Trust the process; let it go

We have three hours before our feedback meeting with our client, and I’m a nervous wreck.  Which surprises me.  I love public speaking, I have filled up hour upon hour leading high school classrooms, and we are prepared.  What has gotten me so scared? The loss of control I feel over this upcoming meeting.

As we were preparing for our feedback meeting, we had lots of data.  I had so many ideas.  It would be so easy to compile all of the data into a nice neat package (I’ve done this thing so many times before) and give the client a list of all of my (I mean our) recommendations so they could run with it, safely behind doors that I have not been invited into after the conclusion of this project.  There, they could hash out the problems with our analysis, keeping their negative thoughts to themselves during the upcoming hour that’s not 2 hours and 50 minutes away.

But no.  That’s not how things are going to go down today.  Instead, I am facing a completely foreign process that I must simply trust in.  Trust the process.  Easier said than done.

First, I am going to have to willingly not share opinions and recommendations that I feel are just wonderful and the client would be lucky to have.  What if they don’t get anywhere close to coming up with these brilliant ideas themselves? What if they go in a completely different direction? What if they get off topic, miss the point, go down a rabbit hole? I am going to have to trust Block when he says that the client already has ideas how to solve its problem, and that anything they come up with themselves is going to have more commitment and motivation behind it than following anything I say.  They are closer to the problem themselves, so the best to enact solutions.

Second, we are walking away from sharing a lot of insights and themes I’ve noticed, boiling it all down to five points that we don’t just cover in an hour, we have time to discuss.  This is killing me.  My four page outline of over 20 themes may never see the light of day.  While we are sharing all relevant data, we will not be sharing all the ways we interpret it.  That’s up to the client, which brings me back to a lot of the same problems I outlined in my first point.

Next, we are actually going to create space and invite the client to express concerns, doubts, and fears! We even have a slide for it! This goes against every self-preservation instinct in my body.  As a student, my job was to get the answer right and be rewarded. As a teacher, my goal was to keep control of the classroom and cover the material.  As a parent, be loved and obeyed.  As a work colleague, respected and supported.  Block is asking me to step out of every comfort zone I’ve developed over my entire life.

Two hours and 32 minutes.

This whole thing just seems so….risky.  And I can be a wimp.

But here I go- stepping out into a process that promises reward while never once promising to reduce risk.  In fact, Block states in his Flawless Consulting Fieldbook and Companion that “a strategy to reduce risk is a strategy to reduce change.” (Block, p.14).  I am having to create a new conversation (Block, p. 270) by first taking myself out of it and making it a true dialogue rather than a monologue.  I’m having to enter into engaging with the client, which is scarier than just talking at them.  But I know now how much stronger the outcome will be if I do this, and how little chance anything will change for the client unless we engage in meaningful, authentic dialogue that invites all of their thoughts, fears, doubts, opinions, and strategies.  Their “doubts, reservations, and cynicism must be expressed publicly”  in order for them to gain internal commitment (Block, p. 267). This is how our expertise will be used.

I recognize my fears reflect Peter Koestenbaum’s identified four universal fears of becoming a fool (I’m going to be exposed for being incompetent) , being abandoned (no thanks, you’ll never be needed as a consultant), being assaulted (how could you say that to us?) , or going mad (why doesn’t everyone else see my point?) I also recognize that each of the clients and my fellow student consultants will be walking into the room in now 2 hours and 24 minutes carrying these same fears.  It’s my job to pay homage to them, as well as also value the the intelligence, care, and expertise each brings into the same room.

I’m not here to fix everything, and I am coming to terms with that.  Instead, it’s my job to engage.  Rather than running all the numbers and data through my head for the next 2 hours and 19 minutes now, I’m going to shower, relax, and focus on the positive attributes of the client and my partners, having faith that they and the process will take us to a place three hours and 18 minutes from now I never could have arrived on my own, even if I were allowed to be queen.  Even me.

 

 

 

The Power (and dangers) of Observation

In the past few weeks, both Block and Schein have touched on what a powerful force our observations plays in affecting how we react (or “intervene” a Schein calls it).  Both Block’s chapter on whole-system discovery touches on this, as well as both chapters 5 and 6 from Schein.

I’m beginning to think that the most important thing a consultant can do is focus on observation- both for herself and her clients.  What we see, what we are able to see affect absolutely everything. 

In looking at the ORJI cycle (observation, reaction, judgment, and intervention) from Schein, chapter 5, it is clear that if we do not recognize the limits of our observation skills, we will quickly find ourselves thinking, feeling, and doing things that can get us into trouble.  We must understand that the way we see things is imperfect.  David Bohm might call it a “program” in which we are held captive but which we must continually work to free ourselves” (Bohm, 1985). 

We need others to help us observe, and must be humble and curious enough of others to get their perspectives rather than just relying on our own.  We must constantly question ourselves to ask “is what I think I just saw really what happened?” and “am I basing my judgment on complete data, or just what I’ve seen through my limited perspective?”

The entire ORJI cycle can go awry based on observation alone.  We can have inappropriate emotional reactions to observations we misinterpret.  We can, as mentioned above, decide to make a judgment based on what we think we saw, when, in actuality, what we saw on our own is probably incomplete at best and completely inaccurate more often than we care to admit.  And worst of all, we may decide to act immediately on an observation, bypassing any emotion or judgment.  And it all takes place in an instant.

I think for me, I need to go back to that constant theme…humility…and realize that the way I see things is not sufficient for explaining the mysteries of the universe, my work place, my relationships, or even my own cognitive process on my own.  I need the insight, perspective, reasoning, and intelligence of others.  I need to constantly dig beneath the surface of what I see to ask why someone is behaving the way they do, ask why they hold the positions they do, and be curious enough to ask for the reasoning behind their words and actions.

We are not meant to solve problems on what we see alone.  Beyond the limitations of what this can do as outlined by Block in his chapter on Whole Systems Discovery (asserting that we need everyone’s eyes on the problem and insights to the solution), we need other people to help us even figure out ourselves. 

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
JA
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

I am learning to slow down and give myself space between seeing and thinking-judging-intervening, and that space needs to be filled by others, not myself.

Dialogue: applying Friere’s requirements as a key to transformation

I have just finished reading Nancy Dixon’s book, Perspectives on Dialogue: Making Talk Developmental for Individuals and Organization and am very excited to start applying these principles I have learned to not only the workplace, but to how I engage in others on a personal and social level.

I first loved the observation that as our world is getting more diverse and complex, we need to be able to become more diverse and complex in our thinking; that is, be more open to entertain alternative perspectives, more differentiated in our ability to draw finer distinctions, and more integrated in our “ability to weave differences into a complex whole “(Dixon, 1996, p. 2). Dixon, using her own conclusions based on the work of five leading theorists on adult education and dialogue, Argyris, Bohm, Johnson and Johnson, Mezirow, and Friere, argues that true, transformative dialogue is key in achieving this individual and collective growth.

While I loved each theory and gleaned much from it, I am especially touched and intrigued by the conditions Dixon outlines as Friere’s requirements for meaningful, transformative dialogue. I believe that by examining each of his conditions, we can apply teachings from all of the theorists covered in this book and transform our dialogue so that we can transform our relationships with others and create new meaning in our world.

Humility

Like so much of this course, it all begins with humility. Friere argues that true dialogue cannot exist if project ignorance onto others and fail to see our own. This is echoed by Argyris in his comparison with Model I and Model II behavior in that one must be genuinely curious to learn the views of others and reasoning behind them. Bohm’s belief in developing a higher social intelligence based on dialogue also requires humility in that it assumes that the collective can achieve something greate than the individual. Johnson and Johnson also assert that cooperation achieves more than competition or individualism, which also requires humility. Mezirow’s emphasis on communicative learning in order to understand others without coercing them also begins from a point of humility.

Love

While this seems almost laughably simple, I believe it is the foundation of everything we are talking about. One must love one’s fellow man in order to want to engage with them, discover his feelings, encourage him to grow and succeed, and value his insights and perspective. Love assumes that our ultimate goal is not to coerce, win, compete, or suppress, but that we have a collective goal for all our betterment.

Faith

Friere insists that dialogue requires a faith in the average human to comprehend the world and transform it. This, again, if a foundation of Argyris’ Model II behavior, the assumption Johnson and Johnson make that supports their claim that cooperation is superior to competition, and Mezirow’s assertion that communicative learning can be validated by non-coerced consensus. As a teacher, I found myself struggling with this faith in my classroom, worried about giving up control of a conversation for fear that the students would not reach the same conclusions I had. Yes, sometimes they went in a different direction that did not easily lead to my preplanned point of the lesson, but always it led to greater insight and meaning than anything I could have planned on my own.

Hope

I loved the statement “hopelessness begets silence” because one does not believe that dialogue will lead to anything. I’ve seen this myself in meetings when we all stayed quiet not because we did not have insight or opinion, but because we didn’t believe it would amount to anything if we participated. This sense of hope outlined by Friere is so important in determining the success of the 3-day “forums” Dixon describes toward the end of the book, or for the increased cooperation and productivity possible through dialogue according to Johnson and Johnson. Unless everyone has hope that their ideas will be valued and used, dialogue will not take place.

Critical Thinking

I had never before thought of critical thinking in terms of avoiding viewing the future as an “extrapolation of the past” (Dixon, 23) but rather as focusing on the transformation of reality. This speaks to Bohm’s focus on letting go of the ways of thinking that act as “programs” that can blind us from higher truths and realities. It is also the same as Argyris’ theories in use and tacit assumptions that he says we must uncover in order to alter.

I am now more aware of the need for dialogue in order to give voice and agency to everyone, whether they are undervalued employees in an organization or an oppressed indigenous people in Brazil; whether the lay person afraid to question a clergy member’s judgment or interpretation of scripture or a spouse in an unequal power relationship in a marriage. Dialogue requires humility, love, hope, faith, and a willingness to look beyond what we think we already know based on our own flawed and skewed past experiences and limited perspectives and trust in a transformed reality in which we all will take part in creating. We do not know what this will look like, which is very scary, but we must have faith that it will be better than anything we or any current powers that be could prescribe.

Understanding Resistance to change

I like to get things done.  I like doing things my way.  I usually feel like I have the best answer because it came to me suddenly and strongly, so I have conviction. I expect everyone to be as excited about my new idea as I am, and get very frustrated and hurt when they are not. In fact, I get so frustrated and hurt that I often give up on the idea altogether, assuming that it must just not have been meant to be.  They are better off without my ideas, and I’m better off without them.

All of the above feelings were addressed this past week in class by the beautiful presentation by Katie B and Brie D on managing resistance…specifically, resistance to change.  I learned so much about not only why others resist change, but why I behave the way I do toward it.

I’ll start at the end, with the last thing we did in class: taking Musselwhite and Ingram’s Change Style Indicator, which puts people on a spectrum involving three basic personality types when it comes to encountering change: conservers, originators, and pragmatists.  Turns out, I am mostly an originator, preferring “quick and expansive change”, enjoying risk, and treating accepted policies and procedures with “little regard” (Musselwhite & Ingram, 1998, T-9).

This really does make perfect sense.  I love being a catalyst to change, can be energetic and enthusiastic, and think long-term and strategically.  I’m a big picture girl who likes to go off and figure out the complex things on my own, coming back with a great model for everyone to get behind.  I have seen my talents work beautifully in situations where everyone is truly stuck, wanting someone to come in and save the day, then is very relieved when I’m just the person to do it.

And I’ve seen it backfire. Many times, and in many different situations.  One place where my extroverted, let’s-get-moving personality is met with extreme resistance is when I encounter OTHER people just like me who have completely different ideas.  None of us listen easily to the other, and when one of us takes over, it actually serves as a demotivating factor to the rest of us go-getters.  This exact phenomenon was mentioned in Susan Cain’s book Quiet: the Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking (Crown Publishing, 2012). Quiet introverted leaders tend to be more effective when managing self-motivated extroverts because their quiet leadership style leaves room for other’s ideas, passions, and egos.

I will therefore take the advice of Musselwhite and Ingram and try to learn to wait a day before taking action, pay more attention to details, and…this is the hardest one…actively seek out the criticism of conservers and pragmatists who are by nature more cautious, precise, methodical, and flexible.

But I still need to learn how to handle resistance in others.  Here is where chapters 8 and 9 of Block’s Flawless Consulting text brought to light much of what I was doing wrong in how I was viewing and dealing with resistance.

First, I need to see resistance as not only natural, but important.  Resistance is part of the process that allows someone to verbalize, internalize, and act upon the very change that is so scary for them.  If someone agrees too quickly, they are agreeing to YOUR idea, not one that they have made their own.

I also learned ways to recognize the real reasons behind resistance, which often boil down to fear- fear of failure, irrelevance, ridicule, or the unknown.  Bringing in a consultant, or anyone new, means admitting that you can’t do something yourself.  We resist this to the core of our being.  The “faces of resistance” outlined by Block in chapter 8 all mask this fear.

The face of resistance I have found most in my family business is “impracticality”- saying it simply cannot be done.  I hear this from my parents all the time and it drove me crazy.  I took it as an insult to my own abilities, but now I realize it was a defense against a perceived attack on their own. I now know not to barge ahead and show them that YES it CAN be done…and more easily, cheaply, and quickly TOO but honor the hard work they have already put into it and make them part of the process of finding solutions with me.

So I will not fold in the face of resistance, but neither will I completely fight back.  Like Block recommends in Chapter 9, I should explore the resistance and let it play itself out, for “feelings pass and change when expressed directly” (Block, p. 149).

Lessons from Preparing for the Contracting Meeting: past and futu

This Friday, my group will meet for the first time with our client (which will go unnamed) for our contracting meeting.  Though I am very nervous (though not as nervous as the person who set up the meeting, who is also in our class) I do feel much more prepared for the meeting after having read Block’s chapters 4, 5, and 6, and taught the material to the class. I also got so much out of the advice from the group who already met with their client.

I am also realizing that there is so much I wish I’d known back when I had multiple clients, in house, when I worked as Director of Adult Ministries at a church.  Had I approached the relationship I had with the various Sunday schools, small groups, and volunteer-led ministries as a contract, rather than a casual “How can I help you?” (meaning, “How can I get you to do what I think you should do?”) I think that not only would I have been a more effective consultant, but my stress level would have decreased significantly.  Because I never had a contract with any ministry, formal or informal, it was never clear what I should and should not be doing.  Therefore, I just felt like I needed to be working all the time.  Secondly, we never had joint ownership over anything, so many of my recommendations were never implemented.  Given the fact that my main objective, according to my boss, was to “encourage and enable others”, this was a major failure.

So here are the major lessons I have learned from the past three chapters that I believe I could have applied to that position, and will apply to any projects going forward, including my first meeting in 48 hours time:

• Our goal is to have power with the client, not over: This gives both parties a degree of professional respect and consideration.  This is especially important when dealing with volunteers, as I was in my last job (I was the paid employee; my clients were volunteers) and with my upcoming project (I am the volunteer student; the client is the paid professional).
• Set boundaries: Here is where everyone needs to be honest about what they are and are not willing to do.  When both sides express their boundaries, everyone is apt to feel more comfortable doing so.  So often in non-profits or “labors of love”, everyone is so enthusiastic in the beginning, but then “real life” takes over.  These potential conflicts and distractions need to be addressed in the beginning, allowing a frank conversation about how much each partner can expect from one another and when.  This is also a good gauge for how enthusiastic everyone is about the project.  This would have prevented so much disappointment, resentment, and unequal workloads at my former job had I known to do this.
• Set out clear objectives: I never discussed tangible objectives with the client- either theirs or mine.  Not only would this have helped us in our working relationship with one another, but it would have helped our ministries by giving us specific goals toward which to work.  Block suggests that there are specific objectives we can offer up to the client based on our own expertise and involvement, and using any of these would have helped me clarify how my involvement would help the ministry reach a new level, rather than just letting the client off the hook for no longer having to do work he previously was doing:
  • Creating a new possibility for the organization
  • teaching the client how to solve a problem for herself
  • solving a technical or business problem
  • improving how the organization manages resources, uses system, or works internally.
• Clarifying my role in the project: I should have asked each person involved in a ministry what they viewed my role as.  I learned as I went along that some viewed me as an assistant, others as the expert, a select few as a partner.  If I had had the knowledge and the courage to encourage a frank discussion from the beginning of each project, I believe the client and I would have more clearly seen how much the client himself was capable of doing himself, and where my resources of time, talent, and expertise could best have been spent.
• What product I would deliver: This discussion would have been particularly helpful in helping me navigate what I now realize was a “triangular contract” (Block, p. 125) with my boss, myself, and the client.  While my boss (clergy) expected me to primarily “encourage and enable” the client to do most of the work, the client often expected me to be a “helping hand.”  If I had more formally contracted with each ministry, these expectations would have been laid out explicitly, allowing me to address them with both my boss and the clients.
• Support and Involvement from the client: I was so worried the clients (the church members) would not think I was doing enough, that I never pushed them to do more themselves.  This was especially true with their attendance to training meetings.  If, at the beginning of each year, I sat down with each of them and ASKED if they believed it was fair and reasonable to expect them to come to two training meetings a year, I bet more would have come.
• Feedback: I think it is especially important to an internal client who will have an ongoing relationship with the client to have periodic reviews of feedback.  Had I had the courage to ask for this, I believe I would not have been so consistently paranoid that I was doing a bad job.  Ha.
• Knowing who the client IS (Schein, Chapter 4)– Again, knowing who exactly I was contracting with (the subject of a previous post) would have been infinitely helpful!

So how do I prepare for and navigate meetings going forward, now that I am aware of how important they are?  Block laid out 8 steps that should be followed IF everything goes well, 11 if we get “stuck” and need to go around the mulberry bush a few times to get to an agreement that may be great, involve a reduction of scope, or be a parting of the ways. AGAIN, I could have used this advice earlier, but look forward to using it in the future:

• Start with a personal acknowledgement: Everyone needs to feel valued and validated on what they have already been doing before you got there.  I think I did this with thanking the volunteers for their service and talents, etc, but I could have been more intentional.  In my upcoming meeting, I want to be sure to express enthusiasm and respect for what has already been accomplished long before I arrived on the scene.
• Communicate an understanding of the problem, and acknowledge that it’s unique: Every ministry at my church wanted to feel valued and honored, and by pointing out the uniqueness of the ministry itself, it also could have led to more innovative solutions for its problems.
• Explore client wants and offers: Encouraging the client to verbalize what exactly he wants to HAPPEN in partnering with you, from the beginning, does more than just manage expectations: I believe it forces everyone to think higher and larger.  It allows everyone to explore the possibilities of what could be done- which may be greater than the client would have discovered on his own, even if he were able to handle the situation himself.  This supports Schein’s assertion that “everything is an intervention.”
• Explore consultant needs and offers – As mentioned earlier in this post, this would have encouraged and enabled the volunteers to do more, as well as create a more equal partnership.
• Reach agreement: This is the moment when, especially in non-profit or religious institutions, it’s great to pause and get EXCITED about what you are creating together.  This can never be done too much.
• Ask for feedback on control and commitment: I think we are often afraid that if we stop and ask “Are you sure you’re okay with this? Are you feeling like you have enough control?” that the client will renege and run for the hills, given the chance.  I now know this is not the case- it greatly increases the chances that the agreement will be acted upon and implemented
• Give support: We are asking the clients to do more, trust more, have less power, and admit that they need help.  This is scary, and by acknowledging it rather than ignoring it (or downplaying, avoiding, or not asking the client to do anything extra at all) we raise the entire project to a higher level and increase enthusiasm and support all around.
• Restate actions: I think this should be done both verbally, at the meeting, and in writing via email within 24 hours.

So, this simple exercise of preparing for a contract certainly has opened up my eyes to how so many things can be done better in the future!

Jennifer

Consulting Skills vs. Learning in Groups and Teams

As we begin the course on Consulting Skills, I am immediately struck by how seamlessly the class dovetails on the class I took last semester with Dr. Hurst, Learning in the Groups and Teams.  The similarities began on nearly the first page of Block’s Flawless Consulting (Jossey-Bass, 2011) when Block differentiates between consulting (having influence without direct control) versus managing (influence with direct control).  This immediately reminded me of The Skilled Facilitator (Schwarz, Davidson, Carlson, and McKinney, Jossey-Bass, 2005) which compared “Type I” or the “Unilateral Control Model” (Argyris and Schön, as cited in Schwarz, p. 36) to the more desirable “Type II” or “Mutual Control Model”. The underlying themes in Schein’s Process Consulting Revisited (Addison-Wesley, 1999) support (and greatly influenced) everything in both of these books. In addition,the themes from Smith and Berg’s Paradoxes of Group Life (New Lexington Press, 1997) can be found everywhere.

First, I noticed a common theme of giving up control.  Based on trained behaviors, bad habits, or transference, we tend to revert to the unilateral control model of wanting to have power over the people, ideas, and situations whenever working in a group or in a consulting project.  All authors warn repeatedly against this natural inclination, instead citing the advantages of equal partnership and the need for everyone to feel they have a say in both the process and the final product.  While the main warning against unilateral control last semester was an inferior final product or rushed decision due to not utilizing the talent in your group, the main concern against this control so far this semester seems to be the fact that the final product of a consultation partnership probably won’t be implemented at all.

Second, there is a strong focus on being aware of the feelings of the people with whom you are working, and yourself, at all times.  Schwarz recommends even keeping a “left hand column” filled with all of your own thoughts and feelings during a meeting (Schwarz, p. 35), and both Block and Schein warn against suppressing your own feelings during any phase of consulting.

Third, all authors seem to be shouting from the rooftops, “You don’t know it all! Be humble!” Schein begs us to “access our ignorance” and therefore realize that there are things that we will never understand that the client will.  This models the “Mutual Learning” Schwartz outlined, including the core assumption “I have some relevant information; other people have relevant information” (Schwartz, p.43). Whenever possible, Schein tells us to avoid what he calls the “Doctor-Patient” or “Expert”  model” that assumes we have all the answers, and the clients just need us to tell them what to do. The best possible answers are reached in equal partnership.

Fourth, I’ve noticed that while achieving that “equal partnership” is considered the ideal by all the teachings in both classes, everyone agrees that this ideal is very difficult to achieve, for many reasons.  Clients may be more than happy to let you make all the decisions as the consultant, or may be afraid to speak up.  It takes courage to not only give up control, but take it. The “paradox of courage” (Smith and Berg, 1987), is one of the “paradoxes of speaking” and asserts that people will not usually speak up or take control unless there is a safe, nurturing environment that support it, with, paradoxically, often requires people speaking up and taking control.

In fact, the need for courage in and of itself may be the fifth common theme I’ve found with these two courses.  It is directly related to a sixth theme, authenticity.  Block advises us to “put into words what you are experiencing with the clients as you work” (Block, p.37) and avoid trying to appear more clever or knowledgeable than we actually are (again, Schein’s “accessing your ignorance).  This takes courage.  Smith and Berg explored this in their “paradox of belonging”, asserting that we are all afraid to reveal our true selves until someone else does, leaving us, well, all in hiding.  We are all afraid of how we will be accepted if we reveal our true selves, but all authors seem to be telling us that if we go first in being authentic, it will be met with authenticity back.  Usually.  There are still risks.

Other huge common theme is the need to slow down. Here, I remember most Levi’s Group Dynamics for Teams (Sage, 2014) from last semester, through which we learned not to rush the “forming, storming, norming, and performing” stages of group development (Tuckman, 1965) or rush to a decision through “Group Think” (Janis, 1972).  We even read articles such as the “Challenger Syndrome” (Maier, sorry can’t find date!) that shows how tragic consequences can be.  Courage played a role in that too- or lack of it. This semester, both Block and Schein warn against rushing through the stages of consulting (contracting, discovery and inquiry, feedback and decision to act, engagement and intervention) on a macro-level while Schein’s Principle #7 “Timing is Crucial” (Schien, p.49) spotlights our need to slow down with…every…word…and…action…lest we intervene in a way that will permanently change the nature of the project.

Finally, Block, Schwarz, and Schein all use core assumptions or basic principles, which make their books not only similar in structure but, given the similarities of many of these principles, similar in content in many areas.  At all times, we are supposed to keep these assumptions and principles in mind, and they are to guide every thought, word, and action whenever we are working within a group or engaged with a client when consulting.  Most of these principles are based around honesty, authenticity, humility, integrity, the need for curiosity, and the need to get thorough, accurate data.  No lone cowboys allowed here.

So what’s my takeaway? Two main points: It is not easy to be a consultant or work on a team, and I need to be much…more…present in any endeavor.

Be authentic.

Core assumptions

Politics vs. democracy

I have had a lot of problems trying to begin my final paper for the class in which I wrap up everything I’ve learned this semester.  In fact, I think it’s safe to say I have an actual aversion to it.  For some reason, I am resisting reflecting on the journey I have made, and still need to make, towards becoming an effective team member, leader, or facilitator.

I believe, however, that I have at least determined the cause of my aversion: reluctance to espouse many of the principles of Mutual Learning and the Skilled Facilitator approach because they go against many of the so-called values on which I was raised in my southern politically active family.    So much of the Mutual Learning Model and Skilled Facilitator Approach hinges on careful self-examination before conversations, facilitations, or group projects even begin, and then revealing to the group some of the vulnerabilities, shortcomings, and uncertainties you have.  In a nutshell, this was not how I was raised.  I grew up in a family of local politicians, who never publicly shared their true feelings about anything (political suicide), were gifted in smoothing over any disagreements before they got out of hand (political genius), and were known for “staying true to their beliefs and principles” no matter what others lobbied to the contrary.

What I realize now is that while I observed the veneer of these qualities displayed in the political culture of my family,  I was never actually involved in the back room realities of politics myself, so have made high-level inferences my entire life as to what it actually took to be a good politician.  In fact, the isolating effects of closing off one’s feelings, avoiding authentic conversations, and staying within the confines of one’s own head make it very difficult to effect change and influence others. They make it downright impossible to be influenced and affected in the meaningful, transformative ways the Mutual Learning Model enables.

The Mutual Learning model also rips apart any illusion of personal perfection- something many of us hold onto.  If we believe that our worth stems from being right, having all the answers, and being special, we will naturally pull away from the principles we have learned this semester.  It’s hard to admit acting this way, both privately in self-reflection, and publicly with a group as sometimes recommended in the Skilled Facilitator.  In addition, it’s hard for me to encourage or even listen to others reveal their own shortcomings and insecurities (much less point them out to a person within a group setting), for I was taught to overlook egregious shortcomings in others, all in the name of politics.  Or at least never say them out loud until at home.

But I have increasingly learned that these “politically correct” behaviors are not politically effective.  In fact, they are in direct contrast to the democratic process of which politicians are supposed to espouse.  Democracy begins with the principle that none of us has all the answers, unilateral control infringes on others’ freedoms, and decisions by vote or consensus, while often inefficient, yields superior, more systems-based solutions.  A role of a politician is to listen, then accurately represent.  None of these things can happen with a unilateral approach to being in a group.

So I need to begin with the very first ground rule of the Skilled Facilitator: testing all assumptions and inferences.  I have assumed that the very qualities least needed by a politician were the ones most valued by my culture.  I did this because I did not have all the relevant information (ground rule #2).  I never asked, or shared my reasoning for believing this (#3).  I also viewed politics as a way of defending one’s position, rather than focusing first on interests (#4).  I never asked serious questions about why we did anything (#5), or why we advocated the things we did.

I look forward to beginning my reflection now, and know that I do not have to have all the answers by the end of the exercise.  In fact, I am never expected to have all the answers, only to be able to open myself up to the ideas, needs, and strengths of others so that together, we can design a process to move forward (#6), committing to continually checking in with one another to make sure we are all on the same page.  I don’t need to fear being seen as incomplete, because I am- we all are.  I don’t need to fear that I’ll have conflict, because I will- we must.  And I don’t need to apologize for my natural inclinations (such as being an INTJ according to the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator) because I, too, have a place at the table, both my strengths and weaknesses an integral tool in teams, the democratic process, and the human condition.

Holding Risky Conversations

I have joked in class that the major theme of so many of the paradoxes of speaking we covered in class could be summed up in one phrase: “Don’t be a wuss.” In fact, this was also the theme of the Challenger Syndrome and the Abilene Paradox.  By not speaking up, we face must larger problems than we encounter in our greatest fears for wanting to avoid them in the first place.  Because we are unwilling to do the necessary self-analysis and planning before having a difficult conversation, either based on fear, impatience, or bad habits that serve as a “default” when we are stressed or threatened, we buy ourselves so much time, trouble, and, at worse, tragedy in the implementation stages of any group endeavor.

These very issues could perhaps sum up the theme that is emerging from my group’s class presentation project, which centers around the theme of “facing challenges,” particularly in holding risky conversations and moving toward difficulty.  So many of us avoid difficult conversations because of fear, impatience, or default bad habits, and pay the price in the long run.  How many of us take the time to take the following steps before deciding to speak, or not speak:

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 worse 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?

How many of us examine our own roles in causing so many of the problems? In the skilled facilitator approach, we learn that there are no “outside causes”; no blame to be assigned.  The issue always lies in our relationship with the perceived “enemy”, and we are almost always a key player in the problem.

How many of us are actually curious to hear the other side of the story? Assume that someone else knows something that we don’t? View differences as opportunities for learning? Assume everyone is acting with integrity?

In a nutshell, it seems to me that 90% of the problems dealing with conversations within groups can be solved before they even begin.  By taking the time to ask these questions of ourselves, we will give ourselves the paradigm shift necessary to leverage huge change within our group or organization and increase the effectiveness of any team.

Power Struggles within Empowerment

Our “Southern Roots” team has been working on a group presentation in which we have 30 minutes to introduce, cover, and reflect upon “Power and Social Influence,” found in chapter eight of Levi’s text, “Group Dynamics for Teams.”

I am responsible for creating the introduction and wrap-up portion of our project, and when I first began to think about this, I was in “spring break mode” so was considering a group activity based around asking the class to decide where they would all go, collectively and hypothetically, on spring break.  I picked this topic because it reminded me of both past issues of empowerment (the ability to make decisions for one’s self within a group) I experienced growing up, as well as many of the other issues of power and social influence covered in this chapter when I have had to plan a trip with a large group in recent years.

Growing up, I remember spring breaks as a kid: some I liked, some I hated.  None of which I planned.  But my best spring break, by far, was when we went to Disney World and I was given complete freedom to roam around the entire resort with my 13-year-old cousin (4 years my elder…yes, this was the early 1980’s when parents weren’t arrested for allowing this) and we could decide, all day, every day, what we wanted to do and how we’d do it.  I thought this was POWER. To plan your own trip.

Now fast-forward to my life today.  I have to plan every single vacation I take, and I actually have begun to resent it.  Why? The difference? I’m planning with and for other people…very different than planning just for yourself.  That degree of “empowerment” I perceived as a youth at Disney world is very different when you are part of, and responsible for, a team.  My spring breaks now take into account 3 different schools, 5 immediate family members and often extended family and friends, a 70-year age gap, and various food allergies, energy levels, comfort levels, and a whole host of hidden agendas, desires, and feelings.

To be empowered within a group and as a group can be terrifying, and a burden.  In terms of a group trip, who is the leader? Who decides? If you speak up and express an opinion as to where to go and what to do, how can you be sure everyone is in agreement? Are you being bossy, or assertive? Is someone who is quiet actually excited about the trip, simply accepting it, or even worse, just complying out of passivity (or passive-agreesiveness).  All of this will come out later, usually in the middle of the trip.

How much power should you give children over their trip? As Levi stated, the manager has a lot to lose in empowering his employees- it’s hard to get the power back, and the final “buck” may stop at the manager’s door, just as the final bill for the trip, plus the legal and moral responsibilities of keeping everyone safe, stop at mine.

What about the times when I’ve organized a trip with friends? Why did my trip win out over everyone else’s ideas for how to spend this time and money? I think in particular about two trips I’ve planned skiing with friends to Aspen, Colorado.  Why did my favorite place become where everyone wanted to go? First, I think it’s because I had Positional Power- in the form of a mountain house in Colorado.  I could “reward” behavior because of this “carrot”.  But perhaps I also had some personal/soft power.  I”m an “expert” in the area because I lived there.  Hopefully I had some referent power because I am their friend.  I also had information regarding how to get discounted lift tickets, avoid the most overcrowded ski runs, and go to the bars with the most generous bartenders, so everyone naturally deferred to me.

Sounds great, right? Well, the trips I planned were not perfect, and some of it has to do with other factors in Levi’s chapter regarding power dynamics.  As it turns out, many of my friends had desires of their own that they never expressed, and while they always went along with my ideas, eventually disclosed that they were unhappy with some of them.  Why didn’t they speak up? Did it have to do with my power style? Was I too aggressive? Did I allow enough room, time, active listening to encourage them to be assertive?  Paradoxically, the more I discovered their passivity, the more passive I became.  I became terrified to make a decision for the group, or even to the group.  This was undesirable, too, however, because it turns out no one else wanted to be the decision-maker, either.

All of these thoughts came to my mind as I was reading Levi’s chapter, and though I have decided to go in a different direction for our class project on Monday, I am still fascinated with how something as simple as a vacation can raise all of these group dynamic issues of empowerment, influence, power, assertiveness, conformity, and obedience.

Collaboration and Assertiveness in a family partnership

I’m currently down in my farm in Norwood, Georgia- a tiny town that, while never big to begin with, had much of its male population wiped out in World War II when an entire platoon comprised of Warren County’s finest suffered devastating losses.  What remains is a close-knit community where social graces surpass intellect in importance.  The only things more important are God, country, and family, and it’s the family dynamic that I have felt most relates to the reading I have been doing on managing group conflict. We own a family business, and have recently tried to integrate the younger generation (myself and my brother) with the older generation (my parents), and much of what I have read in Levi’s book has proved helpful this week.

First, I’m learning to accept and even embrace conflict.  Having grown up in a culture that uses the low-assertiveness, low-cooperation tactic of avoidance but then holds grudges for generations, I especially appreciated the reminder that conflict management (not “resolution”) is the goal, and that conflicts based around tasks and differences in opinion, values, perspectives, and expectations are healthy and productive.

In a long partners retreat, which is where I am now, I have also been able to see, even in my own family, how the sources of conflict evolve during the course of a week when faced with tasks (Kivlighan and Jauquet, 1990). For the first day, we were extra-polite, then started jockeying for who-was-going-to-do-what, then, once we were able to get into the meat of the matter, actually reached the productive conflict of a partnership on day 3, when we felt comfortable enough in our own roles to express differences of opinion about a tricky issue.  As soon as I was tempted to make it about the topics Levi described as “unhealthy” (power, grudges, communication, annoyance with how slowly the meeting was going) I recognized it as such.  The result was a decision none of us could have come up with on our own.

Chapter 9 on decision-making has proven extremely helpful this week, as our partnership has to make some important, permanent decisions.  In the past, much of our business has been run through the “consultative” approach to group decision making Levi describes on page 167, with the senior partner asking our opinion, but then deferring to his own judgment. Moving to “consensus” required many of the skills covered in the chapters covering group conflict, such as the need to stay in this “zone” of creative conflict for longer that what may feel comfortable to most.  It can be very tempting to jump to accommodation (with the predicted regrets and hard feelings Levi described as coming later), or to the phenomenon of GroupThink in the rush to “all get back on the same page” and be able to answer yes to the question, “are we okay?”  Twice when discussion started to get more heated over one topic, we almost defaulted to one of the textbook examples of premature decision-making or delegating an important decision to the one partner who seemed to be the most confident.  Luckily, our senior partner refused to close the conversation, and 20 minutes later, with everyone’s input, we came to a conclusion that amazed us all.

Finally, the art of being assertive, versus passive or aggressive (or both at the same time- a southern specialty), is becoming easier once its qualities have been outlined.  Assertive doesn’t just mean standing up for yourself; it means sending clear, confident communications devoid of hidden emotions and agendas.  It means listening, compromising, and taking responsibility for mistakes.  Engaging in active listening, positive recognition of others’ different opinions, communicating clear expectations, and knowing when to “assertively withdraw” from discussion (something I’m still working on!) all facilitate this.  One wonderful thing I’ve noticed is that assertiveness is contagious, just as Levi said.  Once one of us began the meeting this way, it gave everyone the confidence and the “template” to do the same, and the result was phenomenal.

I am actually looking forward to the new discussions facing our partnership today, and hopefully the days of walking on eggshells are over!