Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

Abdullah and Shephard (2000) developed a colorful and useful cultural card pack comprising the sixteen cultural dimensions shown in Exhibit 16.5. There are three cards with a sentence to describe each of the sixteen dimensions, giving a total of forty-eight cards. (There are more dimensions, but space does not allow discussion here. For further information see Samovar and Porter, 2004.)

In this cross-cultural card sort, participants form groups with others from the same culture. They are asked to pick out cards that best describe their own culture. While doing this, they become familiar with a list of cultural concepts that they can use to differentiate others—not as “good” or “bad,” but just different from their own. The objective of this game is for players to become aware of and acknowledge cultural differences and acquire a neutral language to describe cultural differences and similarities.

The facilitator may use the card sort to help participants address questions such as these:

•How and why are people different?

•Why do people go about achieving goals differently?

•How and why do some people like to work in groups and others alone?

•Why do some people build relationships before getting the task done?

•What are our hidden cultural dimensions and underlying assumptions?

At the end of the exercise, the facilitator can gather data on a flip chart in a table of cultural dimensions like the one in Exhibit 16.6 as a tool for mapping cultures and then developing integrating strategies. You should acknowledge that terms like Chinese and European are gross generalizations and that all cultures have many differences, such as those between individuals, age groups, regions, and urban-rural settings.

The example in Exhibit 16.6 shows the results of a workshop in which six cultural groups (six to seven people per group) played the card game. The cultural groups are identified at the top of the table. On the right side of the table, under the heading “groups,” is a column for each group. The numbers in the column indicate the number of cards that each group selected to describe itself for each of the eight dimensions. This information may then be used to stimulate discussion on how to build bridges and communication flows across the groups.

Exhibit 16.6

Results of a Cross-Cultural Card Sort

Each group was asked to select the cards that best described their own culture. There was a maximum of three cards for each cultural dimension. The number of cards chosen by each group are shown on the right. The groups were:

Processes and Strategies to Building Bridges and Integrate Across Cultural Dimensions

Building bridges and integrating processes and strategies may be used by groups to discuss ways of overcoming difference and maximizing the inputs of everyone in a group. For each of the eight dimensions in Exhibit 16.5, I illustrate divergent participant perspectives followed by some bridge building and integrating ideas for facilitators. It is also useful to ask participants to develop their own bridging and integrating strategies. (The ideas for this section have been developed and adapted from Beasley and Hogan, 2003; Chang, 2002; and Verghese, 2003.)

•Explain to participants at the beginning of your workshop the differences between dialogue and debate (Bohm, Factor, and Garrett, 1995).

•Show participants how to look at all sides of an issue to gain the whole picture, for example, the six thinking hats process (de Bono, 1985, 1987).

•Encourage reticent participants to express their ideas and responses and make sure that each participant is given the opportunity to contribute something to the discussion. A round robin process takes away the need for participants to think about interrupting, and turn taking is highly structured.

•Build in written processes to enable quieter participants and participants whose English is their second or third language to reflect. Writing gives everyone time to think and reflect. This equalizes participation and generates many ideas quickly. For example, with card sorts (Schnelle, 1979) or brainwriting (Geschka, Schaude, and Schlicksupp 1973; Hogan 2003a), participants write one idea per card; the facilitator collects them and redistributes them anonymously so that individuals can add positive ideas. Eventually, all cards are displayed, clustered, and

discussed. This is an equalizing process, as everyone is participating at the same time, there is no turn taking, and people whose first language is other than the language being used in the workshop have a chance to think and write (it is far less stressful for them than having to think and speak on their feet). In contrast, brainstorming is spoken, slows idea generation as only one person can speak at a time, and favors the participants with good verbal skills who can think on their feet and are not afraid to verbalize what may at first be considered as ideas far out of the mainstream. Brainwriting allows for paradoxical ideas to be generated anonymously. (See Hogan, 2003a, for further analysis of creative processes.)

• Working in pairs maximizes verbal participation and builds confidence. Pairing together the power holders and more dominant participants ensures that quieter participants have an opportunity to voice their ideas and opinions.

•Build in warm-up activities that are related to the goals of the workshop so that participants can get to know one another but do not feel they are doing activities without a purpose.

•Ensure that preworkshop refreshments, lunch, and breaks are provided adjacent to the workshop room so that participants mingle and chat and do not return to their offices.

•Arrange tasks and group activities so that participants who do not already know each other work together and have to discuss and share different perspectives and experiences.

•Change the composition of groups regularly for different tasks.

Some Bridge Building Ideas

•Make your own roles as a facilitator clear (for example, that as facilitator, you are not going to enter into content or when you are going to go into content that you are putting on your “trainer” hat).

•Ensure the participants are clear about their roles. Information about roles may be sent by e-mail with the workshop outline to prospective human resource development staff and participants before the workshop and then explained or renegotiated at the workshop itself.

•In some hierarchical cultures, it may be useful to ask a senior executive to introduce you and indicate your qualifications and experience (for example, if you are a female facilitator in a male-dominated culture or workshop).

•Write about your experience, qualifications, and interests in the workshop handout. This saves your having to give a long introduction about yourself. You can show it to participants so they can refer to it.

•Take an interest in the participants, and show that you are flexible. Recognize the participants as individuals who may have very different backgrounds.

•Be patient with participants from societies that are different from your own, and remember that it may take them more time to feel at ease if you are from a culture different from theirs.

•Participants from low power distance societies may feel quite happy to speak out, so build in equalizing processes such as round robins to give opportunities for people from hierarchical societies to speak out.

•With participants who show low power distance behaviors and are too familiar or show lack of respect, you may need to draw the line in a friendly but firm manner. (This comment may be more applicable to female facilitators.)

•Do not take personal questions as an affront, but encourage participants to ask questions related to the workshop.

•Strongly hierarchical societies may not value participation and facilitation.

•Explain to participants that with many processes designed to generate creative ideas, for example, brainstorming and brainwriting, there is no such thing as a right or wrong idea.

•Be supportive, and encourage others to support shy participants who do speak out.

•Generate awareness that some people in every society feel nervous to speak out.

•Explain that it is important to attribute information or an idea to its source, to honor an authority, be professional as a scholar, and so that others know where they can obtain additional information.

•Teach participants how to paraphrase, quote, and reference correctly (both in-text and end-of-text) according to Western disciplinary conventions. Provide models, examples, and practice exercises and activities.

•In training situations, allow participants the opportunity to retake tests and resubmit reports to avoid stress and fears of failure, which may inhibit their thinking processes.

•Present good models of report structure and oral presentations to illustrate the framework required for expressing opinions and arguments in the context in which you are working.

•Acknowledge that different cultures and languages have different ways of agreeing, disagreeing, and expressing opinions.

•Examine examples of cultural variations of styles of thinking (Ballard and Clanchy, 1991).

•Acknowledge different cultural perspectives of time and punctuality.

•Help the group to reach an agreement regarding issues such as punctuality, turn taking, and the structure of the meeting agenda.

•At the end of a break, play a piece of music that is a signal to everyone that you will restart in five minutes. This enables participants who have been chatting to take care of needs they have put off.

•Explain the rationale behind turn taking and one person speaking at a time.

•Invite participants to contract for desirable group norms by asking questions like, “How can we all get the most out of our time together?” Ensure these ideas are written up and clearly visible in case you wish to refer to them later. I usually add “the right to say no and participate by observing.” People can participate in a group in many different ways—by listening, thinking, and supporting nonverbally as well as by talking. This ground rule is very freeing for participants who feel shy. It also often results in everyone joining in everything.

•Explain, or invite participants to discuss, the advantages and disadvantages of individual and group activities and competition and cooperation. Ask participants to raise their concerns at the beginning and invite them to develop ways of dealing with “social loafers,” language constraints, poor timekeepers, and dominating and dysfunctional behaviors.

•Invite members of small discussion groups to present their ideas together, with everyone saying something. At other times, ask for a representative to report back to the whole group; at the end, ask if any other group members want to add anything.

•Ensure there are face-saving mechanisms in place for mediation if a group is dysfunctional. Some highly individualistic people find it very hard to work productively in a group environment.

•Ensure that the workshop venue can cater to the particular religious and other dietary needs of your participants (for example, kosher, halal, as well as low salt, vegetarian, vegan, low carbohydrate, no gluten).

•Build in a break or tangential discussion activities for secular participants when others are at prayers. Check to see that those who are at prayers do not feel left out.

The Mirroring Process

The mirroring process (Satir, 1983) is a useful multisensory exercise including roleplay, drawing, and singing for groups that have been working together for some time but want to improve communication between them. Participants from “culture A” are asked to hold up a metaphorical mirror to the participants from “culture B” (and vice versa) so that everyone can learn more about how they behave and communicate (Hogan, 1996, 2003). There need to be high levels of trust for this exercise.

It is important to focus participants on issues, not people. If some team members cannot attend, it is very important to discuss with those present how they will brief the absentees later. This is because some of the participants’ behaviors may change as a result of the workshop.

An explanation of the mirroring process might be presented as follows: “This is your opportunity to learn a great deal about one another, so that you can improve communication and interactions in the future. Please be as open, honest, and sensitive as you can in the way you express your feedback. Do not mention names of individuals. Please illustrate ideas and behaviors.”

Participants are asked to form groups of four to five people of homogeneous cultures. Provide them with flip chart paper, felt pens, and masking tape. Props like scarves, local cloth and clothing, hats, and musical instruments are useful to make this fun.

Give participants the list that follows, and explain that each group will be asked to illustrate the characteristics of the “other” culture using drawings, poems, songs, storytelling, skits, or role play. Among the things to illustrate are these:

•Aspects of the other culture that they like, appreciate, or admire

•Aspects of communication with the other culture they find difficult to understand or appreciate

•Suggestions for improving communication between members of the respective cultures

Allow groups twenty minutes for preparation and five minutes to show each skit to represent the other culture. Allow at least one hour for debriefing and discussion.

This activity leads to increased awareness of the “other” and may take a group to a new level of understanding. This process helps to open up communication between cultural groups, to raise issues to the surface in a playful way.

Issues are presented in a variety of creative ways using role plays with props of clothing and objects and drawings, songs, stories, poems, chants, or even rap. Skits produce a lot of laughter (sometimes from the humorous situations and sometimes tinges of embarrassment). The humor and costumes allow people to take on the roles of court jester and in some instances enable groups to move from the norming (smoothing) to the performing stage of group development (Tuckman and Jensen, 1977), that is, where discussions of differences and bridging and integration are more likely to occur.

Where role play is used, the facilitator later asks each group to state verbally the points they are trying to get across to check for accuracy. From these issues, the group generates a list of hints for improved communication between “culture A” and “culture B.”

The process could lead to polarizing the two groups into “them” and “us” if time is not spent in debriefing to highlight how the information gained can be used to enable the participants to work better as a team. (For a more detailed example of this process used in Nepal between development workers, see Hogan, 1996.)

CONCLUSION

Facilitating multicultural groups can provide wonderful learning experiences and fun. We all make cultural faux pas at some time or another. But for the most part, in my experience, people are understanding of “foreigners” and make allowances