Chapter Seven
Diagnosing and Intervening with Groups
How do you watch a group in action and figure out exactly what is happening that is increasing or decreasing the group's effectiveness? This is the central question for diagnosing groups. After you figure out what's happening, what do you say to help the group become more effective? This is the central question for intervening with groups. If you're a facilitator, answering these two questions is your central task. If you serve in another facilitative role, answering these two questions is also essential to accomplishing your work with clients.
In facilitation, diagnosis is the process by which you observe a group's behavior and infer the meaning, based on your models of group effectiveness. The word diagnosis comes from the Greek word diagignōskein, meaning “to distinguish or discern.”1 In facilitation, intervention is the action you take, based on your diagnosis, to help the group improve its effectiveness. The word intervention comes from the Latin word intervenire, which includes inter, meaning “between,” and venire, meaning “come.”2
In this chapter, I describe, in big-picture terms, diagnosis and intervention. This includes what to look for while watching a group in action, how to make meaning of what you're observing, how to decide whether to intervene, and, finally, how to intervene. I'll reintroduce the mutual learning cycle—a tool I introduced to test inferences and assumptions—as a primary tool to guide your diagnosis and intervention process.
What You Need to Diagnose
Before you can intervene effectively to help a group, you have to diagnose what is occurring in the group. To diagnose, you use two sets of knowledge and skills. First, you need to know what to look for. When you watch a group in action, there are many behaviors that you could pay attention to. But you're limited in the number you can attend to at any time, and some behaviors are more important than others because they reflect dynamics that significantly influence the group's effectiveness. To be able to quickly understand which types of behaviors are important to focus on and why, it's useful to have models in your head of what makes an effective group and an ineffective group.
The good news is that you have already learned most of what to look for:
- The unilateral control approach describes a mindset, behaviors, and results that lead to ineffective groups.
- The mutual learning approach describes a mindset, behaviors, and results that lead to effective groups.
- The Team Effectiveness Model describes the design elements necessary for group or team effectiveness, as well as incorporating the mutual learning mindset, behaviors, and results.
These are the three main diagnostic frames you use to diagnose behavior using the Skilled Facilitator approach.
Second, you need a process for diagnosis—a method for observing and making sense of behavior you're seeing, regardless of the specific behaviors. The good news here is that you've already learned this process—it's the left half of the mutual learning cycle.
When you combine what to look for with the process for making meaning, you get what's shown in Figure 7.1. Each of the elements in the unilateral control approach, mutual learning approach, and the Team Effectiveness Model have behaviors associated with them. These are the behaviors you pay attention to in step 1 of the mutual learning cycle. When you see these behaviors, you infer the meaning associated with that element. Here are a few examples:
Figure 7.1 What to Look for to Diagnose Groups
- One of the elements in the Team Effectiveness Model is clearly defined roles, including leadership. This would lead you to pay attention to comments in the group that reflected unclear roles. If you heard one team member saying, “I'm responsible for the budget,” and another team member saying, “No, that's my job; you're only responsible for the projections,” you might infer that these members have not clearly agreed on their roles.
- Two of the behaviors in the mutual learning approach are to share all relevant information and to explain reasoning and intent. If you heard the following team members' exchange, you might infer that Jeanne was not sharing all relevant information or explaining how she arrived at her conclusion.
- JEANNE: “I don't think the reorganization is going to happen.”
- RICH: “Why not? Everyone I've spoken with says it's going to happen.”
- JEANNE: “Let's just say not everyone wants it to happen.”
- One of the elements of the mutual learning mindset is the assumption that I may be contributing to the problem. If you heard the following team members' exchange, you might infer that Lin assumed that she was not contributing to the problem.
- JAMAL: “You're right, Lin, my team is getting the design documents to you late. But part of the problem is that your team keeps changing the design specifications. We're constantly reworking the documents.”
- LIN: “That's your team's job, Jamal. The customer has the right to change its mind. We're just meeting the customer's needs. Your job is to meet the deadlines.”
What You Need to Intervene
After you have finished diagnosing and have decided to intervene, you have to actually intervene. To do this, you use the right side—the public side—of the mutual learning cycle. You test whether you observed what you think you observed, test whether it means what you think it means, and decide with the group how to move forward. When you intervene, you use the mutual learning mindset and behaviors from Chapter 5.
Let's look at the diagnosis and intervention steps of the mutual learning cycle.
The Mutual Learning Cycle
The mutual learning cycle is a structured way to diagnose behavior and then intervene on it. The cycle (shown in Figure 7.2) has six steps: three for diagnosis, followed by three for intervention. The diagnostic steps (1 through 3) are private; they represent your thoughts.3 The intervention steps (4 through 6) are public; they represent what you actually say to the group.
Figure 7.2 The Mutual Learning Cycle
The mutual learning cycle is designed to help you make low-level inferences and to test whether they are accurate. In the intervention steps, you repeat the diagnostic steps. You state publicly what you were privately thinking and then ask the group whether or not they see it the way you do.
Here is a summary of the diagnosis steps and intervention steps.
Step 1: Observe Behavior
In step 1, you directly observe the behavior in the group. Directly observable behavior comprises the verbatim words that people speak and the nonverbal actions they take. I think of directly observable behavior as anything I can capture on video. For example, I might observe this interaction:
- DON: I think we should hold off on the new project until the fourth quarter.
- SHARON: That's too late. It has to start no later than the second quarter.
- DON (in a louder voice): It just won't work to start so soon.
- SHARON (rolling her eyes): Well, we don't have the luxury to do it later.
Step 2: Make Meaning
In step 2, you infer some meaning from the behavior. An inference is a conclusion you reach about something unknown, on the basis of some things that are known to you. In this example, I infer that Sharon and Don are acting inconsistently with several mutual learning behaviors. For example, they are stating their positions (start the project in the fourth quarter or, the second quarter) without sharing their interests, and they aren't explaining the reasoning underlying their statements. I might also infer from Sharon rolling her eyes that she's frustrated with Don's comment.
Step 3: Choose Whether, How, and Why to Intervene
In step 3, you decide whether, how, and why to intervene in the group. In this example, I need to decide whether the inferences I have made in step 2 warrant my intervening or whether I should remain silent. Is Sharon and Don's focus on positions, or is their failure to explain their reasoning or is Sharon's seeming frustration enough of a problem that I should intervene? If I decide to do so, I must design my intervention by deciding to whom I will address my comments, exactly what I will say, and when I will say it. In this example, I would decide to address their focusing on positions.
Step 4: Describe the Behavior
In step 4, you publicly describe the behavior that you observed and that led you to intervene. Then you ask the group member or members whether they observed the behavior differently. Here, I might say, “Don, a minute ago I think you said we should hold off on the new project until the fourth quarter. Do you remember it differently? And Sharon, I think you said that you needed to start the project in the second quarter. Am I correct?” If they agree with my descriptions, I have accurately described their behavior. Then I move to the fifth step.
Step 5: Test Your Inference
In step 5, you share the inference that you privately made in step 2 and test with the group member or members whether they have a different inference. I might say, “Don and Sharon, it seems to me that each of you is stating a position without explaining the interests that led you to take your position. How do you see that?” Or, if I choose to refer to the behavior without identifying it by name, I might say, “Don and Sharon, it looks like each of you has said what you want to happen but not what led you to favor that solution. Do either of you see it differently?” In any case, if neither Don nor Sharon sees it differently, then I move to the sixth step.
Step 6: Jointly Design Next Steps
In step 6, you and the group members jointly decide the next step to take. Here I might say, “Don and Sharon, I'm thinking it would be helpful if you would identify the needs you're trying to meet through the solutions you're proposing. Any concerns about doing that?” Assuming that they agree to do so, the cycle begins again, and I continue to observe whether their behavior (and that of the other group members) is contributing to or hindering the group's effectiveness.
Sharing Your Reasoning and Intent
At steps 4, 5, and 6 you may share your reasoning and intent. This helps the group members better understand why you are intervening at all, especially why you are asking them to redesign their behavior in a particular way. For example, at the beginning of step 4 you might say, “I want to make some observations about something that I think is slowing the group down, so I can get your reactions.” Or at step 6 you might say, “Would you be willing to share your interests? The reason I'm asking is because if you can identify each of your interests, I think you will be better able to find a solution that integrates your different needs.”
You repeatedly use the six-step cycle throughout facilitation with the group. In developmental facilitation, over time, the group learns to conduct its own diagnosis and interventions, becoming less dependent on you. In basic facilitation, the group usually relies on you to diagnose and intervene.
Summary
In this chapter, I described the process of diagnosing and intervening, using the six-step mutual learning cycle. You use steps 1 through 3 of the cycle to diagnose what is happening in the group and use steps 4 through 6 to intervene. The cycle is designed so that when you use the intervention steps, you are stating to the group what you were privately thinking in the diagnosis steps and then testing whether group members saw things the same way, made the same meaning, and agree with the next step to take. To figure out what to diagnose, you use the unilateral control approach, mutual learning approach, and the Team Effectiveness Model to look for behaviors and infer what they mean.
In the next chapter, we'll explore in detail how to diagnose groups.