Aggregating Responses
It is common practice to promise survey respondents that their individual responses
will not be identified in the survey results. Objective scale items are presented as ag-
gregate scores of some organizational unit of a reasonable size, and employees are
encouraged to write comments in a way that maintains anonymity. The assumption
that people must be guaranteed anonymity in order to provide honest feedback is
a bedrock premise of survey research.
From the Skilled Facilitator perspective, however, this anonymity limits the va-
lidity of the data. The goal is to give specific, usable information to make changes,
but the use of objective rating scales and anonymous comment sections on surveys
limits the gathering of valid information about what is really occurring, including
symptoms, underlying causes, and possible consequences. Moreover, anonymity
masks the very information that is needed for feedback to make changes.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for the core values of
the mutual learning model, and Chapter Forty-Nine, “360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled
Facilitator Approach,” page 391, for a more detailed discussion of the dilemmas created by promis-
ing anonymity to respondents.
Feeding Back the Data to Small Groups and
Developing an Action Plan
The survey-guided organization development process does recognize that the survey
results may not be explanatory on their own. To clarify what is behind the ratings,
most efforts start with doing feedback in small groups at this point. Typically this
410 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
60_964948 ch51.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 411
happens in a cascade fashion in which top management hears survey results first.
Feedback sessions then take place throughout the rest of the organization with the
aid of a process consultant. In these feedback sessions, the expectation is that super-
visors in particular are to hear more details about the problems identified and ideas
for improvement. In addition to clarifying survey results, these sessions are intended
to create momentum and motivation for organizational change. There are two im-
pediments to this, rooted in the promise of anonymity and the cascade process.
My experience is that once people have been promised anonymity at the outset, it
sets up an expectation of unilateral protection that tends to carry through the rest of
the process. While employees may be willing to discuss results that are at a more global
level, they are less willing to give examples that risk revealing themselves as the source
of the data. Indeed, I have facilitated survey feedback sessions in which employees felt
betrayed even to have been asked to explain the ratings. Why would an employee ex-
plain the reason behind a low rating on an item such as “My manager inspires trust”
after the survey process initially set up—indeed, promised—the expectation of con-
fidentiality? The whole point of the anonymous survey, in his view, was so that the
manager would get the message without having to confront him directly.
Unfortunately, this limits the sharing of the specific information necessary to
bring about effective change. This is because creating and sustaining change require
a high level of internal commitment by the individuals in the organization. To be
able to commit, individuals need the data to be valid. The core value of valid in-
formation does not simply mean that the information is accurate; validity also refers
to the quality of the information. For example, a low response to the survey item,
“The current organizational structure helps different departments cooperate and
work together effectively,” carries its intended meaning, but it does not provide the
concrete examples needed to allow others to understand what or when cooperation
is lacking or what the respondents’ expectations for working together are.
Because survey respondents are not identified, their sentiments cannot be inde-
pendently verified, another component of valid information. They are not expected
to be able to provide specific examples, since specific examples can lead to identifica-
tion. This creates a one-sided kind of accountability, where the people receiving the
survey results, usually management, are held to be responsive to the survey results, but
the responsibility of the survey respondents stops at having completed the survey.
As Chris Argyris (1994) writes, “Employee surveys . . . encourage employees not
to reflect on their own behaviors and attitudes. By assigning all the responsibility for
fixing problems to management, they encourage managers not to relinquish the top-
down, command-and-control mindset that prevents empowerment” (p. 83). This
view is reinforced by the cascade process that, by design, emphasizes the sharing of
the results with managers, first by the direct report of the survey results and then by
additional live feedback from employees. This creates a dynamic in which it is em-
ployees’ responsibility to raise issues and management’s responsibility to fix them.
This creates a
one-sided kind of
accountability,
where the people receiving
the survey results, usually
management, are held
to be responsive to
the survey results, but
the responsibility of the
survey respondents stops
at having completed
the survey.
Chapter 51 • Do Surveys Provide Valid Information for Organizational Change? | 411
60_964948 ch51.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 412
CONCLUSION
The survey is not an end in itself. It is a snapshot of the state of an organization at
a given time. As such, surveys are extremely useful for identifying trends and point-
ing toward areas that need further exploration, but by themselves, they do not de-
liver the motivation for group and individual change that they often promise. This
has led to the assumption that people are resistant to change and the development
of many strategies to remedy this. I do not believe that this is correct. I believe that
the design of the survey process makes it an ineffective tool for getting people to
reflect on their own work and behavior. Rather than encouraging the individual ac-
countability that is consistent with commitment to organizational change, it focuses
attention on supervisors and upper management, thus perpetuating a patriarchal
structure that fosters dependence, not empowerment.1
Instead of looking for ways to overcome resistance to change, an alternative is
to devise ways to give people more of the valid information that they need to make
informed choices that generate internal commitment. In my experience, surveys do
not provide an implementation strategy for bringing about change. I believe that a
different type of discussion around organizational problems and how to address
them, centered on questions like, “What goes on in this organization that has pre-
vented you from questioning these practices and getting them changed?” is more
likely to yield information that can motivate learning and produce real change.
Resource
Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,
1993.
Note
1. For an excellent discussion of the effects of a patriarchal, top-down culture,
see Stewardship by Peter Block.
References
Argyris, C. “Good Communication That Blocks Learning.” Harvard Business Review,
July-Aug. 1994, pp. 77–85.
Born, D. H., and Mathieu, J. E. “Differential Effects of Survey-Guided Feedback: The
Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Poorer.” Group and Organization Management,
1996, 21, 388–404.
Church, A. H., and Waclawski, J. Designing and Using Organizational Surveys. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
French, W. L., and Bell, C. H., Jr. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Inter-
ventions for Organization Improvement. (3rd ed.) Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, 1984.
412 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 413
Chapter 52
Using the Skilled
Facilitator Approach
in Different and
Multiple Cultures
Anne Davidson
As people learn our approach to facilitation, they frequently express concern about
whether it will work in “other” cultures. The general reaction is that the ground rules
and core values are very Western. People usually infer that Middle Eastern and Sino-
Confucian cultures, in particular, place more value on being indirect and saving face.
They say that they cannot imagine openly questioning people, discussing all relevant
information, or even working for free and informed choice in those cultures.
THE MULTINATIONAL REALITY
My colleagues and I use the Skilled Facilitator approach frequently and successfully
with other cultures. Sometimes we are facilitating in another country and work-
ing with the predominant culture there. More often, we are working, both in the
United States and abroad, with multinational cultures. Seldom are only one or two
ethnicities represented in any group we work with. Most of our clients are located
in multiple countries and recruit talent around the globe.
Most of us, in fact, are members of multiple cultures. We find ourselves mov-
ing among the culture of our family of origin, the culture of the organization where
we work, the subculture of our area of professional expertise, and the culture of the
religious tradition we have adopted or grew up in, to name just a few. It is critical
not to assume which set of values, beliefs, and practices is primary in any given sit-
uation, as it is equally important not to make assumptions based on simplistic stereo-
types of the culture of an entire country.
Roger often tells the story of consulting to a group of fifteen individuals in a
global organization that represented all continents:
413
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 414
At one point while meeting, the subject turned to what cultural norms,
including ground rules, should be used when the group was working
together. A man from France said to a woman from Japan that when he
was in a group that included her, he intentionally did not say certain things
because he “knew” that saving face is important in her culture. The woman
from Japan said something like, “I appreciate that you have thought about
my culture and are sensitive to the possible cultural differences. But I don’t
appreciate that you assume that I wanted to be treated the same way as
my culture without asking me.” They then had a group conversation in
which they jointly designed the group norms with which they would treat
each other.
As this story illustrates, Skilled Facilitator principles are especially valuable in
helping us test our assumptions and stay open to surprises.
SURPRISING REACTIONS IN RUSSIA
One of our multinational clients afforded me the opportunity to work with the top
staff in their Moscow office, the management team for Russian operations:
All of the team members are multilingual. They are highly trained, many
holding multiple university degrees from an array of well-respected schools
in the United States, Great Britain, and Russia. All speak English, most of
them fluently, and that was the language of our training and facilitation. On
the surface, this group seemed more like a typical U.S. team than most I
have worked with in other countries. Yet this team probably had more con-
cerns and fears about using the ground rules than any other group I have
facilitated. Many said that their cultural and political background made
openly asking questions and testing inferences extremely frightening.
Some trembled or perspired heavily just trying to role-play testing an
assumption or explaining their reasoning and intent.
Most of the staff told us that they were raised in the Soviet Union in a
time when openly questioning authority could result in severe punishment,
up to imprisonment and even death. Although the system is structured dif-
ferently now, values and attitudes seem not to have changed all that much.
Authority is not questioned. Espoused values are more collectivist than
individualistic.
In writing about the key dimensions along which cultures vary, Ziegahn (2001)
points out that individualistic cultures like the United States value self-reliance,
autonomy, and equality, whereas “collectivist cultures tend to value group effort and
harmony and knowing one’s place in society” (p. 2). Individualistic cultures may
equate hierarchy with rigidity and denial of equal opportunity for everyone.
“Conversely, hierarchy may be valued in more collectivist cultures as a means of
acknowledging innate differences and inequalities and of facilitating communication
414 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 415
through the recognition of various social levels such as titles and roles” (p. 3).
Whether this characterization is true of Russian culture in general, it accurately de-
scribes the way I experienced the culture in the management team I worked with.
Individuals were acknowledged and rewarded by formal role, not by their personal
effort. While disagreeing with the boss might seem risky in a U.S. organization, doing
so is a much more blatant violation of social values in a collectivist culture.
Individuals did not openly raise concerns in the management group. That
was seen as disagreeing with authority and violating the norm of knowing
one’s place. Disagreement was problematic not only for the boss and the
one who spoke up; it upset the foundational structure for the entire group.
One of the important outcomes of our facilitation occurred when the
members of the staff referred to as the expatriates or expats (the few top
officers, who were primarily U.S. and U.K. citizens) raised their concerns
about how “disrespectful” the Russian nationals were of the expatriates’
authority. In defining what “disrespectful” meant and getting specific exam-
ples, it turned out that the Russian nationals engaged in frequent side
conversations. The British, in particular, were highly offended by this prac-
tice because they interpreted it as a gesture of disrespect. That assump-
tion had colored many interactions between the two groups, but no one
believed it could be openly raised or discussed in the larger management
team.
When the group did talk through the issue with our help, the Russian
nationals shared that side conversations had exactly the opposite intent
from what the expatriates inferred. The Russians were taught in school
never to interrupt the teacher while he or she was lecturing. Anyone who
had a question asked it of a person sitting nearby. Side conversations in
their culture are meant as a sign of respect for the speaker. They com-
mented that if we watched their national congress meetings on television,
we would frequently see multiple side conversations going on while some-
one was speaking. With this understanding, the group reached agreement
about how to handle the issue: the expatriates would let the Russian staff
know if a side conversation was particularly distracting, and the Russians
would practice openly raising questions and issues that they thought would
be relevant for the entire group. Each group would continue to give feed-
back to the other about this issue.
Yet despite this conversation, which had the potential to dramatically
improve the ability of the management team members to work together, the
group was reluctant to adopt the ground rules as team norms. Every mem-
ber believed he or she could not find even a subset of the rules that all
could support using. The dilemma was this: the management team mem-
bers were unwilling to test assumptions and inferences publicly, and they
were unwilling for others to do so; this felt too risky to them. Setting up a
process in which individuals were asked to test their assumptions about
others in a group or asked to reveal their own mental models as distinct
from the group mental model was a radical and much more threatening
shift than it would be in my own culture.
Chapter 52 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Different and Multiple Cultures | 415
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 416
�
Without being able
to test inferences,
I couldn’t and
can’t see a way to use the
Skilled Facilitator approach
to help a group be more
effective.
There seemed
very little concern
about or resistance
to practicing the skills in
the work context. Some
even said that with proper
explanation and adequate
translation, they felt the
ground rules and core val-
ues could be productively
used in other arenas in
their home countries.
Without being able to test inferences, I couldn’t and can’t see a way to use the
Skilled Facilitator approach to help a group be more effective. I had initially assumed
that the ground rules and core values would be a better fit for this group than for
some of the more culturally diverse groups I have facilitated. I did not anticipate
the barriers involved.
See Testing Assumptions and Inferences, page 62, and the Ladder of Inference sidebar, page 63, in
Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups.”
ACCEPTANCE IN A MULTINATIONAL
ORGANIZATION
By contrast, my colleague Sue McKinney provided me the opportunity to work with
an international nongovernmental organization for several years that has offices and
staff in sixteen countries.
In one memorable training session, the class materials were half in English and
half in Spanish. Participants came from a wide array of countries, including Vietnam,
Kenya, India, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Mexico, Bolivia, and Brazil. Despite the challenges
of working across so many different cultures, with translators who did not know our
approach and struggled to find accurate translations for some of our terminology, the
group became quite excited about using the approach in their work together.
Many participants did say that they had some hesitation about using the skills
in their personal lives. Conversations using the ground rules felt very different from
their cultural norms. But the group members were virtually unanimous in finding
the skills valuable for their work lives. They said that many of their most difficult
conversations were with the home office in the United States, testing assumptions
and inferences about decisions and about what would or would not work in their
home countries.
There seemed very little concern about or resistance to practicing the skills in
the work context. Some even said that with proper explanation and adequate trans-
lation, they felt the ground rules and core values could be productively used in other
arenas in their home countries.
Most of these individuals are much more experienced at working with and across
international boundaries and barriers than those of us who come from traditional
North American cultures, and they find the Skilled Facilitator a useful approach.
ADDRESSING THE DILEMMAS
One of the ways the Skilled Facilitator approach can be most helpful is in addressing
a dilemma faced by most multinational organizations: whether to insist on uniform
standards worldwide, adjust the company standards to local customs, or try to decide
on a case-by-case basis. Leonard Brooks (1998), executive director of the Clarkson
416 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 417
Centre for Business Ethics at the University of Toronto, points out that each of these
choices has advantages and risks. Uniform standards around issues like nepotism can
make it almost impossible to do business in cultures where a primary value is duty to
family. But case-by-case decisions can lead to everyone ignoring standards across the
board. And Brooks points out that it is increasingly problematic for organizations to
adopt local customs that differ considerably from those of their parent culture, par-
ticularly in areas of child labor laws, health and safety standards, and environmental
protection. Actions seen as unprincipled by stakeholders in the home culture can lead
to significant problems in public perception for an organization. Consumers may or-
ganize boycotts. There are no easy solutions. Learning to have more productive con-
versations, test assumptions, focus on interests, explain reasoning and intent, and
discuss what was previously considered undiscussable seem the most productive strate-
gies to address these issues globally.
Of course, it is difficult to use the Skilled Facilitator approach to address issues
if one cannot even raise the issues. And to set up an environment where concerns
can be openly discussed is particularly challenging for a facilitator from one culture
who is calling into question values built into someone else’s culture. Yet one of our
assumptions is that the very strategies that create difficulty (face saving, easing in,
keeping concerns private) are learned early in life, embedded in one form or another
in every culture we have encountered.
When we raise problems with an organizational culture, we are also question-
ing the national culture that gives rise to organizational norms. So far, I find the
most helpful and productive approach to be naming the dilemmas and using mu-
tual learning strategies to explain my reasons for questioning cultural values and dif-
ferences. This still feels uncomfortable when I am working in a predominant culture
that I do not profess to fully appreciate or understand. I hope in the future to have
wise partners from a wide range of backgrounds who can work with me and help
expand my understanding.
TESTING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONTINUING
THE CONVERSATION
We have a lot to learn. My primary advice is not to make assumptions about what
will and will not work. Respect that each individual differs and that we need to give
each as informed a choice as possible about whether and how to use the skills rather
than assuming they will or will not take the risk of trying them.
The more I work across cultures, the less different I find people’s fundamental
interests. What does vary widely is the importance of a particular value or social
virtue. For example, the informed choice on which the Skilled Facilitator approach
is based may be valued so differently that our very attempt to offer choice or test
agreement may create defensiveness. With the team in Russia, individual choice and
When we raise
problems with an
organizational
culture, we are also
questioning the national
culture that gives rise to
organizational norms.
Chapter 52 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Different and Multiple Cultures | 417
61_964948 ch52.qxd 3/3/05 10:09 AM Page 418
The Skilled Facilita-
tor has been trans-
lated into Korean.
We are currently exploring
translations into Chinese,
Japanese, Indonesian, and
Spanish. We have made
some initial attempts in
Spanish and French, but
these are not well tested for
clarity and usefulness, and
the teaching examples are
still very much based in
U.S. culture.
individual difference were not considered nearly as important as preserving group
structure and harmony. It is possible that the way we test our ideas about cultural
differences—by asking direct questions—is itself an artifact of our own culture, so
our very test may or may not be valid. I taught in western North Carolina for a num-
ber of years where the traditionally raised Cherokee students in my classroom did
not ask questions and never looked at me directly. They told me that they had not
yet earned the right to speak before the tribe. Calling on them to answer a question
in class made them intensely uncomfortable. Trying to ask them questions to test in-
ferences would not generate valid data.
Facilitating and working across cultures is complex. It leaves me with more ques-
tions than answers. I do not know whether the Skilled Facilitator approach can work
in all or most cultures. And I do not know if the mutual learning core values match
the aspirations of people raised in other cultures. I suspect that many elements can
work in most cultures, but we will not know that until many more people under-
stand this work and test it skillfully. One of the problems is that the concepts and
training materials have not been translated into multiple languages by knowledgeable
practitioners.
People cannot always readily identify or reflect on their most deeply held val-
ues, so understanding them requires patient, curious conversation. I believe that we
should continue to explore our similarities and differences, sharing our questions
and yearnings for deeper discussions, and inviting others to join us in discovering
what works and what does not. I am curious and optimistic about what we can
accomplish.
References
Brooks, L. J. “Doing Business in Foreign Cultures.” Remarks made to the Canadian Centre
for Ethics and Corporate Policy, Toronto, Mar. 4, 1998. [www.ethicscentre.ca].
Ziegahn, L. Considering Culture in the Selection of Teaching Approaches for Adults.
Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education,
2001.
418 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.ethicscentre.ca
62_964948 pt07.qxd 3/3/05 10:10 AM Page 419
PART SEVEN
Integrating the Skilled
Facilitator Approach
in Your Worklife
(and Non-Worklife)
Many of our colleagues and clients have integrated the Skilled Facilitator
approach with their own areas of expertise and with other facilitative roles. We have
as well. When used consistently throughout roles and in different situations, this
approach becomes a way of being in the world rather than a way to fill a particular
role. The chapters in Part Seven describe a variety of these examples; we hope they
inspire you to explore how you might make your own work more powerful in help-
ing, working, and living with others.
Dick McMahon opens Part Seven with Chapter Fifty-Three, “The Drama Tri-
angle: A Unilateral Control Program for Helping Others.” He presents a powerful
and elegant model for understanding how, by making untested inferences and as-
sumptions, we create a dynamic in which we become rescuers, persecutors, and vic-
tims. He also explains the steps to take to avoid getting into this triangle. Guillermo
Cuéllar also shows how some of our fundamental assumptions and values lead us
to see the world as either a hostile place in which we seek to survive or a place of
possibility in which we can be creative. In Chapter Fifty-Four, “Using Creative and
Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models,” he illustrates how to identify a
survival cycle and shift to a creative cycle.
Individual differences among group members are a potential source of learning
and creativity if members can learn how to use differences to the group’s advantage.
In Chapter Fifty-Five, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator,” Anne Davidson first describes how the popular personality assessment
tool identifies differences in the way we prefer to see and judge things. Then she pro-
vides guidelines for using the Skilled Facilitator approach to help group members
with differing types work together more effectively.
Chris Soderquist shows how he helps groups develop a shared mental map of
their situation and agree on solutions to complex problems by using operational sys-
tems thinking tools. In Chapter Fifty-Six, “Applying The Skilled Facilitator
62_964948 pt07.qxd 3/3/05 10:10 AM Page 420
Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis,” he illustrates how combining the two
approaches makes each more powerful.
In Part One, we explained that you can apply the mind-set and skill set of the
Skilled Facilitator approach to other roles. We listed several roles: facilitative leader
(which we explored in Part Five), facilitative coach, facilitative consultant, and
facilitative trainer. In the second half of Part Seven, we explore these and other roles.
In Chapter Fifty-Seven, “The Facilitative Coach” Anne Davidson and Dale Schwarz
describe their coaching model, which includes integrating the Skilled Facilitator
approach with four facets of coaching: the inner work of the coach, the purpose of
coaching, the inner work of the client, and the coaching relationship.
Sue McKinney and Matt Beane, in Chapter Fifty-Eight, “Becoming a Facilita-
tive Trainer,” first describe how trainers often design and lead their training in a
unilaterally controlling way that undermines the very learning and commitment
they seek from participants. Then they, and Diane Florio in a sidebar, illustrate how
to apply the principles of the Skilled Facilitator approach to effectively address a va-
riety of training issues, including dealing with questions, conducting exercises, taking
breaks, and exploring participant concerns.
Using facilitative skills as a consultant adds value for clients. Harry Furukawa
demonstrates this in Chapter Fifty-Nine, “Being a Facilitative Consultant.”
Peg captures the perspective of the Skilled Facilitator approach as a way of being
in Chapter Sixty, “Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach as a Parent.” Through hu-
morous and poignant examples, she shows how she uses the approach with her chil-
dren and helps them learn it too.
As the final two chapters demonstrate, the Skilled Facilitator approach is robust
enough that it can be used in what might seem doubtful circumstances. Turning to
politics, Steve Kay recounts his experience as a facilitative leader in Chapter Sixty-One,
“Running for Office in a Unilaterally Controlling World.” Verla Insko takes this theme
to the next step in Chapter Sixty-Two, “Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in
Public Office.” As an elected (and reelected) state representative in the North Carolina
General Assembly, she details how she helped a diverse group of stakeholders (con-
sumers, advocates, public and private providers, and state-level administrators) build
a consensus and pass key mental health legislation.
As you read the chapters in Part Seven, we encourage you to think about your
own work and your life outside work and how integrating it with the Skilled Facil-
itator approach may make it more useful and more rewarding for you and those you
engage with.
420 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 421
�
Chapter 53
The Drama Triangle
A Unilateral Control Program
for Helping Others
Dick McMahon
See the unilateral control model in Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,”
page 33.
The drama triangle is a powerful approach to understanding our unilaterally con-
trolling behavior. It consists of three primary roles that we unknowingly assume
when we do not test assumptions or inferences that we make regarding relation-
ships. These roles are the rescuer, persecutor, and victim.
We enter or take a role in the drama triangle as helpers with benevolent inten-
tions. Sometimes we enter the rescuer role, believing we know what is best for the
other person. We may assume a persecutor role when we try to control the behav-
ior of others in the belief that they have acted irresponsibly by seemingly disobey-
ing the rules or failing to follow orders or acting inconsistent with our expectations.
And on occasion we assume the victim role: we doubt our own capabilities and ask
others to tell us what to do in an effort to avoid taking responsibility, enabling oth-
ers to ultimately control our destiny.
Stephen Karpman (1968) introduced the drama triangle in an article focused
on the dynamics of psychological games as defined in Transactional Analysis. His
contribution provides an approach for understanding how many relationships lack
authenticity and are likely to result in deepening dependency, failure, and rebellion
rather than in an increased ability to solve problems and grow. Karpman’s insights
are reinforced and affirmed by Sheldon Kopp’s penetrating insights (1976) into
power relationships and the victim role. When I began to work with Chris Argyris’s
theories, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the drama triangle concept is con-
sistent with what Argyris calls a Model I theory-in-use, here labeled the unilateral
control model.1 Argyris’s social virtue of “help” as defined from a unilateral control
perspective informs the design of the rescue role in the drama triangle.
The drama triangle
consists of three
primary roles that
we unknowingly assume
when we do not test as-
sumptions or inferences
that we make regarding re-
lationships. These roles
are the rescuer, persecu-
tor, and victim.
421
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 422
The three roles of
persecutor, res-
cuer, and victim
form the pattern of interac-
tion Karpman labels the
drama triangle
The drama triangle provides significant insights into how we design our be-
haviors in a manner consistent with our unilateral control theory-in-use even when
we think we are being helpful, righteously directive, or modestly self-effacing. Un-
derstanding drama triangle dynamics and how to avoid them is a powerful way for
all of us in helping professions and leadership positions to redesign our relationships
to be authentic, effective, and consistent with mutual learning.
THE BASIS OF INAUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIPS
Karpman (1968) refers to relationships that are based on untested assumptions and
inferences as role relationships as opposed to authentic relationships. An authentic
relationship is one in which we take action based on our mutually determined un-
derstanding of the relationship and where each person feels free to make choices
about actions to be taken. In role relationships, we act on assumptions or inferences
that we believe to be true but we have not tested. Thus, we end up discounting the
other person’s skills, abilities, or attitude, as well as his or her free choice. In the con-
text of this model, to discount means to deny the possibility that a capability, need,
or feeling actually exists or to consider a capability, need, or feeling unimportant.
In Kopp’s terms, when we see other adults as weaker than ourselves, we have
created an “illusion of power.” That is, we have discounted the other person’s
strengths and believe ourselves to be more powerful. Once a discount takes place,
we move to a position or role that is inauthentic and is consistent with the dis-
counted view of the situation. Furthermore, by acting on discounts that grow from
untested assumptions and attributions, we are unilaterally deciding what is best to do
in order to deal effectively with the situation.
DRAMA TRIANGLE ROLES
Karpman (1968) believes three role relationships frequently determine behavior:
persecutor, rescuer, and victim. Each role is initiated by a set of untested assump-
tions about the other person. These three roles form the pattern of interaction
Karpman labels the drama triangle (Figure 53.1).
The Persecutor
A person in the persecutor role (1) is critical of the actions of another person and
either doesn’t understand the reasons behind the actions or attributes a negative in-
tent to that person whether or not negative intent exists and (2) offers judgmental
and nonspecific criticism.
The persecutor victimizes the other person by belittling the person or re-
sponding in ways that make that person feel inadequate, ashamed, or incompetent.
The persecutor feels righteous, vindicated, or responsible for dealing with the
422 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 423
Figure 53.1 The Drama Triangle
Persecutor Rescuer
Victim
Source: Karpman (1968). Used by permission of Dr. Stephen B. Karpman.
situation. For example, when a supervisor gives an employee inadequate or incom-
plete instructions and then criticizes the employee for not doing things to the su-
pervisor’s satisfaction, the supervisor is in the persecutor role. Persecutors feel
righteous or vindicated inasmuch as they see themselves as responsible for correcting
the action or making things right.
The Rescuer
A person in the rescuer role (1) discounts another person’s ability to handle his or
her own problems and (2) attempts to “help” by doing for that person what he or
she could and should do for himself or herself. As an example of a rescuer, a twelve-
year-old child complains to his mother that the grade he received was unfair. He
would not take his complaint to the teacher so the mother rescues him by going to
the teacher on his behalf and complaining about the grade. The rescuer gets his or
her needs met by appearing helpful, but the help actually creates a victim whose
ability to take responsibility for his own actions has been discounted. The approach
also limits the learning opportunities of victims.
The Victim
People in the victim role (1) discount their own ability, knowledge, or skill and (2)
end up with someone else either taking care of them (rescuing) or criticizing (per-
secuting) them. Individuals are in a victim role when they try to place the respon-
sibility for their own success or failure on someone else rather than trying to solve
their own problems or acting appropriately and consistently with their own abili-
ties. For example, you may be in a victim role if you find yourself overwhelmed
with work. Your supervisor asks you to take on an important new task. You assume,
without testing, that if you do not do the task, your supervisor will consider you
Chapter 53 •
A person in the
persecutor role (1)
is critical of the ac-
tions of another person
and either doesn’t under-
stand the reasons behind
the actions or attributes a
negative intent to that per-
son whether or not nega-
tive intent exists and
(2) offers judgmental
and nonspecific criticism.
A person in the
rescuer role (1)
discounts another
person’s ability to handle
his or her own problems
and (2) attempts to “help”
by doing for that person
what he or she could and
should do for himself or
herself.
People in the victim
role (1) discount
their own ability,
knowledge, or skill and (2)
end up with someone else
either taking care of them
(rescuing) or criticizing
(persecuting) them.
The Drama Triangle | 423
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 424
either unhelpful or ineffective. You may also assume that the supervisor wouldn’t
find another person if you did tell him you could not take on the task. You end up
doing the task, knowing it will take your evenings and weekends and you feel
victimized.
Here’s a typical example of the dynamics of the drama triangle:
A young professional woman, Midge, lived in a two-bedroom home. She
chose to live by herself in this home because she valued her alone time,
and the home gave her plenty of room to work and study. Midge’s friend
Sallie came to her one day and told her a sad story: she had lost her job,
she had very little money, and she was going to have to drop out of school
because she had nowhere to live and couldn’t afford an apartment. She
asked Midge if she could live with her for a few weeks until she got on her
feet (victim role). Sallie also said she would reimburse Midge for the cost of
rent and utilities after she got on her feet again. Although Midge was reluc-
tant to give up her space and freedom, she said that Sallie could move in
but that it couldn’t be for longer than a month. Despite her reluctance,
Midge agreed to the arrangement because she wanted to be seen as help-
ful (rescuer role). In other words, to control Sallie’s feelings toward her,
Midge decided to let her stay for a month.
After a month, Sallie had not improved her financial situation and
begged Midge to let her stay a little longer. Midge reluctantly agreed but
was beginning to feel frustrated and angry that Sallie wasn’t doing more to
find a job and get herself in a position to take care of herself. As it turned
out, Sallie stayed four months and paid no money to Midge. Finally, Midge
became so incensed at Sallie’s “irresponsible behavior” that she had an
angry confrontation with Sallie and insisted that Sallie leave, not caring
what happened to their relationship. Midge had moved into the persecutor
role.
After Sallie left, she found a job and began to do very well. Months
passed, and she had not paid Midge a penny of the money she owed.
Midge got angry and demanded that Sallie get responsible and pay what
she owed. Midge even attempted to set up a payment schedule for Sallie.
When the first payment of a hundred dollars came due, Sallie paid ten
dollars. Sallie is now in the role of Midge’s persecutor. Midge then decided
that the friendship did not mean anything to her and insisted that Sallie pay
what she owed.
Midge called Sallie and told her how irresponsible she was. Midge said
she did not want to hear from her again, essentially terminating the rela-
tionship and losing about a thousand dollars that Sallie owed her. Thus, the
result of her early rescue left Midge a victim in the win-lose (unilateral
control) context of the drama triangle. Midge had moved from rescuer
(agreeing to let Sallie stay in the first place) to victim (when Sallie failed to
leave at the agreed-on time) to persecutor, when she unilaterally acted
to throw Sallie out, and finally back to victim (when she lost both her money
and the friendship.)
424 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 425
This simple story illustrates some basic principles of the drama triangle:
• All victims play a part in their own victimization. People who fail, need help,
or are down on their luck contribute immeasurably to their problems.
• Every rescuer-victim transaction ultimately turns into a persecutor-victim
transaction, with the victim persecuting the rescuer. This is the predictable conse-
quence of rescue. Your victims will get you some way.
Sheldon Kopp speaks to this dynamic:
It is my very strong impression that in such bargains [implicitly accepting the
respective roles where one person takes responsibility for the other], the victim is
far more dangerous than the powerful, responsibility burdened caretaker. Beware
the helplessness gambit of the chronic victim! Some people typically get out from
under their own responsibilities in difficult situations (in which they would oth-
erwise have to take care of themselves) by acting helpless and weak in order to
invite others to do for them. . . . Should [we] arrogantly take on the role of care-
taker, then the helpless one will soon hold [us] in contempt for being a weak fool,
and what [we] offer will be returned as somehow not good enough [1976,
pp. 83–84].
• The triangle is a very stable structure; that is, people often move from one
role to another in a situation or relationship rather than redesigning the relation-
ship dynamics to get out of inauthentic roles altogether.
• Real help comes from those who enable others to help themselves. Such
individuals have confronted their illusions of power and do not enter into the
implicit contract of being responsible for the other person’s actions.
THE DRAMA TRIANGLE AND UNILATERAL
CONTROL DESIGNS
Like the unilateral control theory-in-use, the drama triangle is a design program in
our heads that enables us to maintain control of relationships, be rational, avoid
expressing negative feelings, and be right (win).
In this respect, it is consistent with Argyris’s description of the dynamics of a
Model I design: “I will use my theory in action to influence you. If I succeed, then
I will control you and win you over. This will lead you to be submissive to and
dependent on me. It is effective for me to make you ineffective. The paradox, if you
were to act toward me in the way I act toward you, then I could not act in the way
I intend. My theory of effectiveness will ultimately make me and other people in-
effective” (1990, p. 13).
All victims play a
part in their own
victimization. Every
rescuer-victim transaction
ultimately turns into a
persecutor-victim transac-
tion with the victim perse-
cuting the rescuer.
Like the unilateral
control theory-in-
use, the drama tri-
angle is a design program
in our heads that enables
us to maintain control of
relationships, be rational,
avoid expressing negative
feelings, and be right (win).
Chapter 53 • The Drama Triangle | 425
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 426
Argyris also suggests that the reason the unilateral control theory-in-use is so
common and so thoroughly taught is that part of our design program includes so-
cial virtues that we have learned through our experiences in society. These social
virtues such as help and support, honesty, respect of others, strength, and integrity
become defined so that they support unilateral control. Thus, the social virtue of
help is defined so that when we act in a helpful manner, we attempt to control the
situation, win rather than lose, be rational, and minimize creating or expressing neg-
ative feelings.
The impact of our unilateral control theory-in-use on our behavior may be ex-
plained in the following manner. In our interactions with others, we find ourselves
in situations where the other person is asking for help. We may not want to do what
the other person is asking us to do, but we feel compelled to do it because we do
not want him or her to feel bad (avoid negative feelings) and because we want to be
seen as helpful. If we refuse, we may be concerned that the person will become very
emotional (cry or get angry) and may see us as an unhelpful (or bad) person. Our
unilateral control theory-in-use also tells us that one way to control this situation is
to do what the other person wants.
The Rescue Approach
There are other occasions where someone we believe has had bad luck or tries hard
but is just not very capable fails to complete an assignment. When we confront the
person, he tells us a sad story about problems at home and the unusually difficult
time he had getting all the material necessary to complete the assignment. He may
appear emotionally upset, and we wonder if our insisting that he get the task com-
pleted might push him over the edge (untested attribution). At this point, we must
find a way to control the situation and make sure things are handled in a rational
manner. We also want to be viewed as a reasonable and helpful person. We may say,
“Well, why don’t you hand over the material you have collected, and I will see that
the task gets taken care of. Then you can get your other work up to date so that you
are not under so much stress.” The person agrees and thanks you for being so un-
derstanding. This is consistent with the definition of rescue. A more subtle rescue
might be to ask the person how much more time he needs and give him whatever
time he deems necessary to get the task completed. This strategy is usually accom-
panied by the empathic verbalizations and offers of continued help. Designing our
actions through the rescue paradigm has within it an implicit discount of the other
person’s ability to respond effectively to the situation.
Unilateral control definitions of being helpful do not include the consideration
that all people are inherently capable of handling life if they have the skills and de-
termination to do so. Nor is our role defined as helping them make informed choices
to do what they are capable of doing or helping them gain the knowledge and skills
426 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 427
to be able to make new choices. In the rescue design, we confirm another’s willing-
ness to accept failure as acceptable. In this way, we increase the likelihood that he
or she will fail in the future and come to expect and accept failure. That is, the
choices are informed by faulty data that we helped to affirm by our actions in res-
cuing the person. Thus, by designing behavior to reflect the social virtue of help-
ing, which includes not hurting other people’s feelings, we collude with the other
person in becoming a victim. In the process, we increase their sense of dependency
and submission and limit the possibility of new learning. As Argyris suggests, if you
are to be effective with your unilateral control theory-in-use (rescue approach), the
other person must be ineffective.
The Persecution Approach
The persecution dynamic operates similarly. It is initiated by a set of assumptions
and attributions concerning the other person’s failure to take responsibility, un-
willingness to work hard, or not caring. Any act that may be interpreted as con-
sistent with the negative assumptions we have made is greeted with a stern demand
that the other person improve or change her behavior. As a disciplinary or correc-
tive measure, she may be given a difficult assignment that is beyond her capability
or an assignment with an unrealistic deadline. When she fails to get it done, she
may be disciplined or subjected to ridicule. The action is self-fulfilling in that the
task is unlikely to be finished in a timely manner. When she fails to finish in a
timely fashion, it affirms for you her lack of commitment or sense of responsibility
(self-fulfilling). The important thing is not to let the person “get away with it” (in
other words, to control the situation). We must win by making her do the task or
disciplining her if she fails (win, don’t lose). We state that we will give her every
chance and use these opportunities to let her know how she has failed (act ratio-
nal). We make sure we follow the procedures and rules in our discipline (do not
express or create negative feelings). The process is self-sealing in that the person
did not have a chance to provide any information as to what might be a realistic
expectation.
At times, the persecutor may seem to do the opposite of minimizing negative
feelings. However, when anger is expressed in criticizing a victim who has acted
particularly irresponsibly, it is rationalized as consistent with the social virtue of
showing strength. This show of strength demonstrates that we are in control. Thus,
at times the value of minimizing expression of negative feelings may not be satisfied
because we shift the order of importance of values to fit the situation. In this in-
stance, we may believe it is more important to maintain control by showing strength
than it is to minimize the expression of negative feelings. This illustrates the way we
adopt different strategies to satisfice values across situations without fundamentally
shifting our design program or moving out of inauthentic roles.
Chapter 53 • The Drama Triangle | 427
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 428
The Victim Approach
The victim role is initiated by assumptions we make about ourselves. This is usu-
ally a result of discounting our capability, intelligence, or capacity to improve or
change. We accept the rescuer’s or persecutor’s assessment of the situation and
assume they will take care of things. In the victim role, we control the situation by
putting the responsibility for change on the other person and win by having the
other person confirm that we are in fact incapable or irresponsible. Consistent with
the unilateral control theory-in-use, we do this by admitting our culpability (being
rational) and by expressing positive emotions toward the other person.
Victims discount the persecutor’s or rescuer’s ability to truly help them change
(become more responsible or solving his or her own problems). Even those who
cleverly manipulate us into rescuing them are as surely victims as those who seem
to unwittingly assume the victim role. Their design is to control the other person
and do it through finding clever excuses that are often easily recognized but diffi-
cult to discount. In these cases, the feelings of the rescuer include a large portion of
anger and resentment toward the victim. These angry feelings set up the ultimate
persecution of the victim by the very person who had been the rescuer. Ultimately,
however, victims must win, and they do this by finding ways to discount the res-
cuer’s intention or capability or by making life difficult for the rescuer. The failed
victim will often tell the helper that he or she appreciates all the helper has done
and that the failure was all the victim’s fault. This may be manifest in the rescuer’s
having more and more work to do or having to spend more and more time keep-
ing up with things that the victim fails to accomplish.
When Helping Doesn’t Help
The drama triangle helps us to understand why some of the people we think we
have done the most to help are the ones who appreciate us the least. It also helps to
explain why we often find ourselves feeling angry and persecutory toward those
whom we felt most inclined to help. It is difficult to interact consistently from an
authentic role in situations that threaten us and move us to unilateral control design
programs. The drama triangle design is one of those programs that is consistent with
most of our social virtues. It is not surprising, then, that we may find ourselves
enacting any one of the drama triangle roles depending on the situation.
BEING HELPFUL AND AVOIDING THE
DRAMA TRIANGLE
Being helpful in a manner more consistent with mutual learning means influenc-
ing others in ways that allow them to use their own abilities, skills, or knowledge to
solve their problems. Help in mutual learning is also defined as providing individuals
428 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 429
with the necessary resources when they face genuinely insurmountable limitations.
The fundamental principle in authentic helping is making it possible for people in
need, whether a friend, child, employee, coworker, or customer, to solve their own
problems in a way that does not diminish them.
Avoiding Drama Triangle Roles
For those in the role of providing help, the following conditions are consistent with
avoiding drama triangle roles:
• Be confident in your abilities and motivated to foster competence in others.
Being in a helping position in order to enhance one’s own self-esteem or sense of
worth makes a person vulnerable to the rescuer, persecutor, or victim role.
• Approach others with positive expectations. This does not mean having
unrealistic expectations about how well things are going to go, but it does
mean that you expect others to have the ability, should they choose, to deal
with their own problems. The self-fulfilling prophecy is true: we often get
what we expect, good or bad.
• Understand that enhancing a person’s sense of confidence or self-worth
is most likely to occur when the person is successful in meeting new chal-
lenges. As a corollary to approaching others with positive expectations, it is
important that the helper set realistic but challenging expectations that move
the other person toward growth.
• Support any effort on an individual’s part to be more responsible and
effective. Appreciate the difficulty of change and the scary feelings often as-
sociated with it. For some, simple achievements such as taking full responsi-
bility for a task or project represent a major effort to overcome self-doubt.
• Be congruent. There must be similarity in what one says and does. This
means that a helper must act in accordance with his or her espoused beliefs,
values, and principles. Being congruent is essential if you are to be credible
and develop authentic, nonrole relationships.
• Clarify the consequences, and impose them when the individual’s be-
havior warrants it. This is essential to communicate the belief that each per-
son must be responsible for his or her behavior. The consequences should be
known beforehand and be reasonable for the situation.
• Accept no excuses for failure. Rather, focus on evaluating what happened and
explore with the individual what could have been done differently to be suc-
cessful. Accepting excuses for failure, no matter how well articulated or persua-
sive the excuse may be, discounts the individual’s ability to act more responsibly.
Chapter 53 • The Drama Triangle | 429
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 430
� See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75, on the systems principle of shift-
ing from blame to contribution.
• Do not do things you feel pressured to do for employees or coworkers.
For example, you do something for the employee because you feel if you don’t
take action, the employee will fail. Ask yourself if you have done all you can
to enable the individual to take appropriate action. Jointly determine with
the other person what could be done differently.
• When someone fails to carry out her responsibilities, confront the fail-
ure without conveying the feeling she has let you down. The individual
has let herself down; she is the victim of her own doing. Angry recriminations
(persecution) or feeling sorry for her (victimization) discount her ability to
do things differently.
• Verbally and emotionally support any effort on an individual’s part to
take responsible action if the person has the necessary skill, knowledge, and
understanding to take the action in the first place.
Specific Actions to Take (and Avoid)
Given the suggestions above, the following actions are considered consistent with
mutual learning help when taken in the proper context:
• Sharing relevant information
• Helping develop alternative actions to solve a problem
• Helping a coworker explore the consequences of possible actions
• Supporting responsible employee choices even though the choices might not
be choices you would make
• Open sharing of thoughts and feelings regarding an employee or coworker,
including giving individuals honest feedback regarding their behavior and
testing assumptions or attributions you may have made
• Giving an individual encouragement and support to try new behaviors
• Modeling responsible behavior, positive expectations, and honesty
Actions that diminish employee strengths include:
• Doing things for employees or coworkers they can do for themselves
• Doing things for an employee because the employee does not know how to
do something instead of trying to help the employee learn to do it
430 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 431
• Being critical of a person’s failure rather than helping him or her analyze the
failure and identify how to be more successful the next time
• Giving advice or telling an individual what to do (as opposed to sharing in-
formation and helping him define alternative courses of action)
• Giving an employee instructions to do something she does not have the skills,
experience, or knowledge to accomplish or failing to help the employee eval-
uate her preparedness to take an action or complete a task
• Providing employees or coworkers information they should have acquired
themselves because it is easier to do it that way
Resources
Argyris, C. Overcoming Organizational Defenses, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
1990.
Argyris, C. On Organizational Learning. (2nd ed.) Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1999.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. S. Organizational Learning II. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
l996.
Note
1. The works I use most frequently are Chris Argyris and Donald S. Schön,
Organizational Learning II (1996), and Chris Argyris, Overcoming Organi-
zational Defenses (1990) and On Organizational Learning (2nd ed., 1999).
References
Argyris, C. Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall,
1990.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. S. Organizational Learning II. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,
l996.
Karpman, S. “Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis.” Transactional Analysis Bulletin,
1968, 7(26), 39–43. [http://www.itaa-net.org/TAJNet/articles/karpman01.html].
Kopp, S. If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him! New York: Bantam, 1976.
Chapter 53 • The Drama Triangle | 431
http://www.itaa-net.org/TAJNet/articles/karpman01.html
63_964948 ch53.qxd 3/3/05 12:46 PM Page 432
64_964948 ch54.qxd 3/3/05 10:11 AM Page 433
Chapter 54
Using Creative and
Survival Cycles to See and
Shift Mental Models
Guillermo Cuéllar
Our mental models help shape our reality. They are the tour guides for our abil-
ity to explore, experiment, and achieve our desired intent. Our most fundamental
assumptions about the world, fear and love, create powerful self-fulfilling prophe-
cies. We can create for any situation, or about our life in general, a self-sustaining
virtuous cycle of creative awareness or a self-sustaining vicious cycle of fear and
reduced potential.
The Life Learning Model provides a framework for helping people examine
these fundamental assumptions. It is particularly useful when coaching executives,
facilitators, and other consultants and for doing developmental work with small
groups. Walking through the model provides powerful insights for individuals will-
ing to examine their theory-in-use at the deepest level: their basic assumptions about
what is possible in life.
The model is a guide to help understand the options and possibilities available
to us when confronted with life’s choices. We can view ourselves as having two basic
strategies: one is to create, and the other is to assimilate and survive.
When we create, we are driven by what is possible, by the alternatives embedded
in a situation, by an idea of our very own potential—what we want to do and cre-
ate. When we struggle to assimilate and survive, we are focused on our fears and
how to minimize or avoid threats—what we should do. The creative and survival
cycles are part of life and necessary. Sometimes we face situations that genuinely
threaten our life and well-being. Much of the time, there are innumerable creative
possibilities with which we could experiment. The problem for many of us, I believe,
is that our social conditioning and life experiences predispose us to focus on sur-
viving and to miss out on our creative potential for learning. We fail to discover and
mine our life’s true purpose—or even if we find it, we suboptimize the opportuni-
ties for living our truth and close out possibilities.
We can view our-
selves as having
two basic strate-
gies: one is to create, and
the other is to assimilate
and survive.
433
64_964948 ch54.qxd 3/3/05 10:11 AM Page 434
The Life Learning Model illustrates how we can get stuck in a survival frame
and how we might free ourselves from it (Figure 54.1). We start with the survival
cycle, because much of our social conditioning predisposes us to focus on risk and
threat. This makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint because our brains seem
hard-wired to ensure our survival—to quickly identify foes and respond with fight
or flight. The core assumptions of the survival cycle are fear and threat. We con-
stantly scan the environment for threats, anticipate fearful situations, think about
how to avoid danger, and cope using mental mandates. Our core values and
assumptions are rooted in a belief that the world is essentially a dangerous place; we
must always be on guard. Our responses are either to try to control difficult situa-
tions by winning and being suspicious of others’ motives or by going along with the
status quo.
In the survival cycle, we are primarily concerned about immediate outcomes
(the quick fix)—how to get out of a risky situation now. These assumptions about
the world create a survival vision through which we concentrate our attention on
Figure 54.1 The Life Learning Model
CREATIVE CYCLE SURVIVAL CYCLE
Identity is defined by self Identity is defined by others
CELEBRATION!
CREATIVE VISION
I like to…
DESIRED RESULTS
Fulfillment
ACTION
EXPERIMENTATION
ADDRESS
OBSTACLES
PURPOSE:
Discover
Potential and
Possibilities
DISAPPOINTMENT
UNDESIRED RESULTS
Suboptimal fulfillment
SURVIVAL VISION
I have to…
ADAPTATION-
ASSIMILATION
REACTION
AVOID
OBSTACLES
PURPOSE:
Protect,
Assimilate,
Adapt, and
Survive
OBSTACLES:
Internal and
External
Social core values and assumptions are where perceived obstacles emerge. They are both
conscious and unconscious and they influence our choice to address or avoid obstacles.
Creative Cycle Learning: Addressing obstacles Survival Cycle Learning: Avoiding
leads to seeing life’s experiences as experiments, obstacles reinforces the old strategies for
where observing and reflecting align our actions coping, colluding, and assimilating into
with our purpose and potential. fear-based responses.
Source: Cuéllar (1986).
434 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
64_964948 ch54.qxd 3/3/05 10:11 AM Page 435
perceived threats. Because our core values and assumptions create self-fulfilling
prophecies, the influence goes both ways: we view the world as threatening, we treat
others defensively, we get escalating resistance in return, and this “proves” to us that
we must constantly choose between avoiding or fighting. We “learn” that we must
approach situations with survival strategies. The actions we take generally achieve
our goals in the short run, but over time, our results are suboptimal at best. Our re-
lationships and projects may survive but do not thrive. This leads to disappoint-
ment, vague feelings of “brownout” or burnout, and further confirmation that the
world is not a supportive place. Our life purpose becomes struggling to survive. It
is easy to become locked in this vicious cycle.
The creative cycle, in contrast, begins with a fundamentally opposite assump-
tion: that the world is essentially a loving place, filled with potential and possibil-
ity. Our core values focus on learning and creating. We believe most people are
trying to act with integrity and that each situation is an opportunity to see things
differently and appreciate new perspectives. In the creative cycle, we seek the life
purpose that maximizes our talents and desires. Our vision is to live up to our fullest
potential, and we see learning opportunities in most situations. Our vision and
assumptions lead us toward creative, open responses to obstacles, so that they are
addressed rather than attacked or avoided. We move on rather than being stuck in
the tar of old issues. Our actions bring growth and progress. When we get some-
thing different from what we intended, we reflect, learn, and become stronger and
wiser. Our progress gives us cause for celebration, and our celebration renews our
energy for more and greater creativity, feeding our vision of the world as filled with
potential.
Both cycles are essential in our lives because we learn from one to understand
the other. There are times when we face genuine threats to life and livelihood, and
a survival response may be appropriate. Also, since the survival pattern contains
most of our habitual, unconscious responses to life, we become quite skilled at
getting much of what we want, at least initially, using these strategies. The problem
is that we have difficulty seeing the unintended consequences we get from applying
the survival strategies unnecessarily. Most of us do not readily see that there is an al-
ternative worldview that would serve us better. The opportunity to move from the
survival cycle to the creative cycle comes when we realize that our actions are giving
us undesired results. If we can examine our mental models, realign our core values
and assumptions, and adopt different strategies, we can often produce more fulfill-
ing results. Over time, we can align our actions with our deepest heartfelt values
and desires.
Reference
Cuéllar, G. “Creative and Survival Behaviors: Assessing a Creative Behavior Model.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, 1986.
Chapter 54 • Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models | 435
64_964948 ch54.qxd 3/3/05 10:11 AM Page 436
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 437
Chapter 55
The Skilled Facilitator
Approach and the
Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator
Anne Davidson
Have you ever attended a meeting or workshop where it sounds as if people are
speaking “alphabet soup”? “Oh, I am an ‘I,’ so I need that agenda ahead of time to
think about it.” Or “Well, I don’t have an ‘F’ bone in my body, so you will have to
be the one to worry about what will upset the staff.” Or, “We are totally different: he
is an ISTJ, and I am an ENFP. We drive each other crazy trying to get projects com-
pleted.” Chances are when you hear all these letters, people are “talking in type,”
that is, Myers-Briggs type.
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI ) is the most widely used personality
inventory in the world.1 It has a number of well-developed applications, including
personal and professional development, team development, conflict resolution, lead-
ership, coaching, family counseling, and education. Hundreds of scientific studies
conducted over the past fifty years validate the instrument and support its reliable
use. Consequently, many facilitators, coaches, and consultants use it in their work.
Clients often request the MBTI as a component of activities aimed at team build-
ing, boundary management, or improving communication. The instrument’s broad
use and widespread availability are both an advantage and a disadvantage. Because
it is relatively easy to obtain and administer, the MBTI can be very helpful in sort-
ing out the strengths and needs of coworkers and teammates. Nevertheless, the in-
strument is often misused, and information about preferences is frequently
oversimplified or misapplied. By integrating the values and principles of the Skilled
Facilitator approach with the MBTI, the use of each is enhanced.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the MBTI and discusses three ways
in which I combine using it with the Skilled Facilitator approach to: (1) help people
437
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 438
learn the skills of this approach, (2) augment group effectiveness, and (3) help fa-
cilitators and leaders develop personal awareness.
WHAT IS THE MBTI?
The MBTI is not a test, and it contains no right or wrong answers. It is simply an
indicator of how people prefer to take in information, make decisions, and organize
their lives. The instrument was originally developed as a way to understand and
apply the psychological theories of Carl G. Jung as first articulated in his 1921 book,
Psychological Types. Katherine C. Briggs studied the first English translation of that
book (1923). In 1942, she and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, began to develop
an instrument to help people identify their type preferences. Motivated by the out-
break of World War II, the two thought that appreciating type might help people
avoid destructive conflicts. As a practical application, they thought type might be
useful in matching individuals to the many new jobs and roles required by the war.
From 1942 to 1944, potential MBTI items were written and validated. Since that
time, the instrument has been widely researched, validated, and refined.2
Dimensions of Type
The MBTI sorts people’s preferences along four psychological dimensions or scales
(Table 55.1). Combinations of the eight different preferences (two for each dimen-
sion) result in sixteen distinct personality types. Each type is described by four let-
ters—one for the preference on each dimension. For example, an ENFP prefers
Extraversion, INtuition, Feeling, and Perceiving. An ISTJ prefers Introversion, Sens-
ing, Thinking, and Judging. The MBTI has specific definitions for each of the di-
mensions described. Extraversion and Judging, in particular, are frequently
misunderstood because the definitions of these terms are more specific than in gen-
eral use. Before making assumptions about how to interpret the Myers-Briggs scale,
consult one of the resources cited at the end of the chapter on properly administer-
ing and interpreting the instrument.
Interpreting the Dimensions
The preferences that make up a particular type are tendencies only. Everyone uses
all of the described dimensions (both extraversion and introversion, for example,
depending on the situation). We just prefer some dimensions more than others, tend
to use them more frequently, and thus tend to develop certain strengths and certain
blind spots. Also, the dimensions alone do not fully explain a particular type. The
interaction or dynamics of the preferences create the unique qualities of each type.
To interpret and apply type differences properly, one needs a thorough under-
standing of type dynamics and knowledge of each of the sixteen distinctions.
438 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 439
Table 55.1 MBTI Dimensions and Preferences
Dimensiona Related Dichotomy
Energizing—How and where
people get their energy
Extraversion–Introversion—Are you
energized by the outer world of people,
things, and activities or by your inner world
of ideas, impressions, and emotions?
Attending—What people pay
attention to when they gather
information
Sensing–Intuition—Do you focus on
concrete data gathered through the five
senses or on broad meanings, relationships,
and possibilities?
Deciding—How people go about
making decisions
Thinking–Feeling—Do you make decisions
based on logical, objective analysis, or do
you decide based more on personal and
social values?
Living—How people organize
their lives and relate to the
outside world
Judging–Perceiving—Do you deal with the
outer world in a planned, orderly way or in a
flexible, spontaneous way?
aBased on Hirsch and Kummerow (1989).
Understanding the dynamics of each type does provide insight into how peo-
ple learn, communicate, and interact with others. Thus, those preferring ENFP, for
example, might be characterized as big-picture thinkers who see a wide range of pos-
sibilities in each situation, enjoy working with people and ideas, and are sensitive
to the impact of their decisions on others. By contrast, those preferring ISTJ might
be characterized as thorough, systematic thinkers who attend carefully to detail and
like to work in a structured way to come to logical, practical conclusions. But these
characterizations are fairly high-level inferences that must be confirmed or discon-
firmed with each individual.
One of the ways the MBTI is commonly misused or misinterpreted is for peo-
ple to be told that type defines them—that type means they can or cannot develop
certain abilities. Type does not measure ability or intelligence. Individuals vary
widely within a single type, and so type cannot accurately predict how a particular
individual will respond to a given situation. In fact, the MBTI is intended primar-
ily as a tool for individuals to understand themselves. The purpose of the instru-
ment is to indicate places for them to look or preferences to consider. Using the
indicator helps people develop a language to reflect on their own preferences and
interactions. Type awareness points out how people filter information differently,
and it promotes curiosity about and tolerance for other perspectives. It also helps
individuals understand how they can adapt their style to interact more effectively
with people who have preferences very different from their own.
Chapter 55 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | 439
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 440
I find that how
people attend and
decide determines
what they find most chal-
lenging in using the Skilled
Facilitator approach.
HOW CAN TYPE BE USED WITH THE SKILLED
FACILITATOR APPROACH?
To use the MBTI well and consistently with Skilled Facilitator core values, become
fully qualified to administer the instrument, or work with someone who is quali-
fied. The Association for Psychological Type (www.aptcentral.org) maintains a re-
ferral network and can provide guidance in the ethical use of the instrument. Used
consistently with its original intent and a mutual learning mind-set, I believe the
Myers-Briggs can be a valuable asset to practice. And the skills developed by
the Skilled Facilitator approach can add immeasurably to accurate administration,
interpretation, and application of the MBTI.
General Guidelines for Using Type Information
Any use of type information should be jointly designed with the participants. Guide-
lines for ethical administration of the instrument point out that people should have
a free and informed choice about whether and how to share their type with others.3
The intent of the indicator is to begin a mutual learning dialogue in which people
can explore their gifts. The results should be given in a way that allows for ques-
tioning and clarification, and the administrator should not impose results or become
defensive if a participant disagrees with him or her.
In group settings, discussing MBTI preferences provides an opportunity for
people to cease using their differences as a wedge between members and to begin
valuing the contributions each is likely to make. Type is not to be used to label,
judge, evaluate, or limit anyone. Its intended purpose is as a resource to foster
mutual learning and appreciation.
Learning the Skilled Facilitator Approach
Knowing type preferences helps address differences in how people learn the Skilled
Facilitator approach, their specific gifts, and their particular challenges with the ap-
proach. The center dimensions on the MBTI scale, Attending and Deciding, affect
what information people pay attention to and how they prefer to use that informa-
tion to reach conclusions. These two dimensions, known as functions, greatly affect
learning styles.
I find that how people attend and decide determines what they find most chal-
lenging in using the Skilled Facilitator approach. The difference raised most fre-
quently is how people learn and use the diagnosis-intervention cycle. The cycle
begins by noticing specific behavior and making inferences based on that behavior.
The intervention in step 4 of the cycle begins by sharing the specific behavior
observed. Those with Sensing preferences are usually quite adept at seeing and re-
membering specific behaviors, but they sometimes struggle to clarify and share the
440 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
www.aptcentral.org
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 441
�
�
inference they are making based on that behavior. By contrast, those with an Intu-
itive preference usually have great difficulty remembering exactly what was said or
done, but can easily share the inference they made and link it broadly to individual
or group effectiveness. Each preference thus has a different learning challenge in
using the cycle. With practice, I find type no barrier to mastering the steps of
effective diagnosis and intervention. But it helps to acknowledge that each of us
needs to work a little differently depending on what we habitually attend to in our
environment.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
The Thinking and Feeling preferences affect how we reason through the data
we have and how we explain our reasoning to others. Those with a Thinking pref-
erence are generally adept at laying out the logic behind an intervention and dis-
cussing the consequences of particular choices. Those with Feeling preferences may
struggle to identify and explain the logical steps of their reasoning, but they are par-
ticularly sensitive to the potential consequences for people of a particular course of
action. They can usually access their compassion easily and use it readily to influ-
ence their values-based reasoning. Obviously, to implement the Skilled Facilitator
core values fully, one needs to balance both logical analysis and compassion. Again,
I see type as no barrier to doing this, but it is helpful to recognize that each prefer-
ence may be less likely to attend to a particular aspect. By making a conscious effort
to attend to each function (Sensing, Intuition, Thinking, and Feeling), we can max-
imize our learning and effective use of TSF.
MBTI and Group Effectiveness
MBTI data can strengthen interventions on various elements of the Group Effec-
tiveness Model (GEM). I frequently use it as a component in discussing roles and
expectations, group norms and culture, effective problem solving, and sources of
group conflict or communication difficulties. Combining MBTI preferences with
the Skilled Facilitator principles has helped groups discern sources of past misun-
derstandings and devise new strategies more likely to meet everyone’s needs.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and Chapter Fifteen, “Using the
Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135, for an introduction to the group effectiveness model and its
applications.
When using type data to help a work group or board, I typically ask each per-
son to complete a self-scoring version of the instrument and report the results to me
in advance. I use the reports to compile a group type table showing how many of
each type are represented. I also create a composite type for the group based on the
Combining MBTI
preferences with
the Skilled Facilita-
tor principles has helped
groups discern sources of
past misunderstandings
and devise new strategies
more likely to meet every-
one’s needs.
Chapter 55 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | 441
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 442
most frequent preferences indicated by the members. For example, one board I re-
cently facilitated had an ENFJ composite type, while the staff who reported to them
had an INTJ composite type. It is important to recognize that aggregate data like
these can indicate general tendencies only and must be carefully validated; however,
it is often a useful way to acknowledge and make discussable past difficulties or
relationship patterns.
At the beginning of the facilitation or consultation meeting, I take time to go
over the MBTI results, offering guidance about interpretation and answering ques-
tions. I check again to be certain each person is willing to have composite data
shared and is clear he or she can choose to share or not share individual results. I do
advocate the usefulness of sharing type information. I also help the group reach clear
agreements about how the information will be used so that people can make
informed choices about what to share and when. Then we talk about the issues or
topics the group contracted to address, using the type data as additional informa-
tion where it is relevant:
Members of the ENFJ board frequently felt staff did not fully consider the
impact on citizens of some of their recommendations. In general, staff
members had a Thinking preference, making them inclined to propose what
they saw as technically or logically superior solutions. The board had a pre-
dominance of members who make decisions based on a Feeling prefer-
ence, meaning that impact on others is extremely important to them, even if
the choice is not the most technically advanced. The difference on this
dimension had created a great deal of tension between the two groups. In
addition, the NF board found the communications of the NT staff overly the-
oretical and analytical. The staff found the board communications overly
enthusiastic or vague (or both). Each group tended to discount the compe-
tence or commitment of the other. By exploring the value of both approach-
es and developing expectations around when and how the two perspectives
could strengthen decisions, the group reduced conflict and improved bound-
ary management.
Similarly, the group could see other potential strengths, blind spots,
and mismatches that might create problems.These were presented only as
possibilities. The group confirmed some differences as areas of difficulty in
the past; others they disconfirmed, showing that the group members could
effectively use their less preferred areas to meet the demands of the situ-
ations in which they found themselves.
Understanding the MBTI dynamics also helped the group more effec-
tively apply the ground rules to enhance their discussions and test one
another’s needs. Instead of assuming they always had to provide detailed
written reports, the staff tested this inference when they learned ENFPs
and ENFJs generally prefer verbal communication. Each group realized
that by providing relevant information about expectations and testing infer-
ences, they could use their time and resources more effectively. They
became aware that there were certain ground rules both groups tended to
skip over. Given the type preferences of those involved, they seldom sought
442 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 443
or provided specific examples. The result of the discussion was a commit-
ment to help one another be more specific. They also asked individuals
with preferences more attuned to remembering details to aid them in their
efforts.
Type information can be used to help groups with a number of other effective-
ness elements like problem solving, sharing leadership roles, and clarifying action
plans. Here is a list of group effectiveness reminders I share with groups to help them
think about ways their MBTI awareness can improve their effectiveness:
• Groups with high type similarity will reach decisions more quickly but are
more likely to make errors due to inadequate representation of all viewpoints.
• Groups with many different types may reach decisions more slowly or not at
all. If they learn to manage multiple viewpoints effectively, they often reach
better decisions because more perspectives are considered.
• Leadership roles may need to shift as the tasks to be done require the strengths
of different types.
• The person who is the only representative of a preference may be seen as “dif-
ferent” by other group members and may not feel fully valued.
• Groups that are one-sided (have few different types) will succeed if they use
different types outside the team as resources or if they make the effort to
use their own less-developed functions as required by the task.
• One-sided teams may fail if they overlook aspects of problems that other types
would have pointed out or if they stay rigidly true to type and fail to use other
resources.
Coaching Leaders and Facilitators
Knowledge of type is also a source of valuable personal awareness information for
facilitators and facilitative leaders. In fact, MBTI results are designed to be given
directly to respondents for personal validation and reflection. An individual’s re-
flecting on type accomplishes much the same thing it does for a group: it highlights
strengths in one’s reasoning processes and flags potential blind spots.
I recently coached a manager who had alienated his staff because they felt
he did not carefully consider their research and recommendations. They
accused him of not considering all valid information before reaching a deci-
sion, even though the group had committed to this ground rule. The group
inferred that the manager was not walking the talk and that maybe they
should not bother to do so either. The manager had clear preferences for
Sensing and Judging, giving him a strong bias for concrete action. His most
frequent questions were, “What do we need to do about this?” and “How
Chapter 55 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | 443
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 444
quickly can we act?” The staff had strong Intuitive, Thinking, and Perceiving
preferences, leading them to see the big picture, gather much data, and
see many possible solutions. They seldom made a specific recommenda-
tion and frequently overwhelmed the manager with data. They thought he
was a “cowboy” manager shooting from the hip; he thought the staff were
lazy—all talk and no action.
Of course, none of these assumptions were accurate. Looking at the
MBTI data provided the manager a useful starting place to explain his pref-
erence to the group, ask for help in slowing down to use the ground rules
to consider options, and ask the group to create clearer options. When the
group understood the preference mismatches, they realized that they each
attended to different data and made high-level inferences based on those
data. They agreed with the manager to use the ground rules to slow down.
They committed to clarify their interests in a particular decision, decide
together what information would be relevant, and then agree about how
they would present data to one another. The decision-making process to
use for each issue would be jointly determined. By coaching the manager
about his type preferences, he was able to open up a discussion that con-
tributed to both his own learning and the effectiveness of his work group.
In coaching people who are trying to become increasingly consistent with mu-
tual learning values, I find that one of the triggers for unilateral behavior is being forced
to operate out of one’s less preferred areas. My own ENFP preference, for example,
makes careful attention to time a struggle for me. When I am in roles where I am
expected to help others start and stop on time, I can easily slip into being unilateral
about how I intervene. I might say, “You have to stop now,” instead of advocating and
inquiring or jointly designing with a group the best use of time. I have learned that
when facilitating time-sensitive agendas, I need to be particularly aware of my unilat-
eral tendency and ask a cofacilitator with a different preference to help me.
ARE THERE PROBLEMS WITH INTEGRATING
MBTI AND THE SKILLED FACILITATOR
APPROACH?
Early in 2003, debate raged on the Group Facilitation Listserv (GRP-FACL@listserv.
albany.edu) about the pros and cons of facilitators’ using the MBTI. There were valid
arguments on both sides. Most who opposed using MBTI questioned the usefulness
of psychological instruments in general. Many cited a natural resistance to being placed
in a box. Some told stories about inappropriate application of the MBTI, including
some group members’ judging others or trying to force them to match their style to
the group’s predominant type. Others cited valuable personal and group learning from
insights gained using the indicator.
The MBTI, like any other tool or technique we might adopt, can be used inap-
propriately and unilaterally. Yet I do not see anything in the design of the instrument
444 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
https://albany.edu
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 445
that is inherently inconsistent with mutual learning core values. In fact, the profes-
sional guidelines for appropriate administration and validation are based on the prin-
ciple of sharing all relevant information, providing free and informed choice, and
testing inferences and assumptions. By combining both approaches consistently
and wisely, the MBTI can become a valuable addition to your own development and
your interventions with others.
Resources
Center for Applications of Psychological Type, Gainesville, Fla., www.capt.org. Offers a
wide range of products and services, including a bibliography with seventy-eight
hundred entries on its Web site.
CPP, Inc., Palo Alto, Calif., www.cpp.com. Publishes the MBTI and offers scoring services
and interpretation materials.
Group Facilitation Listserv. GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu.
Hirsh, S., and Kummerow, J. M. LIFETypes. New York: Warner Books, 1989.
Hirsh, S. K., and Kummerow, J. M. Introduction to Type in Organizations. Palo Alto, Calif.:
CCP, 1990.
Lawrence, G. People Types and Tiger Stripes: A Practical Guide to Learning Styles. Gainesville,
Fla.: CAPT, 1982.
Myers, I. B. Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, Calif.: CCP, 1980.
Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: CCP, 1985.
Notes
1. CPP in Palo Alto, California, publishes the MBTI and offers scoring services
and interpretation materials. There are multiple versions of the MBTI, each
appropriate for slightly different purposes. The publisher or a qualified user
can help you select the appropriate version. The two versions I use most fre-
quently are Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Self Scorable (1998) and Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator Form Q (2001), both published by CPP. For information
about the instrument and on how to qualify to administer the MBTI, see
the publisher’s Web site, www.cpp.com.
2. For a history of the development of the MBTI, see Isabel Briggs Myers, Gifts
Differing (1980) and Isabel Briggs Myers and Mary H. McCaulley, Manual:
A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (1985).
The manual also includes detailed summaries of much of the extensive
MBTI research data.
3. Qualified MBTI administrators are bound by a code of ethics guiding how
the instrument is to be provided and interpreted. A copy is available at the
CAPT Web site, www.capt.org.
Chapter 55 • The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator | 445
www.capt.org
www.cpp.com
mailto:GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu
www.cpp.com
www.capt.org
65_964948 ch55.qxd 3/3/05 10:12 AM Page 446
References
Hirsh, S., and Kummerow, J. M. LIFETypes. New York: Warner Books, 1989.
Jung, C. G. Psychological Types. (H. G. Baynes, Trans. Revised by R.F.C. Hull). Volume
6 of The Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
1971. (Original work published in 1921.)
Myers, I. BGifts Differing. Palo Alto, Calif.: CCP, 1980.
Myers, I. B., and McCaulley, M. H. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Palo Alto, Calif.: CCP, 1985.
446 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 447
�
Chapter 56
Applying the Skilled
Facilitator Approach
to a Systems Thinking
Analysis
Chris Soderquist
Systems thinking helps an organization understand the mental models driving
its most fundamental processes, and the Skilled Facilitator approach is a valuable
methodology for helping organizations uncover, clarify, and modify their mental
models.
See Chapter Seven, “Thinking and Acting Systemically,” page 75.
This chapter describes several aspects of systems thinking: its approach, how its
interventions address organizational issues, and how the Skilled Facilitator approach,
specifically using the ground rules for effective groups, improves the likelihood that
systems thinking will be successful in understanding and improving those issues.
THE SYSTEMS THINKING APPROACH
Systems thinking practitioners work with organizations to develop strategies for im-
proving the performance of the organization. Behind this approach is an assertion
that the structure of any social organization (business, nonprofit, or community)
and its mission, goals, and strategies—why and how it organizes itself—result from
that organization’s individual and collective mental models. Mental models are the
collection of assumptions, theories, anecdotes, and other mental facts and images
used to understand and improve reality. These mental models drive what data we
select, the types of strategies we develop, and how we act in accordance with those
strategies.
447
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 448
�
�
The systems think-
ing approach helps
clients surface and
test their mental models
through a collaborative,
inquiry-based process.
And it helps refine and im-
prove their mental models
by applying a specific
model of reality to refining
those models.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, and Chapter Forty-
Eight, “Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and
Procedures,” page 383.
Many of these mental models never see the light of day, remaining unspoken and
untested, yet they drive the organization’s behavior. Furthermore, most mental models
don’t include the important aspects of reality, such as interdependency, time delays, and
feedback, required to effectively understand and change the organization’s performance.
The systems thinking approach helps clients surface and test their mental mod-
els through a collaborative, inquiry-based process. And it helps refine and improve
their mental models by applying a specific model of reality—in much the same way
that the Group Effectiveness Model underlies the Skilled Facilitator approach—to
refining those models.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and Chapter Fifteen, “Using the
Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135.
A typical modeling engagement uses the iterative process shown in Figure 56.1;
the process is a learning loop composed of several mini–learning loops. In the next
Figure 56.1 A Systems Thinking Process
• Establish appropriate stakeholder involvement.
A Systems Thinking Process
• Define the issue.
• Agree on the issue as a behavior over time.
• Train in operational systems thinking and mapping
and modeling where appropriate or possible.
• Map out a mental model to explain the problem
behavior.
• Test the model with simulation (mental and
computer).
• Develop and test policies.
• Develop recommendations and communication
maps and models.
• Share communication maps and models with those
affected.
• Implement!
448 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 449
�
section of this chapter, I use an example to highlight these steps; however, a couple
of steps merit explanation prior to the example. Step 3 (agree on the issue as a
behavior over time) is crucial in getting the client to begin applying a systems think-
ing lens to the issues. Often the client has defined a problem with a single-point-
in-time lens as either an event (for example, “We just lost our biggest client”) or a
condition (for example, “Housing prices are too high and impeding our commu-
nity’s economy”). We help clients look at the issue in a longer-term pattern. Perhaps
their client base has been declining for months. Perhaps housing prices have been
rising for a while, indicating a problem, or perhaps prices have oscillated around the
same mean for years, indicating the market may correct itself.
Step 4 (train in operational systems thinking . . .) is usually agreed to prior to
my working with a client. Because my approach to systems thinking consulting re-
sembles developmental facilitation (I want to build systems thinking skills in the
client, not the client’s reliance on me), I rarely work with a client who has not agreed
to build mapping and often modeling skills during the process. Prior to the mapping
and modeling process, I provide training to allow the client to participate actively
in that process.
See Chapter Forty-Three, “Developmental Facilitation,” page 339.
AN EXAMPLE: ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES
It is difficult to find one example of an engagement that captures all the important
elements of how systems thinking and skilled facilitation work together. Therefore,
I’ve fictionalized one example that is a combination of several engagements that I
or other colleagues have had over the years. It shows how one systems thinking
engagement might play out:
In February, the vice president of human resources from ABC Financial
Services contacts a systems thinking consulting firm because the compa-
ny’s senior management team is in turmoil. Specifically, the vice president
of sales and marketing wants to implement a special investment promotion
and is getting resistance from the vice president of customer service and
staff. Tension has increased to the point where the past few management
team meetings have included shouting between the two vice presidents.
The CEO had read The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: Seven Essential
Skills (Richmond, 2000) and felt a systems thinking perspective might
resolve the issue. She asks the vice president of human resources to
contact us to see if we can help.
As part of the initial contracting, we ask questions (over the phone) to
determine if the specific issue they wish to address lends itself to a sys-
tems thinking analysis; we eventually arrive at the following data-level story.
ABC had implemented a special investment promotion in mid-
December, with disastrous consequences. Call volume during the week
Chapter 56 • Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis | 449
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 450
between Christmas and New Year, specifically information requests on this
promotion, reached the highest level of any promotion in the history of
ABC. The customer service department believed that the promotion creat-
ed by marketing had not been well developed and still refer to the deluge
of calls, specifically the average time spent on each customer call, as the
“Christmas holiday slam.” Customer satisfaction took a real hit, and the
customer services department is loath to repeat this experience.
Marketing, however, thought the promotion was appropriately devel-
oped. They believed the cause of the increase in call time resulted from
customer service’s being short-staffed due to the holidays.
Ultimately, we are able to sketch an initial hypothesis of the problem
behavior (see Figure 56.2). The questions the client agreed to answer
through systems thinking were:
1. What contributed to the increase in time spent per customer call
during the December holidays?
2. How might this be prevented in the future?
3. Will the findings support the feasibility of implementing another
promotion?
After some further refinement, we develop a contract to work with ABC
to facilitate the senior management in answering the three questions.
We begin the first on-site session by agreeing on objectives and by post-
ing the behavior-over-time graph (Figure 56.2) and a flip chart containing the
Figure 56.2 Problem Behavior over Time
Average Time
per Call
increase caused
by what?
Holidays
Surge and sustained
Days
450 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 451
questions to address through a systems thinking analysis. Once everyone
agrees to the issue and questions, we describe our proposed process for
achieving this purpose by showing a typical systems thinking process (Figure
56.1). We spend time exploring step 2 (establish appropriate stakeholder
involvement) so that all stakeholders affected by the issue, where possible,
have representation in the process. We then jointly decide on the project
plan, including milestones and deliverables. The management team assigns
a cross-stakeholder team the task of building a model to understand the
issues they wish to address.
The next step is to provide ABC’s modeling team with training in how
to map and simulate using the ithink Analyst simulation software (ithink
Analyst, 2003). As we train, we begin helping the team use the stock and
flow language to map out the process of receiving customer requests.
Figure 56.3 shows the first component of the map we built with them. The
Figure 56.3 Stocks and Flows of Customer Requests
Run
Reset
time on hold: 1-2-3-
1: 30
1: 15
1: 0 1
0.00
1
3
3
2
2
1 2 3
1 2 3
15.00 30.00 45.00 60.00
Page 1 Minutes
Untitled
Service
Representatives
People Talking
with Service
Representative
service
representatives
who are
available
connecting
with a service
representative
time on
hold R
impact of time on hold
on average time with
normal time customer is
with service representative
average time a
customer is with a
service representative
calls per minute\
random from Poisson distribution
People
on Hold dialing in completing
representative
Chapter 56 • Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis | 451
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 452
rectangle labeled “People on Hold” is a stock. Stocks are like bathtubs in
that they accumulate stuff; in this case, we accumulate people who are
waiting to talk to a service representative. The flow (pipe) going into the
stock fills the queue. This happens when people dial in.
The team then completes the customer chain by adding a flow from the
queue into another stock, labeled “People Talking with Service
Representative.” This is a special stock type known as a conveyor. This
conveyor represents customers who are speaking with a service represen-
tative. And when customers complete their call, they leave through the flow
labeled “completing.”
Once we get the essential stock and flow structure down, we facilitate
the team in specifying how the flows occur. We assume that when repre-
sentatives are available (not talking with a customer), customers will con-
nect with them (the flow of “connecting with a service representative”). The
time they remain on the conveyor—think of it as a moving sidewalk requir-
ing some time delay before they can step off—is determined by “average
time a customer is with a service representative.”
At this point, one member of the team mentions that by releasing the
promotion just prior to the holidays, it meant that many of the target audi-
ence were home immediately following the release. And because they were
home, they found it easy to call up with questions. This means that the rate
of “dialing in” for this particular promotion was much higher than if the pro-
motion had occurred during a more ordinary time frame.
The process gets even more interesting when we ask them to start clos-
ing loops. The customer service members of the team describe their experi-
ence. The longer someone waits in the queue, the longer the person tends
to stay on the phone: “time on hold” has an impact on the average time a cus-
tomer speaks with a service representative. And service representatives
noticeably experienced this behavior during the slam period. The story told
by the customer service members was modeled as a reinforcing loop
(labeled with an “R” in Figure 56.3). As availability goes down, it takes longer
for customers to be connected with a representative. This increases the time
per call (“average time customer is with service representative”), which
reduces the rate of completing calls, and thus decreases even further the
availability of representatives.
The modeling team realizes at this point that the issues they faced over
the holidays resulted not from a poorly designed promotion or from a poor-
ly skilled customer service team. Rather, it was the timing of the promotion
that first caused the onslaught of calls; once a nasty reinforcing loop (the
vicious cycle) got activated, it caused the time spent per customer to rise
in step with a time waiting in the queue.
The team proposes a facilitated session for the management team and
then spends a few days turning this map into a simulatable model. They
develop an interface to slowly unveil the model’s structure and allow par-
ticipants in the facilitated session to experiment with model assumptions.
When they finally hold the session, the senior managers, some of whom
had recently accused others of incompetence, collectively built a mental
model for what had caused the Christmas slam. The map and simulations
452 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 453
�
helped to bring the discussion down the ladder of inference to focus on the
behavior they had experienced and what caused it.They decided that in the
future, they could implement another promotion, but that they needed to
time it to occur when the rate of incoming service requests could be better
managed—likely not over a holiday period.
You can think about systems thinking engagements as requiring some amount
of effort and generating some amount of benefits. Often people believe that a large,
complete, and usually complex model will generate the maximum amount of ben-
efits. Rarely is this the case. Sometimes simply sketching out a map, which requires
a few hours (no more than a few days), will give enough insight to be useful. The
ABC example is indicative of this: the insight about the time on hold leading to an
increased time with a representative was built in the first few hours of work. A cou-
ple more days of work adding realistic numbers, developing the interface, and shar-
ing the model with senior managers was all that was needed to make significant
improvement in organizational understanding and policy development. It would
have been possible to model the issue in far more detail (types of clients, types of
problems, thousands of real data points). But the project could have taken months
(not days) and perhaps generated no more (likely less) insight because the effort
would have lost focus or fizzled out
APPLYING SYSTEMS THINKING WITH THE
SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
The systems thinking example just described is facilitated by a close integration of
the Skilled Facilitator approach. In this section, I provide several ways to apply the
Skilled Facilitator approach to such a process.
Contracting
Part of our contracting is deciding if the skills we bring in systems thinking are the
appropriate ones for the issues facing the organization. We explain that the issues
most appropriate to such analysis are problems that can be framed as behaviors
occurring over time. In a process similar to walking the client down the ladder of
inference, we ask questions to move the issue from the highly abstract level of emo-
tion down to the data (events, pattern of behavior) that lead to the emotions that
have surfaced. It is crucial for us in working with a client to establish a contract that
is based on the core values of valid information, free and informed choice, and in-
ternal commitment to the choice.
See the Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page
61. See also Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89.
I’ve found that sim-
ply drawing a map,
or perhaps devel-
oping a simple one-page
model, will use the mini-
mum amount of effort to
receive the most useful
benefits. Less is more.
Chapter 56 • Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis | 453
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 454
�
�
�
Furthermore, we make sure that the appropriate stakeholders (those affected by
the decision) are involved or at least aware of the engagement. Not only does this
make sense from the Group Effectiveness Model, but it is essential that multiple
perspectives from across the system are involved to build the most representative
mental model because our approach helps clients expand the boundaries around
the issue they’re experiencing.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15.
Ground Rules for Effective Groups
The ground rules help guide our interactions and interventions with clients. They
are extremely valuable as we build models because the process is at its core one of
helping the clients to surface, share, and build a collective mental model of the
issues. The ground rules improve the process in a number of ways.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Focus on Interests, Not Positions
In consulting to one state’s workforce investment council as it developed a five-year
strategy, I observed most of the discussion focused on allocating scarce financial
resources across specific programs (for example, training, supplementary finan-
cial assistance to those out of work, staffing one-stop workforce service centers).
Such programs often have an incremental funding increase dynamic inherent in
their establishment. In other words, once a program is established, it rarely receives
less funding than previous years because those implementing the program continue
to seek additional funds. In this case, we developed a model of workforce and eco-
nomic issues that helped the council shift from focusing on specific programs to de-
termining the overall interest: building a strong economy with highly skilled workers
in fast-growing industries. Further experiments with the model suggested they im-
plement a set of initiatives that balanced workforce training with incentives for in-
dustry to locate and develop in the state.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61; Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group
Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions,” page 145; and Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground
Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page 217.
Use Specific Examples and Agree on What Important
Words Mean
Getting a model as good as possible often requires a specific story or example from
one of the clients. In the case of ABC, the reinforcing loop was added to the model
after one of the team members described a customer who said, “Well, since I finally
454 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 455
got through to you and it’s taken so long, I’m afraid to hang up without asking you
every imaginable question. So, here goes . . .” The customer proceeded to keep the
customer service representative on the phone for twenty minutes. This example
helped those on the modeling team agree that the reinforcing feedback loop was an
important part of the model.
Test Assumptions and Inferences
Model building is a formal process for making assumptions explicit. The language of
stocks and flows is an operational language, as opposed to the language of causal
loops (another language that some systems thinking practitioners use). Being oper-
ational means that in using the language, clients are more likely to formulate a map
composed of explicit hypotheses about the causes of poor performance and in a way
that leads to indicating where leverage for change might lie. Flows are the activi-
ties that change conditions; therefore, policies to improve conditions must have an
impact on flows. For example, in ABC, one assumption that was made explicit was
time per customer. In this case, one assumption everyone eventually agreed on
through several examples of anecdotal evidence was that the longer people remained
on hold, the more they would talk once they got through to a representative.
Combine Advocacy and Inquiry
We tell our clients, “Don’t expect to discover the ‘truth.’” Mental models are always
a simplification of reality and are, by definition, not the truth. We describe the
process as helping participants discover any holes in their individual and collective
mental models. Just as the scientific method says that all theories can at best be
considered, at worst disconfirmed, so a systems thinking process will show which
mental model is most congruent with reality. To do this, clients need to present
their mental models and then ask if others have anything to add to, or change, what
they present. The process of building models together requires an equal dose of in-
quiry and advocacy.
Jointly Design Next Steps and Ways to Test
Disagreements
Models provide an experiential vehicle to test disagreements. They both support and
are supported by this ground rule. For example, in the case of ABC, there was a dis-
agreement as to the cause of the increase in the time customer service representa-
tives spent with each caller. Some thought it was a poorly designed promotion;
others thought it was a short-staffed customer service department. It turned out to
be neither (although being short-staffed did exacerbate the problem); rather, the
problem was the timing of the promotion. The model supported this ground rule
by providing a vehicle for testing disagreements. The final facilitated session with
the senior management team included the opportunity to jointly design their next
Model building is a
formal process for
making assump-
tions explicit.
Chapter 56 • Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis | 455
66_964948 ch56.qxd 3/3/05 1:12 PM Page 456
steps with regard to the promotion. They decided that another promotion was fea-
sible, as long as the timing of release was better determined so as not to create the
dynamics experienced over the holidays.
CONCLUSION
Because the underlying process for applying systems thinking is to develop and test
theories about causality (that is, making mental models explicit and improving
them), it is not only easy but advantageous to combine it with the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach. Conversely, any person, group, or organization trying to build Skilled
Facilitator capacity will find that including the systems thinking paradigm and tools
will further increase their effectiveness.
References
ithink Analyst. Lebanon, N.H.: iseesystems, 2003. Simulation software.
Richmond, B. The “Thinking” in Systems Thinking: Seven Essential Skills. Waltham, Mass.:
Pegagus Communications, 2000.
456 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 457
Chapter 57
The Facilitative Coach
Anne Davidson
Dale Schwarz
Facilitators increasingly want or need to serve as coaches. Individual group
members and organizational leaders frequently see the effectiveness of facilitative
skills and want to develop the same ways of thinking and acting. We find that many
of our clients and colleagues invite (even beg) us to use our skills to help them design
and achieve personal or professional goals. Some of the goals are straightforward,
like starting a business or creating a new business brochure. More frequently, the
aims demand deep personal reflection and transformation. In response to these de-
mands and gleaning from our very different but related expertise, we developed a
comprehensive coaching model and training program based on the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach. This chapter provides an overview of the nine aspects of our model.
WHAT IS COACHING, AND WHY COACH?
Our purpose for coaching is to generate creative, purposeful action toward a client’s
goals and desires. To do this, we form a committed one-on-one relationship in which
both parties engage in learning about their gifts, their barriers to effective action, and
their creative process. Clients tend to seek coaching when they want to make a life
change or are in a transition, such as a career or relationship change. They may want
help with specific work challenges, like managing a difficult project, improving their
delegation skills, or working through issues with their boss or work team members.
Frequently they have hit a bump in the road while traveling toward their goal, they
perceive an obstacle up ahead, or they feel stuck in some aspect of their lives.
But coaching is also a learning opportunity for the coach. We believe doing
one’s own inner work from a solid theoretical base is an essential beginning point
to becoming a wise coach. As Dale frequently says, “Coaching is a gift that gives
both ways.”
Here’s a story from one of our coaching experiences that illustrates what we are
describing:
Sallie initially sought coaching because she felt paralyzed in the face of an
important career decision: whether to accept a promotion that she felt certain
would be offered to her during the coming year. She made a commitment to
Our purpose for
coaching is to gen-
erate creative, pur-
poseful action toward a
client’s goals and desires.
457
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 458
work with her coach weekly for four to six weeks to clarify her career goals
and her decision. She also agreed to do some fieldwork or homework
between sessions to generate data to share with the coach. But at the first
and second sessions, Sallie arrived late, stressed out and in a rush to con-
clude the discussion and move on to her next activity. So at the second
session, the coach pointed this out to Sallie and expressed concern that with-
out Sallie’s full attention on their work together, Sallie would not reach her
goals. Sallie agreed to engage in a brief stretching and focusing activity to
help her become present and connect with the coach.
Next, the coach shared her inference that some obstacle or feeling was
blocking Sallie’s efforts to reach a decision about her promotion. Sallie
agreed, and so the coach proposed two options for moving forward in the
session: focusing just on the job or focusing more on what thoughts and
feelings might be leading Sallie to rush from activity to activity and not
thinking through any of several choices she was actually facing.
Sallie chose to work on the deeper question around where she was
stuck and what patterns might be contributing to it. To help her do this, the
coach led her in a guided imagery exercise so she could connect with how
she was feeling about her job and her life in general.1 Then she asked
Sallie to make a drawing about how she felt—not a work of art, but just
lines, colors, or a quick sketch to express her thoughts and emotions. Sallie
drew a stick figure of herself covered with purple lines. When the coach
encouraged Sallie to talk about her drawing, she said it represented how
fragmented she felt. She said she was trying to represent what it felt like to
be “cut up in pieces.” At that point, the coach offered Sallie scissors so she
could enact how she was feeling. Sallie cut the drawing into little bits along
the purple lines and then mixed the bits around the table. “These are like
pieces of a jigsaw puzzle,” she said, “and I can’t see how they all fit togeth-
er. I can’t find myself.”
From this point, the coach encouraged Sallie to explore what led her to
feel so fragmented. Sallie was able to identify the many demands placed
on her at home and work and her feeling that she was indispensable to her
boss, coworkers, husband, and children. And then she identified this feel-
ing of being indispensable as a lifelong pattern. Over subsequent sessions,
she recognized that her pride in being a helper at home was one of her cre-
ative, positive childhood responses to having an ill mother. Long after this
pattern ceased to serve her well, Sallie continued to make herself indis-
pensable to those in her life, “rescuing” them by doing things they could or
should do for themselves. Doing so much for others led Sallie to feel frag-
mented, exhausted, and out of touch with her own needs. She ultimately
identified the source of her inability to decide about the promotion: a deep
fear that more responsibility would make more demands on her than she
could humanly meet.
Sallie’s coach helped her reframe her role and how she might more cre-
atively and productively respond to others’ demands. Both agreed that if she
continued her former pattern, she would quickly become overwhelmed, no
matter what job she was in. The remainder of Sallie’s work with her coach
helped her experiment gradually with doing less for others and concentrating
more on helping others learn and grow. As Sallie’s efforts began to pay off,
458 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 459
she realized she was actually more respected and appreciated by others and
had more time for her own growth and development. She and her coach
planned small celebrations, like time for lunch with a dear friend, to acknowl-
edge Sallie’s progress and generate new energy for her continuing growth.
Sallie’s issues also led the coach to reflect on her own pattern of feel-
ing indispensable to clients at times. This feeling led her to sometimes over-
commit and then feel stressed. This was not inner work the coach needed
to share with Sallie. In the coaching relationship, the focus is always on the
growth of the client. But acknowledging her own similar patterns helped
the coach respond compassionately rather than to judge or discount Sallie.
The coach could think about what she needed to do for herself and what
had worked with similar issues in the past, and use these insights to sug-
gest interventions and strategies that might work for Sallie.
Becoming a wise coach who can nurture such a dynamic and complex rela-
tionship is a lifelong journey. As in all roles using the Skilled Facilitator approach,
an open spirit characterized by curiosity and deep compassion is essential to success.
We believe having a clear model to guide one on the journey structures and enriches
the experience.
THE FACILITATIVE COACH MODEL
We think about the complex coaching process as a simple geometric form: that of
a pyramid (Figure 57.1). The exterior facets of Figure 57.1 (numbers 1–4) repre-
sent the broader aspects of the coaching experience: the purpose for which the client
comes to coaching, the inner work of the client, the inner work of the coach, and
the relationship or contract that the client and coach form. These facets come to-
gether to form a connected whole. Our pyramid folds open from the top to reveal
the interior (facets 5–8 and the pyramid base). The interior facets hold our guiding
principles and the processes that often run in the background. The pyramid base or
Figure 57.1 The Facilitative Coach Pyramid Model
Facet 1 Facet 5
Facet 3
Facet 2
Facet 1
Facet 4
Facet 2
Facet 3
(back)
Facet 4
Facet 8
Facet 7
Facet 6
Exterior Facets Interior Facets
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 459
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 460
�
foundation contains our theories of effective group and individual interaction: mu-
tual learning and unilateral control, the creative and survival cycles, ground rules,
and the drama triangle. These foundation theories guide our interventions and our
drive for integrity and consistency (Figure 57.2).
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33; Chapter Fifty-Three,
“The Drama Triangle,” page 421; and Chapter Fifty-Four, “Using Creative and Survival Cycles
to See and Shift Mental Models,” page 433.
The protected space within the pyramid is our learning lab. Here the coach and
the client can experiment with new thinking and try new behaviors. At the center
of the lab is a spiral of learning, representing the deep interior work that coach and
client do together, always growing, changing, moving backward, and moving for-
ward again. If we are successful, the energy generated in the learning lab rises to the
peak and out into the world as creative, purposeful action toward the client’s goals
and deepest desires (Figure 57.3).
Figure 57.2 Foundation Theories
Ground
rules
C
REATIVE CYCLE
Drama
triangle
SU
RVIVAL CYCLE
M
utual Learning Unilateral Control
460 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 461
Figure 57.3 The Result of Coaching
CreativeCreative
PurposefulPurposeful
ActionAction
Creative
Purposeful
Action
THE FOUR EXTERIOR FACETS OF COACHING
First, we’ll examine the basic exterior facets of the facilitative coach pyramid. Then
we briefly explain the interior facets and point to the sections of this Fieldbook that
discuss more completely the foundations of our approach to coaching.
Facet 1: Inner Work of the Coach
Coaches who genuinely help clients must first prepare themselves and then con-
stantly balance the many forces at play in any coaching relationship. The coach’s
own strengths, gifts, dilemmas, and blind spots profoundly influence that relation-
ship. The deep personal awareness and inner development required to constantly
attend to and address these issues means coaching is not for the faint of heart. We
believe effective coaches must strive to develop four primary abilities:
• Practicing deep compassion for yourself and others
• Acting consistently with the full mutual learning framework
• Knowing your gifts and where you get stuck
• Being fully present with yourself and others
These abilities are fundamentally embedded within one another in such a way
that it is difficult to think about one without dwelling on the others. One way we
think about this relationship is to imagine the qualities as a series of nested circles,
as shown in Figure 57.4.
Coaches who gen-
uinely help clients
must first prepare
themselves and then con-
stantly balance the many
forces at play in any
coaching relationship.
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 461
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 462
Figure 57.4 Inner Work of the Coach
BEING PRESENT
K
N
O
W
IN
G GIFTS & STUCK PLAC
ES
M
UTUAL LEARNING
CO
MPASSION
Practicing deep
compassion is at
the heart of our
approach. We define com-
passion in the same way it
is defined as a core value
of the Skilled Facilitator
approach.
Practicing Deep Compassion
Practicing deep compassion is at the heart of our approach. We define compassion
in the same way it is defined as a core value of the Skilled Facilitator approach: de-
veloping the ability to suspend judgment of ourselves and others, appreciating that
each of us makes choices based on the information and skills we have at any given
time.
We seek a compassion that allows us to connect with people in a heartfelt, gen-
uine way without minimizing personal accountability or development. We add the
adjective deep to describe compassion because in our experience, we come to un-
derstand and feel for others more and more fully as our life experience and our per-
sonal awareness grow. When we are young and able-bodied, we may become
impatient with the slow pace of our elders. As we begin to slow down a bit ourselves,
we understand what it feels like. We start to recognize that someday we will or could
walk in the shoes of others. Our thoughts and feelings become more compassion-
ate and less judgmental. A similar process occurs in coaching as our ability expands
to feel love and understanding for others who face a wide variety of circumstances.
462 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 463
�
�
See Chapter One, “The Skilled Facilitator Approach,” page 3.
As a practical matter, working toward compassion means acknowledging the
presence of our inner judge or critic. We each have an inner critic living inside us
who speaks up in varying degrees, negatively evaluating our own actions and those
of others. Though it may seem counterintuitive, the critical part of ourselves is ac-
tually our ally. Each time we hear our inner critic’s voice, we can acknowledge it and
make a choice for compassion. The more frequently we hear that voice, the more
opportunities we have. Gradually, by paying attention to our inner critic, its strength
diminishes because we can more quickly move through the cycle of acknowledging,
choosing, and then releasing our harsh judgments, our baggage, and the places we
get stuck. We do not give up our discernment, but we recognize that much of what
the inner critic contains is based on very high-level inferences and assumptions. We
release these and develop the ability to embrace compassion. Developing our com-
passion helps us take responsibility for our actions and lay less blame on others. In
this way, we can develop respect, caring, and an appreciation for our struggles. When
we see ourselves through eyes of compassion, we can deepen our compassion for
others.
Acting Consistently with the Full Mutual Learning
Framework
Acting consistently with the full mutual learning framework in coaching requires
the same intense examination of our core values and strategies as for all the other
facilitative roles. To compassion we add the core values of valid information, inter-
nal commitment, and free and informed choice in every aspect of our relationship
with our clients. While compassion is a core value of mutual learning, we call it out
separately because in our minds, without compassion one cannot productively
engage in a coaching relationship to begin with. But once one can engage with an-
other compassionately, the full mutual learning approach is needed to work together
effectively.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for an introduction of
the mutual learning model.
The people we coach have inner wisdom about themselves and their life expe-
riences that are unknown to us. We do not assume we have the answer—that we
know for certain what others need to do in their lives. Instead, our expertise lies in
the coaching process, in guiding productive interventions. In Sallie’s case, for ex-
ample, the coach advocated going beyond the job promotion issue and suggested
an intervention to do this. But the ultimate decision about what Sallie is willing to
do and how she will apply her insights rests with Sallie. Whatever her choices, we
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 463
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 464
Being present
means to give full,
conscious atten-
tion to someone or some-
thing, to be in attendance.
It is important to
listen as much to
what is not said as
to what is said and to
make connections among
seemingly unrelated sto-
ries, events, and ideas.
refrain from attributing manipulative strategies or hidden motives to her; rather, we
seek to understand why and how Sallie’s behavior makes sense to her. In the process,
the coach learns, and Sallie can make new choices.
Knowing Your Gifts and Where You Get Stuck
Knowing your gifts and where you get stuck helps you stay in a mutual learning
framework in increasingly difficult conversations. This is a form of self-awareness
that can keep you from getting hooked by clients’ issues or their appeal for rescue.
Recognizing the gifts and talents you bring to coaching and how to integrate them
fully in coaching relationships helps you stay centered (balanced and focused on
what is relevant for working with the client rather than your own deeper issues).
Understanding your gifts and where you get stuck can prevent your making bad
agreements—getting into coaching relationships where the help the client needs is
less likely to draw on your strengths or more likely to trigger your own issues. This
self-awareness also alerts you to times when you may get sucked into projecting your
own issues into the client’s situation, thus clouding your diagnosis and intervention.
If you have struggled in your own relationships with authority figures, for example,
you may be at risk for projecting that issue into a client’s situation and get attached
to having him address his relationship with his boss when this may not be his most
important work.
Being Present
Being present means to give full, conscious attention to someone or something, to
be in attendance. Presence occurs at two levels. First, it means watching and listen-
ing to someone or something without being distracted by your own irrelevant
thoughts and feelings. Second, it means being fully focused on what a client is say-
ing and doing while also thinking through your own diagnosis and deciding when
and how to intervene.
It is important to listen as much to what is not said as to what is said and to
make connections among seemingly unrelated stories, events, and ideas. To work
deeply enough to be productive, the coach must attend to both his or her own inner
processes and listen fully to the other person. Doing this well requires full concen-
tration. Mining the gems from each shared experience and conversation requires
having all of our senses fully engaged. This does not happen if we are thinking about
dinner or our next meeting.
Others can sense when we are fully present with them. Something magical
seems to happen when we feel someone else deeply listening to and valuing our
every word. Full presence evokes places in the heart and spirit of another that they
are often unaware of themselves. This process speaks in part to the mystery of coach-
ing. As much as we describe it as a logical, cognitive process, human consciousness
is still a great frontier. Just as we do not fully understand how laughter promotes
464 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 465
healing, so we do not fully grasp the inner shifts that take place when people fully
and intentionally attend to one another. Something higher is touched within us that
we can feel but not rationalize or clearly articulate. When we are fully present, our
verbal and nonverbal communications are more likely to be congruent and au-
thentic. The person we attend to feels our spirit and senses that we are there holding
the framework of the conversation with them. Often they then go far within their
own consciousness to access deeper awareness and untapped creativity.
Facet 2: Purpose of Coaching
The purpose of coaching is to help people attain their goals. During the coaching
process, clients generally learn how they have impeded themselves in the past. They
then experiment with behavioral changes that are more effective and enable them
to achieve their desired goals. Often a client’s initial purpose for seeking coaching
becomes much broader on exploration and reflection. For example, Sallie found that
to come to grips with her career decision, she needed to make major changes in her
personal life and patterns of helping others. The purpose of her coaching sessions
expanded to address both arenas.
Purpose
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 465
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 466
The actual purpose of a coaching relationship may be redefined several times
during the process. We move from the question, “Why do you want to be coached?”
to an exploration of the presenting problem, intention, or goal. We might ask,
“What do you need from your coaching?” or “What do you need to reach your
goal?” We may uncover layers upon layers of professional or personal needs and de-
sires. The goal may shift as the client chooses whether and how to go deeper to ad-
dress fundamental unilateral or survival patterns.
Facet 3: Inner Work of the Client
The inner work of the client is similar to the inner work of the coach. Almost like a
less experienced dance partner, the client follows the coach’s moves, learning how
to be present during a coaching session and how to see patterns from the past that
provide windows into unilateral or survival thinking. The client is led to see gifts
and stuck places also, at least to the extent that they apply to the purpose of the
coaching relationship. And part of the client’s work is to develop increased com-
passion for self and understand that patterns that no longer serve well were initially
Inner
Work of
Client
466 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 467
creative responses to difficult situations faced early in life. The client enters a door
into her own soul and joins the coach in an intricate learning dance. In the process,
both parties make discoveries about themselves and help one another increase their
alignment with their core values. But the coach is always present in the service of
the client. It would not have been relevant for Sallie’s coach to tell Sallie about her
own patterns of making herself indispensable. The focus is on Sallie’s own work.
However, the coach might be transparent in sharing that she has wrestled with sim-
ilar issues or that some of the suggestions would be based on things that worked for
the coach herself.
Facet 4: The Coaching Relationship
The relationship is a living entity. It continually evolves and is cocreated by coach
and client within the context of clear roles, boundaries, guidelines, and working
agreements. The coach is an ally who nonjudgmentally guides and supports the
client in reaching her stated purpose and goals. The coach’s process expertise is used
to help the client engage her own inner wisdom about her life choices.
Coaching Relationship
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 467
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 468
�
A solid coaching
relationship begins
with a clear work-
ing agreement or contract
and follows the same
guidelines and principles
as contracting for any
other facilitative role.
See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89.
A solid coaching relationship begins with a clear working agreement or contract
and follows the same guidelines and principles as contracting for any other facilita-
tive role. This agreement includes clarifying the expectations of both parties and em-
phasizing mutual design and joint accountability, because many clients come to
coaching initially with the notion that the coach will be the expert who will tell them
what to do to get what they want. Part of the client’s making a fully informed choice
includes understanding as clearly as possible what this form of coaching will be like
and how it may be different from other coaching arrangements. Of course, no one
can truly have all the valid information about what it will be like to work with our
guiding principles and ground rules until experiencing this. When a potential client
contacts us, we give specific examples of the kinds of things we do and say in ses-
sions, and we model our core values and approach as we explore whether and how
to work together. As we work, recontracting will also be necessary when we redefine
the client’s purpose, decide whether to go deeper or stop, or engage in a different type
of intervention. In many ways, a new contract is formed at the beginning of each ses-
sion, when coach and client jointly design how they will spend their time.
In clarifying roles, it is especially important to set an appropriate boundary be-
tween coaching and therapy. Having said this, it is also true that the boundary is not
clearly defined. Some say that coaching addresses the future while therapy deals with
the past. But we have found that we frequently address the past in service of the pres-
ent and the future during a coaching relationship as we help clients examine life pat-
terns, mental models, and theory-in-use issues. Sallie’s story is an example of how
past issues might come up and how central they are in identifying and addressing
barriers to achieving a specific goal.
Some people who are in need of therapy pursue coaching services instead be-
cause they view coaching as less stigmatizing than therapy. Here it is critical for a
coach to know his or her own skills. A coach who is also a trained therapist may re-
define the relationship and create a contract that is closer to therapy. But most of
us are not trained therapists, and if there are deep-seated emotional or psychologi-
cal issues that need to be addressed, it is important to know when to recommend
that the client seek therapy. Otherwise the client will not thrive in the coaching
process. Not only will the client fail to achieve the goals set for the coaching rela-
tionship; he or she will usually experience significant emotional distress.
There are no hard-and-fast indicators of when to recommend therapy. We usu-
ally enter a coaching relationship with more specific goals than is true for therapy,
so discussing the purpose of coaching may help clarify whether this is the appro-
priate relationship. When a client needs to deal with significant emotional and psy-
chological distress or mental health problems such as clinical depression, anxiety
disorder, substance abuse, or grief, physical abuse or significant trauma, a skilled
mental health practitioner is needed. Also, if during the coaching relationship, a
468 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 469
�
client becomes highly distressed, this is a warning sign. Particularly if there is a pat-
tern of returning to one issue again and again and the client seems stuck or in de-
nial about the issue, there may be deeper work to do than is appropriate for a coach.
Other indicators include raising fears about every suggestion (for example, saying,
“But what if . . . ,” over and over again), and an inability to stay focused on a topic
or concentrate.
In our experience, coaching is most effective when a client has a basic level of
self-awareness and insight and wants to deepen that awareness while working to-
ward a clear set of goals. Because the kind of coaching we do may raise deep inter-
personal issues, it is wise to develop a referral network of mental health professionals
and establish some guidelines with them about when and how to recommend their
services. You may never find yourself in this kind of situation. However, it is pru-
dent to prepare for the possibility or know whom you can call on in your organiza-
tion for help or a second opinion.
THE FOUNDATION AND INTERIOR FACETS
OF COACHING
The foundation of the facilitative coach pyramid (see Figure 57.2) is formed by the
same fundamental theories and concepts that guide the Skilled Facilitator approach:
a clear understanding of the distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-use,
the unilateral control and mutual learning models (with the addition of the drama
triangle and creative and survival cycle models), and an appreciation for how these
theories fit together to support and enhance one another. From this foundation rise
the four sides of the pyramid. The interior of each side or facet represents more spe-
cific coaching principles and processes.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33; Chapter Fifty-Three,
“The Drama Triangle: Our Unilateral Control Program for Helping Others,” page 421; and
Chapter Fifty-Four, “Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models,” page 433.
Facet 5: Guiding Principles for the Facilitative Coach
One interior facet (Figure 57.5) contains a brief statement of our broadest guiding
principles:
Our purpose is to draw upon each individual’s innate creativity to bring forth
positive transformation. We believe in doing this through commitment to:
• Compassion
• Integrity and respect
• Engaging in mutual learning
• Joint design based upon free and informed choice.
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 469
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 470
Figure 57.5 Guiding Principles for the Facilitative Coach
Our purpose
is to draw upon each
individual’s innate creativity to
bring forth positive transformation.
Guiding Principles
We believe in doing this through commitment to:
Compassion
Integrity and respect
Engaging in mutual learning
Joint design based upon free and informed choice.
We find a statement of our broadest guiding principles helpful in summarizing
our approach to coaching. It is often useful in a contracting conversation to begin
explaining the values of our approach and how we work. Then these principles are
more specifically defined as we introduce the other facets of our model.
Facet 6: Key Ground Rules
We use all of the Skilled Facilitator ground rules as basic strategies for embodying
mutual learning. But we work with a short list that we make explicit to our clients
and that guide our coaching conversations (Figure 57.6):
• Test assumptions and inferences.
• Share all relevant information.
• Explain your reasoning and intent.
• Combine advocacy and inquiry.
• Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements.
470 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 471
�
Figure 57.6 Key Ground Rules for the Facilitative Coach
� Test assumptions and
inferences
� Share all relevant
information
� Explain your reasoning
and intent
� Combine advocacy and
inquiry
� Jointly design next steps
and ways to test
disagreements
Ground Rules
These are simply called out because we use them often in these kinds of one-
on-one conversations. We continually listen for our own and our clients’ use of these
strategies. We are very conscious of changing our own conversation to be consistent
with these ground rules, and we use them to intervene when a client does not ex-
plain his reasoning or makes high-level inferences and attributions about others, for
example.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Facet 7: Coaching Process Steps
We highlight six key steps in the coaching process (Figure 57.7). These are both
macro and micro steps: they are the steps we take in creating and moving through a
coaching relationship and also the same steps we follow for each coaching session.
The steps are iterative; we may back up and rediagnose and intervene multiple times
during a session or coaching engagement. We may back up and clarify the purpose
or goals of a session during that session, and we frequently redefine the goal of
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 471
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 472
Figure 57.7 Steps in the Coaching Process
CONNECT
CLARIFY PURPOSE
DIAGNOSE
INTERVENE
DESIGN NEXT STEPS
ASSESS PROCESS AND RESULTS
the coaching relationship as we go deeper into pattern and mental model issues.
Below is a brief description of each step and an example based on Sallie’s story:
1. Connect: Make initial contact or check in at the beginning of a session. Take
time to be present with one another. Since Sallie was rushed and stressed, the coach
suggested some stretching, deep breathing, and a few moments of silence.
2. Clarify purpose: Jointly design the goals of coaching or the goals of a specific
coaching session. Create an agenda to guide how you will spend your time. Sallie
and her coach initially defined the goal as making a decision about a promotion. As
they explored the issue, the purpose evolved to dealing with a specific barrier, then
to defining that barrier (being indispensable), and finally to discovering the source
of that barrier and changing it.
3. Diagnose: Make inferences about what may be going on for a client, broadly
and during discussion of a particular topic. The inferences we make may be about
whether the client is acting from a unilateral or mutual learning frame, unnecessar-
ily engaging in a reactive survival cycle, caught up in a drama triangle, or making
inferences about others, for example. In Sallie’s case, the coach’s diagnosis deepened
from inferring Sallie was not focused on the coaching session, to inferring there was
472 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 473
a deeper barrier (being fragmented, feeling indispensable), to inferring this might
be a lifelong pattern.
4. Intervene: In this step, we decide to share and test our diagnosis. In coach-
ing, this is also the step in which we may suggest specific activities to the client, like
creating art, journaling, engaging in a real-life experiment to observe or change
behavior, or practicing for a difficult conversation. Sallie’s coach suggested that she
reflect on her feelings and then make a drawing. Often just talking about a barrier
or a dream that is not well defined is less helpful than accessing other ways of know-
ing beyond cerebral understanding. For Sallie, drawing helped her make her feel-
ings concrete and discussable.
5. Design next steps: After each intervention and after each coaching session, we
jointly design the next steps with the client. By the end of Sallie’s second session,
her goal had changed. She and her coach designed some journal activities for Sallie
to reflect on her pattern of helping others. In subsequent sessions, next steps in-
cluded experimenting with new ways of helping others and designing conversations
with her family about how and why she wanted to change her helping patterns. Next
steps obviously loop back to more interventions; the results of one intervention pro-
vide information that leads to another diagnosis and intervention. The starting place
for the next session builds on results of the previous session and insights from field-
work activities conducted in the interim. We cycle through diagnosis, intervention,
and jointly designed next steps again and again until our work is completed.
6. Assess process and results: Each intervention, as well as the coaching process,
should produce results. Sometimes the results are different from what was intended.
At this stage, we learn and the client learns how we contributed to getting or not get-
ting what was intended. We gather the lessons and plan next steps, often returning
to our purpose to reclarify. We assess progress toward the client’s goal at the conclu-
sion of each major intervention and each session. When we mutually agree the coach-
ing relationship has achieved its purpose, we assess its strengths and weaknesses and
gather lessons learned. Sallie continued in the coaching relationship until she felt she
had several successes at changing her “rescue” patterns. She also decided to accept a
temporary promotion, giving herself time to assess whether the new job responsibil-
ities met her needs and whether she could effectively balance her responsibilities. Sal-
lie saw this as huge progress because she could respond to others while also taking
care of her own needs. At that point, she and her coach jointly evaluated their expe-
rience together and planned a celebration dinner to reward Sallie’s hard work.
Facet 8: Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
This facet of our pyramid calls out a specific tool that is especially valuable during
the steps of the coaching process: the diagnosis-intervention cycle. We use the Skilled
Facilitator diagnosis-intervention cycle (Figure 57.8). The only distinction dur-
ing coaching is that our broad process interventions look different from those we
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 473
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 474
�
Diagnosis and Intervention
There are numer-
ous resources to
guide you in using
each of these interven-
tions. A few that we find
useful include Julia
Cameron’s The Artist’s
Way (1992) and Walking in
This World (2002), Adriana
Diaz’s Freeing the Creative
Spirit (1992), Stephen
Nachmanovitch’s Free
Play: The Power of Impro-
visation in Life and the Arts
(1990), and Ira Progoff’s At
a Journal Workshop, Re-
vised (1992).
commonly use during facilitation. We still jointly design agendas with clients and
use the ground rules to help us have more productive conversations. But the other
frames and processes we use to diagnose and intervene are a bit different. Many of
our interventions are made up of a set of activities aimed at helping clients develop
personal insight or helping them experiment with new patterns of behavior. There is
a long list of possibilities; we use our “diagnostic sun” to help identify some of them.
Each ray represents a process that can cast new light on an issue, depending on the
client and the situation. Which interventions can be effectively used obviously also
depends on the background, training, and experience of the coach.
See Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page 69.
CELEBRATING CREATIVE, PURPOSEFUL
RESULTS
Successful coaching results in movement toward the client’s deepest desires and goals.
The client and the coach both engage in gathering the lessons learned and measuring
474 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 475
Figure 57.8 The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
Diagnosis Steps Intervention Steps
why to
Unilateral control model
Mutual learning model intervene
2 Infer meaning
Ground rules
for effective
groups
1 Observe
effectiveness behavior
model
Group
Other
frames and
processes 3 Decide whether,
how, and
4 Describe behavior
Test for different
views
5 Share inference
Test for different Explain
views reasoning
and intent
6 Help group
decide whether
and how to
change behavior
Test for different
views
how far they have come together. This is what creates the spiral of learning that can
guide us closer and closer to our life’s true purpose.
Perhaps the most important but generally overlooked aspect of this final step is
to celebrate. Many of us fail to pause and congratulate ourselves for our hard work,
treat ourselves, and share our growth with others. Celebration is a critical part of
the growth process. It is the reinforcement for remaining in a creative cycle, and it is
the source of renewed energy with which to begin another learning cycle. Rather
than take results for granted or focus solely on an evaluative process, we believe stop-
ping to celebrate is more productive.
We chose the pyramid to represent our coaching model in part because of its
symbolism. Many ancient cultures constructed pyramids. In Mayan cultures, the
pyramids were temples, sometimes built over caves to symbolize places of origin
or going back to the source of life (Schele and Freidel, 1990). In Egypt, the pyra-
mids were more than tombs. They were a form of life insurance, a place where man
could provide for his own happy afterlife. “Someone who provided these pleasures
in advance by his own efforts could look forward to an active and happy life with-
out being haunted by fear of the great unknown” (Janson, 1967, p. 35). Although
we are focused on results in this life, we hope our model is a similar gift: it is aimed
at helping other coaches and their clients provide by their own efforts for an active
life in which unknown gifts become known, in which the treasures stored within
are used to create an abundant life. It is that abundance that we invite you to
celebrate.
Celebration is a
critical part of the
growth process. It
is the reinforcement for re-
maining in a creative cycle,
and it is the source of re-
newed energy with which
to begin another learning
cycle. Rather than take re-
sults for granted or focus
solely on an evaluative
process, we believe
stopping to celebrate is
more productive.
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 475
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 476
Spiral of Learning
A FINAL WORD
Engaging in a coaching relationship is a powerful experience. Being a coach is a jour-
ney you take on behalf of someone else, but at the same time the relationship serves
as a mirror being held up to you. Adopting and consistently practicing mutual learn-
ing is a lifelong process. The first step is to reflect on the strategies you use in work-
ing with others and to invite others to give you feedback on how they experience
your approach. With dedicated work and time, you can become consistent and com-
passionate in increasingly difficult situations. You as the coach will learn a tremen-
dous amount about yourself. We hope that our coaching model offers a useful
framework for your wisdom.
Resources
Cameron, J. The Artist’s Way. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1992.
Cameron, J. Walking in This World. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 2002.
Diaz, A. Freeing the Creative Spirit. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992.
Nachmanovitch, S. Free Play: The Power of Improvisation in Life and the Arts. Los Angeles:
Tarcher, 1990.
Progoff, I. At a Journal Workshop, Revised. Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1992.
Note
1. Guided imagery simply means meditation with a guide designed to evoke
visual images. There are many forms, from casual to very precise. Guided
imagery can be practiced with a guide or coach creating a scenario, with a
476 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 477
friend reading a script, or with a recorded guide. In coaching, its purpose is
to create a state of focused relaxation through which to explore thoughts,
feelings, and images about a particular issue.
References
Schele, L., and Freidel, D. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New
York: Morrow, 1990.
Janson, H. W. The History of Art. (6th ed.) New York: Abrams, 2000.
Chapter 57 • The Facilitative Coach | 477
67_964948 ch57.qxd 3/3/05 10:13 AM Page 478
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 479
�
Chapter 58
Becoming a Facilitative
Trainer
Sue McKinney
Matt Beane
Asking questions can be a means of establishing authority, fulfilling leadership
functions, and ensuring effective learning. In fact, asking questions is proba-
bly the most subtle power you have for controlling people. The person who asks
questions always controls the conversation. . . . If we could discipline our minds
to ask questions instead, we could lead any conversation to wherever we
wanted it because the other person would still be wrapped up in thinking what
he or she wanted to say next. . . . One of the rights you have as a trainer is to
ask questions and expect answers. This is why question-asking is such a pow-
erful tool. It challenges and avoids confrontation at the same time.”
—Garry Mitchell, The Trainer’s Handbook (1998)
The quotation from Garry Mitchell that opens this chapter wasn’t difficult
to find; a number of other books contain entire sections devoted to similar training
strategies.1 In short, they advocate a unilateral control model approach to training.
Mitchell, for example, advocates the strategy of asking questions to unilaterally con-
trol the direction of the conversation (and the participants), enabling the trainer to
take the conversation where he wants it to lead (presumably rather than where par-
ticipants want it to lead).
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33, for an explanation of
the unilateral control model.
By now, this probably isn’t a surprise. Throughout this book, you’ve seen exam-
ples of how people use the unilateral control model in their work. Designing and
delivering training is simply another example. Many trainers use a unilateral approach
to training, and some espouse the approach as well. For example, we’re familiar with a
number of courses intended to train trainers that endorse using questions to control
the direction of a conversation without being transparent about doing so. In Matt’s
experience, managing a large network of senior, independent training professionals,
479
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 480
For us, the
transparency
test reveals the
unilateral nature of this
approach: imagine saying
your strategy out loud
to your intended audience.
If it would seem ridiculous
to do so or would
hinder your ability to
implement your strategy,
the strategy is probably
unilateral.
You can be a
facilitative trainer
regardless of the
subject matter you are
teaching.
it was common for trainers and their intermediary clients (such as salespeople and
instructional designers) to put an explicit premium on the ability to unilaterally guide
groups. This meant, for example, asking for participants’ expectations and then show-
ing the participants how their expectations fit into the preexisting training design,
regardless of how well the trainer thinks they actually fit.
Based on training literature and conversations we’ve had with training profes-
sionals, we’ve concluded that trainers advocate for and take this approach when they
think they know—better than the participants do—what and how the participants
should be learning. They seem to believe that they are helping the participants by
not taking their expressed learning interests seriously and that telling the partici-
pants that they are not going to address their interests would be counterproductive
to the participants’ learning as well.
For us, the transparency test reveals the unilateral nature of this approach: imag-
ine saying your strategy out loud to your intended audience. If it would seem ridicu-
lous to do so or would hinder your ability to implement your strategy, the strategy
is probably unilateral.
Nevertheless, many people espouse a more mutual learning approach to train-
ing. Still, as we’ve described throughout the book, when faced with difficult situa-
tions, they often revert to a unilateral approach and are often unaware that they are
doing so. Delivering training using the unilateral control approach creates the same
kinds of consequences that any unilateral control approach does: misunderstand-
ing, defensiveness, reduced trust, reduced learning, and reduced effectiveness, to
name a few. Given these consequences, it is ironic that unilateral approaches are
openly endorsed in a context explicitly oriented to learning.
BECOMING A FACILITATIVE TRAINER
Becoming a facilitative trainer means using the mutual learning model to help par-
ticipants develop knowledge and skills about a particular subject so they can apply
it to real problems or opportunities. You can be a facilitative trainer regardless of the
subject matter you are teaching.
As a facilitative trainer, a couple of core values and assumptions are particularly
salient.
Training to Learn, Not Just Learning to Train
A key challenge for facilitative trainers is adopting the mind-set of simultaneously
teaching and learning. Unilateral trainers usually assume that they are the teachers
and the students are the learners. They assume they are the experts about the con-
tent they are teaching and the process for teaching it. This is a natural assumption to
make, but it is also ineffective because it reduces learning.
480 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 481
As a facilitative trainer, you see the training as an opportunity for you to learn
about the content and how to teach it better. When students’ knowledge and expe-
riences differ from yours, you assume that students may be seeing things that you
are missing. Rather than try to persuade them you are right and they are wrong, you
use the ground rules to engage in mutual learning.
Adopting a stance of both trainer and learner includes learning about your train-
ing process. In the mutual learning mind-set, trainers actively seek feedback from
the participants and jointly design the learning where possible to ensure that par-
ticipants are learning in a way that is helpful to them. Perhaps paradoxically, en-
gaging in learning with participants rather than being seen as the expert increases
participants’ willingness to learn both with you and from you.
Being Transparent About Your Teaching
and Learning Strategies
Part of being a facilitative trainer is sharing with participants the strategies you are
using for teaching and learning. Being transparent is necessary if you want to learn
while training. It enables you and the participants to explore how your proposed
strategy will help or hinder participants’ ability to learn. Yet many of us were taught
that we were responsible for guiding participants through the learning process using
unilateral strategies that we couldn’t share without ruining their impact.
Sue, for example, used to worry that certain participants might have already
seen her exercise before and would “ruin” it by sharing the punch line with others.
Being transparent about her strategy for the exercise would have decreased the im-
pact of the learning, as she understood it at the time:
As a trainer, I prided myself on my ability to create an appropriate learning
agenda and schedule, with each portion of the class carefully timed for max-
imum efficiency. To stick to my timetable, I had to unilaterally stop questions,
dictate break lengths, and round people up when they disappeared so we
could stay on time. It never crossed my mind to negotiate these things with
the participants; that would have taken too long and added to an already too
tight timetable; besides, I was being paid for my expertise in this area.
However, once I learned about the facilitative approach to training and
understood the negative consequences of unilateral training, I could not go
back to my old ways. I realized that I had to learn a new approach to train-
ing that would recognize both instructors and participants as learners.
Using a facilitative approach, I learned to be transparent about my
thinking and share my teaching strategies out loud. This affected how I
shared the agenda, orchestrated breaks, engaged participants in discus-
sion, and led exercises. To the extent that your teaching strategy is unilat-
eral, sharing it with participants will reduce your ability to execute it. To the
extent that you use a mutual learning approach, sharing your strategy will
improve your effectiveness.
As a facilitative
trainer, you see the
training as an
opportunity for you to learn
about the content and how
to teach it better.
To the extent that
your teaching strat-
egy is unilateral,
sharing it with participants
will reduce your ability to
execute it. To the extent
that you use a mutual
learning approach, sharing
your strategy will improve
your effectiveness.
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 481
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 482
�
THE FACILITATIVE TRAINER
APPROACH IN ACTION
Becoming a facilitative trainer means putting the mutual learning approach into ac-
tion. This fundamentally affects how you interact with participants. In the sidebar,
Matt describes steps to becoming a facilitative trainer regardless of the specific sit-
uation. Here are a number of common training situations and how we address them.
Contracting for Training
The facilitative trainer approach begins with how we contract for the training. In-
effective contracting creates negative consequences during the training.
See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89, for an introduction to contracting.
A number of years ago Matt facilitated a service training session for a group of
human resource (HR) professionals:
The director of the HR group requested the session and decided to partic-
ipate. She thought her team had a lot of room for service improvement and
did not want to say this to them directly; she told me she thought that the
training would help them “get it” without her having to voice her views. This
is a typical unilateral strategy. However, at the time, I was not using a facil-
itative training approach. I contributed to the problem by not asking for her
reasoning for not sharing her concerns directly with the group and by not
sharing with her what I thought the unintended negative consequences
would be. As it turned out, her strategy generated nearly the opposite of
what she intended.
I started the training session by sharing a proposed agenda and indi-
cated that I’d like the group to have a candid conversation about whether the
agenda met their needs. A number of the participants expressed confusion
as to why service training was necessary at all; they acknowledged gaps in
service but pointed to external problems as the source of these gaps. Their
reactions created a dilemma for me: I knew why the director wanted them to
have this training and thought it would be relevant to share this with the
group, but I didn’t feel that I could raise this issue for her. And yet if I didn’t
raise the issue, participants would not fully understand why the training was
being conducted. My best attempt at resolving this dilemma was to indi-
cate that I thought there would always be external obstacles to good service
and that there was also always room to work on their individual skills. The
participants agreed, the training session went ahead, and the director and I
kept the director’s point of view undiscussable throughout. I didn’t share my
impression of the director’s point of view because I assumed she would
have done so herself if she wanted to and I didn’t want to embarrass her or
her direct reports. I thought that I might make things worse for them if I did.
Essentially, I colluded with the director against the group I would be training.
482 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 483
Regardless of the espoused orientation of the trainer, unilateral approaches to
training decrease the amount of learning available to all involved. In Matt’s experience
above, everybody lost: the group missed an opportunity to understand the director’s
concerns, the director missed an opportunity to test her inferences about her team’s
performance and to deal with her team more directly, and Matt missed the opportu-
nity to discover whether his inference about the director’s willingness to raise her
concerns on her own was accurate. Matt now says:
Had I used a facilitative approach, I would have intervened when the direc-
tor first told me that she thought her team had a lot of room for service
improvement but did not want to say this to them directly and instead
wanted to use the training to help them “get it” without her having to voice
her views. At that point, I would have shared my views about the unin-
tended consequences of her suggested approach, including the dilemma
that would be created. I’d also explore her reasoning for not sharing her
concerns directly with the group. I would have met with some training par-
ticipants before the training in order to ensure that the training met their
needs. At this point, if not earlier, I may have found out that they did not
see a need for the training, in which case I could have facilitated a con-
versation with the director and the participants to address this. Depending
on the outcome of the conversation, I may still have provided the training,
and if I had, the director would have shared with the participants the rea-
son for it.
Setting the Agenda
Using facilitative skills, we share the agenda and ask if others want to modify it by
adding new items or removing current items or ask questions about the items that
are or are not listed. We build in time for a thorough discussion of what we are going
to cover in the class to ensure that everyone supports the plan. Fundamentally, the
facilitative trainer believes that the agenda must be supported by everyone in the
room to be effective. It won’t help the group if they simply go along with the in-
structor’s plan, even if it may be more efficient for the instructor.
Taking Breaks
As facilitative trainers, we jointly control the schedule and times for breaks. We note
the break times in the agenda and gain support for their timing when sharing the
agenda, but we stay open to the possibility that the breaks may need to shift during
the class.
In addition, the facilitative trainer does not feel the need to control where peo-
ple are located during the class and throughout the breaks. Before we understood
the Skilled Facilitator approach, we used to round people up after the breaks. We
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 483
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 484
would stand in the hall and say loudly, “Okay, we are going to get started now.” We
might turn to some participants and say, “Can you find the others and get them
back, please?” And then we would wait until most everyone was back to begin the
class again.
Now, using the core values as our guide, we let everyone know at the beginning
of a class when the breaks are scheduled (approximately) and explain that we be-
lieve everyone is an adult and can make good use of their time. We let them know
that we will be clear about the beginning and ending time of each break. We ex-
plain that we won’t be rounding participants up after the breaks end; we will sim-
ply begin teaching again and will assume that they are where they need to be at that
time. We let them know we won’t make untested assumptions about their commit-
ment to the class based on their presence or lack of presence in the room. We do
ask that participants let us know if they will be gone for an extended period of time,
since other participants and we will worry if they don’t return when expected.
Managing the breaks in this manner allows us to stay consistent with sharing
relevant information, giving people free and informed choices, and building inter-
nal commitment to the process. It is a powerful mechanism for modeling the core
values and the ground rules throughout any teaching endeavor.
Moving to Another Topic
When we move from one topic to another in a training class, we do it jointly. In-
stead of simply saying, “Okay, let’s move to the section on making interventions,”
we say something like, “It sounds like we are done discussing diagnosing
behavior. Is there anyone who isn’t ready to move to making interventions at
this time?”
This enables us to test our inference that the group is ready to move on. If some
members are not ready, we respond to their questions or concerns. If we are
concerned about time, we raise that with the group and usually jointly design a so-
lution that meets the needs of participants who may still have questions and con-
cerns and those who want to move to the next topic.
Exploring Participant Concerns
When training in a unilateral frame, we considered challenges by participants about
the value of the exercises or materials as objections to be overcome. Taking a facili-
tative approach, we see these challenges from the participants as opportunities for
learning. We recognize that the participants may have information or knowledge
that we, as trainers, don’t have.
A former class participant shared her left-hand column case with us to illus-
trate that other trainers also struggle with this point. In her case, she was teaching
484 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 485
a class of managers how to write objectives so that they would align with the
corporate goals. Apparently some participants were concerned about the strate-
gies as presented and began to share their concerns with the trainers (Table 58.1).
Using a facilitative approach, a trainer might address the same question differently
(Table 58.2).
Table 58.1 Exploring Participants’ Concerns Using a Unilateral Approach
Thoughts and Feelings Verbatim Dialogue
Participant: It just doesn’t make
sense to me to align myself with
strategies that don’t say anything
about quality software development.
We are way off topic and just wasted Trainer: Okay, I think we are getting
ten minutes of this class! How am I heated over an issue that shouldn’t
even going to finish on time? be discussed in this class. We are
here to discuss the mechanics of
writing objectives, not to rewrite
the strategies. Let’s take this off-line
and write it on our parking lot. For
now, we are in a time crunch and
need to get back to developing
objectives.
Participant: Why are we doing this to
begin with? Things were fine the way
they were before.
My way of switching topics! Maybe Trainer: It’s about accountability. We
things were fine the way they were need to make sure that we are
before, but my job is to get through aligning our work within and between
this class! divisions.
Participant: How is my work going to
align with what you do as a trainer?
If you get me sidetracked one more Trainer: Again, I think we are getting
time, I might ignore you . . . or throw sidetracked. Let’s focus on why we’re
an M&M at you! Ha, ha! here to begin with. We are here to
learn how to write objectives . . . to
make sure they are SMART.
Participant: I’ll write objectives, but I
don’t agree with the strategies. They
need to be changed.
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 485
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 486
Table 58.2 Exploring Participants’ Concerns Using a Facilitative Trainer
Approach
Thoughts and Feelings Verbatim Dialogue
Participant: It just doesn’t make
sense to me to align myself with
strategies that don’t say anything
about quality software development.
I’m thinking these strategies are
nonnegotiable since they were set
by the corporate executives. It sounds
as if this person sees this differently.
Trainer: I can understand your
concern about alignment, but I’m
wondering if you and I have a
fundamental difference in our
understanding of these strategies
and their malleability. I’m not thinking
we can change the strategies because
they were the product of the executive
strategic planning process. Are you
seeing that differently?
I think this is a reasonable concern.
How can we best address it here?
Participant: I don’t know if we can
change them or not, but how can we
align with them if we don’t agree with
them?
In order to reach my teaching goal,
I need to see if the participant is
willing to delay his concerns and
address them later. These are my
two issues anyway.
Trainer: I think there may be two
issues at play here, and I want to
identify them both to see if you agree.
One is the teaching objective, which
is to help you learn to write objectives
in a specific manner, and the other is
the content of those objectives. Do
you think these are the primary issues
or not?
Participant: Yeah, I agree.
Let him know what I would like to do
and see if that works for him or not.
If not, we will have to work as a group
to figure out an alternative that will
meet all of our needs.
Trainer: My goal is to teach you how
to write the objectives. I do not feel
capable of negotiating the strategies
since I wasn’t involved in that process.
I’m wondering if you would be willing
to learn to write the objectives here
today and then approach the manage-
ment group about your concerns
regarding the content of the strategies.
Would that work for you or not?
Participant: Yeah, that sounds okay.
486 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 487
In the hypothetical scenario, the trainer must be open to the responses that she
gets to her final question, “Would that work for you or not?” If the participant says,
“No, this really won’t work for me,” then the trainer must be prepared to work with
the group to figure out what to do during their time together for it to be time well
spent. A facilitative trainer is willing to spend some time working through this issue
completely; she knows that once it gets resolved, the class can move efficiently
through the rest of the day. If it never gets fully resolved, the issue will continue to
pop up throughout the training, slowing it down more than if time had been taken
up front to resolve it completely.
Asking Questions
Take another look at the quotation that begins this chapter. It captures a unilateral
control approach to asking questions. In this approach, trainers use questions to
steer the conversation where they want it to go and avoid difficult conversations that
participants may want to engage in. Like unilateral trainers, facilitative trainers also
recognize that asking questions can be a subtle and powerful way of controlling peo-
ple. But because facilitative trainers value mutual learning rather than control, they
carefully craft their questions so that participants feel safe asking their own ques-
tions and sharing whatever their views, including challenging the trainers’ views.
One of the most difficult challenges for Sue as she shifted her values as a trainer
was learning how to ask participants questions:
I was used to asking the group to answer a question for which I had a spe-
cific answer. I asked a series of leading questions to get them to arrive at
the “correct” answer. As a facilitative trainer, I stay open to the possibility of
different “correct” answers. I have also learned ways to give participants the
chance to discover the answer on their own without easing in or leading
them to feel set up.
It is important to me that I do not ask rhetorical or leading questions
since this often causes people to be defensive or on guard. Instead of ask-
ing, “Does that sound right?” or “Does that make sense?” which may imply
that it should be right or make sense, I try to ask, “What are your reac-
tions to what I’ve said? What are your thoughts about this topic?” or
“What questions or concerns, if any, does this raise for you?”
Over time, Sue learned if she asks a question and knows the answer but wants
a participant to answer, she simply states this out loud.
When I instruct, it looks like this: “I have a sense of what would be an
effective strategy in this situation, but I’m interested in what each of
you think would be effective. I’d like to explore this with all of you and
then share my ideas. Who is willing to share their thoughts?”
Because facilitative
trainers value
mutual learning
rather than control, they
carefully craft their ques-
tions so that participants
feel safe asking their own
questions and sharing
whatever their views,
including challenging
the trainers’ views.
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 487
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 488
Generally, yes or no questions are not effective at engaging the class in mutual
learning. Open-ended questions are better at asking for thoughts and different per-
spectives. Some examples include: “What reactions do you have to what I’ve said
so far?” or “How do you think that might work for you?” or “What are your
thoughts on this topic?”
Experiential Learning
Being transparent affects how we select and lead training exercises. As Sue illustrates:
Prior to internalizing the core values, I used to pick learning games and
exercises that I thought would give the participants a powerful learning
message. This often involved my knowing something that the participants
did not know and my hiding that information from them. This could be as
simple as an exercise to demonstrate the need for out-of-the-box thinking
by making paper airplanes to see who can fly theirs the farthest. Of course,
I didn’t tell the participants that the exercise was designed to demonstrate
out-of-the-box thinking until after all the participants had flown their air-
planes, so I could deliver the punch line: wadding up a piece of paper in a
ball and throwing mine far past any of theirs.
My life as a trainer shifted dramatically after integrating the Skilled
Facilitator values into my life. No longer could I lead manipulative games
that were designed to teach participants lessons by tricking them into cer-
tain behaviors with the hope that they would have an “aha!” experience in
learning. I began to realize that participant resistance to these types of
exercises was often grounded in their recognition that there was a catch to
the exercise. This often led to either active resistance to the exercise or
concentrated attempts to figure out the manipulation and catch the trainer
at his or her own game. Pleasant participants allowed themselves to be
manipulated. It is doubtful that more than a handful of participants were
unaware that there was a manipulation being performed.
In these types of situations, the trainer is withholding relevant information from
participants, which impairs the participants’ ability to make free and informed
choices about how to participate. The end result is that some participants feel
tricked. In our experience, not only do people feel tricked, but they start to expend
a fair amount of energy in the training sessions trying to figure out the tricks so they
can outmaneuver the instructor. This is definitely not the way we want participants
to expend their energy in our training sessions.
488 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 489
Also this approach is clearly inconsistent with the Skilled Facilitator values be-
cause relevant information is not shared with participants, thus taking away their
free and informed choice to participate effectively. It also diminished some partici-
pants’ internal commitment to the training session because their trust in the trainer’s
credibility was diminished.
Following a mutual learning model does not mean having to give up using ex-
ercises. Quite the opposite. We believe that exercises are great ways for adults to
learn in a fun, creative manner.
As facilitative trainers, when we use experiential exercises, we provide as much
valid information as possible so that participants can make a free and informed
choice about whether to participate. This increases their commitment to the exer-
cise (if they choose to participate) and to the learning associated with it. Generally
we avoid exercises that are at odds with the core values. This includes exercises that
require withholding valid information or relying on deception, exercises in which
the outcome is predetermined and controlled by the trainer, and exercises that are
inconsistent with the group’s objectives. For experiential exercises in which we can-
not figure out a way to create the learning without withholding some relevant in-
formation, we make that strategy explicit. We tell participants that the exercise
requires our withholding some information and ask if they are still willing to par-
ticipate knowing this. In short, we share the relevant information that we have rel-
evant information we can’t share.
When determining if a training exercise is congruent with the Skilled Facilita-
tor approach, we ask ourselves the following questions:
• Can we share the strategy underlying the exercise without weakening the mes-
sage or lesson of the exercise? If we cannot share it, can we modify the exer-
cise so that we can share the strategy?
• Will participants have a free and informed choice throughout the exercise,
including whether to participate?
• Will the exercise increase participants’ internal commitment to the training?
• Is the exercise consistent with the core value of compassion?
If we can answer yes to each of these questions, we are comfortable using the
exercise.
The sidebar by Diane Florio shows how to convert a unilateral exercise to one
that you can use as a facilitative trainer.
As facilitative
trainers, when we
use experiential
exercises, we provide as
much valid information
as possible so that
participants can make
a free and informed
choice about whether to
participate. This increases
their commitment to the
exercise (if they choose to
participate) and to the
learning associated with it.
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 489
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 490
Modifying Experiential Exercises to Be Consistent
with the Skilled Facilitator Core Values
and Ground Rules
By Diane Florio
Often, experiential exercises or learning games may lead to participants’
feeling set up, which may lead to a “blame the facilitator” type of behavior.
This tends to happen when there is this “gotcha!” type ending to such initia-
tives. Participants may say things like, “Well, if you had told us that was an
option, we would have succeeded,” or “You didn’t tell us that was part of the
rules.”
I am not advocating that experiential exercises do not provide a tremen-
dous learning value. I believe people learn by doing and therefore see great
value in exercises of this nature. What I am suggesting is to carefully examine
the design of the exercise and consider what both the intended and unin-
tended consequences may be as a result of the way it is suggested to frame
or introduce the exercise. Here is an example from my own experience.
A very popular experiential game is The Search for the Lost Dutchman’s
Gold Mine, which is designed to heighten participant awareness to the notion
that working together toward a common purpose will bring greater rewards
financially to the organization.1
The simulation provides both a rich debrief and learning for the partici-
pants. The challenge for me as a trainer was how to introduce and organize
the exercise in a way that participants could experience the learning value
and at the same time not feel set up in the end. This led me to questions like,
“How do I share relevant information without giving away the entire learning
experience?” “What does allowing free and informed choice look like? Does it
mean they can choose not to do the exercise?” “How can I provide enough
information for them to make an informed choice so they may be committed
to wanting to play the game?” and “How can I hold the conversation or intro-
duction of this exercise in a way that models the use of the ground rules and
core values?”
My cotrainer, Michael, and I wrestled with these questions and the differ-
ent dilemmas we thought might emerge. In addition, we consulted with Roger
Schwarz to test our assumptions and thinking in an effort to help us implement
this initiative in a manner consistent with the behaviors we were seeking to
model throughout our program.
This exercise was used as a culminating experience at the close of a two-
and-a-half-day leadership program. Our intent was for the participants to be
able to apply key teachings from the program in a manner consistent with the
company’s values and to have an opportunity to work with a distilled version
of the ground rules. Therefore, we chose to introduce The Search for the Lost
Dutchman’s Gold Mine in the following manner.
We told participants, “This next portion of the program involves a simula-
tion game we believe holds great learning value. Part of the learning value
490 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 491
comes from our desire to help you discover certain ‘aha!’s’ along the way and
asks that we (the trainers) share limited pieces of information so that you may
have the ‘aha!’s’ and therefore the learning. Our dilemma is to consider what
to share and what not to share so that you do not feel set up at the end and
at the same time not give away the entire learning experience. Our question
to you is, given what we have just shared, are you willing to play the game?”
(If any participants had expressed an unwillingness to proceed, we would
have explored what additional information they needed or what we may have
said that led them to not be willing. Then we would have decided as a group
whether to conduct the exercise.)
We then said, “Given that you are willing to participate, there are some
things we need to say up front before getting into the game itself. (1) The out-
comes you realize as a result of playing the game are very much related to
the assumptions and inferences you conclude based on the introduction and
rules of the game; therefore, we strongly recommend you test your assump-
tions and inferences. (2) We have spent the past two days examining compa-
ny values and expectations, learning about different behavioral styles, and
understanding situational leadership. We have also worked with a set of
ground rules that include testing assumptions, sharing relevant information,
sharing your reasoning, and asking questions after making statements as a
set of specific behaviors that will help put the company values into action. We
strongly encourage you to use all that we have discussed in the past two days
to assist you in achieving your outcomes and hopeful success. (3) What ques-
tions do you have before we introduce the exercise?” Finally, after explaining
the exercise, we asked, “What questions do you have?”
The key set of instructions in The Search for the Lost Dutchman’s Gold
Mine is to “mine as much gold as we can.” The biggest assumption made by par-
ticipants is around how each group defines the word we. Groups are placed in
teams, which may lead them to think they are competing against the other
teams or, alternatively, they may think that every team is part of the larger team.
Throughout the game, we shared information when participants asked us
questions and continued to manage the dilemma of sharing enough relevant
information and yet not giving away the learning experience.
After the simulation was over, we conducted a thorough debrief with the
participants. This conversation taught us that our approach had worked since
none of the groups felt set up. In addition, participants expressed the belief
that they had taken ownership of their actions, behaviors, and outcomes as a
result of the assumptions they made, the questions they chose to ask or not
ask, and the choices such information led them to make. It led to a rich learn-
ing experience for all involved, because participants accepted that the out-
comes were a result of how they chose to play the game and did not think that
we, the trainers, were a factor in those outcomes.
The experience of considering how to reframe this simulation exercise in
a manner that was consistent with the core values and ground rules was a
powerful one for both Michael and me. Throughout the process, we had to
challenge our own assumptions about what would work and what wouldn’t
work for the group. We had to trust the participants’ ability to make good
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 491
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 492
decisions for their own learning. And, finally, we recognized that even if the
participants beat the game, by pulling together as one group and winning as
much gold as possible, there would be rich learning for all of us as we com-
pared the process that led to such success to the daily process we engage in
at work. When we realized that there was no way the exercise could fail the
group, we were confident in our ability to use the exercise for rich learning.
1. Scott Simmerman, The Search for the Lost Dutchman’s Gold Mine, available at http://www.
squarewheels.com/.
Role Plays
Role plays are an important way for participants to develop their skills, especially
when trainers are present to provide feedback. Some participants who have attended
our workshops dreaded the role plays because of their experiences in other courses.
In general, they found the role plays in our workshop to be one of the most valu-
able aspects of their learning. The difference comes again with the setup.
In order to practice the skills being taught, role plays are often conducted with
participants’ acting out make-believe roles. This approach works for some partici-
pants and not for others. One problem with fictitious role plays is that participants
state that the role plays are not like their real-life situations and therefore don’t
help them practice their new skills. If they find themselves unable to perform
effectively in the role play, they sometimes attribute it to the artificiality of the role
play rather than to their lack of skill. This reduces their ability to learn from their
experience.
Part of being a facilitative trainer involves designing role-play practice in a way
that gives participants a free and informed choice about how best to practice their
emerging skills. To do this, we provide a range of options. First, we provide ficti-
tious role plays, in part, because some participants prefer this type of practice. Some
participants feel they learn better if they are not as personally invested in the role
play. Others are reluctant to share their real-life challenges in the class. Others sim-
ply have difficulty thinking up a relevant role play. All of our fictitious role plays are
based on real situations that we or our previous clients have faced, so participants
typically find them realistic. If participants use these role plays, we still encourage
them to modify them to better fit their learning needs.
Second, we encourage participants and give them time to think up role plays
in which they are practicing the skills in their real roles. For example, a person may
decide to role-play a difficult conversation he had (or anticipates having) with his
team. This person then asks others to role-play his team members and gives them
enough information to play their roles realistically. When participants choose
this option, they often tell us that the role play seemed so real to them that they
began to feel as if they were in the actual meeting. Third, when participants in the
492 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
https://squarewheels.com
http://www
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 493
workshop have real-life work relationships outside the class (such as a work group
or project team), we encourage them to use part of their role-play time to get real
work done. In this situation, all participants are practicing their skills at the same
time.
Whatever options participants choose, before they begin their practice, we ask
them if there are any skills in particular that they want to practice so we can be certain
to give them feedback on skills they are interested in learning. At the end of their
practice, we also ask them how they want to receive their feedback (we suggest sev-
eral options), instead of assuming that we, as trainers, know best how to structure
the feedback for them. The participants control the key elements of their role play
and feedback to make it useful to their own specific learning goals. As the directors
of their own experience, participants are committed to their learning.
This approach to role plays requires more skill from the trainers because they
often need to give feedback on role plays they have never seen before, much like
skilled facilitators intervene with groups. This is another characteristic of facilitative
trainers: they can model the mind-set and skill set they are teaching without hav-
ing to stay with a preset script.
Steps to Becoming a Facilitative Trainer
By Matt Beane
When I began to work as a trainer, I was more unilateral in my point of view
and approaches to training than I am now. I used the following four methods
to make this transition and continue to use them with colleagues to improve
the quality of our training work:
• Identify unilateral elements of your training behavior and design.
Observe your own training work, ask to be observed as you train, or
tape your training work. Explore not only how you train but also the
design of the training itself.
• Explore the causes of the behavior and design. This can include
unilateral beliefs that you bring to the situation from experience, uni-
lateral training designs, organizational policy, or pressure from others.
It can help to explore the causes with others who might see things that
you miss.
• Consider change. Consider making changes to shift from a unilateral
to a mutual learning approach. If this would involve others, engage in
conversation with them about this.
• Be transparent about the change you’re trying to make. When
delivering a training experience, let clients and colleagues know about
the changes you are trying to create, and ask for their feedback.
The participants
control the key
elements of their
role play and feedback
to make it useful to their
own specific learning
goals. As the directors
of their own experience,
participants are committed
to their learning.
Chapter 58 • Becoming a Facilitative Trainer | 493
68_964948 ch58.qxd 3/3/05 12:43 PM Page 494
CONCLUSION
Most trainers we have met were taught to use unilateral strategies to work with adult
learners. We were taught to withhold relevant information, keep our teaching
strategies secret, and manipulate learners in hopes of giving them “aha!” learning
experiences. Once we understand the negative unintended consequences of these
actions, we are able to choose whether to create more powerful learning for partic-
ipants and ourselves by becoming facilitative trainers.
Resource
Kraiger, K. (ed.). Creating, Implementing, and Managing Effective Leadership and Devel-
opment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2001.
Note
1. Two of the other books found to be inconsistent with the Skilled Facilitator
approach are Lou Russell, The Accelerated Learning Fieldbook (2000), and
Brian L. Delahaye and Barry J. Smith, How to Be an Effective Trainer, 3rd ed.
(1998).
References
Delahaye, B. L., and Smith, B. J. How to Be an Effective Trainer. (3rd ed.) New York:
Wiley, 1998.
Mitchell, G. The Trainer’s Handbook: The AMA Guide to Effective Training. New York:
AMACOM, 1998.
Russell, L. The Accelerated Learning Fieldbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2000.
494 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 495
�
Chapter 59
Being a Facilitative
Consultant
Harry Furukawa
The Skilled Facilitator approach simultaneously increases the likelihood that a
consultant and his or her client (the group with which the consultant is working)
can both be more effective. An underlying assumption of the approach is that a con-
sultant’s theory-in-use and associated mental models determine how that person
performs. These are largely based on the priority values that that individual holds
(a result of his or her developmental worldview, internal beliefs, and the external sit-
uation) and the associated skills that this person possesses to operationalize their
priority values. People employ their priority values, a theory-in-use, and mental
models whether they realize it or not.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT
FACILITATIVE CONSULTING
A facilitative consultant is defined as a third party who is a process expert or a con-
tent expert, may be involved in decision making, and uses the Skilled Facilitator
approach. The use of the Skilled Facilitator approach, and the mutual learning
model that is part of it, differentiates a facilitative consultant from one who is not.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
This distinction is important because different theories-in-use and mental mod-
els lead consultants to behave differently. For example, consultants using a unilateral
control theory-in-use seek to achieve their goal through unilateral control, winning/not
losing, avoiding negative feelings, and acting rational. This can lead them to act as if
they are the expert (have the best process and content answers), advocate their point of
view without genuine inquiry, and unilaterally control the agenda (for example, by
deciding when someone is off-topic).
When a consultant acts unilaterally, the people in the client organization often
feel that they have not been well served. Typical reactions may include feeling that
A facilitative
consultant is
defined as a third
party who is a process
expert or a content expert,
may be involved in deci-
sion making, and uses the
Skilled Facilitator
approach.
495
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 496
�
not all of their concerns were addressed or feeling that their opinions are not val-
ued. For example, a client related a story to me in which a consultant was asked to
conduct research and lead a discussion about rebranding the logo and image of an
organization.
At a presentation to a senior leadership group of about thirty people, the
consultant presented the findings of his research (the key finding being that
focus groups didn’t react positively to the existing logo). He then proposed
a solution for a new logo and image (advocating, but failing to inquire about
different points of view) and asked if the senior leaders supported the pro-
posal. A majority raised their hands in support, and the consultant declared
that he would then begin redesigning the rest of the organization’s key
material. In the days following the meeting, a number of people complained
that they had no chance to air opinions and concerns with the new logo and
expressed reservations about moving forward
If people in the organization do not feel well served, then their commitment to
implement and monitor the decision and their desire to reengage the consultant can
fall. In the example, the level of water-cooler conversation about the logo rose to
the level that the topic was discussed again, and the consultant’s proposed design
was later criticized and the process began anew with a new consultant. Behaviors
based on unilateral theories-in-use often result in the client’s having less long-term
commitment to implementing a course of action and achieving fewer results.
Often consultants may not be aware of their theories-in-use and mental models.
This makes it difficult for them to determine how they may have contributed to the
group’s effectiveness or ineffectiveness. For example, when a consultant’s mental
models of how they will behave (for example, unilateral control theory-in-use) and
of the content (for example, balanced scorecard of measures) are not explicit, it is
difficult, if not impossible, to test or improve them, and this has the potential to be
harmful.
See the Mental Models, Theory-in-Use, and Espoused Theory sidebar in Chapter Four,
“Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
For example, I recently examined a consultant-developed strategic plan and
asked senior leaders what their business model (how they intend to make money,
integrating people, operational, customer, and organizational results) and organiza-
tional strategy (what differentiated their business model from others) were, only to
discover that the consultants weren’t clear about these items. Using several strategy
models to explain the interaction of planning objectives, I led the senior leaders
through a dialogue to clarify their business model and strategy. They discovered they
were working to achieve strategic objectives that didn’t support any particular strat-
egy, which diffused the focus and (arguably) results of the organization. When con-
sultants’ theories-in-use and mental models are not explicit, it is difficult to
496 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 497
determine whether their advice is predictive (showing that the intervention led to
the desired effect) or valid (that the advice can be used in other situations with sim-
ilar results).
As a facilitative consultant in the case above, I shared my mental model—in
this case, a business model showing how different strategic objectives interacted to
produce financial, environmental, and social results in a way that was consistent
with the organizational strategy. Since everyone (including myself ) was aware of the
assumptions and interactions between elements of the model, we were able to bring
our collective wisdom to assess it and identify areas that may lessen its effectiveness.
I have used this approach over time to improve the likelihood that my models and
advice will be predictive and valid, develop jointly designed tests to evaluate and
improve their effectiveness, and better understand the principles embedded in the
models.
AN EXAMPLE: IDENTIFYING AND DEVELOPING
VALUES IN AN ORGANIZATION
As an organization architect, I help people design and transform the organizations in
which they work in order to achieve better financial, environmental, and social re-
sults. Most of my work is in the areas of strategic planning (identifying mission, vi-
sion, and values and developing business models and organizational strategies to
achieve them), organizational change, and quality and productivity improvement.
As a result of a presentation that I gave describing a case study in values identifi-
cation and development, I was approached by a service organization with multiple fa-
cilities to develop a statement of values. This statement of values was intended to guide
employee behavior, so that customers and the employees would have consistent ex-
periences regardless of the site. These values would also form the basis for aligning or-
ganizational systems (such as the recruiting and hiring process and the performance
evaluation process) and their leadership development model. What follows are some of
the highlights of how I used the Skilled Facilitator approach in this project.
Contracting for Consultation
In contracting, a number of decisions must be made in conjunction with the client.
This is usually the first time that a consultant’s theory-in-use and mental models be-
come evident. There are four stages of contracting:
Stage One: Initial conversation with a primary client group member
Stage Two: Planning the consultation
Stage Three: Reaching agreement with the entire primary client group
Stage Four: Completing and evaluating the consultation.
When consultants’
theories-in-use and
mental models are
not explicit, it is difficult to
determine whether their
advice is predictive (show-
ing that the intervention
led to the desired effect) or
valid (that the advice can
be used in other situations
with similar results).
Chapter 59 • Being a Facilitative Consultant | 497
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 498
�
I illustrate in the following sections the ground rules I applied in the various
stages.
See Chapter Eight, “Contracting with Groups,” page 89.
Stage One: Initial Conversation
Focus on interests, not positions. In my first conversation with the CEO, I asked him to
share his interest (what was important about the solution) in developing a values state-
ment. He responded that his interest stemmed from reading several popular business
books that described the correlation between strong shared values and outstanding
long-term business results. He was concerned that the organization was growing and
customers were having different experiences at different locations and that the values
are difficult to implement, specifically, that he didn’t know what steps to take.
I described my interest in helping them identify priority values, develop action
steps to develop skills and behaviors, and implement mechanisms that would rein-
force those values. By soliciting his interests and naming mine and agreeing that both
sets were important, I was able to suggest an approach to the project in terms of con-
tent and process (including how I would facilitate) that we could both commit to.
Had I acted unilaterally, I would have simply proposed a process without so-
liciting interests, but failing to solicit his interests and name mine could have raised
the risk that either or both of us would be less committed to the approach, lessening
the potential effectiveness of the solution.
We agreed on a number of items, including the date and setting for the meeting
with the management team, the proposed agenda, and that the management team
would be the client and their interests would also need to be made explicit so that
they could be included in the design, because their commitment would be required
for the initiative to be implemented.
Stage Two: Planning the Consultation
Share all relevant information and explain your reasoning and intent. Based on my
conversation with the CEO and the committee charged with writing the values
statement, I developed a project outline including purpose, agenda, roles and re-
sponsibilities, and description of the Skilled Facilitator approach. I described the
core values and ground rules of the Skilled Facilitator approach, how using them
could help generate commitment, and how they would provide an expectation of
how I would act. First, I asked the CEO and committee to present their interests
and solicited the rest of the team’s interests. This provided a common pool of in-
formation, as evidenced by several team members who remarked that they hadn’t
initially understood why this initiative was so important.
498 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 499
I then presented the project outline to the management team, explained the rea-
soning and intent for each of the steps in the process and for using a specific instru-
ment to measure values, and described the projected outcomes. I provided a common
pool of relevant information for the management team to begin the decision-making
process and described my reasoning and intent (one way to share relevant informa-
tion) so that the team could see if there were any flaws in my logic, identify any
interests that were not addressed, and understand how the steps incorporated various
interests.
Had I acted in a unilateral mode, I would not have shared my reasoning and
intent (since I would be the expert), but not sharing relevant information and ex-
plaining reasoning and intent may have raised the risk that team members didn’t
see why this initiative was important or that they make untested inferences about
why the organization is embarking on a course of action.
Stage Three: Reaching Agreement
with the Entire Client Group
Combine advocacy and inquiry. After completing the presentation of the process, I
inquired into the team’s thoughts and reactions. I invited team members to raise
specific concerns about the proposed process, so that we could craft a process that
everyone could commit to. Several concerns were raised about specific points, for
example, which employees would take the values inventory, which I addressed
through explanation, by joint design of methods, or by revising proposed steps. Sev-
eral members remarked that they were pleased with the flexibility that I displayed
and that their concerns were addressed. Had I used a unilateral control approach, I
would not have inquired, or may have asked rhetorical questions, and I might have
missed an opportunity to learn about flaws in my reasoning or ways to improve the
process to generate a higher level of commitment.
Jointly design next steps. The discussion took longer than was allotted in the
agenda, so I proposed that we collectively review options for next steps and decide
whether to stop and resume the conversation at a future point or continue. The
team decided to complete the discussion in order to avoid retracing topics at a fu-
ture meeting and to continue the momentum of the values initiative.
Had I acted unilaterally or supported a unilateral call to stop and move to the
next topic, I would have contributed to the possibility that team members would feel
that time had been wasted or, if a decision were made at that point, that the risk of
members feeling that their concerns were not addressed would decrease commitment.
Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed. Since
we had agreed that the management team was the client and that everyone had an
active role in the implementation, I proposed that consensus be reached, to which
the team agreed. After completing the discussion, I asked each person individually
Chapter 59 • Being a Facilitative Consultant | 499
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 500
whether he or she supported the project and plan; this gave everyone an additional
opportunity to voice concerns and increase individual commitment and account-
ability for supporting the project. In the end, the team committed to the process
proposed, and we also agreed on points where the project would be evaluated for
continuation and how the evaluations would be conducted.
I was later told by my contact person that it was one of the few times that the
team changed its agenda and that he was relieved that a decision was reached, while
being fully discussed in a way that everyone could support it. Had I not raised the
issue of how the decision was to be made, it is quite possible that team members
would have deferred to the CEO, and this may have led to later frustration. Team
members might have felt that they had little voice and the CEO might have felt that
the team was not leading and making decisions.
Stage Four: Completing and Evaluating the Consultation
The project plan had the following steps:
• Generate relevant information by administering a values inventory and ana-
lyzing results to understand the priority values of the leadership team and of
employees at all sites.
• Provide individual and group feedback to leadership.
• Work with the values development committee to form key developmental
clusters of values, identify any developmental gaps in desired values, and pro-
pose wording of values statements.
• Present draft values statements and reasoning to the full management team
for comments and modify as group chooses.
• Design a blueprint identifying training and development opportunities to
help employees gain skills associated with values and develop mechanisms
to reinforce behavior consistent with values, including a team component to
performance reviews to reinforce teamwork.
Generating Relevant Information
Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean. Working from the as-
sumption that the capability to behave in a certain manner is the result of having pri-
ority values (wanting to) and associated skills (being able to), it was critical to
understand what priority values the organization held. I recommended the Hall-Tonna
Values Inventory because it is a specific, actionable, developmental, descriptive values
framework that has been validated under American Psychological Association guide-
lines. I felt that the framework was especially useful because it includes 125 human
values, each of which has a standardized definition, so that we start with an agreed-on
500 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 501
understanding of what each value means and avoid misunderstandings. For example,
a number of team members felt that integrity was a key value, but there are many de-
finitions of that term. Using this framework provided a way for everyone to have a
common language with which to discuss values and avoid misunderstandings and pro-
tracted discussions of what terms meant.
A unilateral consultant often has a prescriptive framework (saying that a certain
set of values is most important) or asks people what values are important but does
not have them agree on what they mean. Not agreeing (or not having an agreed-on
taxonomy) on what important words mean may have raised the risk that people mis-
understand each other, that implementation steps don’t address what people thought
the values meant, and that extra time is required.
Providing Individual and Group Feedback to Leaders
Share all relevant information. In this step I provided individual feedback to each
member of the management team (which included directors of the various facili-
ties) on their priority values and presented summaries of aggregate priority values
of the employees of each facility to the respective facility management teams. By
providing this feedback, I was able to help each leader understand his or her prior-
ity values, see the overlap with the proposed values of the organization and the group
that reported to them, and prepare them to discuss the priority organizational val-
ues. This gave them information to increase their understanding and on which
to act.
For example, one leader reported that he felt that his staff spent too much time
talking about their families and that he would cut short those conversations, but
when he saw that that value of family/belonging was a very high priority for them
(and not for him), he began to understand the importance of the value to his em-
ployees and that his lack of interest could be a missed opportunity to tap into their
energy. When he changed his behavior and began inquiring into employees’ fami-
lies, he reported that their faces lit up and they seemed more energetic. In another
case, one of the members of the leadership team became very quiet as I showed him
that he had minimal overlap with the leadership team’s values. At the conclusion of
the session, he remarked that he now understood why he felt so stressed at work.
Some months later, I happened to see him, and he told me that after gaining in-
sights into what was important to him, he had left the organization for a job with
a new company, one whose values better matched his. He couldn’t remember being
happier at work.
Had I acted unilaterally, I probably would have just proposed the action steps
and shared the information that formed the basis for those steps. Had I not shared
relevant information, I may have raised the risk of leaders’ not being able to under-
stand why certain values were being picked, and thereby lessening their commit-
ment, and limited their ability to see how to effectively change their behavior.
Chapter 59 • Being a Facilitative Consultant | 501
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 502
Forming Values Clusters and Drafting
Values Statements
Explain your reasoning and intent. During a meeting of the subgroup that had been
charged with drafting the values statements (principles that encompassed a cluster
of specific values), the CEO advocated for inclusion of a principle addressing in-
novation, even though it was not a cluster of values that was a high priority in the
organization. He received negative reactions, and I asked what led him to advocate
for innovation. In sharing his reasoning, he explained that without innovation, the
organization would be a copier of others and not be the leading organization of their
vision. On hearing what led him to advocate for innovation, the members of the
subgroup acknowledged the importance of innovation and enthusiastically agreed
to include it.
Had I not asked the CEO to explain his reasoning, I may have raised the risk
that the focus would have been on positions (for example, “I want to include inno-
vation” versus “I don’t want it”). If the CEO prevailed, then others would feel little
commitment, and if the CEO didn’t prevail, then he might feel then they just don’t
understand.
Presenting the Draft Values Statements
Combining advocacy with inquiry. At the management team meeting, after the val-
ues clusters and statements were presented, I asked if anyone had questions or con-
cerns. One member raised a concern about how they would ensure that everyone
behaves consistently with the values. I showed sample sections of a matrix that in-
cluded desired behaviors, training opportunities, and behavioral mechanisms (meth-
ods to reinforce behavior consistent with desired values, for example, including a
team contribution component for the value of collaboration) for each cluster of val-
ues. She became excited that the organization would take specific actions to imple-
ment the values. Her concern was that the statement of values would simply be a
proclamation and that no action would be taken.
Designing the Blueprint
Test assumptions and inferences. In identifying the training opportunities and be-
havioral mechanisms, I encouraged the team to test the assumptions of the various
models that were proposed. As an illustration, one behavioral mechanism proposed
to address safety issues was based on the hinge model of safety. This model can be
thought of as a pyramid of safety issues, ranging in severity from incidents of un-
safe behavior at the base of the pyramid, to incidents that require first aid, to inci-
dents that result in injury, and finally, to incidents that result in fatalities at the top
of the pyramid. A basic assumption in the model is that by reducing incidents of
unsafe behavior, corresponding incidents requiring first aid, incidents resulting in
injury, and incidents resulting in fatalities would also decrease—that a hinge effect
502 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 503
would occur. We found a Fortune 500 manufacturer that had tested that assump-
tion and, based on their data, found that reducing the incidents of unsafe behavior
had little impact on more severe incidents.
Had I acted unilaterally, I probably would not have proposed testing assump-
tions of models, especially if I had proposed the model. Not testing this assumption
could have had dire consequences, such as continuing to put employees at risk of
serious injury or death.
Epilogue
Discuss undiscussable issues. As part of the implementation plan, the Facilitative Leader
workshop was taught to support a cluster of values regarding more effective human
relationships. In discussions with several members of the management team after the
blueprint had been launched, I noted that at several points, they spoke about be-
haviors exhibited by the CEO that appeared inconsistent with some of the values. I
inquired how they had responded to the behaviors and learned that they had not said
anything about them. I inferred that this was an undiscussable topic and checked to
see if it was. They concurred, and after I acknowledged the risks involved, I discussed
the possible consequences of not intervening and also of being compassionate.
They decided that it was important to intervene, and we scripted several op-
tions for addressing the behavior, including the difficulty that they felt in raising the
issue with the CEO. As related to me by one member of the team who subsequently
had a conversation with the CEO, the CEO acknowledged that he could be more
effective and invited this person to help him improve.
Had I not intervened, the undiscussable issue would probably have remained
undiscussable and raised the likelihood that the team would feel that the CEO
wasn’t committed to the values initiative and that other issues also would remain
undiscussed.
In addition, in evaluating the process, the management team helped me un-
derstand what worked well and what could be improved. So I also learned in the
process and was able to improve the quality of my services. For example, I have
added some supporting materials (for example, notes to explain terms in the feed-
back report) to the way that I conduct feedback.
FACILITATIVE CONSULTING
Using the Skilled Facilitator core values and ground rules during the course of a
client engagement increases the likelihood that decisions will be of higher quality,
that there will be increased commitment to follow through on action plans, and
greater motivation to monitor and improve. The process requires sharing valid, rel-
evant information to make the best decisions to generate internal commitment.
Chapter 59 • Being a Facilitative Consultant | 503
69_964948 ch59.qxd 3/3/05 10:14 AM Page 504
Deploying the blueprint to strengthen values alignment is interactive and re-
quires that various units and levels in an organization use their collective intelligence
and creativity to determine the most effective way to gain skills and change behav-
ior. People’s commitment and contributions led to the implementation of many ac-
tions that arose from piloting sections of the blueprint as well as lessons learned in
preparation for future initiatives.
As a result of the initiative, I have developed a strong relationship with my
client. Some of the manifestations of this relationship include periodic requests for
advice, making joint presentations on how the values development process helped
improve the organization’s culture and organizational results, and a budget line for
additional services.
The use of the Skilled Facilitator approach in consulting in this and other en-
gagements has helped planning teams have conversations that lead to high-quality
decisions, effective implementation, and mutual learning.
504 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 505
�
�
Chapter 60
Using the Skilled
Facilitator Approach
as a Parent
Peg Carlson
A frequent comment we hear from people who have participated in the Skilled
Facilitator or the Facilitative Leader workshop is, “This approach isn’t just about fa-
cilitation or just applicable to work. This is about how to communicate effectively
with other people in all areas of your life.” We completely agree. One of the things
that has been most gratifying, and sometimes most challenging, for me is practic-
ing the Skilled Facilitator approach with my young children. I’ve found it to be a
wonderful and humbling practice ground: wonderful because the payoff is so sig-
nificant in terms of improving parent-child relationships and teaching these skills
to the next generation; humbling because these are the people who are most adept
at eliciting my unilateral tendencies and distinguishing between rhetorical and gen-
uine inquiry!
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, and Chapter Twenty-Six,
“Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations,” page
217.
TEACHING THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION
CYCLE TO MY CHILDREN
As any parent knows, very young children are already capable of making inferences.
It’s part of all human beings’ drive to make meaning of their experiences and sur-
roundings. In Skilled Facilitator terms, children are adept at sharing their inferences
(step 5) without necessarily sharing what they observed that led them to that infer-
ence (step 4).
See the Ladder of Inference sidebar in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page
61.
505
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 506
�
I believe children
can learn to
use the ground
rules and the diagnosis-
intervention cycle fairly
easily because the mutual
learning approach is so
consistent with a child’s
natural curiosity about
the world.
I believe children can learn to use the ground rules and the diagnosis-intervention
cycle fairly easily because the mutual learning approach is so consistent with a child’s
natural curiosity about the world. It is our job as parents to help them extend that nat-
ural curiosity to the realm of interpersonal interactions. Without using jargon, I’ve taken
advantage of teachable moments to help my children become aware of what they saw
or heard that led them to make an inference.
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33; Chapter Five, “Ground
Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61; and Chapter Six, “The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle,” page
69.
Conversations about things that happened at school often provide rich mater-
ial for separating observations from inferences:
When my son Jacob came home from school one day and reported, “Daniel
is mad at me,” I resisted the temptation to say, “What did you do to make him
mad?” (which would just confirm his inference and add one of my own).
Instead, I asked, “What did Daniel say or do that makes you think he’s mad
at you?” By asking this question, I was attempting to teach Jacob to make a
distinction between the directly observable behavior (Daniel’s words and
actions) and his inference about what his friend’s behavior means. After
reflecting for a minute, Jacob replied, “Well, he’s been playing with Gabriel
and Christopher most of the time at recess. They’re playing some kind of
Spiderman game.” I responded with a question to help Jacob make a link
between the behavior he observed and the inference he made: “And you
think he’s mad at you because he’s playing with them instead of you?” Jacob
brightened and said, “Well, no, actually, they asked me to play with them. I’m
just not very interested in Spiderman. Huh, I guess he’s probably not mad
at me.” And he skipped off.
Of course, not all inferences turn out to be misunderstandings. We’ve also had
conversations where Jacob had tested and confirmed his inference, and our discus-
sion turned to what he might do differently next time (step 6 in the cycle).
I had a remarkable experience recently helping my four-year-old daughter use
the diagnosis-intervention cycle—remarkable both because of her age and because
of the content of the conversation:
While we were driving home from preschool one afternoon, Lena suddenly
piped up from her car seat, “I think Gail asked us to share our penis and our
vagina today at share time.” (Gail is one of Lena’s preschool teachers, a
warm and grandmotherly type; “share” is their show-and-tell time.)
Concealing my surprise—I was glad that I was driving and she was sitting
behind me—I replied noncommittally, “Hmmm. Do you remember exactly
what she said?” I could almost hear the gears turning as Lena thought for a
few moments, and then she said, “Well, when it was time for share, Gail said,
‘It’s time to go to your cubbies and get your you-know-what.’” (A disclaimer:
506 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 507
we do not refer to genitalia as “you-know-what” around our house; however,
Lena had heard her eight-year-old brother and his buddies use this term and
had apparently deduced its meaning.)
I felt my laughter bubbling up, but I stifled it because I didn’t want Lena
to feel foolish—this was turning into a terrific teachable moment. We talked
about what the expression “you know what” can mean, and why Gail may
have said this when she saw a group of preschoolers who were eager to
start their share time. I told her, “You did a great job remembering exactly
what Gail said.That makes it easier for us to figure out what people meant—
or to go back and ask them what they meant if we can’t figure it out.”
In thinking about this exchange later, I was struck by how differently the con-
versation could have unfolded if I had gone up my own ladder of inference and
asked different, more leading questions. Because of my training as a facilitator and
because I had absolutely no concern about Gail’s behavior with Lena or any of her
classmates, it was easy for me to stay in a mutual learning mode. But what if I didn’t
have the skills to help Lena trace where her inferences had come from or had the
skills but didn’t use them because her statement had triggered a hot button for me
that reflected a concern about her child care situation? It would have been easy to
ask a question like, “Did she touch you?” Lena almost certainly would have answered
yes to this question, as Gail gives the children hugs, helps them tie their shoes, and
is close to them in other ways. It was not hard to imagine a scenario where I would
have come away convinced that something had happened, all due to an alternative
line of questioning that took Lena’s inference as a jumping-off point. Although the
conversation was hilarious on one level, it was also a sobering reminder of stories in
the news about alleged abuse at day care centers and just how difficult it can be to
determine what actually happened once adults—even loving, well-meaning adults—
begin to ask questions that are based on their own inferences.
REWARDING CHILDREN FOR USING
FACILITATIVE SKILLS
Although I haven’t explicitly taught the ground rules to my children, I’ve been
pleased to see how often they use them naturally in their own conversations, and
my husband and I try to let them know when we see them acting consistently with
the Skilled Facilitator approach—for example:
One morning when Jacob was having breakfast before a day at summer
camp, my husband, Andrew, asked him, “Were you warm enough yester-
day?” Jacob replied, “Yes. Why do you ask?” Andrew explained that it had
been an unusually cool week, and Jacob had been dressed only in shorts
and a T-shirt. Andrew (who happened to be taking the Skilled Facilitator
workshop that very week) smilingly caught my eye, and we complimented
Jacob on how nicely he had asked his father to explain the reasoning
behind his question.
Although I haven’t
explicitly taught the
ground rules to my
children, I’ve been pleased
to see how often they use
them naturally in their
own conversations, and
my husband and I try to
let them know when we
see them acting consis-
tently with the Skilled
Facilitator approach.
Chapter 60 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach as a Parent | 507
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 508
DECREASING CONFLICT WITH
FACILITATION SKILLS
I believe the core values and ground rules sometimes need to be modified in their
use with young children. For example, it’s not always possible for children to have
the valid information they need to make free and informed choices because of their
lack of life experience. It is part of a parent’s job to give children opportunities to
develop their decision-making skills and to judge which choices a child is capable
of making. Even with these restrictions, however, I think there are more similarities
than differences in how children and adults respond to the core values and ground
rules. Whether you are dealing with children or employees, unilateral commands
are likely to result in compliance at best (or rebellion at worst). One example of this
from our family is the use of the ground rules with some bathroom behavior:
We often want our daughter to use the bathroom before leaving the house.
Direct orders to do so often lead to resistance and frustrating, seemingly
pointless battles. What has worked better is to check the inference from her
initial refusal that she doesn’t feel that she has to go, acknowledge the
validity of that feeling, and then explain, “Sometimes, for children, your
body isn’t quite ready to tell you when you need to go. Are you willing to just
try sitting on the toilet and seeing if something comes out?” This request,
linked to our explanation of reasoning, meets with far less resistance, per-
haps because we are not asking her to do something impossible—asking
her to go to the bathroom when she does not have to go—but simply to try
something out without a predetermined result.
Another example of how we’ve used the ground rules to reduce conflict comes
from our son’s piano practice time. The expectation that he will practice piano every
day is not negotiable, but the way he approaches it is negotiable. Understandably, he
enjoys playing more when he has some freedom to choose the order in which he will
practice his week’s music, but he also gets frustrated when he tackles the difficult (and
often more interesting) pieces first and cannot play them as well as he would like.
My efforts to help him haven’t been successful when I’ve used easing-in strate-
gies (for example, “How about if you do the scales first, then play the longer
pieces?”). He immediately spots this for the rhetorical inquiry it is and continues
doing it as he was before. However, if we jointly design a way to test disagreements
and I separate my advocacy from my inquiry more clearly (for example, “I think it
will be easier and more enjoyable for you to play your longer pieces if you’ve warmed
up your fingers first on the scales. It looks as if you disagree. Is that right? Would
you be willing to try what I’m suggesting for the rest of this week, and if you don’t
feel that it’s helping your practice, you can go back to the way you’ve been doing
it?”), the conversations have been much more constructive. If the goal is internal
commitment, the ground rules are the tools you can use to cultivate an approach
that doesn’t require constant external monitoring to ensure its success.
508 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 509
�
USING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR
APPROACH TO HELP CHILDREN
MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD
See Chapter Twenty-Two, “Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation,” page 195.
Children have the Beginner’s Mind that adults strive for. To young children, liter-
ally anything is possible because magic and reality coexist. They also tend to believe
that they are the center of the universe. These lead to two very important conse-
quences for parents:
• It is critical to solicit the relevant information and check our inferences from
their behavior when working on difficult issues, because their world has the
potential to be very different from our own. Jointly designing solutions that
work in their reality—for example, concocting a magic monster spray
that chases those very “real” monsters from under the bed—generates great
internal commitment.
• Children do make inferences based on their egoistic worldview. It is incum-
bent on us to explain our reasoning and to share relevant information so that
the attributions they make are the correct ones, ones that confer responsibil-
ity or free them from responsibility where appropriate.
My husband and I believe that using the core values and ground rules as par-
ents will help us raise our children to be responsible, compassionate members of so-
ciety. We’re still in the early stages of our journey, but we feel that the approach has
greatly benefited our family life thus far, and we look forward to learning with, and
from, our children in the years ahead.
Chapter 60 • Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach as a Parent | 509
70_964948 ch60.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 510
71_964948 ch61.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 511
Chapter 61
Running for Office
in a Unilaterally
Controlling World
Steve Kay
When I train people on the elements of the Skilled Facilitator model or coach
people in its use, one consistent area of question, sometimes voiced as an underlying
concern or source of resistance, is about “being a mutual learner in a unilaterally
controlling world.” In one form or another, the question—and the underlying
concern—is about the risk to oneself when providing valid information to people
of uncertain motivation. “Oh, I can’t say that,” a person will say in response
to a suggestion, and then explain that the other person will be offended or unhappy
with the information and, if in a position of power, might cause problems in
return.
As a trainer or a coach, I have found it relatively easy to assure people that act-
ing in a way consistent with the Skilled Facilitator model is not only the right thing
to do, it is the most effective thing to do. It’s the right thing to do, I would say,
because the values underlying the model are about respect, openness, and fairness.
Especially if it’s a hard message, the other person deserves to know your thoughts
so she can make her own informed judgments about actions to take. And it’s
the effective thing to do, I would say, because unilateral control actions have
unintended negative consequences—certainly in the long run and often in the
shor run.
Then I decided to run for public office: an at-large position on the Lexington-
Fayette (Kentucky) Urban County Council. I found myself wondering if I could
follow my own advice. Suddenly everything was not so easy. “Politics ain’t bean
bag,” politicians are fond of quoting after some particularly nasty bit of campaign
business, and many of my political colleagues and advisers were happy to repeat
the message in one form or another. The message—sometimes delivered in its
baldest form, sometimes delivered subtly and indirectly—goes like this: “Don’t run
511
71_964948 ch61.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 512
�
Following the
mutual learning
model, however,
here is what I chose to say:
“I understand that many
people view traffic as a
serious problem. I am in-
terested in working on
ways to improve traffic
flow and believe that it is
possible to make mar-
ginal improvements. But
short of a radical change
in habits and attitudes—
people giving up their
cars for walking, biking,
and mass transit—I see
no easy solution.”
This may or may not win
votes, but at least it doesn’t
contribute to the belief that
there is an easy way to
improve traffic conditions,
if only the fools at city hall
were competent enough
to do the right thing.
if you don’t want to win. If you want to win, you have to play by the unofficial
rules, which include deviousness, deception, and deceit. This is a campaign, con-
ducted under the rules of war. Everybody else will be playing by these rules, and if
you don’t, you can’t win. Don’t be naive. Don’t be a fool.” I thanked these people
for their advice and let them know that I thought there was another way to con-
duct a campaign.
From the many challenges that quickly came in operating the campaign ac-
cording to the values of internal commitment, valid information, and free and in-
formed choice, I have chosen one example in each of three categories: taking a
position, campaign strategy, and fundraising.
TAKING A POSITION
Polls of Lexington voters consistently show that 25 to 30 percent identify traffic
congestion as Lexington’s number one problem. No other single issue ranks as high,
nor does any other issue consistently rank in the top three. As a result, candidates
for public office usually include traffic as one of the issues they care about deeply
and will address. Some say they have a plan. Privately, most people in office or seek-
ing office concede that Lexington has outgrown its road system and, because the
county and its surrounding counties continue to grow at a fairly rapid rate,
admit that traffic is likely to get worse rather than better. Many will also concede
privately that compared to the neighboring cities of Louisville and Cincinnati or
compared to larger cities such as Atlanta or Chicago, Lexington doesn’t have much
of a traffic problem.
If I followed the unilateral control line about how to conduct a campaign, I
would adopt a unilateral control approach and say what other candidates do about
traffic. Of course, I wouldn’t reveal my reasoning and intent (Ground Rule Four),
because if I did, it would sound something like this: “I don’t think traffic is much
of a problem, not compared to issues of growth or pay raises for city employees. But
since polls show that almost 30 percent of you think traffic is Lexington’s number
one problem and since I want your vote, I’m going to say that traffic is a real prob-
lem and that I have an idea about how to fix it.”
See Chapter Four, “Understanding What Guides Your Behavior,” page 33.
Following the mutual learning model, however, here is what I chose to say: “I
understand that many people view traffic as a serious problem. I am interested
in working on ways to improve traffic flow and believe that it is possible to
make marginal improvements. But short of a radical change in habits and at-
titudes—people giving up their cars for walking, biking, and mass transit—I
see no easy solution.”
512 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
71_964948 ch61.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 513
This may or may not win votes, but at least it doesn’t contribute to the belief
that there is an easy way to improve traffic conditions, if only the fools at city hall
were competent enough to do the right thing.
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
The race for the three at-large seats on the council is unusual in one important way:
people have three votes. That is, the three seats are filled every four years from one
pool of candidates, and each person can vote for up to three of the candidates in
the pool. This leads most campaigns to adopt a covert strategy of encouraging “bul-
let voting,” which means urging voters to use only one of their three votes available.
The reasoning behind the strategy runs like this: since the top three vote-getters will
win seats, a vote for anyone other than one’s prime candidate could hurt that
candidate. That is, one’s favorite candidate could be edged out by the one vote the
voter cast for his or her second or third choice. The strategy is covert because no
campaign wants to be overtly in the undemocratic posture of urging its partisans to
disregard the two other seats that will be filled and not participate in choosing the
best people for those seats.
If articulated, the covert strategy would sound something like this: “I care more
about winning a seat for myself than I do about ensuring that we have the three best
at-large council people possible, so I urge you to vote for me and not vote for anyone
else.” I chose to urge people to use all three of their votes for the three best
candidates.
FUNDRAISING
The fundraising gurus offer consistent advice about seeking campaign contribu-
tions. For telephone solicitations (the preferred mode for any but the smallest con-
tributions), the candidate makes the call, asks for a specific amount at the absolute
highest end of what is reasonable for the person being called, and doesn’t hang up
without getting a solid commitment of both amount and when it will be sent. The
intent is to put potential donors on the spot and not give them the opportunity to
consider what they really want to do.
If verbalized, the strategy would sound something like this: “I know you hate
to say no to someone in person and you hate not to meet people’s expectations, so
I’m going to push for a commitment from you that is more than you would likely
make otherwise.” Anyone who gives is targeted for further solicitations unless she
reaches the maximum allowed by law. Rather than use this strategy, I chose to do
no direct telephone solicitations. I also tried my best to keep people off lists for
fundraising events or further mail appeals if they had responded to my initial
fundraising letter.
Chapter 61 • Running for Office in a Unilaterally Controlling World | 513
71_964948 ch61.qxd 3/3/05 10:15 AM Page 514
It’s possible to
run for office
in a unilaterally
controlling world using
mutual learning values, but
it takes a concerted effort.
The grain, oriented to
winning at all costs and
short-term benefits, runs
the other way.
It’s possible to run for office in a unilaterally controlling world using mutual
learning values, but it takes a concerted effort. The grain, oriented to winning at all
costs and short-term benefits, runs the other way.
A HOPEFUL FINISH
I needed to finish in the top six in the primary. I finished seventh. Here are the vote
totals for the twelve candidates, in order of total votes, with my vote in bold type:
15,574
14,944
14,372
12,804
10,321
10,288
10,177
9,409
8,054
4,546
2,526
1,711
Not bad for a first run in a large pool filled with a number of people with name
recognition and well-financed campaigns. And although my view is certainly anything
but objective, I believe it is fair to say that the vast preponderance of evidence indi-
cates that people appreciated being treated with respect in a political campaign. Many
people said that my campaign raised their hopes about political life and increased their
willingness to participate. Many who volunteered for my campaign had never joined
a campaign before or had not worked on one in many years. And many stated their
interest in having me run again and working for me if I do. I probably will.
514 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 515
�
Chapter 62
Using the Facilitative
Leader Approach
in Public Office
Verla Insko
“She is so naive, we can eat her alive,” my assistant reported overhearing in the
halls of the North Carolina General Assembly.1 “What did you do to earn that rep-
utation?” she asked.
What I had done as a representative in the North Carolina General Assembly
was share all relevant information in a committee debate, including information in
opposition to the point I was trying to make, just as I had learned to do in the
Group Facilitation and Consultation Workshop I had attended in 1996 (a prede-
cessor of the Skilled Facilitator Workshop).
I was a new representative in the state legislature but not to elected office or to
contentious public debates. I had served in two elected offices and on one appointed
public board in my local community. All three groups dealt with issues that could
and did pit citizen groups against each other.
Despite my assistant’s remarks I decided to forge ahead, using the ground rules
I had learned in the workshop in my role as a state legislator.
See Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61.
Over the next four years, acting as a facilitative leader, I helped a diverse group
of stakeholders (consumers, advocates, public and private providers, and state-level
administrators) build a consensus position on the use of seclusion and restraints in
state-supported residential facilities; I caught the attention of the Speaker of the
House who appointed me as House chair of the Legislative Oversight Committee
on Mental Health; and I co-led a year-long process among those same stakeholders
to write a bill to reform the state’s mental health system.
515
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 516
�
�
USING THE GROUND RULES TO CRAFT
MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION
The opportunity to work on the seclusion and restraints bill was pure serendipity.
When the House Committee on Health couldn’t resolve the differences among
stakeholders, the chair referred it to a legislative research committee (LRC) that
would meet between sessions. The Speaker appointed me to chair the committee.
At the first committee meeting, emotions were high, stakeholders were entrenched
in their positions, a few people dominated the debate, and no one was problem-
solving. However, each group articulated something close to a shared vision: they
wanted what was best for this vulnerable population, most often referred to as “patient
center planning,” and they agreed the state had limited resources.
Using this shared vision as a starting point for focusing on interests rather than
positions, I found I could get a discussion back on track by asking, “How will this
help us build a more patient-centered system with existing or similar resources?”
Gradually group members began asking this question of each other. Over the next
few weeks, they developed a more collaborative process, became more focused, and
gave up distracting strategies such as jumping from one topic to another or chang-
ing the subject. By stating the unresolved issue in terms of the shared vision, how
the issue can be resolved in the best interest of the clients, the whole group eventu-
ally dealt with all of these previously avoided topics.
See Ground Rule Five in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, and
Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses
Without Foundations,” page 217. Also see Chapter Sixteen, “Helping Group Members Focus on
Interests Rather Than Positions,” page 145.
The turning point for finishing the bill came when the stakeholders agreed to
jointly develop and test possible solutions. When I realized that many of the unre-
solved issues had objective answers that had not been assessed, I asked the stake-
holders to provide data to back up their proposed solutions and use each other’s data
to test those proposals. The advocates group brought information on what other
states were doing; providers documented the added costs of training and staff
turnover in North Carolina. They pooled the information, and both sides began
moving forward. In a few weeks of tense but productive work, they drafted a bill
that passed in the next session.
See Ground Rule Seven in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, and
Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses
Without Foundations,” page 217.
As a result of my work on the LRC, the Speaker appointed me as House chair
of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Mental Health, Developmental
Disabilities and Substance Abuse, a newly created committee comprising eight state
516 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 517
�
senators and eight state representatives. Based on a major report from the state auditor,
the charge to the committee was to develop and oversee reform of the state’s system
of services for these three disability groups. The Senate chair was Steve Metcalf, a
former county manager who shared my interest in working collaboratively with stake-
holders and in reaching consensus. Although the stakeholders were the same as for the
seclusion and restraints bill, the stakes were much higher. Provider groups believed the
public mental health agencies were denying them access to clients in order to build
empires, public sector professionals believed private providers wanted to deal directly
with the state and weaken or eliminate public mental health agencies, and consumers
were caught in the middle. Trust was a major issue: groups blamed each other for
failure, and everyone wanted someone else to change. But once again, the groups were
in agreement on a basic issue: the system needed reform.
Senator Metcalf and I decided to cochair the Governance Subcommittee and
invited stakeholder groups to nominate members. Although the Governance Com-
mittee did not establish formal ground rules, Metcalf and I articulated and put into
a memo several expectations that gradually became the practice: have complete and
valid information, stay focused, jointly design solutions, and explain reasons behind
statements and questions. In one case, when I asked local mental health groups why
they sometimes did not pay service providers promptly, they stated that late pay-
ments were not a problem. Yet when I explained that I was trying to determine what
they needed to solve this problem, they were clear about their cash flow problems
and lack of expertise in reviewing claims.
Following another ground rule, we asked the group to agree on what certain
words meant and found great confusion around the terms case management, care
management, case coordination, and service coordination. The terms utilization man-
agement, utilization review, and quality assurance created similar confusion and dis-
agreement. When stakeholders realized they were using terms to refer to different
functions, they quickly agreed on the need for clear definitions and consistent use.
See Ground Rule Three in Chapter Five, “Ground Rules for Effective Groups,” page 61, and
Chapter Twenty-Six, “Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses
Without Foundations,” page 217.
Through use of the ground rules, especially sharing all relevant information
with everyone who would listen, we achieved a level of transparency that promoted
trust between legislators and stakeholders and gradually among the stakeholders
themselves. Parties dropped their guarded and defensive responses and eventually
crafted joint solutions that worked for all. During the next year, this group and the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee drafted the mental health reform bill. It
passed the General Assembly and was signed into law in October 2001.
Now, as I write this in the summer of 2003, more than three years after hear-
ing the auditors’ report, we are on schedule for the five-year rollout of mental health
reform, and we have at least the beginnings of a new culture. The pervasive distrust
Chapter 62 • Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in Public Office | 517
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 518
�
and backbiting are being replaced by communication, collaboration, and mutual
respect. This year when Senator Metcalf and I ran another bill to help implement
a piece of reform, one of the provider lobbyists said to me, “I have turned over a
new leaf; I am going to help solve this problem. I’m one of the good guys.”
GROUND RULES AT WORK FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS
The process used in these two examples was clearly not pure facilitation or entirely
consistent with a facilitative leader approach. Stakeholder groups had no input into
who would chair the committees, they had little to say about when or how they
would do their work, and they did not formally approve of the final version of ei-
ther bill. However, many essential components of the Group Effectiveness Model
existed, and Senator Metcalf and I successfully applied several ground rules.
See Chapter Two, “The Group Effectiveness Model,” page 15, and Chapter Fifteen, “Using the
Group Effectiveness Model,” page 135.
From the organizational context of the Group Effectiveness Model, both groups
had a shared vision, a supportive culture, and excellent technical support from leg-
islative staff. As for group structure, we were careful to select appropriate members
who had time to work on the problem. By working from an agreed-on agenda,
sharing relevant information with all parties, and creating a “parking lot” for other
important issues, we kept the group process focused on problem solving, commu-
nication, and decision making. By being available to meet on a one-to-one basis
with stakeholders and to travel to meetings in their local communities, we paid
close attention to the needs of individual group members. At the same time, we
built group identity around the joint challenge of improving the system for the
clients.
In the political arena, elected officials belong to many groups simultaneously.
To apply the ground rules effectively, they have to be clear about which group is
most important at any given time. That is fairly easy to do with nonpartisan policy
issues such as mental health reform and public education for purely partisan issues
such as redistricting or with ideological issues such as tax policy, abortion, and prayer
in schools. It is more difficult for legislators who are out of step with the voters back
home on some important issue. Does a legislator vote to raise taxes to save services
if the tax vote is sure to fail and an opponent back home is waiting with negative
ads? At the very least, a legislator can use the ground rules to build a reputation for
openness and fairness with colleagues and district voters.
The ground rules can also be difficult to apply within the party, as progressive
and conservative factions may form groups competing for bargaining power on an
issue. Sometimes membership between groups is very fluid: a progressive Democrat
518 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 519
might also be a member of the Black Caucus or the Women’s Caucus and might shift
identification from one group to another depending on the issue or where she can
gain the most personal power.
Regardless of the basis for the formation of a group, it will be more effective if
members share information, explain the reasons behind their actions, and seek con-
sensus decisions. Even in highly partisan settings, elected officials can be more ef-
fective if they agree on important words, keep the discussion focused, use examples,
explain their reasoning (instead of taking cheap shots), and test assumptions.
In my experience, the ground rules are best applied by elected officials when
addressing divisive but nonideological public policy issues and they have enough
time, adequate technical support, and group expertise to accomplish the work.
At the end of my seventh year in the North Carolina General Assembly and
into the third year of reform, my effectiveness ratings continue to push toward the
top, and both Senator Metcalf and I have received numerous awards for our work
in mental health. Perhaps the best evidence that our efforts are paying off came from
the executive director of the North Carolina Psychological Association when she re-
cently said, “People from other states can’t believe it when I tell them that here in
North Carolina, we all work together.”
Note
1. The North Carolina General Assembly is a part-time legislature with 120
state representatives and 50 state senators. As this is written, Democrats con-
trol the Senate; the House of Representatives has been closely divided be-
tween Republicans and Democrats since 1994.
In my experience,
the ground rules
are best applied by
elected officials when ad-
dressing divisive but non-
ideological public policy
issues and they have
enough time, adequate
technical support, and
group expertise to
accomplish the work.
Chapter 62 • Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in Public Office | 519
72_964948 ch62.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 520
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 521
Afterword
Some Important Lessons
Roger Schwarz
Anne Davidson
As we reflect on the chapters that make up The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook, some
key lessons emerge. These transcend any particular chapter or part of the book and
in some ways reflect the essence of the approach itself. Here is a brief summary of
some of the important learning from our own experiences and those of our clients
and colleagues.
CHANGING HOW YOU THINK IS FUNDAMENTAL
The power of the Skilled Facilitator approach lies in changing how you think. Yes,
the tools and techniques of the approach are necessary, but they are not sufficient
for creating and sustaining fundamental change. In fact, when people get stuck try-
ing to use the approach, it’s often because they are applying the Skilled Facilitator
tools with a unilateral control model mind-set.
When people start to shift their thinking to the mutual learning model, the
Skilled Facilitator approach becomes more natural and the tools easier to use. With
increased curiosity, transparency, and compassion, it’s easier to find the words that
convey your meaning. And others are usually more forgiving even when you don’t.
In short, a mutual learning intent comes through even if your words are imprecise.
CHANGE BEGINS WITH YOURSELF
The place to start using this approach is with yourself. You can’t change anyone else;
you can only create conditions that make it more likely that they will choose to
change too. By learning and modeling the approach, you enable others to see what
results are possible. When you establish a clear purpose and process for a conversa-
tion, share your reasoning and test your assumptions, for example, you can demon-
strate ways that a conversation becomes more productive. In the process, you often
elicit a surprisingly different response from others, altering unproductive past pat-
terns. When others see what is possible, they can make a more informed choice about
521
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 522
whether they want to learn and change as well. Your intent may be to change an en-
tire department, organization, or service system, but that change comes about one
person at a time as each commits to thinking and behaving differently.
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO GROW CHANGE
When it comes to using the Skilled Facilitator and the Facilitative Leader approaches
to create significant change in groups and organizations, there is not one right place
to start. We have started at the top and worked down through an organization, we
have started near the bottom and worked up, and we have started with small pock-
ets that have spread to larger areas of the organization.
Some clients feel more comfortable with a top-down approach, starting at the
most senior level possible and then cascading change down to lower organizational
levels. Their thinking is that if the top-level executives understand the approach, it
will make it easier for everyone below them to behave differently. Sometimes this
assessment is accurate. Other times, change that starts from the top is more strongly
resisted because people below the executive tier do not feel involved in or commit-
ted to the change. The same dilemma about creating commitment can develop when
the change is middle out or bottom up: whatever group initiates a shift in core val-
ues and behaviors tends to be most committed. Others become fully engaged and
committed only as they experience the power of thinking and acting differently and
only as those initiating the change behave consistently enough with the core values
to create some credibility.
What we have learned is that the ideal place to start is where people are inter-
ested in learning either because of some pain they are feeling or because of oppor-
tunities they sense. Our experience is that the more people make an informed free
choice to learn the approach, the more likely they are to practice it, model it for oth-
ers, and sustain their learning. This is a case of going slow to go fast.
THE CHANGE PROCESS IS NOT LINEAR
Whether you are changing yourself or helping to change a group or organization,
the process of fundamental change is not linear. In a way, it’s deceptive. There is an
early period in which people experience increased effectiveness using their new
mind-set and skills, even though they feel like awkward beginners. But at some
point, people encounter (or rather reencounter) theory-in-use issues—their own
and other’s—that lead to plateaus and setbacks. It is the ability to accept feedback
from others and to reflect on the theory-in-use issues that cause these setbacks that
determine whether people continue to deepen their skills and sustain new behav-
iors. This process seems cyclical; a new level of skill leads to addressing more fun-
damental theory-in-use issues, so that with each successive, and successful, cycle,
the ability to create mutual learning outcomes increases.
522 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 523
THINKING AND ACTING SYSTEMICALLY
CREATES LASTING RESULTS
One learning that runs throughout the Fieldbook is that you can achieve and sus-
tain more powerful results by thinking and acting systemically. We see repeatedly
how focusing on only one part of an issue creates fixes that lead to more problems.
An area that provides significant leverage for change is focusing on the under-
lying structure that gives rise to problems. Just as the physical structure of a boat
determines where and how it can move through the water, the social structure of
conversations, groups, and organizations determines what they can create. Change
the structure of the conversation by operating from a new set of core values and
assumptions, and new results are possible. Change the structure of a group by
naming and changing the defensive routine of unilaterally protecting the boss by not
disagreeing with him or her, and you change the quality of decisions.
Part of thinking and acting systemically means examining group and organiza-
tion policies and practices. These often have embedded in them elements of the
unilateral control model. Unexamined policies may place invisible limits on what
is possible. If a policy dictates, for example, that critical performance data must re-
main confidential, it is hard to design a way for teams to become more accountable
or self-managing.
The Skilled Facilitator approach is itself a systemic way of addressing systemic
issues. The power of the approach comes from integrating the various elements, such
as the Group Effectiveness Model, the mutual learning model, the ground rules,
and the diagnosis-intervention cycle. Using all the components of the Skilled Fa-
cilitator approach allows groups to identify structural elements, develop valid in-
formation about how they interact, and design collaborative, high-leverage ways to
improve the way the system works.
MAKE THE APPROACH YOUR OWN
It’s common for people just learning our approach to say that it feels unnatural.
Some people describe it as sounding mechanical; others say it feels as if someone
else has inhabited their body (or at least their mind and vocal chords). We’ve learned
that as you begin to develop any new ability, it is natural to feel unnatural. Learn-
ing the Skilled Facilitator approach is like learning a new dance or a new language;
it just does not flow at first.
Part of the unnatural feeling may also come from others’ reactions to your try-
ing your new skills. If you begin to act differently, others are also faced with chang-
ing their way of responding to you. Your new behavior and their responses to it can
leave you feeling as if you are in new territory—which you are. It’s unsettling at
times, but it’s also full of new possibilities.
The unnaturalness fades as you make the approach your own. This includes get-
ting comfortable (or at least more comfortable) with a new way of thinking. It also
Afterword | 523
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 524
includes experimenting with language—finding words and phrases that sound like
you, not like you imitating someone else or what you read in the book. It’s differ-
ent for each of us; what sounds natural coming out of our mouths may sound
strange coming out of yours, and vice versa. There are different ways to put the core
values and assumptions of the approach into words. Experiment until you sound
like a mutual learning version of yourself.
MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT HOW EXTENSIVELY
TO USE THE APPROACH
As with many other things, what you get out of the Skilled Facilitator approach de-
pends on what you put into it and when and where you use it. Over the years, we have
found that people who use the approach do so in one of three ways. Some people see
the approach as a tool to add to their tool kits. Like a tool, they see the approach as
something they use in a particular situation—for example, when people disagree.
Other people see the approach as a way to guide their thinking and acting in a par-
ticular role—when they are a facilitator, leader, consultant, trainer, or coach. They see
it as a way to improve their effectiveness in a particular setting, usually at work. Finally,
there are those who see the approach as a way to be in the world. They use the core
values, assumptions, and ground rules as a guide for how they want to interact with
people, whether at work, home, play, or in the community. Essentially, the approach
becomes part of their approach to life. We (the four editors) fit into this last category.
While it would be presumptuous to suggest that the last category is the right
choice for everyone, we’ve learned that people’s skills and effectiveness usually ex-
pand as they move from considering the approach as a tool to considering it as a life
choice. Partly, this is a function of the commitment they make; the commitment to
using the approach in all of one’s interactions is simply greater than the commit-
ment people make when they see the approach as a tool with a specific utility. But
the increased skill development is also a function of the additional opportunities for
learning. When someone thinks of the approach as a way to be in the world, every
interaction is an opportunity for practice. Every conversation can produce a criti-
cal insight that changes behavior across numerous situations.
We’ve learned that it’s important to consciously choose how extensively you
want to use the approach. With your conscious choice comes commitment to learn
and practice. Without conscious choice, it is easy to put away your Skilled Facilita-
tor materials and never integrate them into any aspect of your work or life. Also,
using these new skills can feel risky. We often advocate moving toward dilemmas,
risk, and fear. Paradoxically, more is often gained by moving toward difficulty than
away from it. However, we believe only you can choose the level of potential risk
and learning that is right for you at any particular moment in your life.
524 | The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 525
LEARN WITH OTHERS
A central theme throughout the Fieldbook is that it is easier to learn the approach and
continue developing your skills with others. Together, systems thinking and theory-
in-use work repeatedly show that we are typically unaware of the values and assump-
tions that guide our behavior and the unintended consequences they create. We just
don’t see the gaps in our thinking and behavior that others can see. By engaging with
people who understand the theory behind the approach and can give us skillful feed-
back about our own behavior, we learn to identify the gaps in our thinking. Over time,
many people develop internal monitors that help them identify their own unilateral
patterns. But it is always helpful, no matter how long one practices this approach, to
have learning partners who can help us see what we are missing, can ask provocative
questions, and will practice with us for difficult interactions.
If you know of others who are learning and practicing the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach, we encourage you to explore ways that you can learn together. If you are
the first in your network, consider introducing it to others who might be interested
in learning with you.
And so we have come back to where we began the Fieldbook: the idea of learn-
ing in groups to increase effectiveness. Groups form because they can do what in-
dividuals alone cannot. Just as you can help groups increase their effectiveness, you
can use groups to increase your own. It’s worth noting that the foundation of the
Skilled Facilitator approach is a model of mutual learning. The assumption behind
the model is that all of us see some things and miss others; all of us are both teach-
ers and learners. We hope that our lessons enrich your learning journey and that
you will make us part of your extended learning community.
Afterword | 525
73_964948 afterword.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 526
74_964948 ack.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 527
Acknowledgments
This book is the fruit of many people’s efforts, and we thank them. Our colleagues and clients
generously shared their successes, challenges, and questions stemming from their experiences with the
Skilled Facilitator approach. Theirs are voices of experience that make this not only a book for the
field but also a book from the field.
Some who helped make this book possible are represented as authors or coauthors of the sixty-
two chapters. Many more supported us behind the scenes. Our clients enabled us to learn with them.
They invited us into their organizations and gave us their time and ideas. They asked insightful,
provocative questions during our workshops, consultations, and coaching. They openly shared their
struggles and successes. Many critiqued our work and our writing, helping us clarify our thinking and
our teaching. Although we cannot acknowledge each of them by name here, we are deeply indebted
to their contributions.
Leslie Stephen, our development editor, and Byron Schneider, our senior editor at Jossey-Bass,
provided patient guidance. Byron supported and directed our work through three long years of de-
velopment. He introduced us to Leslie Stephen at just the right moment in our project. Leslie’s sage
editorial advice brought an untidy mass into a sound structure. She took on the daunting task of
facilitating facilitators as we went through the inevitable struggles of winnowing numerous materials
and ideas gathered from a wide array of sources and experiences into something coherent. Leslie, thank
you for the hours and hours of conference calls, the hundreds of e-mails, and most of all for sharing
your extraordinary talents with us. Jeff Wyneken, editorial production manager at Jossey-Bass, worked
with us to ensure a functional and attractive book design. We also owe special thanks to Susan
Williams and Julianna Gustafson of Jossey-Bass who got us started on this project in 2001 by listen-
ing to, encouraging, and helping to shape our vision for a Skilled Facilitator fieldbook.
Some of our colleagues at Roger Schwarz & Associates supported us throughout this project. We
are grateful to Terrie Hutaff, Gail Young, and Tom Moore for allowing us to share their stories and
for their advice. Toward the end of the project, Matt Beane took on a key role that freed up our time
for writing and editing.
Six people reviewed our first manuscript draft in its entirety, and their feedback led us to re-
structure the book. Thanks to Colleen Baker, Peter Casale, Jeff Koeze, Dick McMahon, Annette
Shaked, and Robert Tobias for their insightful critiques.
Finally, we owe an enormous debt to our families and friends who supported us and sacrificed for
us during this project. We are grateful to you for helping us restore our balance and a sense of per-
spective. Roger thanks his wife, Kathleen Rounds; his children Noah and Hannah; and his sister, Dale
Schwarz. Anne thanks Allein, Susan, Gerry, Laura, and Don and the instructors at Yoga for Life in
Dilworth, located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Peg thanks her husband, Andrew, for learning and
embracing the Skilled Facilitator approach, and for his thoughtful advice and timely editorial assis-
tance from beginning to end. Sue thanks Matthias, Dale, Deb, and Diane.
R.S., A.D., P.C., S.M.
527
74_964948 ack.qxd 3/3/05 10:16 AM Page 528
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 529
Index
A
Accountability: compassion and,
43; of group members, 273,
275, 276; joint, 10, 45; reflec-
tion questions for, 282; in
roles and expectations inter-
vention, 162, 164, 165; sur-
vey-guided organization
development and, 411, 412;
360-degree feedback and,
394, 395–396, 397–398, 400
Action Design, 33n1, 63, 68
Action Science, 33n1, 59
Adsit, D. J., 400n2, 401
Advocacy: meaning of, 207; in
mutual learning model, 54; as
unilateral control strategy, 36,
38, 51
Advocacy combined with inquiry
(ground rule six), 65, 104,
271; in diagnosis-intervention
cycle, 71–72, 202; in e-mail,
182; facilitative coaching and,
470, 471; in “left-hand col-
umn” case, 223, 224; in mu-
tual learning model, 56,
229–230; opening line for,
204; in systems thinking, 455
Agenda: agreeing on, at begin-
ning of meeting, 123, 124;
jointly designing, 119,
121–122; printing ground
rules on, 192; realistic, creat-
ing, 119–124; sample,
122–124; time estimates for
agenda items, generating,
119–120
“Agree on important words.” See
Ground rule three; Words,
agreeing on important
Alban, B. T., 114
Ambiguity, comfort with, 344,
345
Analyzing and Facilitating Left-
Hand Column Cases, 235
Anger, 219, 220, 289, 290, 291.
See also Emotion headings
Anonymous feedback: survey-
guided organization develop-
ment, 409–412. See also
360-Degree feedback
Argyris, C., 6, 9, 13, 25–26,
33n1, 34, 35, 40, 59, 61n,
63, 65, 68, 79, 86, 118,
118n2, 343, 344, 348, 364,
365, 369, 396, 401, 411,
412, 421, 425–426, 427,
431, 431n1
Art of Focused Conversation, The,
114
Artifacts, 20
Artist’s Way, The, 284, 285,
285n4, 474, 476
Association for Psychological
Type, 440
Assumptions: as contribution to
problem, 256; defined, 62; of
give-up-control model, 40; of
mutual learning model,
41–46; strategy creation, in,
80; systems thinking, in, 79,
83, 84, 455; testing, (ground
rule one), 62, 182, 203, 455,
470, 471; of unilateral control
model, 36, 37, 38, 39. See
also Core values
Attribution, 39, 46, 49, 62. See
also Assumptions;
Inference(s); Inferences, high-
level; Motives, assumptions
about
Authentic relationships, 422
Autonomy, group, 4
B
Basic facilitation, 115–118; core
values and, 116; defined, 5–6,
339, 115; developmental fa-
cilitation, compared to, 115,
117, 118, 339, 340, 341; ex-
ample of, 117–118; ground
rules and, 116; limitations of,
116–117; planning, 116; sub-
stantive content in, 115–116;
underlying values and strate-
gies, reflecting on, 117
Bateson, M. C., 151, 157
Beckhard, R., 339, 348
Behavior: being polite, 265; core
values and, 153; diagnosing,
69–73, 196; helping group
members to redesign, 69, 70,
71, 203; inconsistent with ex-
pectations, 161; inferring
meaning of, 69, 70, 71, 196;
“left-hand column” interven-
tion, 223–224; misinterpret-
ing new, 287–288; observing,
69, 70, 71, 129, 196; patterns
of, 239–240, 325, 326, 327,
335, 337, 344, 346, 353,
357; seeking support for
changing, 288–289; systems
approach and, 11, 79; unilat-
eral control model and, 39
Behavioral ground rules, 61
Beginner’s mind, 199–200
Beginning of meeting, 125–129;
agenda, agreeing on at, 123,
124; expectations, agreeing on
at, 123, 124, 125, 126; facili-
tator role, agreeing on at,
123, 124; ground rules, agree-
ing on at, 123, 124; guide-
lines statement distributed at,
529
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 530
127–129; introductions at,
125–126, 127, 128; proce-
dural guidelines, agreeing on
at, 125, 126–128, 131–133;
Skilled Facilitator principles,
during, 125; time considera-
tions for, 125, 126, 129
Beliefs: defined, 20; in group
culture, 20; statement of val-
ues and beliefs, 155–156,
342. See also Assumptions; In-
ference(s); Theory, espoused;
Theory-in-use
Bell, C. H., 409, 412
Bens, I., 114
Bertalanffy, L. V., 86n1
Beyerlein, M. M., 172, 180
Beyond Teams, 180
Biases, identifying, 281
Blaming, 45, 77, 79, 85
Blind spots, 257, 259n1
Block, P., 25–26, 59, 157, 378,
381, 412
Born, D. H., 409, 412
Boundaries, system, 77, 85
Boundary management, group:
description of, 19; as group
process, 19, 172; in role clari-
fication, 160
Brainstorming, 108, 109, 111,
112, 113; in roles and expec-
tations intervention, 162,
163, 165
Briggs, K. C., 438
Brooks, L. J., 416, 418
Brushy Fork Institute, 299–303
Bryan, M., 284, 285
Built to Last, 157
Bunker, B. B., 114
C
Cameron, J., 284, 285, 285n4,
474, 476
Capacity building, 22, 82
Carlson, P., 139, 143n2, 316, 361
Cartoons, 190
Causal story, creating, 326–328
Cause and effect, delay and sepa-
ration between, 75–76, 79–81,
82, 336
Causes, indentifying, 82
Center for Applications of Psy-
chological Type, 445, 445n3
Center for Collaborative
Organizations, 172
Challenging situations,
247–276; difficult conversa-
tions, 261–267, 331–333,
337–338, 362; enabling
group members to talk to
each other, 271; exploring
your contributions to prob-
lems, 255–259; interruptions,
dealing with, 270; raising is-
sues outside of facilitation
group, 273–276; risky con-
versations, 249–254,
331–333, 337–338; silence,
responding to, 269–270
Change, organizational,
307–418: optimum rate of,
76; survey-guided, 409–412
Chartering process, team,
174–180; examples of,
174–175, 176–178; for top
management teams, 178–180;
using ground rules in, 175,
178, 179; using Group Effec-
tiveness Model in, 175, 178
Choice, free and informed: in
basic facilitation, 118; begin-
ning of meeting, at, 126; for
committing to conversation,
103, 252; contracting and,
90, 93, 95, 97; as core value,
6–7, 42; decision-making rule
and, 66–67; diagnosis-
intervention cycle and, 70;
ethical considerations of, 377;
in Facilitative Leader ap-
proach, 315, 317, 320, 321,
377–381; facilitator’s respon-
sibility and, 122; in introduc-
tion of Skilled Facilitator
approach, 299, 300, 301; in
mutual learning model, 42,
45, 52, 54, 56–58; as process
design criteria, 111; in unilat-
eral control model, 51
Church, A. H., 409, 412
Client: contact, 90, 92; contract-
ing with, 89–99; entire group
as, 11, 75, 90, 96, 273, 274,
275; primary, 90–94; ques-
tions to ask, 90–92
Coach, facilitative, 457–476: cel-
ebrating results, 474–475;
client’s inner work, 459,
466–467; coaching process
steps, 471–473; coaching re-
lationship, 467–469; coach’s
inner work, 457, 459,
461–462; compassion of,
459, 461, 462–463, 469,
470; contracting principles
used by, 98, 468, 470;
creative-survival cycle, 460,
475; curiosity of, 459;
diagnosis-intervention cycle
and, 473–474, 475; founda-
tion theories of, 460, 469;
ground rules of, 470–471;
guided imagery, 458, 476n1;
guiding principles of,
469–470; importance of being
present, 464–465; model for,
459–474; mutual learning and,
460, 461, 462, 463–464,
469, 470; purpose for, 457,
465–466; role of, 28, 30; spiral
of learning, 475, 476; therapist
compared, 468–469; unilateral
control and, 460
Coding, 190, 192
Cofacilitation, 111, 347
Cohen, S. G., 85, 87, 169,
169n1, 179, 180
Collaborative work systems, 172,
179–180
Collectivist cultures, 414–415
Collins, J., 151–152, 157
530 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 531
Collusion: in contracting process,
90, 97; examples of, 79, 274
“Combine advocacy and inquiry.”
See Advocacy combined with
inquiry; Ground rule six
Compliance, 67
Composing a Life, 151, 157
Commitment, internal: as core
value, 6–7, 42; decision-mak-
ing rules and, 66–67, 232,
233–234; free choice and, 95,
103; in mutual learning model,
42, 45, 56, 58, 232, 233–234;
reflection questions for, 282
Communication: as group
process, 19, using e-mail for,
181–185. See also Nonverbal
communication
Compassion: as core value, 6–7,
42–44; curiosity and, 44,
229; inference testing and,
221, 222; in jointly designed
conversations, 230–231; in
mutual learning model,
42–45, 58, 231; as process
design criteria, 111; reflection
questions for, 282; undiscuss-
able issues and, 66
Compensating feedback, in sys-
tems thinking, 76
Complex adaptive systems,
150–151
Confidentiality: 360-degree feed-
back and, 392, 393,
394–395, 396, 397,
403–406; planning meetings
and, 97, procedural guidelines
and, 129
Conflict: give-up-control model
and, 41; moving toward,
266–267; mutual learning
model and, 42, 46; reduction,
267; unilateral control model
and, 36, 39, 40
Conflict management: as group
process, 18–19; methods and
tools for, 109
Consensus: decision-making
process of, 67, 232, 234, 369;
false, 323–325, 326, 327,
328, 329; reaching in roles
and expectations intervention,
162, 163, 165
Consequences: of avoiding risky
conversations, 249–250, 254;
of false consensus, 324, 326,
327, 328; identifying through
“left-hand column” case, 235,
240–241; of mutual learning
model, 42, 46; of polite be-
havior, 265; systems approach
and, 80, 81, 82, 85; time lag
between actions and, 255; of
unilateral control model, 36,
39–40; unintended, 58–59,
80, 81, 82, 85, 240–241,
265, 349, 386–387, 388, 389
Considering Culture in the Selec-
tion of Teaching Approaches for
Adults, 418
Consistency, internal: process de-
sign, 111; of Skilled Facilitator
approach, 11–12, 172–173
Consultant, facilitative: contract-
ing principles used by, 98; fa-
cilitator as, 51, 57–58; role of,
28, 29–30
Consultative decision making, 67
“A Consumer’s Guide to Hiring
and Working with a Group
Facilitator” (Schwarz), 94, 99
Contact client, 90, 92
Content, group: in conversation,
103, 105; defined, 3
Content expert, facilitator as, 28–31
Context: control issues and, 22,
24–25; as factor in group ef-
fectiveness, 22, 24–25, 172;
in Group Effectiveness
Model, 24–26, 172; in top
management teams, 178
Contract agreement: changing,
96, evaluation of, 91, 96; dis-
tribution of, 96
Contracting, 85, 89–99; agree-
ment with entire group (stage
three) in, 91, 96, 125; defined,
89; for developmental facilita-
tion, 341; evaluation and com-
pletion (stage four) of, 91, 96;
for fees and expenses, 93, 96;
graphic illustration of stages,
91; information sharing,
97–98; initial contact (stage
one) in, 90–94; for internal fa-
cilitators, 98–99; in other fa-
cilitative roles, 98; planning
the facilitation (stage two) in,
91, 94–96; principles for,
89–90; reasons for, 89; stages
in, 89, 90–96, for systems
thinking analysis, 89, 449,
453–454; for theory-in-use in-
terventions, 356–357; time
concerns, discussing during,
120, 121
Conversation: dealing with inter-
ruptions in, 270; diagnosis at
the speed of, 189, 195–200;
difficult, 261–267, 331–333,
337–338, 362; e-mail,
181–185; feedback concern-
ing, 191, 192; internal, 197,
199–200; jointly designing
purpose and process for,
103–105, 251, 253; key
words or phrases to listen for
in, 197, 198; in mutual learn-
ing model, 43–45; “PPC ap-
proach” to, 103, 104; practice
listening to, 191, 195–197,
283; redesigning, 191; repeat-
ing opportunities in, 197;
risky, 249–254, 331–333,
337–338; silences in,
269–270; steering, 273–274;
using ground rules in, 191
Core assumptions. See
Assumptions
Core ideology, 151
Core purpose, 151
Index | 531
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 532
Core values: agreeing on authen-
tic, 152–153; alternate lan-
guage for, 109, 229;
developing shared vision with,
151–152; developmental fa-
cilitation and, 339, 341, 342;
of give-up-control model, 40;
introducing to workplace,
361–364; of mutual learning
model, 41–45; strategy cre-
ation, in, 80; supplanting vi-
sion, 152, 157; survey-guided
organizational development
and, 409, 411; of unilateral
control model, 36–37
Core values of Skilled Facilitator
approach, 4; basic facilitation,
use in, 116; ground rules and,
7; group values and, 20; in
“left-hand column” case,
239; making, explicit, 6–7;
process designs consistent
with, 110, 111
CPP, Inc., 445, 445n1
Craik, K., 34, 59
Creative cycle of Life Learning
Model, 433–435
Creative tension, 150
Cuéllar, G., 434, 435
Culture, group: artifacts of, 20;
defined, 20; developmental
facilitation and, 20; elements
of, 20; trust as aspect of,
23–24
Cultures, different: using Skilled
Facilitator approach in,
413–418
Curiosity, 10, 28, 43–45, 51–53,
58, 131–133, 136, 226,
229, 282
D
Dance of Change, The, 86n2, 87,
348
Data: deciding how to respond
to; 63–64; directly observable,
63; evaluation of, 63–64;
explaining, 63–64; ladder of
inference and, 63–64, 222,
225; observation and selec-
tion of, 63; translation and
labeling, 63
Davidson, A. S., 103, 127, 316,
369, 371, 375
De Meuse, K. P., 25–26
Decision making: consensus ver-
sus directive, 232; defined,
18; directive, 232; factors in
effective, 18; as group process,
18; key decision points,
325–326; methods of, 18;
problem solving and, 18,
slowing down process, 80–81
Decision-making rules (ground
rule nine), 66–67; internal
commitment levels and, 67,
232, 233–234; mutual learning
model and, 232–234; opening
line for, 205; types of, 67
Defensive routines, 340,
343–344, 345, 347, 352,
356, 359, 396–397
Defensiveness: basic facilitation,
in, 116; in feedback loop, 78;
feedback to superior causing,
335, 336, 337; give-up-con-
trol model and, 41; identify-
ing defensiveness triggers,
281, 289, 294; intervening
on, 84; mutual learning model
and, 42, 44, 46; undiscussable
issues and, 66; unilateral con-
trol model and, 36, 39, 40
Delay and separation between
cause and effect, 75–76,
79–81, 82, 336
Delegative decision making, 67
Democratic decision making, 67
DeNisi, A., 391, 401
Designing and Using Organiza-
tional Surveys, 412
Designing Team-Based Organiza-
tions: New Forms for Knowl-
edge Work, 87, 169, 180
Developmental facilitation,
339–348: basic facilitation,
challenges of, 344–346; com-
pared to, 115, 117, 118, 339,
340, 341; continuum, 340,
344; contracting process for,
341; core values and, 339,
341, 342, 362–363; defensive
routines, 340, 343–344, 345,
347, 352, 356, 359; defined,
5–6, 339; ground rules and,
362–363; group culture and,
20; group values and, 339,
340, 341, 342–343, 348,
357; process intervention
and, 339; self-revelation in,
341, 348; skipping interven-
tion steps in, 72; success fac-
tors for, 347–348;
theory-in-use interventions,
349–359; time commitment
for, 341–342, 345, 348; toler-
ating high levels of ambiguity,
344, 345
Diagnosis: diagnosis-intervention
cycle, 8, 69–73, 192, 196; er-
rors in, 141, 143; ground
rules and, 41, 189–191;
Group Effectiveness Model
and, 135; observation of be-
havior and, 69, 70, 71, 196;
practice, 189–191, 196–197;
real–time, 189, 195–200; re-
lationship between interven-
tion and, 69; at the speed of
conversation, 189, 195–200
Diagnosis-intervention cycle, 8,
69–73, 192, 196; beginner’s
mind and, 199; with diagnos-
tic frames, 72; diagnostic
steps of, 69, 70, 71, 196; dif-
ferent views, testing for in in-
tervention steps, 70–72;
direct observation (step one)
in, 69, 70, 71, 196; example
of intervening with, 71–72;
facilitative coaching, and,
532 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 533
473–474, 475; graphic illus-
tration of, 70, 475; helping
group members decide
whether and how to change
behavior (step six) in, 69, 70,
71, 203, 355; inferring mean-
ing (step two) in, 69, 70, 71,
196; intervention decision
making (step three) in, 69,
70, 71, 352–353; interven-
tion steps of, 69, 70, 71, 196,
202–203; Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and, 440–441;
opening lines for, 201–203;
relationship between diagnos-
tic and intervention steps in,
69; sharing inferences (step
five) in, 69, 70, 71, 202,
354–355, 357; sharing obser-
vations (step four) in, 69, 70,
71, 202, 223, 353; skipping
steps in, 72, 73n1; using, in
ground rule intervention,
71–72; testing for different
views in intervention steps of,
70–72; theory-in-use inter-
vention and, 352–355, 357,
358. See also Intervention
Diagnostic frames: diagnosis-
intervention cycle with, 72;
Group Effectiveness Model
as, 136
Diaz, A., 474, 476
Difficult Conversations, 250, 254
Difficult situations. See Chal-
lenging situations
Direct approach, 261–264, 266
Direct observation. See Observa-
tion, direct
Directive decision making, 232
Disagreement: joint design of
ways to test (ground rule
seven), 65, 204–205, 226,
230–231; assumptions about,
in unilateral control model,
36, 37; compassion and,
230–231; facilitative coaching
and, 470, 471; in systems
thinking, 455
“Discuss undiscussable issues.”
See Ground rule eight; Undis-
cussable issues, discussing
Double-loop learning, 117,
118n2
Drama triangle, 256, 257,
421–431; avoiding, 429–431;
example of dynamics of, 424;
graphic illustration of, 423;
helpfulness in, 421, 426,
428–429; persecutor in, 421,
422–423, 424, 427; rescuer
in, 421, 422, 423, 424,
426–427, 428; victim in,
421, 422, 423, 424, 425,
427, 428
E
Easing in: as give-up-control
strategy, 40–41; as unilateral
control strategy, 36, 38,
39, 40
Effect and cause, delay and sepa-
ration between, 75–76,
79–81, 82, 336
Effectiveness, group. See Group
Effectiveness Model
Either-or choices, systems think-
ing and, 77, 83, 84
E-mail: addressing concerns with
360-degree feedback,
403–406; analyzing and edit-
ing, 184–185; using ground
rules in, 181–185, 191
Embarrassment: undiscussable
issues and, 66; unilateral
control model and, 35, 36,
38, 39
Emotion: in mutual learning
model, 44. See also Threaten-
ing situations
Emotional expression: in give-
up-control model, 40; sup-
pression of negative, 36, 37,
38, 39, 49, 274
Emotional intelligence, 13
Emotional reactions, facilitator,
12–13; assumptions about, in
unilateral control model, 36,
37, 38, untested inferences
and, 219, 220, 289, 290
Empathy, 43. See also
Compassion
Empowered Manager, The, 157
Enrollment, in decision, 67
Eoyang, G. H., 151, 157, 348
Espoused theory. See Theory,
espoused
Evaluation: of contract, 91, 96;
of data, 63–64; of facilitation,
91, 96, 98
Everyone’s Problem Solving Hand-
book, 194
Expectations: defined, 160; help-
ing groups clarify roles and,
159–169; identifying, at be-
ginning of meeting, 123, 124,
125, 126; for internal facilita-
tors, 99; reviewing and revis-
ing, 162, 164, 165
Expertise: content, of facilitative
consultant, 28, 29–30; con-
tent, of facilitative trainer, 28,
31; process, of facilitator, 29
“Explain your reasoning and in-
tent.” See Ground rule four;
Reasoning and intent, ex-
plaining one’s
External structure, 83, 84
F
Facilitating Organization Change:
Lessons from Complexity Sci-
ence, 157, 348
Facilitating with Ease, 114
Facilitation, group: contracting
process as microcosm of, 89;
defined, 3; describing, to
client, 90–91, 93, 94, 96;
evaluation of, 91, 96, 98; goal
of, 89; Group Effectiveness
Model, using in, 23,
Index | 533
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 534
135–143; planning, 91,
94–96; process design of,
107–114; raising issues out-
side of, 273–276; trust in, de-
velopment of, 89; using
improvisation to improve,
211–216. See also Skilled Fa-
cilitator approach
Facilitative Leader approach,
307–418; cofacilitators and,
347; contracting principles
used by, 98; conversation with
boss regarding, 332–333;
daily challenges of, 309–313;
developmental facilitation
and, 339–348, 362; free and
informed choice and, 315,
317, 320, 321, 377–381;
give-up-control behavior and,
309–310; modeling,
315–321, 346, 348, 379;
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
and, 443–444; role descrip-
tion in, 21, 28, 31–32, 345,
346, 347; and performance
management, 318–319; skill
level and, 347; systems think-
ing in, 345, 346; in team cul-
ture, 318; unilateral control
behavior and, 309, 310, 311,
315, 316–317, 321; using
with superiors, 331–333,
335–338; workshop instruc-
tors, 316–317
Facilitator: collusion of, 90, 97,
273, 274; contracting, 89–99;
defined, 27; emotional experi-
ence of, 12–13; ground rules
and, 61; group member or
leader as, 4; internal work of,
13, 33, 34, 197, 199–200;
main task of, 3–4; modeling
mutual learning, 290–291;
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
and, 443–444; own words,
introducing guidelines in
one’s, 131–133; raising issues
outside of facilitative group,
273, 275–276; seeking best
path for, 291; skill level, 111.
See also Coach, facilitative;
Consultant, facilitative; Emo-
tional reactions, facilitator;
Facilitative Leader approach;
Internal facilitator; Roles, fa-
cilitative; Trainer, facilitative
Facilitator role, 3, 5–6, 27–32,
95; agreeing on, at beginning
of meeting, 123, 124; explain-
ing, to group, 56–58, 91, 93,
94, 96, 274–275; helping
group wisely spend time, 122;
multiple, serving in, 32; se-
lecting appropriate, 27, 32.
See also Internal facilitator role
Facilitator’s Fieldbook, The, 114,
157
Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory
Decision-Making, 114
Fear, sharing, 251, 254. See also
Emotion headings; Threaten-
ing situations
Feedback: on changed behavior,
288–289, 296; compensating,
76; concerning use of ground
rules, 191, 192; direct,
261–264, 266; in mutual
learning model, 45; negative,
230, 249; in roles and expec-
tations intervention, 164; to
superior, 335, 336–337; uni-
lateral, 289. See also 360-
Degree feedback
Feedback loop, 78, 79, 80, 83,
85
Feedback That Works: How to
Build and Deliver Your Mes-
sage, 400n1, 401
Feelings. See Emotion headings
Fifth Discipline, The, 34, 59, 68,
75–77, 86n1, 87, 150, 157,
369, 375
Fifth Discipline Fieldbook, The,
34, 59, 87, 157
Firo-B, 280, 284, 284n2
Fisher, R., 61n, 65, 68, 145,
146, 147
Flawed Advice and the Manage-
ment Trap, 401
“Focus on interests, not posi-
tions.” See Ground rule five
Follet, M. P., 61n, 68
A Forest of Kings: The Untold
Story of the Ancient Maya, 477
Forrester, J., 86, 86n1
Free Play: The Power of Improvi-
sation in Life and the Arts,
474, 476
Freedman, S., 172, 180
Freeing the Creative Spirit, 474,
476
Freidel, D., 475, 477
French, W. L., 409, 412
Fritz, R., 150, 157
Futtrell, D., 26
G
Getting to Yes, 147
Gifts Differing, 445, 445n2, 446
Give-up-control model, 40–41;
assumptions of, 40; core val-
ues of, 40; Facilitative Leader
approach and, 309–310;
strategies of, 40–41; unilateral
control model and, 40–41
Goal achievement, through uni-
lateral control, 36, 48–49
Goals: need for clear, 20
Goleman, D., 13
Good Will Hunting, 190, 194
Graham, P., 61n, 68
Ground rule one (test assump-
tions and inferences), 62,
71–72, 83–84, 182, 202,
203, 219–222, 404, 455,
470, 471. See also Assump-
tions; Inference(s); Inference
testing
Ground rule two (share all rele-
vant information), 62, 64,
203, 223, 224, 225–226,
534 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 535
405, 470, 471. See also Infor-
mation sharing
Ground rule three (use specific
examples), 64, 71–72, 204,
223, 454–455. See also Spe-
cific examples, sharing;
Words, agreeing on important
Ground rule four (explain your
reasoning and intent), 64–65,
71–72, 183, 204, 223, 224,
226–227, 405, 470, 471
Ground rule five (focus on inter-
ests, not positions), 65,
83–84, 145–147, 202, 204,
227–229, 454
Ground rule six (combine advo-
cacy and inquiry), 65, 71–72,
104, 202, 204, 223, 224,
229–230, 271, 455, 470,
471. See also Advocacy com-
bined with inquiry
Ground rule seven (jointly de-
sign next steps and ways to
test disagreements), 65–66,
71, 103, 104, 119, 121–122,
125, 183, 204–205, 226,
230–231, 455–456, 470,
471, 473. See also Next steps,
joint design of
Ground rule eight (discuss
undiscussable issues), 66, 183,
205, 231, 323–325. See also
Undiscussable issues, dis-
cussing
Ground rule nine (use a deci-
sion-making rule), 66–67,
205, 232–234. See also
Decision-making rules
Ground rule intervention(s):
slowing down in, 80–81
Ground rules: agreeing on, at be-
ginning of meeting, 123, 124;
alternate language for,
209–210, 229; basic facilita-
tion, use in, 116; behavioral,
61; concerns for non-Western
cultures, 413, 414, 415, 416;
contracting for, 91, 94–95,
96; core values and, 7, 153;
deepening understanding of,
219–232; diagnosing with,
41, 189–191; facilitator’s
modeling of, 61; group effec-
tiveness, for, 61–67; group
norms and, 22, 61; introduc-
ing to workplace, 361–364;
learning to use, 189–194; in
“left-hand column” case, 238;
limitations of, 217–219; link-
ing to problem-solving
model, 193; listed, 8; mutual
learning model and,
217–234; opening lines and,
203–205; pocket-sized card
listing, 189, 194n1; poster
listing, 190, 194n1; proce-
dural, 7, 61; redesigning con-
versation for, 191; in Skilled
Facilitator approach, 7–8,
61–67, 116, 153, 189–194;
systems thinking and,
454–456; theory-in-use inter-
vention and, 358; unilateral
introduction of, 294, 297;
used in e-mail, 403–406;
using, 67; ways to practice,
189–194
“Ground Rules for Effective
Groups” (Schwarz), 94, 99,
116, 118n1, 163, 169, 173,
191, 194, 194n2, 320
Group effectiveness: context and,
24–25; criteria for, 17, 23; di-
agnosing behaviors for,
69–73; examples of groups
without, 137; ground rules
for, 61–67; mutual learning
model and, 42, 46; process
and, 17–19; requesting exam-
ple of, 137; structure and,
19–22; unilateral control
model and, 36, 39
Group Effectiveness Model,
15–26; context in, 24–26,
172; criteria of, 17, 23, 135,
136; diagnosing with, 135;
explaining purpose of,
136–137; graphic illustration
of, 16, 140; intervention on,
141; introducing to groups,
136–140; limits of, 25–26;
mapping problems using,
139–140; Myers-Briggs Type
Indicator and, 441; non-work
group contexts, use in, 26;
overview of, 4–5, 23; process
in, 17–19, 135, 172; structure
in, 19–22, 172; for systemic
thinking and acting, 78; in
team chartering process, 175,
178; using, in facilitation, 23,
135–143; using to avoid mis-
guided efforts, 142
Group facilitation. See Facilita-
tion, group; Skilled Facilitator
approach
Group Facilitation Listserv, 444,
445
Groups, work: characteristics of,
15–16; chartering process for,
174–178; as clients, 11, 75,
90, 96; criteria for successful,
172; defined, 15–16, 171,
172; interdependence of,
171–172; knowledge-work
teams, 85; methods for for-
mation and development of,
108–109, self-directed teams,
173–174; size of group as
process design selection crite-
ria, 110; tools for formation
and development of,
108–109; using Skilled Facili-
tator Approach to strengthen,
171–180. See also Members,
group
H
Hackman, J. R., 21, 25–26
Handbook of Organizational
Behavior, 26
Index | 535
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 536
Heen, S., 250, 254
Helpfulness, concept of: in
drama triangle, 421, 426,
428–429
Herrmann Brain Dominance In-
strument, 282, 284, 284n2
Hille, P., 299–303
Hinting strategy, 265–266
Hirsch, S. K., 439, 445, 446
History of Art, The, 477
Hohn, G., 211–216
Hot buttons, 219, 250, 267,
281, 289, 345, 347
Humor, 127, 129
I
Icebreakers, 111
If You Meet the Buddha on the
Road, Kill Him!, 279, 280,
285, 431
Improvisation to improve facili-
tation, 211–216
Indirect approach, 38, 40
Individual meetings: agreeing on
purpose and process of discus-
sion in, 103; for contracting,
97–98
Individualistic cultures, 414
Industrial Dynamics, 86, 86n1
Inference testing (ground rule
one), 62; anonymous feed-
back and, 404; awareness of
inferences, 219–222; compas-
sion and, 221, 222; diagnosis
intervention cycle and,
70–72, 202; in e-mail, 182,
404; facilitative coaching and,
470, 471; ladder of inference
and, 63–64, 222, 224–225;
opening lines for, 202, 203;
in systems thinking, 455; uni-
lateral control model and, 38,
39, 40, 48–49, 51; warning
signs of untested inferences,
219, 289, 290
Inference(s): as contribution to
problem, 256; defined, 8–9,
62; in diagnosis, 69, 70, 71,
196, 202; ladder of, 63–64,
222, 224–225; observation
and, 69, 70, 71, 196; sharing,
with client group, 69, 70, 71,
202; theory-in-use and, 221
Inferences, high-level, 50,
263–264, 345, 353
Inferences, low–level: defined, 9;
in diagnosis-intervention
cycle, 72; in direct feedback,
263, 264; in Skilled Facilita-
tor approach, 8–9
Information, valid: for commit-
ting to conversation, 103; in
contracting, 90, 93; as core
value, 6–7, 41–42, 44–45,
52, 58; defined, 41; for
process design, 111
Information sharing (ground rule
two), 62, 64: anonymous
feedback and, 405; at begin-
ning of meeting, 127, 128; in
contracting process, 97–98;
facilitative coaching and, 470,
471; focusing on interests
and, 65; in “left-hand col-
umn” case, 223, 224; in mu-
tual learning model, 42–45,
57, 225–226; opening lines
for, 203
Information withholding: as con-
tribution to problem, 256; in
give-up-control model, 41; in
unilateral control model, 39
Ingham, H., 259n1
Initial contact; agreeing on next
steps after, 93; assessing one’s
interest and ability during,
92–93; definition of client
during, 90–92; describing fa-
cilitation approach during,
90–91, 93; diagnosis during,
90–91; fees and expenses, dis-
cussing, 93; questions to ask
during, 90–92; summarizing,
93; time frame for, 93;
working with contact client
during, 90, 92
Inquiry: meaning, 207; into oth-
ers’ reasoning, 36, 38. See also
Advocacy combined with
inquiry
Integrity: assumption of, 42, 44,
46; of systems, 75, 77, 84–85
Intent, explaining. See Reasoning
and intent
Interactions, patterns of, 77–78,
240
Interdependence, of work
groups, 171–172
Interests, focus on (ground rule
five), 65; defined, 65, 145;
helping group members to,
145–147; listing interests,
146; in mutual learning
model, 53, 55, 227–229;
opening lines for, 204; of or-
ganizational policies, 387,
389; solutions, instead of,
133; in systems thinking,
83–84, 454; using questions
to, 146–147, 202
Internal commitment. See Com-
mitment, internal
Internal facilitator, 30; contract-
ing of, 98–99; expectations
for, 99; guidelines for, for
contracting with manager, 98;
planning meeting with, 98
Internal facilitator role, 30
Internal structure, 83
Internal work, facilitator’s, 13,
33, 34, 197, 199–200
Interrelatedness, in systems
thinking, 75, 77, 79, 85–86
Interruptions, dealing with, 270
Intervention: to clarify mission,
151, 152; complex, 72; in
diagnosis-intervention cycle,
69–73; on Group Effective-
ness Model, 141; on group
structure, 159–169; highest-
leverage, 137, 140, 141, 344;
536 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 537
practicing ground rules in,
192–193; on roles and expec-
tations, 159–169; at struc-
tural level, 83, 84; on
theory-in-use, 84, 349–359
Intervention steps, 69–73, 196,
202–203. See also Diagnosis-
intervention cycle
Introduction to Type in Organiza-
tions, 445
Introductions, 125–126, 127, 128
ithink Analyst, 451, 456
J
Jago, A. G., 68, 68n1, 2
Jamieson, D. W., 114, 157
Janson, H. W., 475, 477
Jargon, reducing, 207–210, 283,
293
Jerry McGuire, 190, 194
Johari Window, 259n1
Johnson-Laird, P. N., 34, 59
Joint accountability, 10, 45
“Jointly design next steps.” See
Ground rule seven; Next
steps, joint design of
Journal Workshop, At a, 284, 285,
285n4, 474, 476
Journal writing, 280, 283, 285n4
Judgment, suspending, 261, 266,
267, 287, 462
Jung, C. G., 438, 446
Justice, T., 114, 157
K
Kahn, R., 86, 86n1
Kaner, S., 114
Karash, R., 83, 86
Karpman, S., 421, 422, 423, 431
Katz, D., 86, 86n1
Katzenbach, J. R., 16, 171, 180
Kelly, M., 193, 194
Kim, D. H., 78, 79, 83–84,
86–87
Kleiner, A., 34, 59, 86n2
Kluger, A. N., 391, 401
Knowledge for Action: A Guide to
Overcoming Barriers to Orga-
nizational Change, 365
Koeze Company, 361–364, 377,
378, 379
Kopp, S. B., 279–280, 284n1,
285, 421, 422, 425, 431
Kummerow, J. M., 439, 445, 446
L
Labeling of data, 63
Ladder of inference, 63–64, 222,
224–225
Lang, T., 246
Large Group Interventions, 114
Laughter, 129
Lawrence, G., 445
Leader, Facilitative. See Facilita-
tive Leader approach
Leader, group: as facilitator, 31;
raising issues outside of facili-
tation group, 275; role defini-
tion of, 21, 91, 94, 96
Leadership and the New Science,
86n1, 87
Leadership issues in Group Ef-
fectiveness Model, 24
Leading questions, 38, 40–41, 78
Learning: combining advocacy
and inquiry for, 65; creating
conditions for, 65; differences
as opportunities for, 44, 56;
give-up-control model and re-
duction of, 41; mutual model
of, 41–59; unilateral control
model and reduction of, 36,
39. See also Mutual learning
model
Learning group, 288
Learning organization, 367–375
“Left-hand column” case: analyz-
ing, 235, 236–241; behavior
and individual event analysis,
238–239; behavioral inter-
vention, 223–224; coding,
192, 238; defined, 47, 235;
for deepening self-awareness,
280; difficult conversation,
based on, 362; e-mail com-
pared to, 184; introducing at
workplace, 301; pattern
analysis, 239–240; sample,
242–246; structure analysis,
240–241; summary, 241,
246; theory-in-use and, 47,
235, 240; thoughts in mutual
learning model, 52–58;
thoughts in unilateral control
model, 47–51; thoughts with
untested inferences, 219–220;
writing, 235–236
Levels of perspective, 83–84
Leverage: identifying high-
leverage elements, 137, 140,
141, 344; points for change,
328; systems thinking and,
76–77, 83–84
Lewin, K., 255
Life Learning Model, 433–435
Lifeline exercise, 154, 281
LIFETypes, 445, 446
London, M., 400, 401
Low-trust environments, use of
Group Effectiveness Model
in, 23–24
Luft, J., 259n1
M
MacArthur, P., 33n1
Managers: contracting with, of
internal facilitators, 98
Manual: A Guide to the Develop-
ment and Use of the Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator, 445,
445n2, 446
Mathieu, J. E., 409, 412
Mayer, J. D., 13
McCaulley, M. H., 445, 445n2,
446
McGee, C., 172, 180
McKinney, S., 316, 416
McLain Smith, D., 33n1, 40, 59
McMahon, R. R., 127, 281,
361, 369, 371, 375
Index | 537
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 538
Meaning making. See Inference(s)
Meetings: beginning, 125–129;
practice diagnosing conversa-
tions at, 196; recording, 190,
191, 192. See also Planning
meeting
Members, group: accountability for,
273, 275, 276; conversing with
each other, 271; as facilitators, 4,
31; growth and well-being for,
17; roles and expectations inter-
vention, 159–169; selection cri-
teria for, 21
Mental models, 34–35, 78, 83,
84, 153, 180, 433–435,
447–448, 452, 453, 454,
455, 456
Mind-body practices, 282–283
Mindwalk, 190, 194
Mission: defined, 149; group,
20; intervention to clarify,
151, 152
Mistrust. See Trust erosion or
mistrust
Misunderstanding: in give-up-
control model, 41; interven-
tion in, 72; in unilateral
control model, 36, 39
Model I, 35, 421, 425. See also
Unilateral control model
Modeling: Facilitative Leader ap-
proach, 315–321, 346, 348,
379; ground rules, 61; in
learning organization, 371,
372, 373; mutual learning,
290–291; Skilled Facilitator
approach, 125
Mohrman, A. M. Jr., 85, 87,
169, 169n1, 179, 180
Mohrman, S. A., 85, 87, 169,
169n1, 179, 180
Monologues, 65
Moore, T., 252, 294, 297, 398
Moran, L., 172, 180
Motivation: assessment of, dur-
ing initial contact period, 92;
group tasks for, 21
Motives, assumptions about: in
mutual learning model, 42,
44, 52; in unilateral control
model, 36, 37, 39
Movie, practicing diagnosing
with, 190
Multinational cultures, using
Skilled Facilitator approach
with, 413–418
Multi-rater feedback. See 360-
Degree feedback
Multivoting, 108, 109, 112, 113
Mutual learning model, 41–59:
beginner’s mind and, 200;
in case study, 52–58;
consequences of, 46;
contracting and, principles
of, 89; core assumptions of,
42–45; core values of,
41–45; direct feedback
and, 262–264; Facilitative
Leader modeling, 315–321;
graphic illustration of, 42;
ground rules used with,
217–234; “help” defined
for, 428–429; inference
testing and, 221; “left-hand
column” case, 52–58, 235;
Skilled Facilitator approach
and, 9, 41, 45; strategies
for, 42, 44–45; writing
e-mail in accordance with,
181, 184
My Dinner With André, 190, 194
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator,
280, 282, 284, 284n2; diag-
nosis-intervention cycle and,
440–441; dimensions of type,
438–439; Group Effective-
ness Model and, 441; for
leaders and facilitators,
443–444; sharing type infor-
mation, usefulness of,
442–443; Skilled Facilitator
approach and, 440–445
Myers, I. B., 438, 445, 445n2,
446
N
Nachmanovitch, S., 474, 476
Names, using specific, 225
The Nature of Explanation, 34
Negative feelings, suppression of,
36, 37, 38, 39, 49, 274
Neutrality, substantive: in case
study, 50–51; defined, 4, 28;
of facilitator role, 4, 27–28,
56–58; maintaining, 28
Next steps, joint design of
(ground rule seven), 65, 71,
103, 104, 119, 121–122,
125, 183; compassion and,
230–231; facilitative coaching
and, 470, 471, 473; in mu-
tual learning model, 226,
230–231; opening lines for,
204–205; in systems think-
ing, 455–456
Noncompliance, 67
Nonoperating functions influ-
encing organizational policies,
383
Nonverbal communication: e-mail
and, 181, 183; observing, 63
Norms, group, 22; beginning of
meeting, setting at, 125;
ground rules for developing,
22, 61; as structural element,
22. See also Ground rules
O
Observation, direct: in diagnosis,
69, 70, 71, 196; diagnostic
frames for, 72; inference and,
69, 70, 71, 196; in ladder of
inference, 63
Olson, E. E., 151, 157, 348
On Organizational Learning,
431, 431n1
Opportunity-oriented issues, 92
Organization Development: Be-
havioral Science Interventions
for Organization Improvement,
412
538 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 539
Organizational change. See
Change, organizational
Organizational Learning II, 431,
431n1
Organizational policy. See Poli-
cies, organizational
Overcoming Organizational De-
fenses, 348, 431, 431n1
P
Path of Least Resistance, The, 157
Patterns: of behavior, 239–240,
325, 326, 327, 335, 337,
344, 346, 353, 357; of inter-
action, 77–78, 240
Patton, B., 61n, 65, 68, 145,
146, 147, 250, 254
People Types and Tiger Stripes: A
Practical Guide to Learning
Styles, 445
Performance: defined, 17; as
group effectiveness criterion,
17, 135
Performance evaluation, 94, 96
Performance time, 22
Personal criterion, of group effec-
tiveness, 17, 18–19, 135
Personal growth: for group mem-
bers, 17, 18–19
Perspective, levels of, 83–84
Planning meeting 91, 93; use of
Group Effectiveness Model
during, 136; with individuals
versus group, 97–98; with in-
ternal facilitator; letter and
enclosures for, 91, 94; partici-
pants in, 91, 94, 96; time
frame for, 93
Planning stage, 91, 94–96;
agreeing on next steps after,
96; ground rule choices in,
91, 94–95, 96; participants
in, 91, 94, 96; purposes of,
94; questions in, 94, 96; re-
view of, 96; summarizing,
96; in systems thinking,
80–81, 85
Policies, organizational: integrat-
ing Skilled Facilitator Ap-
proach with, 383–389
Polite behavior, unintended con-
sequences of, 265
Porras, J., 151–152, 157
Positions: advocating, in unilat-
eral control model, 36, 38;
defined, 65, 145; focusing on
interests, not, 65, 83–84,
145–147, 202, 204, 227–229
Posner, M. I., 59
Power of Now, The, 284, 284n3,
285
Primary client: defining, 90–92,
94; initial conversation with,
90–94. See also Client
Principles, facilitation: congru-
ence of, 11–12; core values
and, 4, 6–7
Problem solving: conditions for
effective, 18; decision making
and, 18; for group effective-
ness, 18; as group process, 18;
systematic approach, 18, 76,
84–85
Problems: exploring your contri-
butions to, 255–259; identi-
fying, during initial contact
period, 92; identifying root
causes of, 82, 84–85; methods
of, 108; tools for, 108
Problem-solving model(s): as di-
agnostic frames, 72; linking
ground rules to, 193; using
the Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach with, 114n1
Procedural ground rules, 7, 61,
125, 126–128, 131–133
Process checks, throughout
meeting, 122
Process design, 107–114
Process expert, facilitator as, 29,
93, 95
Process improvement: methods
of, 109; tools of, 109
Process methods, 107–114
Process tools, 107–114
Process(es), group, 17; of
conversation, 103–105;
criteria for selection of,
109–111; defined, 3, 18, 107;
developmental facilitation
and, 339; as effectiveness
criterion, 17, 135, 172;
in Group Effectiveness
Model, 17–19, 135, 172;
integrating the Skilled
Facilitator approach with, 12,
107–114; internal consistency
of, 111; intervention in, 84,
339; levels of, 107–109;
macro, 107; micro, 107; rela-
tionship of, to group effec-
tiveness, 4, 17–19; sample,
111–113; selection of design,
criteria for, 109–111, trans-
parency of, 110
Progoff, I., 284, 285, 285n4,
474, 476
Psychological Types, 438, 446
Purpose and process of conversa-
tion, 103–105, 250–251, 253
Putnam, R., 33n1, 40, 59
Q
Quality of worklife: give-up-
control model and, 41;
mutual learning model and,
42, 46; unilateral control
model and, 36, 39
Questions: contracting process,
during, 90–92, 94, 96; lead-
ing, 38, 40–41, 78
R
Rational action, as unilateral
control model core value,
36, 37
Reasoning, inquiring into
others’, 36, 38
Reasoning, suppressing, 40, 48,
49, 51
Index | 539
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 540
Reasoning and intent, explaining
one’s (ground rule four),
64–65, 132, 133; anonymous
feedback and, 405; in diag-
nostic-intervention cycle, 69,
70, 71, 72, 202; in e-mail,
183, 405; facilitative coaching
and, 470, 471; in “left-hand
column” case, 223, 224; in
mutual learning model, 41,
44, 54, 226–227; opening
lines for, 204; unilateral con-
trol model and, 36, 38, 39
Reflective practices, 280,
281–284
Reframing thinking, 83,
257–258
Resistance: to changed behavior,
288, 294, 297; to a decision,
67
Resources: assessment of, during
initial contact period, 92
Responsibility: collective, 171,
172; of group members, 273,
275
Responsibility charting, 164,
166, 169
Richmond, B., 449, 456
Roberts, C., 86n2
Role definition: boundary man-
agement as factor in, 160;
group member, 21, 91, 94,
96; group membership as fac-
tor in, 160; helping groups
clarify, 159–169; reviewing
and revising, 162, 164, 165
Role relationships, 422
Role-play, 192, 299
Roles, facilitative, 27–32; con-
tracting in, 98; defined, in
Skilled Facilitator approach,
5–6; multiple, serving in, 32;
need for clearly defined, 5–6;
selection of, 27, 32; types of,
6, 27–32. See also Facilitative
Leader approach
Roles and expectations interven-
tion, 159–169; agree to ac-
countability process, 162,
164, 165; agreement on pur-
pose of group, 162–163, 165;
brainstorming in, 162, 163,
165; definitions, 160; feed-
back for mutual learning, 164;
graphic illustration of steps in,
162; ground rules in, 163;
participants in, 161–162, 165;
questions for, 165; reaching
consensus in, 162, 163, 165;
responsibility charting, 164,
166, 169; sample roles and ex-
pectations from, 167–168;
scenario development,
168–169; steps of, 161–164
Room arrangements, 126, 146
Root cause identification tools,
82, 84–85
Russia, Skilled Facilitator ap-
proach used in, 414–416
S
Salovey, P., 13
Saving face: as cultural issue,
413, 414, 417; difficult feed-
back and, 265–266; undis-
cussable issues and, 66;
unilateral control model and,
36, 48, 274, 275, 276, 351,
352, 354
Schele, L., 475, 477
Schön, D. A., 6, 9, 13, 33n1, 34,
35, 59, 61n, 65, 68, 431,
431n1
Schwarz, R. M., 69, 75, 94, 99,
163, 169, 194n1, 211–215,
235, 294, 312, 316, 317,
339, 361–363, 369, 377,
379, 381, 400n3, 403, 404,
413
Schwarz, Roger, and Associates,
Web site, 94, 99, 118n1, 169,
194, 194n1–2, 301, 365n1
Seating arrangements, 126, 146
Self-awareness, facilitator’s,
12–13; deeper, 279–280
Self-censoring, 40
Self-directed teams, 173–174
Self-fulfilling processes, 24, 36,
39, 42, 46, 241, 344, 427
Self-sealing processes, 24, 36, 39,
42, 46, 241, 336, 344, 427
Senge, P. M., 34, 59, 68, 68n2,
75–77, 83, 86n1–2, 87,
150, 151, 157, 348, 348n1,
369, 375
Separation and delay between
cause and effect, 75–76,
79–81, 82, 336
“Share all relevant information.”
See Ground rule two; Infor-
mation sharing
Silberman, M., 99
Silence, responding to, 269–270
Single-loop learning, 118n2
Skilled Facilitator, The, 98,
114n1, 139, 143n1, 143n2,
149, 171, 172, 297n1,
321n1, 339, 349, 379,
400n3, 418
Skilled Facilitator approach:
alternate language for,
209–210, 229, 279, 280, 283,
284; applying, 101–185; basis
of, 3; beginning of meeting,
modeling during, 125; con-
tracting in, 85, 89–99; core
values of, 4, 6–7, 110, 111,
116, 239; in cultures outside
the United States, 413–418;
diagnosis–intervention cycle
in, 8, 69–73, 192; elements
of, listed, 5; facilitator–group
relationship in, 10; facilitator
roles in, 5–6; finding your
voice in, 201, 207–210, 229,
279–285; ground rules in,
7–8, 61–67, 116, 153,
189–194,
540 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 541
217–234; Group Effective-
ness Model of, 4–5, 15–26;
integrating, with organiza-
tional policies and proce-
dures, 383–389; integrating,
with other processes, 12; in-
ternal consistency of, 11–12,
172–173; internal work in,
13; introducing at work,
293–297, 299–303,
305–306; jargon reduction in,
207–210, 283, 293; learning
journey of, 277–306; learning
organization using, 367–375;
low-level inferences in, 8–9;
mutual learning model and,
9, 41, 45, 217–234; Myers-
Briggs Type Indicator and,
440–445; overview of, 3–13;
problem-solving model, using
with, 114n1; process designs
combined with, 107–114;
self-awareness in, 12–13; spe-
cific behaviors associated
with, 173, 179; to strengthen
work groups and teams,
171–180; successful work-
place introduction of,
294–296, 297; systems ap-
proach and, 11–12, 75–86,
447–456; in team chartering
process, 175, 178, 179; 360-
degree feedback and,
391–400, 403–407; unsuc-
cessful workplace introduc-
tion of, 293–294, 297; using,
with other processes, 12. See
also Facilitation, group
Skills, facilitative: as criteria for
selecting process design, 111;
refining, 187–188
Skinner, B., 403–407
Slowing down, 76, 80–81, 99,
125, 185, 250, 342
Small groups: introductions in,
Smith, D. K., 16, 171, 180
Smither, J. W., 396, 400n2, 401
The Social Psychology of Organi-
zations, 86, 86n1
Social system, group as, 11
Solutions: focusing on interests
or needs, not, 133; in systems
thinking, 76, 82
Specific examples, sharing
(ground rule three), 64; in
diagnosis-intervention cycle,
71–72; in “left-hand column”
case, 223; in mutual learning
model, 225–226; opening
lines for, 204; in systems
thinking, 454–455
Speeding implementaion,
graphic illustration of, 80
Stanfield, B., 114
Stewardship: Choosing Service
over Self-Interest, 25, 26, 59,
381, 412
Stone, D., 250, 254
Strategic planning, 108
Strategies: in basic facilitation, re-
flecting on, 117; in mutual
control model, 42, 44–45; in
systems thinking, 80; in unilat-
eral control model, 36, 38–39
Structural tension, 150
Structure, group, 19–22; de-
fined, 3, 19–20; facilitation
for improvement of, 4; as fac-
tor in effectiveness, 19–22,
172; in Group Effectiveness
Model, 19–22, 172
Structure, system, 75, 83–84, 85
Substantively neutral. See Neu-
trality
Sundstrom, E., 25–26
Survey-guided organization de-
velopment, 409–412
Survival cycle of Life Learning
Model, 433–435
Suzuki, S., 200, 200n1
System, defined, 77
Systems approach: behavior and,
11, 79; behavior-over-time
graph, 450; capacity building
in, 22, 82; compensating
feedback in, 76; contracting
and, 89, 449, 453–454; Facil-
itative Leader approach and,
345, 346; graphic illustration
of, 448; ground rules of effec-
tive groups and, 454–456;
Group Effectiveness Model
and, 78; implications of, for
facilitation, 11–12; “laws” of
systems thinking, 75–86;
mapping and modeling, 449,
451, 452, 453, 455; mental
models and, 447–448, 452,
453, 454, 455, 456; in mu-
tual learning model, 43, 45;
principles of, 75–86; problem
solving, 18, 76, 84–85; rein-
forcing loop, 452, 454, 455;
Skilled Facilitator approach
and, 11–12, 75–86, 447–456;
stock and flow structure,
451–452, 455; structure and,
83–84; system defined, 77.
Systems structure, 75, 83–84, 85
Systems Thinker, 86, 87
Systems Thinking Tools: A User’s
Reference Guide, 86
T
Tape-recording meetings, 190,
191, 192, 284
Tasks, group: conditions for mo-
tivational, 21; defined, 20; as
element of structure, 20
Team, 16, 171, 172. See also
Group, work, Top manage-
ment teams
Tension, creative, 150
“Test assumptions and infer-
ences.” See Assumptions;
Ground rule one; Inference
testing
Index | 541
126
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 542
Theories of action, 33–36
Theory, espoused, 34–35: de-
fined, 33, identifying through
“left-hand column” case, 235,
237
Theory-in-use, 34–36; contract-
ing for intervention,
356–357; defined, 35; diag-
nosis-intervention cycle and,
352–355, 357, 358; elements
of, 35; examples, 350–355;
ground rules and, 358; identi-
fying, 35, 47; and inference
testing, 221; intervention on,
84, 349–359; “left-hand col-
umn” case, identifying with,
47, 235, 240, unintended
consequences and, 349. See
also Give-up-control model;
Mutual learning model; Uni-
lateral control model
Therapy, facilitation versus, 345,
347
Thinking: changing, 9–10
“Thinking” in Systems Thinking,
The, 449, 456
Third party: facilitative consul-
tant as, 29; facilitator as,
28–29
Threatening situations: survival
cycle and, 433, 434; theory-
in-use in, 35; unilateral con-
trol model used in, 35–36,
383–384. See also Challeng-
ing situations; Emotion
headings
360-Degree feedback, 391–400,
403–407; accountability and,
394, 395–396, 397–398,
400; anonymity of, 392, 393,
394–395, 396, 397,
403–406; e-mail expressing
concerns with, 403–406;
mixed messages in, 394,
396–397; primary objective
of, 391; redesigning through
Skilled Facilitator approach,
398–400; unilateral control
aspects of, 391, 392, 394, 395
Time: contracting process, for,
91, 93, 94, 96, 99; delay and
separation between cause and
effect, 75–76, 79–81, 82, 336;
developmental facilitation,
341–342, 345, 348; estimates
for agenda items, realistic,
119–124; group requirements
for, 22, introductions at be-
ginning of meeting, timeframe
for, 126; lag between action
and consequence, 255; for
learning organization deci-
sions, 374; for planning meet-
ing, 93; process design
selection criteria, as, 110;
slowing down, 76, 80–81, 99,
125, 185, 250, 342
Tolle, E., 284, 284n3, 285
Top management teams, 171,
172, chartering process for,
178–180; developmental fa-
cilitation in, 342–343
“Touchy-feely,” dealing with
emotions viewed as, 150
Town of Carrboro, North Car-
olina, 166, 169, 176–178
Trainer, facilitative: contracting
principles used by, 98; facilita-
tor title for, 31; role of, 28, 31
Transactors Improv Co., 211,
216
Translation of data, on ladder of
inference, 63, 222
Transparency, 10, 38, 44–45, 65,
69, 104, 110, 111, 136, 273,
274, 284n1; in contracting
process, 90, 97, in direct feed-
back, 264; reflection ques-
tions for, 282; in risky
conversations, 250, 253; seat-
ing design, in, 126. See also
Reasoning and intent, ex-
plaining one’s
Trust: relationship to Group Ef-
fectiveness Model, 23–24, 78
Trust building: in contracting
process, 89
Trust erosion or mistrust: Group
Effectiveness Model and,
23–24; 78; unilateral control
model and, 36, 39
Twelve Angry Men, 190, 194
The 2004 Team and Organization
Development Sourcebook, 99
U
Understanding: in mutual learn-
ing model, 41–42, 44, 46, 55;
in unilateral control model,
36, 37, 39, 40
Undiscussable issues, discussing
(ground rule eight), 66, 183,
205, 231, 323–325
542 | Index
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 543
Unilateral control model, 35; ad-
vocating change through,
294, 297; in case study,
47–51; consequences of, 36,
39–40; core assumptions of,
36, 37; core values of, 36–37;
dilemmas of, 40; drama trian-
gle and, 256, 257, 421–431;
as factor in facilitator ineffec-
tiveness, 35–40; give-up-
control model and, 40–41;
graphic illustration of, 36;
Facilitative Leader approach
and, 309, 310, 311, 315,
316–317, 321; inference test-
ing and, 221; learning, 40;
“left-hand column” case,
47–51, 235; saving face and,
36, 48, 274, 275, 276, 351,
352, 354; strategies of, 36,
37–38; threatening situations
and, 35–36, 383–384; 360-
degree feedback and, 391,
392, 394, 395
Ury, W., 61n, 65, 68, 145, 146,
147
“Use a decision-making rule.”
See Decision-making rules;
Ground rule nine
“Use specific examples.” See
Ground rule three; specific
examples, sharing; Words,
agreeing on important
V
Valid information. See Informa-
tion, valid
Values, core. See Core values
Values, group: in basic facilita-
tion, reflecting on, 117; be-
havior, inconsistencies in,
153; clarifying, 152–153, core
values and, 20, 339; defined,
20, 149; developing,
149–157; developmental fa-
cilitation and, 339, 340, 341,
342–343, 348, 357; in group
culture, 20; importance in
shared vision effort, 151–152;
statement of values and be-
liefs, 155–156, 342; theory-
in-use interventions and, 357;
in top management teams,
179, 180, 342–343
Vision, personal, 151, 153–154,
155
Vision, shared: complex adaptive
systems compared to,
150–151; core purpose and
values for; 151–152; creative
tension from, 150; defined,
149; developing, 149–157;
group, 20; group visioning
scenarios, 155; importance of
values or guiding principles
in, 151–152; ineffective vi-
sioning, 149–150; realization
of, 150
Vision, values, mission process,
108, 149, 380
Vision statements, 149–150, 153
Visioning exercise, 109,
111–112, 155, 157
Vroom, V. H., 68, 68n 1, 2
Vulnerability: avoiding, in uni-
lateral control model, 38
W
Waclawski, J., 409, 412
Walker, A. G., 396, 401
Walking in This World,
474, 476
Weitzel, S. R., 400n1, 401
Wheatley, M. J., 86n1, 87
Winning: in give-up-control
model, 40; in unilateral
control model, 36, 37, 39
Wisdom of Teams, The, 171, 180
Withholding information. See
Information withholding
Words, agreeing on important
(ground rule three), 64, 159,
225–226, 405
Work groups. See Groups,
work
Worklife, quality of: give-up-
control model and, 41; mu-
tual control model and, 42,
46; unilateral control model
and, 36, 39
www.schwarzassociates.com, 94,
99, 118n1, 169, 194,
194n1–2, 301, 365n1
Y
Yetton, P.W. 68, 68n1
Young, G., 295–297
Z
Ziegahn, L., 414, 418
Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, 200,
200n1
Zolonowski, G., 320, 321
Index | 543
www.schwarzassociates.com
76_964948 bindex.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 544
75_964948 aboutauthor.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 545
About Roger Schwarz
& Associates
Roger Schwarz & Associates is a leadership and organization development consulting firm dedicated
to helping people think and act differently so they can improve their business results and relationships—
often in ways that they didn’t think possible.
Clients work with us when:
• They’ve identified an issue that is reducing their group’s effectiveness. Sometimes they have dis-
cussed this issue in the group, and sometimes they haven’t.
• They’re starting an important new effort—a new project, a new team, a merger or acquisition—
and want to ensure that everyone involved will work together effectively.
• The way they work together is preventing them from achieving the results they want.
• They have a compelling vision for their organization and want people to commit to it.
After working with us, our clients achieve better results because they work more effectively
together. They make higher-quality decisions that they implement in less time and with greater com-
mitment and accountability. Their relationships also become more satisfying.
We help clients achieve results in all of these situations through a blend of facilitation, training,
coaching, and consulting.
• As facilitators, we help our clients get positive outcomes from important, challenging
conversations.
• As trainers, we design workshops so clients can learn to be more productive and get real work
done on critical issues at the same time.
• As coaches, we help our clients change the way they think so they can tackle issues and have
conversations they didn’t think possible.
• As consultants, we help our clients create policies and structures that help them to live their
values and achieve their goals.
We provide a number of learning resources through our Web site:
• If you are interested in our latest learning, work, and research, including stories and feedback
from our colleagues and clients, we invite you to subscribe to our free electronic newsletter.
545
75_964948 aboutauthor.qxd 3/3/05 10:17 AM Page 546
• If you want to be part of an ongoing conversation about using the Skilled Facilitator and
Facilitative Leader approaches, we invite you to join The Skilled Facilitator Forum, our online
discussion community.
• We offer a number of Skilled Facilitator products, including our books, ground rules articles,
pocket cards, and posters.
If you are interested in exploring whether and how we can help you, your group, or your organi-
zation, please contact us. We would also like to hear from you about your experiences with the Skilled
Facilitator and Facilitative Leader approaches.
Find us on the Web at www.schwarzassociates.com.
E-mail us at info@schwarzassociates.com.
Telephone us at 919/932-3343.
546 | About Roger Schwarz & Associates
mailto:info@schwarzassociates.com
www.schwarzassociates.com
The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook
Contents
Editors, Authors, and Contributors
Introduction
THE PURPOSE OF THE FIELDBOOK
WHAT TO EXPECT
WHO THE FIELDBOOK IS FOR
HOW THE FIELDBOOK IS ORGANIZED
HOW TO USE THE FIELDBOOK TO ENHANCE YOUR LEARNING
PART ONE: Understanding the Skilled Facilitator Approach
Chapter 1: The Skilled Facilitator Approach
WHAT IS GROUP FACILITATION?
KEY FEATURES OF THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
INTEGRATING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH WITH OTHER PROCESSES
THE EXPERIENCE OF FACILITATION
Chapter 2: The Group Effectiveness Model
WHAT IS A WORK GROUP?
GROUP EFFECTIVENESS CRITERIA: PERFORMANCE, PROCESS, AND PERSONAL
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO GROUP EFFECTIVENESS
PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
Chapter 3: Using Facilitative Skills in Different Roles
THE FACILITATOR ROLE
THE FACILITATIVE CONSULTANT ROLE
THE FACILITATIVE COACH ROLE
THE FACILITATIVE TRAINER ROLE
THE FACILITATIVE LEADER ROLE
CHOOSING THE APPROPRIATE ROLE
SERVING IN MULTIPLE FACILITATIVE ROLES
Chapter 4: Understanding What Guides Your Behavior
YOUR THEORIES OF ACTION
UNILATERAL CONTROL MODEL
GIVE-UP-CONTROL MODEL
MUTUAL LEARNING MODEL
Chapter 5: Ground Rules for Effective Groups
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS
LEARNING TO USE THE GROUND RULES
Chapter 6: The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle
STEPS IN THE CYCLE
SKIPPING STEPS OF THE CYCLE
USING THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION CYCLE WITH OTHER FRAMES
CONCLUSION
Chapter 7: Thinking and Acting Systemically
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMS THINKING
THE LAWS ARE INTERRELATED
Chapter 8: Contracting with Groups
WHY CONTRACT?
CONTRACTING PRINCIPLES
CONTRACTING STAGES
FACILITATING IN YOUR OWN ORGANIZATION
USING CONTRACTING IN OTHER FACILITATIVE ROLES
PART TWO: Starting Out
Chapter 9: Jointly Designing the Purpose and Process for a Conversation
Chapter 10: Process Designs
THREE LEVELS OF GROUP PROCESS
DESIGN SELECTION CRITERIA
SAMPLE DESIGN A: TOWN VISIONING EXERCISE
SAMPLE DESIGN B: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RETREAT
Chapter 11: Basic Facilitation
WHAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH BASIC FACILITATION?
LIMITATIONS
AN EXAMPLE
Chapter 12: Do the Math
SOME RULES OF THUMB FOR GENERATING TIME ESTIMATES
WHEN THE FACILITATOR AND GROUP DISAGREE ABOUT TIME
WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS TAKE LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED
Chapter 13: Beginning Meetings
INTRODUCTIONS
GUIDELINES FOR WORKING TOGETHER
Chapter 14: Introducing the Ground Rules and Principles in Your Own Words
Chapter 15: Using the Group Effectiveness Model
DIAGNOSING GROUP ISSUES
INTRODUCING THE GROUP EFFECTIVENESS MODEL TO GROUPS
STEPS FOR INTRODUCING THE GEM
DESIGNING INTERVENTIONS
WHAT IF YOU MAKE THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS OR START IN THE WRONG PLACE?
Chapter 16: Helping Group Members Focus on Interests Rather Than Positions
START WITH A SENTENCE PROMPT
GENERATE ONE COMMON LIST OF INTERESTS RATHER THAN A TWO-COLUMN PRO-CON FORMAT
ARRANGE THE ROOM SO PEOPLE CAN SEE EACH OTHER AND THE LIST OF INTERESTS
USE QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE DISCUSSION TO HELP PEOPLE UNCOVER INTERESTS
Chapter 17: Developing Shared Vision and Values
A DIFFERENT VIEW OF VISION
EMPHASIZING VALUES AND PURPOSE
THE PURPOSE OR VALUES ( AND MAYBE VISION) INTERVENTION
RESULTS
Chapter 18: Helping Groups Clarify Roles and Expectations
THE POWER OF THE INTERVENTION
STEPS OF THE INTERVENTION
CHANGES AND ADAPTATIONS TO THE INTERVENTION
Chapter 19: Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach to Strengthen Work Groups and Teams
WHAT ARE WORK GROUPS AND TEAMS?
WHY IS TSF SO POWERFUL?
HOW DID TSF HELP A TEAM-BASED ORGANIZATION?
HOW DOES TSF STRENGTHEN TEAM CHARTERING?
WILL THE SAME PROCESS WORK WITH TOP MANAGEMENT TEAMS?
Chapter 20: Using the Ground Rules in E-Mail
APPLYING THE GROUND RULES
ANALYZING AND EDITING YOUR E-MAIL
WHY BOTHER?
PART THREE: Deepening Your Practice
Chapter 21: Ways to Practice the Ground Rules
DIAGNOSIS
CHANGING YOUR OWN CONVERSATION
INTERVENING
Chapter 22: Some Tips for Diagnosing at the Speed of Conversation
OPPORTUNITIES TO PRACTICE
CLEARING YOUR MIND: THE INTERNAL WORK NEEDED TO DIAGNOSE AT THE SPEED OF CONVERSATION
Chapter 23: Opening Lines
THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION CYCLE
GROUND RULES
Chapter 24: Reducing the Skilled Facilitator Jargon
Chapter 25: Now What Do I Do?
TREAT SURPRISES AS GIFTS
GOOD LINES COME FROM GOOD LISTENING
IT’S A SYSTEM: THE LINE YOU GET IS RELATED TO THE LINE YOU GIVE
BE SPECIFIC
DON’T BE AFRAID TO TAKE THE OBVIOUS ROUTE
RAISE THE STAKES: NAME THE ISSUE AND ENGAGE IT
INCORPORATE MISTAKES INTO THE GROUP’S EXPERIENCE AND LEARNING
TRUST THE PROCESS; DON’T CONTROL IT
Chapter 26: Ground Rules Without the Mutual Learning Model Are Like Houses Without Foundations
THE LIMITS OF USING ONLY THE GROUND RULES
DEEPENING YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE GROUND RULES
CONCLUSION
Chapter 27: Writing and Analyzing a Left-Hand Column Case
WRITING A LEFT-HAND COLUMN CASE
ANALYZING THE CASE
PART FOUR: Facing Challenges
Chapter 28: Holding Risky Conversations
WHY HAVE RISKY CONVERSATIONS?
HOW TO HAVE A RISKY CONVERSATION
MOMENTS OF TRUTH
BEGINNING A RISKY CONVERSATION
Chapter 29: Exploring Your Contributions to Problems
WHY IT’S HARD TO SEE OUR CONTRIBUTIONS
HOW WE CONTRIBUTE TO PROBLEMS
LEARNING ABOUT OUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROBLEMS
Chapter 30: Moving Toward Difficulty
BEING DIRECT
STRATEGY FOR EFFECTIVE DELIVERY
THE DANGERS OF BEING POLITE
THE BENEFITS OF BEING DIRECT
OUR MANTRA: MOVE TOWARD THE CONFLICT
OUR EXPERIENCES OVER TIME
Chapter 31: Responding to Silence and Interruptions and Enabling Members to Talk to Each Other
RESPONDING TO SILENCE
DEALING WITH INTERRUPTIONS
ENABLING MEMBERS TO TALK TO EACH OTHER
Chapter 32: Raising Issues In or Out of the Group
SOME GUIDING PRINCIPLES
WHEN GROUP MEMBERS APPROACH YOU
UNDERSTANDING THEIR CONCERNS AND YOURS
IT’S THE SAME WITH GROUP LEADERS
IT WORKS BOTH WAYS
PART FIVE: Seeking Your Path
Chapter 33: Finding Your Voice
JOURNEYING INTO DEEPER SELF-AWARENESS
TIPS FOR FINDING YOUR VOICE
CONCLUSION
Chapter 34: Being a Mutual Learner in a Unilaterally Controlling World
SEEKING SUPPORT FOR CHANGING YOUR BEHAVIOR
YOU CAN CHANGE ONLY YOU
NO GUARANTEES FOR SUCCESS
SEEKING YOUR OWN BEST PATH
Chapter 35: Introducing the Skilled Facilitator Approach at Work
A DISMAL FIRST ATTEMPT
A MORE SUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT
A SUCCESSFUL APPROACH IN A LARGE ORGANIZATION
THE POWER OF MODELING NEW BEHAVIORS AND BELIEFS
Chapter 36: Bringing It All Back Home, or Open Mouth, Insert Foot
PETER’S EXPLANATION
STAFF COMMENTS
PETER’S CONCLUSION
Chapter 37: A Carp in the Land of Koi
PART SIX: Leading and Changing Organizations
Chapter 38: Daily Challenges of a Facilitative Leader
Chapter 39: Learning to Live Our Philosophy
ENTHUSIASM OUTPACES COMPETENCE
BROADENING THE EXPERIENCE
UNILATERALLY IMPLEMENTING A JOINT APPROACH
TOP-DOWN TEAMING
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
ELEMENTS OF CHANGE
Chapter 40: Helping a Team Understand the System They Created
UNDOING THE TEAM CONSENSUS
PIECING TOGETHER THE SYSTEM
Chapter 41: “I Can’t Use This Approach Unless My Boss Does”
WHAT IS IT ABOUT A BOSS?
TALKING WITH YOUR BOSS
Chapter 42: How to Stop Contributing to Your Boss’s and Your Own Ineffectiveness
CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEMS YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT
HOW TO STOP CONTRIBUTING TO YOUR BOSS’S INEFFECTIVENESS
Chapter 43: Developmental Facilitation
DEVELOPING LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
CHALLENGES FOR INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, AND ORGANIZATIONS
SPECIAL CHALLENGES FOR FACILITATORS
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
Chapter 44: Guidelines for Theoryin-Use Interventions
EXAMPLE: INTERVENING ON TOM’S THEORY-IN-USE
THE INTERVENTION PROCESS
GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THEORY-IN-USE INTERVENTIONS
Chapter 45: Introducing the Core Values and Ground Rules
BACKGROUND
COMPANYWIDE ROLLOUT
REFLECTIONS ON THE INTRODUCTION
CHALLENGES TO SUSTAINED LEARNING
FAILING FORWARD
Chapter 46: From Learning to Lead to Leading to Learn
LEARNING TO LEAD
THE LAURINBURG EXPERIENCE
CONTINUING CHALLENGES
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 47: Reflections of a Somewhat Facilitative Leader
EVERYDAY PERCEPTIONS
CLASS AND POWER
REFUSALS OR INADEQUACIES
EVERYDAY DECISION MAKING
SUMMING UP
Chapter 48: Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach with Organizational Policies and Procedures
TYPICAL ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THESE PRACTICES?
INTEGRATING ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES WITH THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
Chapter 49: 360-Degree Feedback and the Skilled Facilitator Approach
EXAMPLES OF DILEMMAS WITH 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS
LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
USING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH TO REDESIGN 360-DEGREE FEEDBACK
Chapter 50: Implementing a 360-Degree Feedback System
Chapter 51: Do Surveys Provide Valid Information for Organizational Change?
COMPONENTS OF SURVEY-GUIDED DEVELOPMENT
CONCLUSION
Chapter 52: Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Different and Multiple Cultures
THE MULTINATIONAL REALITY
SURPRISING REACTIONS IN RUSSIA
ACCEPTANCE IN A MULTINATIONAL ORGANIZATION
ADDRESSING THE DILEMMAS
TESTING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION
PART SEVEN: Integrating the Skilled Facilitator Approach in Your Worklife (and Non-Worklife)
Chapter 53: The Drama Triangle
THE BASIS OF INAUTHENTIC RELATIONSHIPS
DRAMA TRIANGLE ROLES
THE DRAMA TRIANGLE AND UNILATERAL CONTROL DESIGNS
BEING HELPFUL AND AVOIDING THE DRAMA TRIANGLE
Chapter 54: Using Creative and Survival Cycles to See and Shift Mental Models
Chapter 55: The Skilled Facilitator Approach and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
WHAT IS THE MBTI?
HOW CAN TYPE BE USED WITH THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH?
ARE THERE PROBLEMS WITH INTEGRATING MBTI AND THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH?
Chapter 56: Applying the Skilled Facilitator Approach to a Systems Thinking Analysis
THE SYSTEMS THINKING APPROACH
AN EXAMPLE: ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES
APPLYING SYSTEMS THINKING WITH THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH
CONCLUSION
Chapter 57: The Facilitative Coach
WHAT IS COACHING, AND WHY COACH?
THE FACILITATIVE COACH MODEL
THE FOUR EXTERIOR FACETS OF COACHING
THE FOUNDATION AND INTERIOR FACETS OF COACHING
CELEBRATING CREATIVE, PURPOSEFUL RESULTS
A FINAL WORD
Chapter 58: Becoming a Facilitative Trainer
BECOMING A FACILITATIVE TRAINER
THE FACILITATIVE TRAINER APPROACH IN ACTION
CONCLUSION
Chapter 59: Being a Facilitative Consultant
WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT FACILITATIVE CONSULTING
AN EXAMPLE: IDENTIFYING AND DEVELOPING VALUES IN AN ORGANIZATION
FACILITATIVE CONSULTING
Chapter 60: Using the Skilled Facilitator Approach as a Parent
TEACHING THE DIAGNOSIS-INTERVENTION CYCLE TO MY CHILDREN
REWARDING CHILDREN FOR USING FACILITATIVE SKILLS
DECREASING CONFLICT WITH FACILITATION SKILLS
USING THE SKILLED FACILITATOR APPROACH TO HELP CHILDREN MAKE SENSE OF THE WORLD
Chapter 61: Running for Office in a Unilaterally Controlling World
TAKING A POSITION
CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
FUNDRAISING
A HOPEFUL FINISH
Chapter 62: Using the Facilitative Leader Approach in Public Office
USING THE GROUND RULES TO CRAFT MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION
GROUND RULES AT WORK FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS
Afterword: Some Important Lessons
CHANGING HOW YOU THINK IS FUNDAMENTAL
CHANGE BEGINS WITH YOURSELF
THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO GROW CHANGE
THE CHANGE PROCESS IS NOT LINEAR
THINKING AND ACTING SYSTEMICALLY CREATES LASTING RESULTS
MAKE THE APPROACH YOUR OWN
MAKE A CHOICE ABOUT HOW EXTENSIVELY TO USE THE APPROACH
LEARN WITH OTHERS
Acknowledgments
Index
About Roger Schwarz & Associates
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
