To decide whether and why to intervene, you must know your intervention op- tions. There are a number of types that you can carry out in a group (see Ex- hibit 7.1). I have already discussed the group effectiveness model, the ground rules for effective groups, and theory-in-use as diagnostic frames. They are also
4 5 6
Diagnosis Steps Interv ention Steps
3 2 1Other frames and processes Unilateral control model Mutual learning model Ground rules for effective groups Group effectiveness model
Decide whether, how, and why to intervene Infer meaning Observe behavior
Describe behavior Test for different views Share inference Test for different views Help group decide whether and how to change behavior Test for different views Figure 7.1.Diagnosis-Intervention Cycle with Diagnostic Frames
the basis for differentiating the type of intervention. In this section, I describe general types from which you can choose.
Ground Rules
You intervene on the ground rules when you see some behavior in the group that is inconsistent with the ground rules and that you believe reduces group effectiveness. The purpose of intervening on the ground rules is to improve group process by identifying members’ behaviors and inviting them to change their behavior to be consistent with the ground rules. You make a ground rule intervention when you ask a member to explain his reasoning, test his infer- ence, or give a specific example. You may also intervene to identify when a member is using the ground rules effectively.
Compared with other types of intervention, when you intervene solely on the ground rules your focus may be relatively narrow. That is, you are often focus- ing on a single behavior of one or two group members.
Group Effectiveness Model
You intervene using the group effectiveness model when you believe there is some larger process, structural, or contextual issue reducing effectiveness. For example, you may infer that the group is unclear about its goals or roles, or that it may not have sufficient support from the larger organization. This interven- tion is broad in scope in that the issues often involve the group has a whole.
Theory-in-Use
You intervene on theory-in-use when you want to help members explore their core values and assumptions, or explore how the core values and assumptions lead them to design a strategy that creates unintended consequences. Theory-
Exhibit 7.1. Types of Interventions
• Ground rules
• Group effectiveness model
• Theory-in-use
• Other diagnostic frames
• Managing group process and structure
• The facilitator’s role and performance
• Teaching concepts and techniques for improving group process
• Making content suggestions
• Reframing
in-use intervention is the deepest type in that it may lead members to reveal privately held values and beliefs. Theory-in-use interventions can also be the most powerful, because members’ theories-in-use are often a significant source of group process problems.
Other Diagnostic Frames
You may use any diagnostic frame as the basis for your intervention. Some fa- cilitators use individual difference models, such as Myers-Briggs or a model of conflict, to make sense of group process. Some diagnostic frames (say, a model of group problem solving or decision making) fit well with specific elements of the group effectiveness model. Other diagnostic frames can be used well with the Skilled Facilitator approach if they are based on core values that are con- gruent with the approach and have a foundation in directly observable data.
Chapter Ten describes how to diagnose and intervene with other diagnostic frames.
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 en- tails advocating for a process that fits the group’s needs, whether it is a par- ticular 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 the time. Advocating structure includes helping the group clar- ify 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. In developmental facilitation, you and the group jointly manage the process. In basic facilitation, you manage much of the process for the group, although ultimately the group and you jointly con- trol the process.
The Facilitator’s Role and Performance
In an intervention oriented toward the facilitator, your role or performance is the subject of discussion. For example, a group member may express concern that you are acting inconsistently with the facilitator role, say by taking sides in the substance of a discussion. Or a member may see that you are acting incon- sistently with the core values and ground rules. In some cases, you may infer that members are concerned about how you are fulfilling your role.
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.
Teaching Concepts and Techniques for Improving Group Process
At times, you may need to teach the group about a particular method or tech- nique for improving process, so that it can decide whether to use the method.
You do this when you explain the core values and ground rules and ask the members whether they want to adopt them as their own. Other examples in- clude teaching a group to use the effectiveness model or a general problem- solving model, or how to identify system dynamics. Technically, when you make this intervention you are serving as a facilitative trainer. Still, this inter- vention 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 Three, this type of intervention is generally inconsistent with the facil- itator’s role. One exception may be 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.
Let’s look at an example: “Tawana, you said your interest behind sending a memo now was to let the department know what progress the group has made, correct? [Continuing, assuming Tawana agrees] Ted, you said your interest be- hind 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?”
Technically, all content suggestions are inconsistent with the facilitator’s role. However, as I discussed in Chapter Three, when the content of a group’s discussion involves how to manage process effectively, you are nonneutral 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 ground rules is less inconsistent with your role.
The intervention about sending a memo is an example of this situation. How- ever, content suggestions that have no relation to group or organizational pro- cess are more inconsistent with the facilitator’s role, as with suggesting that a department buy rather than lease equipment.
Reframing
A reframing intervention helps members change the meaning they ascribe to an event. As the meaning of the event changes, people’s response and behavior also change (Bandler and Grinder, 1982; Bateson, 1972). For example, group members are often reluctant to give each other negative feedback, because they say they care about members and do not want to hurt them. I often help mem- bers address their reluctance by helping them reframe what it means “to care.”
I suggest that genuinely caring about members means givingothers feedback about their behavior such that the data can be validated and the person receiv- ing the feedback can make an informed free choice about whether she wants to change her behavior. Further, I suggest that by withholdinginformation, mem- bers 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 also helping them change their values or beliefs. Consequently, a reframing intervention is useful in conjunction with intervention on the core values and ground rules as well as theory-in-use.