together groups achieve more[1]

8/3/2019 Together Groups Achieve More[1]

1/34

TogetherEveryoneAchievesMore

Shailesh Udhwani

This is the mantra

for

CORPORATE SUCCESS!

"You cannot be a completely independent individual in an

organization. You are part of a group, and you must operate effectively

within the group, if you are to succeed."

The facilitators

have to make these teams

EFFECTIVE to get the BEST

out of the HUMAN CAPITAL

for corporate success.

Essay on:

Effective Group behavior:

Driving Linkages with Organizational Policy Strategy

www.hrfolks.com All Rights Reserved


2/34

Effective Group behavior: Driving Linkages with Organizational Policy Strategy

Long time ago, as long ago as 1950, analysis of managers' time showed that they spent at

least 10 hours each week in meetings. In all probability, the number of hours has increased since

then. Are they effective? Well, as has been pointed out, they seem to fill a human need and that

"if there are no meetings in the places where they work, people's attachment to the organization

... will be small.". Every group has a unique dynamic that is more than the sum of its individual

members.

Working with groups is an essential part of nearly all-professional work. Much of what

goes wrong in human relationships, particularly in teams and organizations, can be foreseen and

is preventable with a basic knowledge of what we call group dynamics.

Group dynamics include the following four aspects:

group process (or dynamic)

group development

group purpose

group context

These four aspects are generally interdependent, and each may be conscious or unconscious to

varying degrees.

By identifying your own strengths and weaknesses and understanding what is going on

within any group, you should become adept at steering the group in a positive direction when it

inevitably enters troubled waters.

Effective Group Behavior is a matter of deep interest and apprehension for the corporate

world today. The enhancing level of group dynamics the more are the chances of success for the

corporates.

INDIVIDUALS CAN WORK BETTER IN-GROUPS provided they have their

fundamental basics about GROUP DYNAMICS and their EFFECTIVENESS in the corporate

world > > > >RIGHT.

WHAT IS THERE WHICH MAKES A TEAM / GROUP?

GOAL



3/34

PERFORMANCE

DISCIPLINE . . . . . what ..??????

ALL OF IT AND MORE . . . . . . and here it goes

A compelling and commonly held performance challenge is what creates teams, not the

desire to be a team.

Teaming demands a six-part discipline whereby a small number of people with

complementary skills commit to hold themselves mutually accountable to a common purpose,

a set of common goals, and a commonly agreed-upon way of working together.

Unlike hierarchy, team leadership is more about building mutual accountability and

performance focus than making decisions and delegating tasks.

If your small group can achieve its performance goals through the sum of individual

assignments and achievements, then you should not use a team approach. Traditional

hierarchy and a single-leader discipline is a more efficient way to meet your goals. But if

your group's performance objective requires people to deliver work and results jointly, with

multiple leadership inputs, then you are well advised to use the team discipline.

Types of groups and teams:

Formal Informal

Two or more people who engage in

organizationally required actions for a

common purpose.

E.g.

Work group

Work team

Quality circle

Two or more people who engage in voluntary

collective activity for a common purpose.

E.g.

Friendship group

Interest group

But there is so called a small difference in group and team, which is

Group Team

Designated strong leader Rotates leadership



4/34

Individual accountability

Same purpose as organization

Individual work products

Runs efficient meetings

Effectiveness by effect on Business

Delegates work to Individuals.

Accountable to each other

Specific team vision

Collective work products

Participative meetings

Effectiveness by collective work

Shares work.

Why do people form Groups?

Satisfaction of Needs

E.g. security, social, & esteem

Proximity & Attraction

E.g. social density

Group Goals

Economic Reasons

What are the characteristics of a Group/Team?

Size

Roles

Norms

Cohesiveness

Membership Composition

Individual Behavior

E.g. Cooperation & Negative Behaviors

Stages of Development in a group:

1. Forming:

Orientation

Break the ice

Leader:

Facilitate social interchanges



5/34

2. Storming:

Conflict

Disagreement

Leader:

Encourage participation

Manage disagreements

3. Norming:

Establish order

Build cohesion

Leader:

Help clarify team roles

Clarify norms

Clarify values

4. Performing:

Cooperation

Problem solving

Leader:

Facilitates task accomplishment

5. Adjourning:

Task Completion

Leader:

Bring Closure

Signify Completion

6. Mourning:

Review

Disbursement

Elaborated table of the various stages:



6/34

The 6 stages Group structure Task activity

Forming

Considerable anxiety, testing to discover

the nature of the situation, what help can

be expected from leader or convenor and

what behavior will or will not be

appropriate.

What is the task? Members seek the

answers to that basic question,

together with knowledge of the

rules and the methods to be

employed.

Storming

Conflict emerges between sub-groups;

the authority and/or competence of the

leader are challenged. Opinions polarize.

Individuals react against efforts of the

leader or group to control them.

The value and feasibility of the task

is questioned. People react

emotionally against its demands.

Norming

The group begins to harmonize; it

experiences group cohesion or unity for

the first time. Norms emerge as those in

conflict are reconciled and resistance is

overcome. Mutual support develops.

Cooperation on the task begins;

plans are made and work standards

laid down. Communication of

views and feelings develops.

Performing

The group structures itself or accepts a

structure, which fits most appropriately

its common task. Roles are seen in terms

functional to the task and flexibility

between them develops.

Constructive work on the task

surges ahead; progress is

experienced as more of the group's

energy is applied to being effective

in the area of their common task.

Adjourning

The group retires or adjourns after the

task is completed and informal

socializing occurs.

Much learning happens through

informal chat and feedback about

the group performance.

Mourning The group dismantles itself. All loose ends are tied up.

Group Activities in an organization:

The following activity requires some group members to observe the rest of the group and to

provide them with feedback after the task.

1. Planning and Setting up a Business:

How you make best use of the limited time?



7/34

How you organize yourselves?

Who takes on which role(s)?

How you can best "sell" your business plan to the bank (remembering that more requests

are turned down than accepted!)?

To get you started, here are some key issues to include in your draft plan:

Research for suitable premises (local views, Council bylaws and attitudes etc)

Market research of potential customers

Financial viability based on estimated numbers of customers at different times of day

and night

Staffing

Pricing policy for drinks and food

Research into suppliers - quality, delivery, terms of payment etc.

2. Enabling good communication:

Four elements should be at work:

Talking Listening to ourselves listening

Listening to ourselves talking Listening

We probably focus too much on ourselves doing the talking. Our listening is more

important than our talking, because it is our listening (whether it is good or awful) that

determines the quality of communication.

3. Analyzing how we talk to each other:

Transactional analysis (TA) uses language, which anyone can understand to identify

things that really are. It is a means of valuing the reality of personal experience whilst

enabling people to become more self-directed and 'adult' in their interactions with others. TA

is a teaching and learning device not a confessional and is therefore a useful tool to develop

effective group behavior

4. Giving and Receiving Effective Feedback:

An assessor or provider of feedback should:

attempt to remove all personality clashes, likes or dislikes and be as impartial as possible



8/34

use language which depersonalises the process but use the first person when offering a

view e.g. "I notice that" which means the comment is personally owned

observe and listen with full attention

try to preface potentially hurtful criticisms which might embarrass an overly sensitive

performer with an encouraging comment about something s/he did well

use his or her knowledge and understanding of the task to help frame any constructive

criticism (this also helps to depersonalize the process)

be aware when you and/or the person receiving feedback may be making conclusions

based on assumptions)

ensure that only criticisms which will help the performer or group are voiced (Issues

which the student is unable to change or to deal with should be directed to the

tutor/facilitator)

be able to justify and stand by a given comment and/or grade

be sufficiently flexible to modify the mark providing adequate contrary evidence is

presented

Receiving feedback can be frightening, as we may fear being ridiculed in front of our peers.

Only feedback, which can help individuals or groups to improve, has any place within an

educational context.

When receiving feedback you should:

listen carefully with an open mind

concentrate on what is being said

identify the key points

check that you have understood what was said

always pause for reflection (inhibit) before responding in any way

compare what is being said with your own thoughts

encourage more development of ideas through questioning if you think this would help

the group to develop better collaboration in future

remember 'the audience is always right'

make a note of uncomfortable or even threatening observations and try to reconsider this

'difficult feedback' at a later stage



9/34

Some attention has been paid to maximizing individual effectiveness, particularly in the area

of professional development. The continuing education programs in which many professionals

are involved as a matter of enlightened self-interest or requirement is an important part of that

movement. But there is a very important and little recognized other sidegroup effectiveness.

Group activities are not restricted to the few mentioned above. There is a lot more that u

can add to it. This was a very broad overview of the group activities.

The one most important activity is CONFLICT MANAGEMENT, if conflicts are in

place and taken care of the right time 95% of group related problems are solved.

Conflict management is integral and very sensitive part of group behavior, which inturn

affects its effectiveness.

To further elucidate group activities I have made a small tentative list of Group activities

that can be conducted within the organization. This is not an exhaustive list.

Possible content areas and team activities:

Stages of Team Growth Team Problem-Solving Skills

Clarifying Team Roles Dealing with Poor Performers

Identifying Mutual Expectations Moving to Group Maturity

Resolving Team Conflict Facilitating Team Communication

Group Decision Making Holding Effective Meetings

Defining Team Goals Developing Team Norms

Setting Team Ground Rules Building Trust

Team Interaction Skills Individuality and Team Accountability



10/34

Observable Effective Group Behavior

The effectiveness of the group depends on the individuals in the group dynamics. The

individuals or as we call them the effective group/s members have some pre-requisites, which are

stated under.

Effective Groups/Group Members should:

Have defined roles

Have something to write on and with

Sit with adjacent members equidistant

Only have one member speaking at a time

Post SOP's

Follow the SOS

Have posted a definition of the problem

Have a posted task list

Use a consensus tool (snapshop, e.g.)

Seek input/share ideas with others

The group members have to follow certain rules know as the ground rules, which are nothing

but the guiding principles of their behavior.

Ground Rules for Effective Behavior:

Rules are explicit guidelines the group agrees to follow. The purpose of rules is to help

guide constructive behavior. Ground rules can also outline process procedures, such as how

decisions are made and how information is shared. Typically, ground rules frame expectations,

about the way things should be done at meetings. An effective way for a group facilitator to

establish collaborative group behavior is to introduce a draft set of suggested ground rules at the

first meeting.

During the discussion of ground rules, the facilitator explains the purpose of the ground

rules and encourages the group to discuss them. To illustrate how this may occur, the facilitator

may say something like, "I drafted some suggested ground rules we could all follow for today's



11/34

meeting. Although they are only suggestions, let's go over the ground rules and see how people

feel about following them."

An Example of "Suggested Ground Rules"

Focus on interests and ideas, not positions or solutions to the problem.

Listen to understand each idea and interest. Ask questions.

Respect different viewpoints.

All ideas count, even wild ones.

Everybody participates.

Everyone shares responsibility for following the ground rules.

The facilitator may say things like:

"These ground rules are only suggested to help us start thinking about how we can work

together more constructively. Does anyone have any comments or items they would like

to discuss about these suggested ground rules?"

"Are there rules you would like to add?"

"As the facilitator of the group, my role is not only to make sure everybody follows the

ground rules, but also to model these ground rules to demonstrate effective group

behavior."

Even when ground rules are introduced and thoroughly discussed, someone will inevitably

break a rule. For example, a group member may say, "I am here to stop future development in this

community." This statement is a position, thereby breaking the first rule listed above. A facilitator

who is modeling the ground rules would respond, "In keeping with our ground rules, let's reframe

your statement into an interest. Would you say your interest is to retain areas of open space?" A

facilitator can use reframing frequently to help members stick to the ground rules.

The ground rules should be written on an easel pad and posted for everyone to see at each

meeting. Groups that continue to meet may want to print the ground rules on colored 3x5-index

cards and laminate them.

The overall purpose of ground rules is to help foster collaborative group interaction, not to restrict

it. The group can change the ground rules or add new ones based on group needs.



12/34

Having understood terminology like the group and group members lets see how the members

differentiated between two critical situations: individual tasks and goals that members could

achieve under clear single-leader direction, and critical collective work that demanded real-time

collaboration, multiple leadership, and the disciplined behavior of a real team. These options have

little to do with technology, although both can certainly be enabled by product

The base of the "Y" describes the elements of effective group work, not performance units.

The left branch defines the discipline required to elevate effective groups to single-leader

performance units (characterized by speed and efficiency, leadership clarity, and individual

accountability). The right branch defines the discipline required to elevate effective groups to

real-team performance units (characterized by collective work products, shifting leadership roles,

and mutual accountability). The choice of branch depends on the performance situation.



13/34

The difference between single-leader and team disciplines is straightforward: tasks and goals

that are best accomplished by individuals working within a single leader's direction versus tasks

and goals that require close collaboration among two or more people working together in real

time with access to multiple leaders.

There are certain team building workshops conducted across the world for enhancing

group effectiveness.

This is what some of the corporate personnel have to say about it:



14/34

"I especially liked the team building and issue identification of the partnering workshop. The

facilitator knew how to get things across."

Robert J. Dobitz

Deputy Chief Operations

Luke Air Force Base

"The facilitator stayed on schedule, made the points well, and stayed in control of the group."

Bill Tinsley

Operations Manager

Summit Builders

"The partnering workshop was an excellent avenue for understanding each other better."

Major Tan H. Min

SMO/425 FS

Singapore Air Force

"I liked the enthusiasm and knowledgeable approach of the facilitator."

Jack Davies

Technical Manager of Design

Sacramento Office

Army Corps of Engineers

"This program was very enjoyable. The time was well spent."

Jerry D. Clark

Engineering Specialist

TxDOT



15/34

"Excellent facilitator. We discussed problems that would hold up the project and applied

solutions. I left with the feeling that we had accomplished what we had come for. I had a sense

of working together toward a mutual goal."

Howard Kovar

Vice President

Bay, Inc.

"This is a very good program for all levels of management and supervision. A must to improve

relationships, profits, and cooperation between business entities."

David Jones

President

Landmark Earthmoving Service

"The course was very interesting and moving - quite a challenge for our group."

Gerrie Messer

Bureau of Reclamation

Facilitator !

Facilitator !!

Facilitator !!!

Facilitator !!!!

Facilitator !!!!!



16/34

Who is this person > > > > called the FACILITATOR?

As the name indicates is a person who acts as a link between people and their efficiency

requirement.

What if this person adopts unskilled approach of handling things > > >

Everything goes upside-down.

Facilitators have to operate on a certain skill base to be effective as a leader, coach,

consultant and a real time facilitators. The have to adopt the skilled facilitator approach in

conjunction with the conventional approach already operating in the organization in order to

with hold the managements interest.

What is The Skilled Facilitator Approach ??

The Group Effectiveness Model

A Clearly Defined Facilitative Role

Applicable To a Wide Range of Roles

Explicit Core Values

Ground Rules for Effective Groups

The Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle

Low-level Inferences

Exploring and Changing Our Theory-in-Use

A Process for Agreeing on How to Work Together

A Systemic Approach

The Group Effectiveness Model:

The facilitators and facilitative leaders are called on to help groups become more

effective, we need a model of group effectiveness as part of our approach. To be useful, the

model needs to tell us what an effective group should look like.

The Skilled Facilitator Approach includes a Group Effectiveness Model that 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.



17/34

The model enables us to identify when groups are having problems, identify the causes

that generate the problems, and begin to identify where to intervene to address the problems.

When we are creating new groups, the model helps us identify the elements and relationships

among the elements that need to be in place to ensure an effective group.

A Clearly Defined Facilitative Role:

To help groups, we need to clearly define our facilitative role so that the groups we help

have a common understanding about and agree on the kinds of behaviors that are consistent and

inconsistent with our role.

For facilitators, this has become more difficult in recent years 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 renamed

"facilitators". The Skilled Facilitator Approach clearly defines the facilitator role as a

substantively neutral person who is not a group member, who works for the entire group, and who

helps a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to

increase the group's effectiveness.

The facilitative leader role involves using facilitative skills while having a stake in and a

decision-making role in the issues being discussed. Facilitative leaders include executives,

managers, team leaders, and group members. Facilitative leaders model the set of core values and

ground rules in The Skilled Facilitator Approach, think and act systemically, increase

responsibility and ownership while reducing unnecessary dependence, and create conditions for

learning.

The Skilled Facilitator Approach distinguishes between two types of facilitationbasic

and developmental. In basic facilitation facilitators and facilitative leaders help a group solve a

substantive problem by essentially lending the group their process skills. When the work is

complete the group has solved its substantive problem but, by design, has not learned how it

improves its process. In developmental facilitation, facilitators and facilitative leaders help a

group solve a substantive problem and learn to improve their process at the same time. Here the

facilitator or facilitative leader also serves as teacher so the group can eventually become self-

facilitating. Developmental facilitation requires significantly more time and skill, and is more

likely to create fundamental change.

The Skilled Facilitator Approach recognizes that everyone needs to use facilitative skills

even if they are not neutral third parties or not working in-groups or teams. So, The Skilled

Facilitator Approach includes the roles of facilitative consultant, facilitative trainer, as well as



18/34

facilitator and facilitative leader. Furthermore, the approach recognizes that people often move

back and forth among these facilitative roles in the course of the work. Because all of these

facilitative roles are based on the same underlying core values and principles, you can use The

Skilled Facilitator Approach in all of your roles and be viewed by others as acting consistently

and with integrity across situations.

Explicit Core Values:

All approaches to facilitation and leadership are based on some core values. Core values

provide the foundation for an approach and serve as a guide. The Skilled Facilitator Approach is

based on an explicit set of core values and principles that follow from them. The core values are

valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment.

Making the core values explicit enable facilitators and facilitative leaders to understand not only a

set of methods and techniques but also how and why they work. They enable us to craft new

methods and techniques consistent with the core values and to continually reflect on how well we

act congruently with the values.

Making the core values explicit also helps us work with groups. As facilitators, we can discuss

our approach with others so that they can make more informed choices about whether they want

to use our services. As facilitative leaders, we can discuss our approach with our groups and

invite others to use it as well. When those we work with know the core values underlying our

approach, they can help us improve our practice, identifying when they believe we are acting

inconsistently with the values we espoused. Because the core values for facilitation and

facilitative leadership are also the core values for effective group behavior, when we act

consistently with the core values we model effective behavior for the groups we are working

with.

Ground Rules for Effective Groups:

When you watch a group in action you may intuitively know whether their conversation

is productive even if you cannot identify exactly how members either contributed to or hindered

the groups process. Yet, as facilitators and facilitative leaders we need to understand the specific

kinds of behaviors that improves a groups 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, facilitative leadership, and effective groups. Examples of the

ground rules are test assumptions and inferences, share all relevant information, and agree on



19/34

what important words mean, and explain the reasons behind your statements, questions, and

actions.

The ground rules serve several functions. First, they serve as a diagnostic tool. By

understanding the ground rules we can quickly identify dysfunctional group behaviorthat is

behavior inconsistent with the ground rulesso that we can intervene on it. Second, the ground

rules serve as a teaching tool for developing effective group norms. When groups understand the

ground rules and commit to using them, they set new expectations for how they will interact with

each other. This enables the group to share responsibility for improving their process, often a goal

of facilitation. Finally, the ground rules guide our behavior as facilitators and facilitative leaders.

The behavioral ground rules in the Skilled Facilitator Approach differ from the more procedural

ground rules like "start on time, end on time" and "turn off your beepers and cell phones" that

many groups use. These procedural ground rules can be helpful, but do not describe the specific

behaviors that lead to effective group process.

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 facilitators and facilitative leaders still need a

way to implement these tools. Specifically they 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, I have devised a six step process called the diagnosisintervention cycle. It gives 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 as a guide for effective action.

Low-level Inferences:

As facilitators and facilitative leaders, we are constantly trying to make sense of what is

happening in a group. We watch members say and do things and then we make inferences about

what their behavior means and how it is either helping or hindering the groups process. An

inference is a conclusion we reach about something that is unknown to us based on things that we

have observed. For example, in a meeting if we see someone silently folding his arms across his

chest, we may infer that he disagrees with what has been said but is not saying so.

The kind of inferences we make are critical because they guide what we will say when we

intervene, and they affect how group members will react to us.

To be effective, we need to make these inferences in a way that increases the chance that

we will be accurate. Enables us to share our inferences with the group to see if they disagree, and



20/34

that does not create defensive reactions in-group members when we share our inferences with

them.

The Skilled Facilitator Approach accomplishes this by focusing on what I refer to as

"low-level" inferences. Essentially, this means that facilitators and facilitative leaders diagnose

and intervene in-groups by making the fewest and the smallest inferential leaps necessary. For

example, consider two facilitators or facilitative leaders with different approaches working with

the same group simultaneously and hearing the following conversation in a group:

Tom: I want to discuss the start time for the new project. Next week is too soon. We need to wait

another month.

Sue: Thats not going to work. We need to do right away. We cant wait.

Don: I think youre both unrealistic. We will be lucky if we can start it in ninety days. I think we

should wait until then.

A facilitator or facilitative leader making a low-level inference might privately conclude

and then publicly point out that neither members have stated reasons for their opinions nor have

they asked others what leads them to see the situation differently.

Observing the same behavior, a facilitator or facilitative leader making a high-level

inference might privately conclude that the members dont care about others' opinions or are

trying to hide something. But making high-level inferences like this one creates a problem when

we try to say what we privately think.

Higher-level inferences are further removed from the data that we used to generate them

and so may be less accurate. If the inference also contains negative evaluations about others

motives, sharing the inference can contribute to the group members responding defensively. By

learning to think and to intervene using lower-level inferences, we can increase the accuracy of

our diagnosis, our ability to share our thinking with others, and reduce the chance that we will

create defensive reactions when we do so. This ensures that our actions increase rather than

decrease the groups effectiveness.

Exploring and changing our Theory-in-Use:

Facilitation and facilitative leadership is difficult work because it is mentally demanding

cognitively and emotionally. It is especially difficult when we find ourselves in situations we

consider potentially embarrassing or psychologically threatening.



21/34

In these situations, we use a set of core values and think in a way that we seek to

unilaterally control the conversation, win the discussion, and minimize the expression of negative

feelings. We think of ourselves as knowing all we need to know about the situation while

thinking others who disagree are uninformed, as being right and others as being wrong, and as

having pure motives while others motives are questionable. All of this leads us to act in ways that

create the very results we are trying hard to avoidmisunderstanding, increasing conflict,

defensive reactions, and the strained relationships and lack of learning that accompany them.

To make matters worse, we are usually unaware of how are thinking leads us to act

ineffectively. Rather, we typically attribute the cause of these difficult conversations to how

others are thinking and acting. Together, how we think and act and the consequences they

generate make up our theory-in-use.

The same problem that reduces our effectiveness as facilitators and facilitative leaders

reduces the effectiveness of the groups we are seeking to help. And like us, the groups are

unaware of how they create these problems for themselves.

The Skilled Facilitator Approach helps us understand the conditions under which we act

ineffectively and understand how our own thinking leads us to act ineffectively in ways that we

are normally unaware of. It provides tools for increasing our effectiveness particularly in

situations, which we find emotionally difficult. This involves changing not only our techniques,

but also how we think about or frame situations, and the core values that underlie our approach.

This is difficult but rewarding work. By doing this work for ourselves, we increase our

effectiveness. Then we can help groups learn to reflect on and change the ways they think in

difficult situations so that they can work more effectively together.

A Process for Agreeing on How to Work Together:

Facilitation and facilitative leadership involve developing a relationship with a group-a

relationship in which the group gives us permission to help them because they consider us expert

and trustworthy. Building this relationship is critical because, it is the foundation on which we

use our facilitative knowledge and skills; without the foundation, we lose the essential connection

with a group that makes our facilitative work possible and powerful. To build this relationship we

need a clear understanding and agreement with the group about our role and how we will work

with the group to help it accomplish its objectives.

Many of the facilitator and facilitative leadership problems my colleagues and I have

seen stemmed from a lack of agreement with the group about how people will work together.



22/34

For facilitators, The Skilled Facilitator Approach describes a process for developing this

agreement that enables the facilitator and the group to make an informed free choice about

working together. The process begins when someone first contacts the facilitator about working

with the group and involves a discussion with group members. It identifies who should be

involved at each stage of the process, the specific questions to ask, the type of information to

share about your approach to facilitation. The process also describes the issues on which you and

the group need to decide to develop an effective working agreement. The issues include the

facilitation objectives, the facilitator's role, and the ground rules that will be used. By using this

process, we act consistently with our facilitator role and increase the likelihood that we will help

groups achieve their goals.

For facilitative leaders, The Skilled Facilitator Approach describes a process for

introducing the approach to a group, exploring and agreeing on the facilitative leader role, and

seeking consensus to use the core values and ground rules underlying the approach.

A Systems Approach:

Facilitators and facilitative leaders often tell me stories of how despite their best efforts to

help a group in a difficult situation, the situation got worse. Each time they did something to

improve things, the situation either deteriorated immediately or temporarily got better before

getting even worse. These situations often occur when we do not think and act systemically.

In recent years, the field of systems thinking has become popular in part through the work

of Peter Senge and his colleagues. The Skilled Facilitator Approach uses a systems approach. It

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.

As facilitators and facilitative leaders, we enter this system when we work with a group.

Our challenge is to enter the system-complete with its functional and dysfunctional dynamics-and

help become more effective without our becoming influenced by the system to act ineffectively

ourselves. The Skilled Facilitator Approach recognizes that any action we take affects the group

in multiple ways and has short-term and long-term consequences, some of which are not obvious

to us. Consequently, we need to understand how our behavior as facilitators interacts with the

groups dynamics to increase and decrease the groups effectiveness.

For example, facilitators who privately pull a team member aside who they believe is

dominating the group may, in the short-term, seem to improve the teams discussion. But it may

also have several unintended negative consequences. The pulled-aside member may feel that the



23/34

facilitator is not representing the teams opinion and may see the facilitator as biased against him,

thereby reducing the facilitators credibility with that member. Even if the facilitator is reflecting

the other team members opinions, the team may come increasingly to depend on the facilitator to

deal with its issues, thereby reducing rather than increasing the teams ability to function.

For facilitative leaders, agreeing to solve conflicts for team members may, in the short-term,

resolve the conflicts but does not increase the team members capacity to solve their own conflict.

Instead, it may lead team members to become increasingly dependent on the facilitative leaders,

which reduces the facilitative leaders time for their own work. A strategy that began as a way to

save time ultimately consumes more time.

Using a systems approach to facilitation and facilitative leadership has many

implications. One implication is that to be effective, our approach needs to be internally

consistent. This means that the way we intervene and diagnose in-groups and the way we develop

agreements with groups all need to be based on a congruent set of principles.

Many facilitators and facilitative leaders develop their approaches by borrowing methods

and techniques from a variety of other approaches. There is nothing inherently wrong with this;

but if the methods and techniques are based on conflicting values or principles, they can

undermine the facilitators or facilitative leaders effectiveness as well as that of the groups they

work with. By thinking and acting systemically, we increase our long-term ability to help groups.

The Experience of Facilitation:

Facilitation and facilitative leadership are challenging work that calls forth a wide range

of emotions. Part of the work involves helping group members deal productively with their

emotions while they are addressing difficult issues. But, equally important is dealing with our

own emotions.

Facilitators and facilitative leaders experience many emotions. When faced with a

difficult situation, you may be feel both excited by the challenge and anxious as you wonder

whether you are skilled enough to really help the group. 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. Yet, when your work goes so smoothly that the group doesn't

recognize your contribution you may feel unappreciated. When the group is feeling confused and

uncertain how to proceed in their task, you may be feeling the same way about helping them.

Finally, you may be frustrated when others are acting in ways that seem ineffective and for

reasons you don't understand.



24/34

Everyone experiences each of these feelings. When we discuss these feelings with

colleagues, we find that although the specific situations that trigger our emotions and our specific

responses may differ, our own feelings are a significant part of our work as facilitators and

facilitative leaders.

Because our emotions and how we deal with them can either increase or decrease our

effectiveness, The Skilled Facilitator Approach involves understanding how we feel while

working with a group and learning to use these feelings productively.

Summary for this approach:

Together, the elements of The Skilled Facilitator Approach interact to form a values-

based systems approach for facilitation and facilitative leadership. The approach is a practical one

that is grounded in theory and that can help groups create fundamental changes in the way they

work.

There are certain drawbacks in the dynamics depending upon leader/s:

The Single-Leader Bias:

Groups who want to succeed must work hard to take full advantage of the many ways

technology is shifting the way we work and collaborate. The first obstacle to overcome is built

right into the technology itself. Product or the result is strongly biased against teaming in a

number of critical ways:

Excessive numbers of contributors.

The team discipline demands that a small number of people collaborate to achieve

common purposes and goals. Rarely have we observed more than 10-12 people team up

effectively without subdividing in favor of smaller numbers. Large groups invariably

work best as single-leader units or in subgroups. Having more and more skilled and

expert contributors can provide the talent you need, but the need is to put talent to work.

Integrating larger and larger numbers of people can be costly. Too many contributors

create communication and integration nightmares.

One task, one person.

Product reinforces the already present group bias toward listing to-do items and putting

individual names with them. Time and again we have heard admissions that the work of

the virtual team always got divided into individual assignments. Yet, as mentioned



25/34

earlier, this risks trying to divide up collective work products that really demand

collaboration and, like atoms, ought to remain indivisible.

A subtle bias against collaboration can cripple teams.

Subtle but powerful pressure to work alone.

Even when groups self-consciously avoid the "one person, one task" bias, they can fall

victim to excessive disaggregations of essential collaborative work into individual work

tasks. To engage in back-and-forth revisions until it's time to submit what they have

accomplished. Have they really collaborated? Only after a fashion that was cut to the

cloth of individual effort instead of creative collaboration members never actually

worked together in the same room at the same time. This subtle bias can cripple teams.

For example, the engineers and designers on a Project repeatedly fell prey to rewriting

each other's code without acknowledging it. Only by getting together in the same room

could they escape this deadly trap.

Awkward blend of formality and informality.

Groups that communicate through product often operate at the extreme ends of the formal

and the informal. On the one hand, video and teleconferencing can feel stiff and agenda-

driven -- and is best suited for information exchange but not problem solving. On the

other hand, e-mail can invite careless, even insulting, exchanges that quickly become

incendiary. Both extremes prompt rules that serve efficiency and politeness --

characteristics of the best single-leader-led groups but rarely the hallmark of real teams.

Overemphasis on speed.

A major advantage of product is the significant potential time savings: you don't have to

wait for face-to-face encounters. Because virtual work saves valuable time, the

temptation is to parcel out tasks and complete them as rapidly as possible. The lure of

saving time can lead to a working approach that precludes the collective work products

and shared leadership that are essential to team performance.



26/34

Some Practical Pointers:

Convene a face-to-face meeting early on.

Regardless of your challenge, get your group togetherphysically as soon as possible to

confirm your performance purpose and goals, agree on a practical working approach,

establish some product ground rules, and get to know one another.

Make conscious choices about disciplines.

Distinguish between the single-leader and team disciplines, and choose when and how to

apply each. Use performance goals to make your choice instead of the leader's personal

preferences or your group's desire to be a team. Divide your tasks and goals into two

buckets -- that is, individual versus collective work products. If most of your group's

challenge can get done through individual effort, rely on the single-leader discipline. If

most results imply collective work products, apply the team discipline. In our experience,

nearly all groups -- and especially those that must work virtually across time, place,

function, and hierarchy -- require both disciplines to succeed.

Match member skills and perspectives to collective work products.

Assign task and leadership roles in ways that take full advantage of the different skills,

experiences, and perspectives in your group as well as others you can access through

product. However, recognize that you will need a realistic inventory of members' talents

and skills to match assignments with performance tasks.

Use face-to-face sessions for problem solving and virtual meetings for information

sharing and updates.

Hold face-to-face sessions as often as needed.

Some virtual groups require few co-located meetings beyond the initial shaping and

scoping session. Others must gather more often -- particularly when miscommunication,

confusion, and frustration threaten to disrupt progress. Though the group leader has a

special responsibility to make these choices, the best groups encourage anyone to call for

a joint session. Many groups favor a regular schedule of co-located sessions. However

and whenever arranged, face-to-face sessions are key to intensive, real-time problem

solving while virtual meetings are best for efficient information sharing and updating.



27/34

Self-consciously divide up and assign different leadership roles.

Consciously shift and share leadership roles.

Virtual work requires more leadership attention than co-located work. Your group should

self-consciously divide and assign different leadership roles. For example, ask different

members to act as monitors and guides to product interactions. Also, remember that there

are always the roles of facilitator, note keeper, and discussion leader. Such roles are

critical in the world of virtual interaction as well as in co-located work groups. Yet

because group members are literally out of sight of one another, they sometimes overlook

the value of these assignments. Their interactions suffer accordingly.

Agree on your own etiquette. Every real team has its own working approach that clarifies

how best to work together to meld complementary skills into collective work products

and shared success. Similarly, virtual teams must self-consciously discuss and choose

how they expect to apply technology to their advantage. The more explicit you can be

about your etiquette, the more likely it is that your electronic networking will enable

rather than confuse your virtual interactions

There are several variables to measure group effectiveness:

1. Goals: Does the project team know what needs to be accomplished and when? Do team

members know what the firm is trying to achieve?

2. Participation: Do team members have an opportunity to contribute in team meetings? In

team meetings are all team members listened to?

3. Feelings: Architects and engineers usually prefer to deal with content, rather than with

feelings. Nevertheless, members' feelings can play an important role in the effectiveness

of the team. Can team members express their feelings? If they do, do they get empathetic

responses?

4. Diagnosis of team problems: When process problems arise, are causes addressed, rather

than symptoms?



28/34

5. Leadership: Does the team depend too much on a single person? Do team members

other than the nominal leader feel free to volunteer to meet group needs?

6. Decisions: Is consensus sought and tested? Are deviations appreciated? Once made, are

decisions fully supported by the team?

7. Trust: Do team members trust one another? Can they express negative reactions without

fearing reprisal?

8. Creativity: Does the team seek new and better ways to do things? Are individuals

changing and growing? Since more effective groups produce better outcomes, both

quantitatively and qualitatively, it is obvious that making groups more effective is very

important. A particularly good way is to monitor and measure their effectiveness in the

various aspects of group activity. Schein has suggested the use of a diagnostic instrument

to help monitor and assess effective group behavior, which we have adapted for

application to architectural and engineering teams.

By keeping in touch with those characteristics and qualities that improve team effectiveness,

the changes necessary to improve it can be made. The result of improved team effectiveness will

be better outcomes. The payoffthe desired outcomesare powerful and achievable: project

profitability and quality, client satisfaction, and individual professional development and growth.

E.g.: Usage in the corporate world for group meetings to analyze group dynamics:

"If a problem causes many meetings, the meetings eventually become more important

than the problem." --Hendrickson's Law

"Never argue with a fool. Other people might not know the difference."

Effective group behavior is associated with openness, participation and democracy while

ineffective group behavior is associated with mistrust, direction and autocracy. There are more

types of meeting than this and analyses them in turns of their task orientation or their relationship

orientation.



29/34

1. The Systematic meeting or group shows little concern for task (output) of for building

relationships. It centres upon administering a set of rules or procedures. It is formal,

usually with a chairperson and discussion is regulated by the rules of debate. Decisions

are by vote and responsibility is assigned to various individuals or sub-committees.

Meetings of this kind are seen in government, local or national, school boards, party

conferences, shareholders' meetings and so on.

2. The Facilitative group or meeting shows lower concern for achieving tasks but a high

concern for building relationships and creating a supportive atmosphere. It is often

informal without a chairperson. Everyone has a say. There is a high commitment to the

group itself and behavior likely to damage the group and conflict is avoided. Listening

behavior is prized as if the recognition or the feelings of others. Such meetings may occur

in church management groups, in Masonic lodges, and in creative and artistic worlds.

Such meetings may also be important when trying to build a unified team where everyone

depends upon everyone else. Contrary to the opinion of many, such meetings can agree

on action, which arises out of a consensus on the part of people who have trusted each

other for some time. However, the decision is not the focal point of the meeting.

3. Directive groups or meetings show a low concern for relationships and feelings but a high

concern for achieving goals. Such groups tend to be dominated by a strong leader and the

meetings strongest or most dominant members push through decisions. Conflict is

suppressed and there is no evaluation of the meeting's progress or process. Such meetings

and groups are common in business organizations.

4. Interactive groups are very sophisticated and rare. They depend upon goals not only

being clear but accepted and welcomed by everyone. Decisions are made by consensus.

Communication flows evenly and leadership moves to those most qualified for the task in

hand. Inter-personal behavior and relationships are discussed as much as the decision

itself because the group is aware that poor process will damage its decisions. Conflict is

brought into the open and discussed as a phenomenon, that is as something the group

needs to be able to handle.

To help in analysis of effective group behavior I have made a small self checklist:



30/34

SELF-CHECKLIST:

ASSESS YOUR GROUP BEHAVIOR

Instructions: Think of your behavior as you lead a group of subordinates. Use the scale below to

indicate the way you think you behave in your group.

Scale:

NEVER = 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 = ALWAYS

_____ 1. I give my ideas, provide suggestions and offer opinions that I think are helpful to the

group.

_____ 2. I try to be open, candid and honest in my dealings with the group.

_____ 3. During group discussions, I give my thoughts and feelings, as well as my ideas.

_____ 4. I will even take risks in expressing new ideas and new suggestions during group

meetings.

_____ 5. If anyone in the group needs help or assistance, I will gladly offer it to them.

_____ 6. I share my materials, tools, supplies and other resources freely with the group.

_____ 7. I level with all group members, even when it causes problems.

_____ 8. I tell my group that I am willing to cooperate with them, and I expect them to also be

cooperative.

_____ 9. If a member of my group is on the spot or embarrassed, I express support and offer

emotional support to the employee.

_____10. I evaluate my group members' contributions on how well they contribute to our

objectives rather than whether the member agrees or disagrees with me.

_____11. I communicate to my people that I appreciate their talents, skills and abilities.

_____12. I encourage my people to try new things, and I support them even when they fail.

_____13. When members of my group tell me something, I paraphrase or summarize what I think

they said before I respond.

_____14. I am generally friendly and responsive to my group.

Using this technique, we can identify four typical group behavior styles. We will describe each

style briefly and tell how groups are likely to behave when subjected to these styles with

examples:



31/34

OPEN-REJECTING (Style 1) (acceptance scores of 1 ).

This style suggests a leader who is open and sharing with his or her ideas and resources,

but is not very receptive to the ideas and input of others. A subordinate of such a manager

described him as, "...a person who would tell you everything he knew. He would loan you the

shirt off his back, but he never believed that your ideas and thoughts were good enough. He was

always able to find fault with whatever you did."

The open-rejecting leader wants to be thought of as the best, and he or she is not secure

enough to allow subordinates to come up with "good ideas."

"Always leave room to add an explanation if your suggestion does not work."

The leader who uses the open-rejecting style will likely create the following behaviors in his or

her group:

--"Yes" People.

--Subordinates who tell the leader what he/she wants to hear.

--Very few suggestions for improvement.

--Subordinates who stand back and watch the leader fail.

--Moderate effectiveness.

OPEN-ACCEPTING (Style 2) (acceptance score of 7 )

The open-accepting leader is, at the same time, very sharing and very supportive. This

leader communicates well, tells it like it is, shares resources and ideas, and is very helpful and

supportive of others' ideas and inputs. An excellent listener, this leader spends as much time

trying to find out what your problems are as he or she does trying to solve his or her problems.

Most people respond to an open-accepting leader with enthusiasm and support. Subordinates,

particularly, are likely to be committed to both the objectives and the human relations of the

group.

"Every revolutionary idea revolves through three states: (1) 'It is impossible -- don't waste my

time,' (2) 'It is possible, but it is not worth doing, ' (3) 'I said it was a good idea all along." --

Clarke's Law



32/34

e.g. Mary, who works for an open-accepting boss, describes her, "She is excellent to

work for. She always tells you where you stand. You know when you have made a mistake

because she tells you. However, you also know that she will do whatever she can to help you

avoid the mistake in the future."

Open-accepting leaders create the following behaviors:

--Effective work groups.

--Many suggestions for improvements.

--Good morale among subordinates.

--Willingness among subordinates to listen to the leader.

--Commitment and involvement from subordinates.

CLOSED-ACCEPTING (Style 3) (acceptance score of 3 )

Potter, an office manager for 15 years, is an example of a closed-accepting leader. He

very seldom offers any ideas or makes suggestions to subordinates. However, he is very open to

whatever his subordinates suggest. When asked about his opinion on something, he will often

respond with, "Well, I'm not sure, what do you think about it?" Then, whatever you say, he will

tend to support it.

Closed-accepting leaders do not tell you what they are thinking, but they are very

supportive for what others suggest. They are good listeners, but not good decision makers.

Closed-accepting leaders tend to encourage subordinates to:

--Do whatever they want to do.

--Do their own things without necessarily being committed to the group objectives.

--Argue and bicker among themselves.

--Become frustrated because they cannot get direction from their leader.

"When looking directly at the easier way, especially for long periods, you will not see it."

CLOSED-REJECTING (Style 4) (acceptance score of 4 )

Finally, the closed-rejecting leader is neither open with his or her ideas nor supportive of

the ideas of others. Very insecure and afraid of being "shown up" by subordinates, this leader

rejects all input from others. You never know for sure where you stand with this person. He or

she will not reveal what he or she is thinking, and you can seldom get a direct answer to a direct

question.



33/34

To make matters worse, the closed-rejecting leader does not communicate clearly what

he or she expects of you. However, this leader is quick to criticize when the slightest thing goes

wrong.

A subordinate said about his closed-rejecting boss, "It's very frustrating to work for him.

You can never find out anything. He will not tell you what he wants. He will not give you any

authority, but you sure catch hell when something doesn't come out the way he wants it to."

"No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (A) misinterpret

it, (B) fake it, or (C) take credit for it."

Closed-rejecting leaders cause their subordinates to:

--Spend time covering their behaviors.

--Develop alibies.

--Hide mistakes.

--Look busy while doing very little.

--Look for other jobs.

--Become very stressed.

--Avoid making any commitment to the group effort.

In short, effective group leaders are both open and supportive in dealing with their

subordinates. They are transparent with their communication while being understanding and

accepting of their subordinates.

This does not mean, however, that the open-accepting leader will allow subordinates to

abuse their privileges.

When employees do not respond to the open-supportive style of the leader, he or she will

discipline appropriately.



34/34

Conclusion:

Team Building usually includes some structured exercises that may focus on unity, trust,

or the importance of common objectives.

Team Building emphasizes interactive group processes, the "how" of effective group

behavior.

Teams that succeed have eightcharacteristics in common:

A clear, elevating goal A collaborative climate

A results-driven structure Standards of excellence

Competent members External support and recognition

A unified commitment Principled leadership

Generally, the participants in a Team Building come away with a greater understanding

of their own strengths and areas needing improvement and a greater appreciation of how they as

individuals can contribute effectively to group activity.

"I have spread my dreams under your feet:

Tread softly because you tread on my dreams"

together groups achieve more[1]

Documents