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

higher-status members of decision-making and problem-solving groups. Janis (1989) further suggests either expressing moral disapproval or having private conversations with those who appear to be placing their concerns for self above the interests of the group and especially of making a good choice. On the face of it, the latter approach seems to be preferable, at least as a first effort. As yet another approach, a would-be facilitator, sensing that self-serving interests have taken hold, might recommend deferring action to give the group as a whole a possibly needed respite from undesirable pressures and, consequently, an opportunity to shift back to a more vigilant posture.

In addition to the kinds of measures that Janis recommends, since conflict can easily arise when egocentric constraints are at work, a facilitator could recommend adoption of consensus-seeking rules along the lines of those formulated by Hall and Watson (1970). These rules, if endorsed and adopted, obligate group members to avoid arguing for their own positions, pursuing distributive (win-lose) approaches, changing their minds only to avoid conflict, and suppressing conflict. The rules also encourage participants to view differences of opinion as natural and initial agreements as suspect. It is helpful if the members of groups agree to such rules in public, as we have long known that public utterances tend to commit those who make them to what they have said (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley, 1953).

Finally, a person attempting to facilitate discussion in the presence of egocentric constraints might recommend to fellow participants that they adopt formal procedures, such as Volkema’s problem-purpose expansion technique (1983), which has as its central aim to show that better choices are likely to be made if the parties to a discussion concentrate on understanding the larger ends that they have in mind and for which their preferred position may be less suitable than others. This can sometimes help strong advocates of particular positions to see that there may be superior means of accomplishing what they might hope though implementation of their positions.

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS TO ENHANCE FACILITATION

For any member of a decision-making group who attempts to facilitate the other members’ performance along constructive lines, various types of knowledge and related capabilities are of significant value. Within the scope of this chapter, we can offer only a general catalogue extracted from a much more extensive discussion by Gouran (2003a).

It almost goes without saying that to be successful in facilitating groups, the facilitator must possess some knowledge of the matters under consideration, relational influences on interaction, and the processes most conducive to the making of informed choices. The last type of knowledge, without the former types, is not likely to leave one well enough equipped to be of help to members in overcoming the sorts of obstacles they may encounter.

Given the kinds of knowledge noted, as well as the ways in which the categories of constraints discussed already can be manifested in substantive, relational, and procedural dimensions of group interaction, Gouran (2003a) sees three types of skills as enhancing the prospects for a group’s success in its choice-making activities. In the category of task-related skills, specific ones of interest include problem recognition and framing, inference drawing, idea generation, and argument. Regarding relational skills, ability in leadership, climate building, and conflict management, particularly from the perspective of a neutral third party, can be very helpful when problematic aspects of the relationships among the members are standing in the way of their ability to choose judiciously. Finally, with respect to procedural skills, adeptness in planning and process enactment can help a facilitator to prevent the members of a group from going astray, or at least limit the probability that they will. Because a facilitator never knows when he or she may feel a need to intervene in a decision-making discussion, we feel that everyone who participates in such discussions would be well advised to make an active effort to cultivate these types of skills.

CONCLUSION

Although professional facilitators can render invaluable service, circumstances do not always allow this type of intervention in sufficient time to bear fruit. As a result, we have addressed situations in which obstacles arise in the course of a group’s interaction and require immediate attention. To that end, we have considered obstacles posed the types of constraints—cognitive, affiliative, and egocentric—under which members of groups may be functioning and that also reduce their prospects for satisfying the requirements for making appropriate choices. For each category, we described some general approaches that a member acting in the role of facilitator can take to help members overcome the difficulties they face. Finally, we have mentioned particular kinds of knowledge and skills that better equip the members of groups to enact the role of facilitator if and when they should need to do so.

Pat: I think this training course is excellent. The methodology is sound; the way it is taught is interactive; the techniques can bring results in a wide range of situations. In total, this stuff will make us more effective. I think everyone in our organization should take this course.

Chris: Everyone? That’s a little extreme, don’t you think? I could see having key managers take the course. At least they will actually have an opportunity to do something with it.

Pat: No, we can’t limit this to managers. Everyone needs these skills. Everyone should take the course.

Chris: This is a business, Pat. You folks in HR sometimes forget this. We can’t have everyone away from work for stuff they might not use. Only key managers.

Pat: I know this is a business, Chris. I’m not stupid. If you folks in the field were just more open to empowering your people, you might get better than mediocre results.

Pat and Chris are well on their way to a bitter argument. What started out as a friendly, enthusiastic comment to a colleague seems to have transformed somewhere along the way into a deep philosophical disagreement that has gotten quite personal.

Although this is a fictitious scenario, it is an example of the types of disagreements that happen frequently in business, community, and personal interactions around the world. Disagreements such as these can be constructively addressed when a facilitator or the participants understand the three levels of disagreement and techniques for addressing each level.

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES: WHY PEOPLE DISAGREE

Our work with literally hundreds of groups over the past decade has led us to categorize disagreements into three basic types or levels.

Level 1 Disagreement: Lack of Shared Information

In a level 1 disagreement, the people disagreeing have not clearly heard or understood each other’s alternative and the reasons for supporting it. Level 1 disagreements are often a result of assumed understanding of what the other person is saying or meaning. They are often referred to as disagreements based on facts.

To solve a level 1 disagreement, the facilitator must use techniques that slow down the conversation to encourage careful listening, explicit sharing of information and explanations, testing for shared meaning, and comprehension. When the disagreement is due solely to a lack of shared information, the parties quickly learn that they were not actually in disagreement at all and were just not hearing each other (literally), misunderstanding one another, or had not shared relevant information.

I use the term violent agreement to describe a level 1 disagreement. The parties really agree, but they do not know it, so they continue to argue. One of the common statements that one hears following the resolution of a level 1 disagreement is, “Oh, is that what you meant? Why didn’t you say that?”

Level 2 Disagreement: Different Values or Experiences

In a level 2 disagreement, the parties have fully heard and understand one another’s alternatives. However, they have had different experiences or hold different values that result in their preferring one alternative to another.

Political parties often have level 2 disagreements. The parties typically fully understand each other’s platforms and initiatives. They often fundamentally disagree on how a country, state, city, township, or tribe should be run.

In Australia, for example, the Labour party values social democracy and ensuring social justice, especially for low-income earners. Therefore, party adherents tend to believe that the government should intervene to provide more equitable outcomes. In contrast, the Liberal party values social conservatism and encourages a free market. In general, party adherents tend to support business expansion and a limited welfare safety net.

Marriages are also a place where level 2 disagreements are common. My wife and I agree on a lot of things. But every once in a while, we have significant level 2 disagreements, as illustrated in planning a vacation:

Sherry: I’m been thinking about our vacation for next year, and I’ve got it! There’s a ten-day tour of Italy that takes us to eight cities, including Rome, Venice, Milan, and Florence. It’s perfect. What do you think?

Michael: That does sound like a wonderful tour. But I have really been look forward to going to the beach this year.

Sherry: Oh, come on, snookums [that’s what my wife calls me when she really wants something]. Let’s go to Italy. We haven’t been there before.

Michael: Oh, sweetheart, darling, baby (in my best impression of the deep baritone of singer Barry White). Let’s go to the beach. It’ll be quiet and restful.

Sherry: Now, Michael, you’ve been out of town a lot this year, which has left me home to do both my job and take care of the kids solo, so we really should do what I want to do. Let’s do Italy.

Michael: You are right, Sherry. I have been out of town a lot this year, and it has worn me out. I really need a break. Let’s go to the beach.

Sherry: No, we are going to Italy.

Michael: No, we are going to the beach.

Sherry: Italy!

Michael: Beach!

Sherry: Italy!

Clearly, my wife loves to travel. She values vacations that allow her to see many things and have new and different experiences. For her, the ten-day, eight-city tour is ideal. I, however, live out of a suitcase for major parts of the year. Therefore, the last thing I want to do when I am on vacation is to pack every morning to go visit another city. I want the quiet, sandy beach. I want to be able to sleep late most mornings, get up when I want to get up, and do nothing if I want to do nothing.

Notice that we understand each other’s alternatives and reasons for supporting them. I understand that my wife values new and varied experiences, and she understands that I value rest and relaxation—a classic level 2 disagreement.

The key to solving a level 2 disagreement is to isolate the underlying values and create alternatives that combine the values. In the example, my wife and I have both taken positions. If the argument stays at the position level (Italy versus the beach), one of us is going to win (more likely my wife!) and one of us is going to lose.

However, the real issue is not the positions but the reasons for supporting them. If, in consensus building, we can get beyond the positions and focus on the real issues, or interests (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991), we may be able to create solutions that satisfy everyone’s most important needs.

Think of it much like an iceberg. The tip of the iceberg, that is, the part that you see, is the position. But what is below the surface is what really matters, and these are the critical issues that we have to identify.

To identify the key underlying values, facilitators ask questions such as: Why is that important to you? What benefit do you get from doing this? Working with the

answers, we can often help the group identify solutions that provide key benefits to, and satisfy the key interests of, all parties. (At the end of the chapter, you will see how we resolved the vacation dilemma.)

Level 3 Disagreement: Outside Factors

A level 3 disagreement is based on personality, past history, or other outside factors that have nothing to do with the alternatives. Sometimes a disagreement is not at all related to the discussion. Consider this situation about a nominating committee:

Tom: One of the things I think we can do to improve our board governance is to add one or two board members with strong financial backgrounds. This way we can better understand the financial ramifications of some of the proposals we are considering.

Frank: That won’t work.

Tom: Sure it will. We just need to make sure we get the right people.

Frank: No, it won’t work.

Facilitator: Help us understand, Frank. Why won’t that work?

Frank: It just won’t work.

Facilitator: Okay. . .Well, how might we improve it?

Frank: There’s no way to improve it. It just won’t work.

Facilitator: Help us understand, Frank, why you are so convinced it won’t work.

Frank: It just won’t work. He thought of it. It won’t work!

This is an extreme example, to be sure. (More realistically, Frank might retain his objection but without revealing this reason.) Frank clearly does not want to have anything to do with this idea, but his reason is not related to the idea. As it turns out, Frank learned some time ago that when he was nominated to the board, Tom was one of the few people who spoke against him. Since then, Frank has sought to block all of Tom’s suggestions.

A disagreement based on personality or past history (level 3) often calls for a deeper intervention and cannot be resolved in a typical session. Therefore, it is important to determine the source of the disagreement as quickly as possible to avoid wasting time.

Level 3 disagreements appear to be irrational. The arguments do not seem to make logical sense, and in many cases, the arguer does not offer any rationale for

the position. In addition, in a level 3 disagreement, one or more of the parties show no interest in resolving the disagreement, considering alternatives, or convincing the other side. Since the disagreement is not based on the issue, there is little desire to focus on the issue.

If you are in a facilitated session when an important level 3 disagreement is discovered, consider taking a break and meeting with the parties together privately to indicate to them you do not believe the issue can be solved in the session. Seek to gain their agreement to go to a higher source together for resolution outside the session. In essence, let a higher level in the organization make the decision by having both parties go to the source together to explain the issue.

We recommend not attempting level 3 resolution unless the session was specifically designed for that purpose. Typically, issues based on personality or past history require more time than the group has agreed to give or that you can give, based on your contractual arrangement.

Sessions designed specifically to bring parties together to address level 3 issues (conflict resolution) are beyond the scope of this chapter. (For additional information on this topic, see Deutsch and Coleman, 2000.) Briefly, however, we recommend that level 3 conflict resolution sessions should, at a minimum, include the following steps:

1.An opportunity for each party individually to identify and speak about the various issues, concerns, past actions, and existing situations that have had a negative impact on working together

2.Agreement that all parties want a better working partnership

3.Identification of the benefits of a better working partnership to each party individually and all parties collectively

4.Agreement by all parties that all important issues, concerns, past actions, and existing situations have been identified

5.Interactive presentation and discussion of best practices for working together (this step brings outside insights on partnerships into the room)

6.Development of a set of strategies and partnering principles that will govern how all parties will interact to address past issues, prevent future issues, and resolve issues should they occur

7.A method for monitoring and intentionally making adjustments along the way.