Using the Mutual Learning Behaviors to Observe Groups

In the Skilled Facilitator approach, the eight mutual learning behaviors are a central part of observing and diagnosing group behavior. You use the eight behaviors as a template for observing behavior. As you watch group members, you mentally compare what team members are saying and doing to the eight behaviors and notice what is consistent or inconsistent with each of the mutual learning behaviors. In a given comment, a group member might act consistently with certain behaviors and inconsistently with others.

Take, for example, a team that's been trying to solve a problem of customers waiting too long to receive service. Having agreed on a definition of the problem and criteria for a solution, the team decides to move to the next step: brainstorming potential causes. After several members have each identified a potential cause, this conversation occurs:

1. AL: One reason may be that we don't have adequate coverage throughout the workday. For example, yesterday at 10:00 AM, using our standard response time analysis, we calculated an average wait time of 20 minutes for customers across all areas. I have the individual department numbers if you want them. That's 15 minutes longer than our acceptable standard for adequate coverage, and we had 10 percent fewer people covering the phones at that time of day.
2. TED: I agree that's the cause. Let's increase the coverage 10 percent, at least during the peak periods.
3. SUE: Yeah, I agree with Ted. That should make a big difference.
4. SAM: Well, I think our people are just tired of working.
5. AL: Well, I think we've just got some people who are burned out.
6. MIA: Al and Sue, it sounds like your suggestions to increase coverage are solutions, but I understood that we were still talking about causes. Do you see this differently?
7. AL AND SUE: No, you're right.
8. MIA: Are you willing to focus only on potential causes and hold the solutions until we finish identifying causes?

Analyzing the conversation, we see that Al begins by using a specific example of inadequate coverage with data and describes what he means by adequate coverage (behavior 3). By doing so, he explains the reasoning behind his belief that the cause of the problem is inadequate coverage on the phones (behavior 4). However, he doesn't ask about whether others see any flaws in his reasoning or have different data (behavior 1, asking a genuine question). Next, Ted and Sue, by discussing solutions, switch the focus of the conversation without checking with the group (behavior 7). Sam returns to the focus of the conversation (behavior 7) by addressing another potential cause, but he makes an untested inference about people being burned out (behavior 6), and he doesn't share any specific examples (behavior 3) or the reasoning (behavior 4) that leads him to his conclusion. Like Al, he doesn't ask whether others have other information or see it differently (behavior 1).

In Mia's two comments to Al and Sue, Mia gives the specific example of their suggesting solutions (behavior 3) as a way of illustrating that they have changed the focus of the group (behavior 7). Notice that, having stated that Al and Sue seem to be off track, Mia specifically asks them whether they see it differently (behavior 1). After they agree with her, Mia asks if they are willing to refocus on discussing causes of the problem (behavior 7) instead of simply telling them that they are off focus and to refocus. Mia acts consistently with the behaviors; she is also using the behaviors to ask Al and Sue to act consistently with a behavior they have not used.

Using the Team Effectiveness Model to Observe Behavior

The TEM provides additional behaviors to look for. Each element of the TEM needs to be in place for the group or team to function well. Because the mindset and results columns of the TEM and the mutual learning approach are the same, the unique elements to look for in the TEM are the design elements listed in team context, team structure, and team process. For example, within team context, you can look for behavior that suggests the team is not receiving adequate information or other resources from the larger organization. Within group structure, you can look for behavior that suggests the group doesn't have clear goals, clearly defined roles, or even agreement on who is a group member. Within group process, you can look for behavior that suggests the group does not have an effective process for solving problems, making decisions, or managing its boundaries with the rest of the organization.

To take a simple example, consider a group conversation about a report that contains errors:

1. JACQUE: The numbers literally did not add up. We had blank cells and columns without totals. Ken, you were supposed to do the final check on the copy; what happened?
2. KEN: I was just handling the text. I got the tables from you; that was your job.

You might reasonably infer from watching this interaction that Ken and Jacque haven't clearly agreed on their roles and responsibilities for this project.

Using Mindset to Observe Behavior

Observing group members' behaviors to see if they indicate elements of unilateral control or mutual learning mindsets is a deeper and more powerful kind of diagnosis because mindset is often a root cause. Here, you look for the core values and assumptions group members use to design their behaviors and the structure and process elements of their group. Observing and intervening on group members' mindsets is a central part of developmental facilitation.

Consider, for example, a conversation in which members are trying to persuade each other to choose a particular solution. If a group member says, “You just don't get it. What you're proposing makes no sense!,” we might consider that the member's behavior reflects core assumptions that he understands the situation and is right and that others who see it differently don't understand and are wrong. Of course, you usually need more than a single sentence to make this kind of inference.

Using Other Models to Observe Behavior

You can use the mutual learning cycle with almost any model you currently use to diagnose how a group is doing, as long as the concepts in the model can be connected to specific group behaviors. If you facilitate strategic planning efforts, you can use the mutual learning cycle with your strategic planning model. If you're a Lean or Six Sigma consultant, you can use the mutual learning cycle with these models and processes. If you're helping groups manage conflict, you can combine the mutual learning cycle with your process for managing conflict.

For example, if you're helping groups learn and use a problem-solving model, you can use that model with the mutual learning cycle to see whether the group is using the problem-solving model effectively. There are many variations of problem-solving models, and almost all of them include steps to follow in a particular order. For example, a simple problem-solving model might use the following seven steps: (1) agree on the problem statement, (2) develop criteria for a solution, (3) identify root causes of the problem, (4) brainstorm potential solutions, (5) select the best solution based on the criteria, (6) implement the solution, and (7) evaluate the implementation. For each step, there are specific actions that a group is expected to take. Given this, you can use a problem-solving model to watch for group behavior that indicates whether the group is following the model steps in sequence and whether it is performing each step effectively. In Chapter 11, I describe how to apply the mutual learning cycle to diagnose behavior in a variety of other models.

Using Your Agreement with the Group to Observe Behavior

The agreement you make with the group about how you will help them also affects what kind of behavior to look for. If a group seeks your help because members say they can't resolve conflict without argument, you look for behavior that lets you determine whether you agree with the group's diagnosis. If the group seeks your help because it spends a lot of time discussing plans but never accomplishes them, you look for behavior related to that diagnosis. However, as I discuss in Chapter 13 on contracting, although the agreement with the client may specify particular behaviors that the client wants you to focus on, it doesn't limit what you can observe and diagnose. To act consistently with the mutual learning approach, you consider all the behavior of the group so that you can help the group identify what is reducing its effectiveness, confirm or disconfirm the group's own diagnosis, and enable the members to make an informed choice about whether to change.

The agreement you reach with the group about your role and how you and the group will work together leads you to look for behaviors that are consistent and inconsistent with your agreement. For example, if you agree to serve as a content-neutral facilitator, you look for times when group members ask your opinion about a topic they are discussing—a request that would be inconsistent with your agreed-upon role.

Inferring the Causes of Behavior

You use inferences to identify the causes of behavior. When an auto mechanic announces that “your car's timing is off” after listening to the engine and hearing complaints of engine hesitation, the mechanic has inferred the cause of a problem from its symptoms. Similarly, when you suggest that the group is lacking focus after observing failure to reach a decision within an hour, you are making a causal inference after observing a number of behaviors. A causal inference is about what has led to something happening. You need to make causal inferences because a group can solve a process problem only after identifying what caused the problem, and the cause is often not directly observable.

Inferring Emotion

Sometimes you may make inferences about members' emotions. Someone who has asked a number of questions that the group hasn't answered may respond by sitting back in her chair, crossing her arms, tightening the muscles in her face, and furrowing her eyebrows. You may quickly infer that the behavior reflects anger, but it may also reflect some other emotion.

By making an inference about (and intervening on) an emotion on the basis of behavioral cues, you both broaden and deepen how you observe and help the group. Because we generate our emotions from our experiences, embedded in group members' emotions are their stories about experiences in the group that have led them to feel whatever they feel. When you pay attention to members' emotions, you're attending to things that they consider important. In doing so, you're also attending to the third criterion of group effectiveness, the extent to which experiences in the group contribute to individuals' well-being. By inferring and intervening on emotion, you can quickly find out about important issues in the group that haven't been addressed, such as an unexpressed interest, an untested assumption someone is making about others, or an undiscussable issue.

Anytime there is a mismatch between the emotions you infer that group members are feeling and what you expect, you have an opportunity. For example, if you infer that a group member is feeling angry and you're surprised, essentially you are thinking to yourself, Given the behavior I've seen in the group, I don't see how this would lead the member to respond with anger. You can consider several possibilities. First, you may have missed important behavior in the group; had you observed it, you might not be surprised that the member is angry. Second, you may not have missed any behaviors in the group relevant to the feeling you have inferred; in this case, you might consider whether the member's feeling stems from concerns he hasn't yet expressed in the group, or from things that have happened outside the group meetings. Finally, you may have incorrectly inferred what the member is feeling.

In developmental facilitation, you can use emotions to help group members explore their mindsets. Embedded in every emotion is some element of mindset. By identifying what members are feeling, you can help them explore how their values and assumptions led them to make meaning of the situation and respond in a way that generated the emotion. You can also help them explore how their emotions are based on an event that occurred in the group, or on an event unrelated to the group, or on an untested assumption or inference they made.

Attending to emotion is part of bringing compassion into your work. Emotion is always part of the group conversation, whether or not members are aware of their emotions or expressing them. By attending to members' emotions, you may affirm what they are feeling, help them recognize that their emotions are natural, and advocate for discussing them as an important element of building effective group working relationships.

But you can also go beyond that. You can help them see how their thinking influences their feelings, how their feelings may be based on an untested inference or attribution about others, and if so, how by changing their thinking they have the ability to make new choices about what they are feeling. In short, by helping group members become more aware of their feelings and the sources, you strengthen their ability to make choices about their response. We examine this more in Chapter 12, on working with emotions.

I want to caution you about inferring what people are feeling based on their body language. A number of books describe various aspects of body language—the position of a person's arms, head, or hands—and describe what each position means. I hope it is clear that in the mutual learning approach, a given behavior doesn't necessarily always mean one thing. Across cultures, the same body language can have many meanings. Even within a culture, a particular nonverbal behavior can have numerous meanings. If each time you see me cross my arms in front of my chest you infer that I'm feeling defensive or am closing out your views (as some books suggest), your inference is often incorrect. Not that I never get defensive, but I also get cold easily, and I cross my arms to get warm. Other people cross their arms over their chest because it's simply a very comfortable position for them.

Attributing Motives

Sometimes, you make attributions. These are causal inferences about other people's motives—why they are doing something. Consider a facilitator who is helping an executive team that is experiencing several conflicts. At one point Hans, the team leader says, “Why don't we put this issue aside so we can give it some careful thought.” This leads the facilitator to think—but not say—Typical Hans. This isn't about time; he's not willing to take on the difficult issues. In thinking this, the facilitator is attributing to Hans the motive of wanting to avoid difficult issues.

Attribution often involves high-level inference. After you have attributed a motive to a group member, you're likely to begin interpreting his behavior in a way that's consistent with the motive you have attributed to him. As with other inferences, it becomes important to test your attribution.

Making a Value Judgment

Many inferences also involve value judgment—that is, whether you consider the behavior in question to be positive or negative. If you observe a conversation and think, Bob was obnoxious to Joan, you not only are summarizing a large number of behaviors but likely are also stating implicit disapproval of Bob's behavior. In the example of the executive team, the facilitator's attribution of the leader's motivation includes a negative judgment about it; the facilitator doesn't approve of the leader avoiding a difficult issue and covering it up with a false explanation.

Making Inferences about Process

Process inferences are about the quality of conversation and the effectiveness of the group's process and structure. You make a process inference when you privately conclude that group members are acting consistently or inconsistently with a particular mutual learning behavior or mindset, having difficulty with an element of the TEM such as boundary management, not following some aspect of a problem-solving model, or acting inconsistently with some other group process model you use.

In making a process inference, you try not to focus especially on the content of the conversation. In other words, you're interested in how the group members say whatever they say. Whether the group is talking about problems with losing market share or retaining employees, you can make the same inference that the members are focusing on positions rather than interests.

Making Inferences about Content

As the name states, content inferences are about the substantive meaning of the conversation. For example, consider an interaction in a meeting about a project deadline:

1. SHERRY: We really need your cost projections by 5:00 PM Friday if we are going to get the final report to corporate by next Tuesday. Can you guarantee that you'll meet that deadline?
2. LEWIS: That's a stretch, but we'll do the best we can.

Hearing Lewis's response, I would infer that he has promised a good effort but not guaranteed meeting the deadline. Having made this inference, in step 3 of the mutual learning cycle, I might decide to intervene to test whether he is guaranteeing to meet the deadline. By making a content inference and then intervening on that basis, I could help group members clarify their meaning.

There is a link between making content inferences and group process. If I decide to intervene on a content inference, it is because I believe that if I do not, the untested inference may negatively affect the group's process.

Making Inferences about Others Making Content Inferences

Sometimes, as you observe a conversation, you think that a group member is making an inference; that is, you are inferring that someone else is making an inference about the content of the conversation.

Consider this brief interaction in a conversation about job performance:

1. ALEX: Sandy, I've got some concerns about your covering both of your regions. I want to talk about it and see if we can agree on something that will work.
2. SANDY: Well, if I can't handle both regions, I doubt anyone else will be able to do the job.

Here I would infer that Sandy is inferring that Alex thinks Sandy is not capable of handling both regions, even though Alex didn't say that.

When you infer that a group member is making a content inference and not testing it, then you may decide to intervene so that the members don't continue their conversation on the basis of what might be an incorrect inference. In this kind of situation, you are making both a content inference and a process inference; you are inferring that a group member is incorrectly inferring a particular meaning, and you're also inferring that the group member is doing so without testing the inference, which is inconsistent with the behavior test assumptions and inferences.

Have I Observed the Behavior Enough to Make a Reliable Diagnosis?

Sometimes you need to repeat steps 1 and 2 of the mutual learning cycle before you are relatively sure that your inference is worth testing. If you think that group members are focusing on interests rather than positions but aren't certain, then you may decide to observe the group a little more to either confirm or disconfirm your hypothesis.

However, waiting to intervene also has potential disadvantages. If you wait until you're quite confident about what you've observed, group members may infer that you are slowing the group's progress by not intervening sooner. In addition, early intervention shows the group what it can expect from you and can help members become quickly aware of behavior. You can reduce this potential problem if you state early in the facilitation why you may not intervene at times when others believe it would be appropriate. You can also invite the group members to intervene for each other.

To What Extent Is the Behavior Hindering the Group's Effectiveness?

Not all ineffective behavior has the same impact on a group's effectiveness. For example, consider a group in which Tom is not fully explaining his reasoning and intent. Even if he's acting inconsistently with that behavior, you may choose not to intervene unless you observe some other behavior in the group that leads you to infer that not sharing his reasoning is contributing to a problem. You may notice other group members are making negative inferences about Tom's motives.

Sometimes you decide to intervene because you anticipate that the behavior will have a negative impact on the group in the future. Suppose you infer that group members are making plans on the basis of some significant untested inferences; that's an important time to intervene. Making this kind of judgment requires understanding how ineffective group process is causally connected to various negative group outcomes. Essentially you're thinking, When I see this kind of behavior under these conditions, I can predict that it will have a negative impact on the group.

Behavior that hinders the group keeps it from achieving any of the three team effectiveness results: (1) strong performance, (2) productive working relationships, and (3) individual well-being. Keeping in mind all three effectiveness results can help you decide whether an issue is critical enough to warrant intervention.

Is There Effective Behavior I Want to Acknowledge and Reinforce?

Although almost all of this chapter focuses on identifying behavior that reduces a group's effectiveness, it's essential to help group members see when they are beginning to use mutual learning behaviors and elements of the mindset. This means simply pointing out what a team member has said and how it has made a difference.

What Are the Consequences If I Don't Intervene?

There may be positive and negative consequences if you don't intervene. Here are two general issues to consider. First, if you don't intervene, will a group member do so? One principle of the Skilled Facilitator approach is to reduce unnecessary dependence on you as the facilitator. In other words, don't do for the group what the group can do for itself. This principle leads you not to intervene if group members can intervene themselves. Determining what the group can and cannot do at any point requires continual testing.

Not intervening can be a strategy for further diagnosis and group development. If you believe that members have the skills to recognize and intervene on their own behavior, you can give them time to intervene first. Especially in developmental facilitation, you may decide not to intervene immediately to determine whether members will intervene on their own. If a member does intervene effectively, you learn that the group has developed the ability to diagnose and intervene on that type of behavior or issue.

The second issue is this: If you don't intervene now, what is the probability that you can intervene later and still help the group avoid any negative consequences of its ineffective behavior? Ineffective group behavior diminishes a group's results. But in some situations, if you don't intervene, there are large negative consequences for the group, and they occur quickly; for example, the group's process may be growing increasingly more ineffective, the quality of the group's decisions is suffering, or there is insufficient commitment to implement a decision.

Consider, for example, a group that has made a decision without realizing it hasn't reached consensus and is about to move on to the next agenda item. If you don't intervene immediately, the group may realize it hasn't reached consensus only after it begins to commit resources and implement the decision.

In contrast, if members are discussing a problem and aren't giving specific examples to illustrate their points, the consequences for the group are likely to be less severe if you don't intervene immediately. Group members will probably have a more difficult time understanding what exactly each member means, and as a result, the conversation may take time. You will surely have other chances to intervene before the results of not sharing specific examples become severe. If, however, by not giving specific examples members begin to dig into their positions and make negative attributions about others, the consequences become greater.

Because group process repeats itself, like the horses on a merry-go-round, you have repeating opportunities to intervene on the same ineffective behaviors or patterns. If members don't test inferences on one issue, they are likely not to test those inferences throughout their discussion of the issue at hand, as well as other issues. However, once a group makes a decision on the basis of ineffective process (such as an untested inference), you may not have another opportunity to help the members deal with the content of their decision if you do not intervene at that time.

Have I Contracted with the Group to Make This Type of Intervention?

Part of your agreement with a group is to delineate the kinds of interventions you will make with them. In basic facilitation, your agreement with a group may not include making an intervention about fundamental group dynamics or members' mindsets. Although you may see certain issues arise in the group, it may not be necessary to address them for the group to accomplish its stated objectives.

However, if you need to make a type of intervention that you haven't contracted for so the group can accomplish its stated objectives, you can recontract with the group in the moment.

Do I Have the Skills to Intervene?

Some interventions, such as those dealing with defensive behavior, require significant skill. To be helpful, you need to intervene within the limits of your skills. This doesn't mean that you should totally avoid intervening if you're not completely proficient; that would prevent you from taking a reasonable risk to become more effective—a behavior worth modeling for the group. However, it's important to limit the risk by choosing interventions that are within reach of your current level of skills. If you decide to pursue an intervention that is new and challenging for you, you might begin by saying, “I'm going to take a risk here and do something I haven't tried before…”

You Get More Than One Chance

Interventions are not one-step solutions. It's rare that you can make a single intervention that goes directly to the cause of a problem and helps the group improve. Don't misunderstand me; I love a well-crafted intervention, one that addresses the group's issues succinctly, powerfully, and compassionately. But if you think of crafting only the ideal intervention, you place unreasonable pressure on yourself to get everything right the first time you open your mouth. Ironically, focusing on getting it completely right distracts you from doing the good work you're capable of.

Instead, I find it helps to think of interventions as a series of unfolding steps. I start with one, and then depending on the members' responses, I move to other related interventions. Each time I intervene, I learn more about how the members are thinking and feeling and about how my interventions work, all of which enable me to better craft my next intervention. In shifting my thinking this way, I also show compassion for myself.

Address Concerns about Your Facilitative Role First

If a group member directly or even indirectly raises a concern about your facilitative role or performance, this is the first intervention you make before any others. People may be concerned that you're paying attention to some members more than others, that you're becoming involved in the content of the conversation (if you're a facilitator), or that you're colluding with certain members. Or the group members may be concerned that the process is not helping them achieve their objectives.

I refer to this situation as being in facilitator check. In the game of chess, if the other player puts your king in check, the only move you are allowed to make is one that gets your king out of check. If you can't move your king out of check, it becomes checkmate, and you've lost the game. Putting aside the inappropriate win-lose element of my chess analogy, you're in the same situation in your facilitative role. You can't perform your facilitative role when group members have unresolved concerns about how you are helping them.

It can feel threatening to have group members question your role and performance, but only by encouraging them to describe their specific concerns can you address them. Chapter 12 deals with the issue of handling your emotions as well as those of group members.

Consider Whether You Are Doing Basic or Developmental Facilitation

There are some interventions you would more likely make in basic facilitation than in developmental facilitation, and vice versa. Remember that in basic facilitation, you're helping the group temporarily improve its process so it can accomplish some significant task. In developmental facilitation, you're still helping the group accomplish a task, and in addition you're helping it learn how to essentially facilitate its own work, including being able to reflect on its thinking. Basic and developmental facilitation are not discrete categories; they reflect a continuum.

Basic Facilitation

In basic facilitation, you choose interventions that are narrowly designed to help the group directly address the task at hand. This includes managing group process and structure, intervening on the behaviors, and focusing on elements of the TEM that are essential for the group to accomplish its task, such as clear goals and appropriate membership. While you help group members articulate their core values and assumptions about the task they are working on, you are less likely to intervene on their mindset in general. Nor are you likely to intervene on the more fundamental elements of the TEM such as group culture, in part because you may not have contracted to make these interventions, but also because they are often not required in helping the group accomplish its specific task.

Developmental Facilitation

As facilitation becomes more developmental, you draw on the full range of interventions. You teach the group concepts and techniques for improving process, including helping it to become proficient in using the behaviors. If, for example, you find yourself intervening on the same mutual learning behaviors, this might lead you to begin to intervene on mindset to understand what people are thinking that leads them to continue acting inconsistently with the behaviors.

In basic facilitation, when a conflict arises in the group, you may choose to intervene by asking members to focus on their interests, test their assumptions, and share their reasoning. In developmental facilitation, you are likely to go beyond such interventions and examine the pattern of group conflict and how members contribute to creating the structure of the conflict. In doing so, you help group members learn how they create unproductive conflict in general and how they can change it.

Go Broad before You Go Deep

At any point, you can intervene by going broad or by going deep. When you go broad, you quickly find out what each member thinks about something. When you go deep, you explore a particular topic in depth, sometimes by engaging only one or a few members in your intervention. The principle is to go broad before you go deep.

For example, if a group is discussing barriers to implementing an organizational change, going broad would mean saying something like, “Let's go around the room and have each of you quickly identify the barriers you think need to be addressed. We'll build a list as we go. After you've completed generating the list, you can decide which barrier you'd like to discuss first in more detail.” However, if you intervened by going deep you might begin by saying, “Let's discuss each of the barriers you think need to be addressed. What's the first barrier someone wants to address?” When the first person identified a barrier, you would ask the group to discuss it in detail. Going broad enables you and the group to quickly identify all the barriers that the group wants to address and then jointly plan the most efficient and effective way to address them. If you go deep first, the group may spend a lot of time on the first person's barrier, which the group may consider a lower priority, including the person who raised it. By going broad first, you help the group more effectively jointly design its next steps in the meeting.

Intervene with the People Who Have the Data

The basic principle is to intervene with the person or people who have the data to respond to your intervention. For interventions on the mutual learning behaviors, this usually means intervening with the person or people whose actions are inconsistent with the mutual learning behavior. If you infer that someone hasn't shared her reasoning with the group, you would address your intervention to her, because she is the person who can best explain her reasoning. If several members are focusing on positions rather than interests, you would intervene with each of them, addressing each by name.

When intervening on a pattern of behavior—a behavior that has occurred at least two or three times—you would address all members who contributed to the pattern. First, you identify the full pattern so group members understand the point of the intervention. Then, in the order in which they have entered the pattern, you address each member's contribution. This allows the group to see how the pattern develops.

Identify People by Name

It may seem obvious, but when you are making interventions, it's essential to identify the members by name. This is being transparent and accountable, and it enables group members to make an informed choice. Some facilitators address the group in general terms when they observe certain members acting in a way they consider ineffective: “I notice some members focusing on positions rather than interests. I think it would be helpful if you would focus on your interests.” These facilitators reason that by not addressing members specifically, they avoid embarrassing people or putting them on the spot. However, because these members haven't been addressed directly, they may not know that the facilitator is addressing them, and it prevents the facilitator from finding out whether the group members agree with the facilitator's inference. As a result, members may not respond to the facilitator's intervention, either because they don't understand it is meant for them or because they disagree with the facilitator's inference about their behavior.

There are times when it's not necessary to address specific group members, as when you are helping to manage group process and structure. You might say, “What are some ways to solve this problem?” When you are asking the full group if the members agree with something, you might say, “Does anyone have any concerns with the proposal?”

Managing Group Process and Structure

In a group process or structure intervention, you decide with the group what process and structures to use during the facilitation. Because this is your area of expertise as facilitator, you make the decision jointly with the group. This entails advocating for a process that meets the group's needs, whether it's a particular problem-solving process, a strategic planning process, or some other. In a large group, managing process may also involve recognizing people to speak and monitoring their time.

Advocating structure includes helping the group clarify its meeting objectives and agenda, suggesting what kind of people may need to participate to generate valid information, and estimating how much time may be needed for various discussions.

Teaching Concepts and Techniques for Improving Group Process

At times, you may need to teach the group about a particular method or technique for improving process so that it can decide whether to use the method. You are doing this when you explain the mutual learning mindset and behaviors, and ask group members whether they want to use them during the facilitation and even after. Other examples include teaching a group to use the TEM or a general problem-solving model.

Technically, when you make this intervention, you're serving as a facilitative trainer. Still, this intervention is consistent with the facilitator's role if it focuses on improving group process. However, if you teach concepts related to the substance of the group's issues (such as marketing methods or product development), you are moving outside the role of facilitator and into the role of facilitative consultant.

Making Content Suggestions

In the content type of intervention, you share some information or suggest how the group can address some substantive aspect of the issue. As you saw in Chapter 2, this type of intervention is an essential part of the facilitative consultant's role, but it is technically inconsistent with the facilitator's role.

However, as I discussed in Chapter 2, when the content of a group's discussion is about how to manage process effectively, you're not neutral about the content because you are a process expert. Consequently, a content suggestion closely related to group or organizational process and therefore closely related to the group's behavior is appropriate for you to intervene on in your facilitator role.

It can also be appropriate for a facilitator to enter into the content when the group has tried unsuccessfully to identify a solution that meets all the members' interests. Here you may suggest a solution if you first receive the group's permission and afterward ask whether the suggested solution meets all the members' interests.

Here's how you might intervene in this kind of situation: “Tawana, you said your interest behind sending a memo now was to let the department know what progress the group has made. Is that correct? [Continuing, assuming Tawana agrees] Ted, you said your interest behind not sending a memo now was to avoid having people falsely conclude that the group has made a decision; correct? [Continuing, assuming Ted agrees] If the group sends out a memo stating very clearly that the memo reflects the group's current thinking but that the group has not made any decision, would this meet everyone's interests?”

Reframing

A reframing intervention helps members change the meaning they ascribe to an event. As the meaning of the event changes, group members' responses and behaviors also change.¹ For example, group members are often reluctant to give each other negative feedback, because they say they care about members and don't want to hurt them. I often help members address their reluctance by helping them reframe what it means “to care.” I suggest that genuinely caring about members means giving others feedback about their behavior so that the data can be validated and the person receiving the feedback can make an informed free choice about whether she wants to change her behavior. Further, I suggest that by withholding information, members hurt each other by precluding each other from making an informed choice about whether to change ineffective behavior. When you help members reframe something, you are helping them change some assumption and/or value in their mindset.

Your Facilitative Role and Performance

In an intervention oriented toward the facilitator, your role or performance is the subject of discussion. This is the case of facilitator check I described earlier in the chapter. The purpose of this type of intervention is to identify whether and how you have acted ineffectively and, if so, to identify what if anything needs to happen for you and the group to continue to work effectively.

Behavior and Interaction

At the first level, you focus on behavior and interaction. Focusing on this level, you notice who is saying what to whom, how others respond, and which mutual learning behaviors members are using and not using.

Consider a team conversation in which the leader begins the meeting by identifying a problem communicating with field staff: “The way to solve this problem is to upgrade everyone's software.” The IT director responds, “That's not necessary. We're not going to do that.” You notice other team members are rolling their eyes after the leader speaks, but you say nothing. Looking at the behaviors and interactions, you infer that both the leader and the IT director are focusing on positions and that other members are withholding some relevant information.

This might lead you to intervene by asking them to focus on their interests and share all relevant information.

Patterns of Behavior

At the second level, you focus on patterns of behavior. You take the behavior you noticed at the first level and note how it recurs over time. In addition, you pay attention to other behaviors and interactions and note how they recur over time.

Continuing with the example, you begin to note the frequency with which this type of interaction occurs and the other conditions that are present around the time of the interaction. You might, for instance, note that the leader and IT director focus on positions after the IT director shares information that the team is creating problems for IT. You might also note that members are silent whenever the team leader initiates a new conversation, but they speak up when the IT director initiates the conversation.

This could lead you to intervene by describing this pattern of behavior and interactions, which is a more powerful intervention than simply identifying a single occurrence of an ineffective behavior.

Structure

At the third and deepest level, you notice the underlying structure. Unlike focusing on behavior and interaction or on patterns, noticing structure means proposing a causal explanation for part of how the group is operating. The causal map uses the TEM, which has the mutual learning approach embedded in it. By focusing on structure, you help the group see how the mindset it is using leads it to design the elements of its group that, in turn, affect group members' behaviors and lead to diminished results in performance, working relationships, and well-being. By describing this causal map to the group, you can test its validity with the group, and the group can make a choice about changes it wants to make to reduce the negative results it is experiencing.

At this level of structure, you might infer that members are assuming that the IT director's motives are questionable, as they believe he is not likely to approve their IT requests if they disagree with him. You might also infer that members are trying to operate from the core value of minimizing the expression of negative feelings and are reluctant to state views differing from the IT director's if their own IT support is on the line. So they respond through nonverbal behavior. You might also infer that as a result of not raising their concerns with the IT director, they create a cycle in which the IT director makes decisions without the full input of the other members, which leads to lower-quality decisions and the members continuing to be frustrated with the IT director. The IT director may contribute to this by recognizing the members' discontent but not raising it for fear of precipitating the expression of negative feelings.

By intervening on this causal structure, you can help the group members explore how their thinking leads to action that creates unintended results, by contributing to maintaining the system that each is dissatisfied with. In this way, you help the group explore the underlying dynamics that keep their more superficial but ineffective behavior and pattern in place. This means engaging in developmental facilitation and intervening on mindset.