T-group as Cutting Edge: Today? Really?

Posted on December 22, 2013 by crosbyod

An edited version of the following appears in a recent edition of the ODPractitioner

The author, Robert P Crosby, is trained by the founders of Organization Development (OD). His first “Training-group” (T-group) was in 1953 followed by “Train-the-Trainers” with Lippitt, Benne, and Bradford, and NTL’s first OD intern program with Goodwin Watson and W. Warner Burke. In 1966 he became an NTL associate. In 1973 he started the first Masters in Applied Behavioral Science and began adapting the “T-group” for organizations. His OD change strategy integrating the “T-group” is described in “Cultural Change in Organizations.” He works with his sons in “Crosby & Associates.”

T-group as Cutting Edge: Today? Really?

Yes, really!

In 2011, President Obama visited a Fortune 500 manufacturing plant to celebrate its productivity! A major contributing factor was that in the previous eight years, 1,300 of its 2,000 employees had experienced an evolved T-group. This evolution is a cutting edge model adapted for business.

The History of T-Groups

The T-group birthed OD! Out of its emphasis on group processes grew an expanded interest in organizational and systemic development. Other strands contributed, but the spark that took OD from a concept to a vital energizing movement was the T-group! The first T-group is a paradigm shift for most participants creating a fundamental change in one’s perception of relationships and group dynamics.

Readers familiar with NTL (the National Training Laboratories) will be acquainted with the T-group which was invented in 1946-1947. Led by Kurt Lewin, the founder of SocialPsychology, this unique training grew out of his discussion with Ken Benne, Leland Bradford and Ronald Lippitt. Originally called the Basic Skills Training Group, it was soon nicknamed T (for training) group, and became well known nationally through coverage in the popular media of the 1950’s. Life Magazine, perhaps the best known journal at that time, featured it in one issue. They called it, “Sensitivity Training,” which in the early years had been a phrase used in reference to participants becoming sensitive to groups processes and dynamics. However, Life highlighted a growing popular trend to identify this new training as a “pop-psychological” new-age “hip” activity. That kind of marketing led to the popularity and proliferation of T-group training led by leaders both untrained and unaware of the original T-group intention. Variations with names including “Sensitivity” and, in the 1960’s, “Encounter,” were used. I attended two Esalen Institute Encounter groups in the 1970’s that bore little resemblance to my extensive experiences in the previous decade with the founders and others such as Goodwin Watson. Esalen, located in California, was highly respected at the time.

Describing the T-group or any deep, profound event in life to those who have not experienced it has always been a challenge but here are some critical distinctions of its learning process. The T-group offers the cognitive domain (theories/concepts) as in traditional education. However, It also engages the affective (emotions/values) and motoric (skills) domains in ways that are strikingly uncommon in a typical classroom. The T-group leader does not lead in a discussion of the topics in which the participants are engaged. Rather, the leader helps individuals and groups be aware about that which most are usually unaware such as: how are decisions being made (e.g., about what to talk about), how are members dealing with disagreements and authority issues, how aware and open are members about emotionality in the group interaction, and what norms/rules are members operating from about how to behave, most of which are both unspoken and outside of usual awareness. While what we say has importance, in the Tgroup how we interact is highlighted! Strikingly, participants are encouraged to be aware in the “here and now.” Most humans are much more aware of the past or anxious about the future, yet all that we have is the “fleeting” now.

Here is a “nutshell” of the electric moment, the “aha” insight in 1946 that brightened the eyes of those four founders mentioned above, Lewin, Benne, Bradford, and Lippitt. A workshop was held in Connecticut aimed at improving interracial practices in the state government. The primary method was discussion. Kurt Lewin of MIT’s Research Center for Group Dynamics, the key leader, had a research observer attached to each of three groups. They were concerned about the effects on attendees, and the transfer to backhome situations.

The staff met each evening to review the research, paying attention NOT to the content of the conversations, but rather to how the participants were interacting with each other! A researcher might report, “…..and he and Mrs. X became involved in a heated exchange. Others (took) sides. Others seemed frightened and tried to make peace.” (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, 1964) Early in the workshop, a group of participants wandered in and overheard the staff review of the day’s events. “They were fascinated by what they heard. Analyzing how a group formed and evolved was much more fun than simply being in one.” (Bennis, 2010) Lewin enthusiastically not only welcomed the participants, but also invited the rest of the attendees to the nightly debriefs. Each evening more and more came. Often upon hearing the review, they became dynamically engaged and sometimes defensive about the information. “Lewin and the others realized that a group that scrutinized its own process as it formed and changed was something new and valuable.” (Bennis, 2010)

“To the training staff it seemed that a potentially powerful medium and process of reeducation had been, somewhat inadvertently, hit upon.” (Bradford, Gibb, Benne, 1964) During a group conversation they decided that the following year they would report these interaction dynamics in the midst of the discussions! Most participants are unaware of such dynamics except at some level of discomfort when tension surfaces. In this way participants would learn how to focus on the processes that are constantly taking place between them and the other people in the conversation as well as the content. Thus was birthed the T-group which still creates an “electric moment” of openness for most new participants.

Openness, defined to mean my ability and willingness to share what I’m aware of in the “here and now” (I’m sad, glad, mad, afraid), is an awareness and skill missing for most. The T-group can increase that awareness, but usually not without some frustrating moments as this ambiguous learning unfolds. Unskilled trainers turned openness into personal confession which everyone already knows how to do! While openness is about what’s happening between us now, personal confession is the sharing of private stories from outside the group such as past history (e.g., I’ve been married four times). That lack of clarity is but one example of how the original intent can become lost. While the sharing of secretly held past stories may be important in a certain therapeutic setting that was not the original intent of the T-group.

Learning to be present, here and now in all of life is exhilarating and enriching. Two thirds of the business participants in our T-group trainings report, in an anonymous questionnaire, that this event is the most applicable training to both work and life outside of work that they have experienced in their life.

Even currently T-groups, reports David Bradford of Stanford, have “…a central role at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. It is seen as one of the ‘must’ electives. We teach eleven sections of the course and about 85% of the students take it. Alumni regularly name it as one of the most important courses they took as an MBA.” Annually, Stanford also offers a high quality 6-day residential T-group as part of the GSB
Executive Program. David Bradford of Stanford is the son of Leland Bradford, who with Kenneth Benne and Ronald Lippitt led the first T-group’s in 1947 after Lewin’s untimely death. The work they initiated is constantly evolving and also continues both through NTL and in the religious domain.

Churches have been deeply involved in T-groups since the early 1950’s. During the 60’s, I headed the Laboratory and T-group program of the Methodist Church. Currently the EQ & HR (Emotional Intelligence & Human Relations) Center, formed six years ago by trainers from various churches, offers training to Faith-based groups. Directed by the seasoned Lutheran Pastor Roy Oswald, it offers quality training in the T-group tradition.

The mid-50’s Life Magazine article mentioned above featured the Episcopalian’s Tgroup movement. The Episcopalians developed ways to bring some of the dynamics of these groups, though not the T-group itself, to the local parish. I founded a for-profit secular Institute in 1969 with the T-group at its core. (Leadership Institute of Spokane/Seattle) Its first board chairman, Episcopal Bishop Jack Wyatt, was an experienced T-group trainer!

Next I will offer examples of how we have been taking the T-group, which Carl Rogers reportedly described as, “The most significant social invention of the 20th century,” into the belly of the workplace. We have now done this with thousands, but since this is rarely done by others it presents a possible edge of depth for OD practitioners.

Next entry: Making the Case for T-Groups Today – A Manufacturing Plant Adaptation

Posted in Organization Development, T-Groups | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on T-group as Cutting Edge: Today? Really?

Change Management – Are You Managing Change or Avoiding Reality?

Posted on December 4, 2013 by crosbyod

Change management is not something you do, it is something that IS! It is happening each moment of each day in all workplaces. Of course there are tasks and methods to learn that can help, but every work place in the world is already managing their change either effectively or not.

Consider the following questions:

•Do you have employees?
•Do you produce products?
•Do you need to hire and retain employees?
•Do you have projects?
•Do you have safety standards?
•Are you implementing software?
•Do you have to meet quality standards?
•Do you ship product?

If the answer is yes to any of the above questions (or countless others that are not asked) then you are in the process of managing change in your workplace.

The question then becomes how are you doing in each of these categories? Are the projects successful? Are you fully staffed? Are your products created with a high quality standard? Can you hire employees when you need them? When you turn on the software system does the business function just as effectively as prior to turning it on, or even better? Are you achieving on time delivery over 98% of the time?
If the answer is no to any of the above, then your current change strategy, be it explicate or not, is clearly not working.

Change management is not about checking a box. Rather it is an ongoing reality of your business. Adding a few tasks won’t change the fundamentals within your organization that are causing the problems. The question is how to manage more effectively the issues that are causing the pain. Perhaps you avoid thinking about them at all or ignore problems by being so compartmentalized that you cannot tell any correlation between cause and effect? Perhaps you think dissenters are a problem and do not allow issues to really surface and be dealt with? Perhaps you have killed advocacy within your organization by not listening to the problems for years? Or maybe you are stuck in a cycle of trying to find the cheapest and fastest way to do things. Trying to do things cheaper and faster is noble yet it often has unintended consequences. Such strategies can produce outcomes such as poor performing machines, poorly implemented projects, quality and delivery problems, staffing so low that one person out cause’s machines to be shut off, and ultimately upset customers.

Every strategy and method you use to try and be successful IS how you are managing change. The answer to how well you manage change can only be seen in your business metrics. If they are world class, then you should celebrate. If they are terrible, then you’ve got some work to do!

By Chris Crosby

Posted in Change Management | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaders Lead…and Manage

Posted on November 8, 2013 by crosbyod

It’s often said that leaders lead and managers manage. From my perspective, if a leader doesn’t “manage”…if they don’t organize the system to pull off their vision by essentially clarifying who’s going to do what by when and then holding people to their commitments, then they aren’t leading. They may be philosophizing eloquently or something, but if the system doesn’t move, they aren’t leading. So for me what’s essential is behavior that effectively activates “the followers.” Values…such as engaging the organization in problem assessment and solution generation instead of imposing solutions on them…gain most of their relevance in the organizational context in that they are sound leadership/business strategy, not visa-versa.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaders must add “structure”

Posted on November 1, 2013 by crosbyod

I colleague recently asked: “I invite you to share more of your structure-based approaches that you have used to convert or help each type (theory X and theory Y). I would like to learn more.”

To which I replied: The “structure” I referred to is clarity about expectations, clarity about who is going to do what, clarity about who is going to make which decisions and how. This type of organized behavioral approach is helpful whether one tends to over-control (as is likely if leaning towards McGregor’s Theory X) or under-control (as is likely if leaning towards McGregor’s Theory Y). Theory X managers need to get clear in order to empower their subordinates, Theory Y managers need to get clear in order to lead, so it really doesn’t matter to me which type of manager I’m working with, because everyone has strengths and blind spots. Of course, an extreme Theory X person (such as Hitler) probably wouldn’t seek help, nor would an extreme Theory Y, who would probably put all their faith in self-organizing systems (anti-leadership).

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Examples of Work Culture Shifts

Posted on October 25, 2013 by crosbyod

From: Finding fault and Blame  To: “Make it work” – Take responsibility
From: Language of “I’ll try”  To: “I’ll do it”
From: Low trust and morale  To: High trust and morale
From: Low concern for safety  To: Excellent safety record
From: People who use and repair have no input on equipment purchase To: …input prior to decision being made
From: No by-whens(clear completion dates)  To: By-whens
From: No clear accountability  To: Single-point of accountability is in place
From: It is unclear who decides what  To: Authority about decision making is clear
From: Shoot the messenger  To: Honor the messenger even if the message is difficult to hear
From: Not able to get materials when needed  To: Able to get materials when needed

A scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high) has been used to score cultural items such as those listed above. A gain of 3 to 4 points can be expected when following a strategy that includes a well done intact group process cascaded throughout your organization.

From Appendix K, “Walking the Empowerment Tightrope” By Robert P Crosby

Posted in Culture Change | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tuckman – Navigating His Stages: Leading Groups from Forming to High Performing Post #6 (Final)

Posted on October 15, 2013 by crosbyod

Continued from an earlier blog entry:

Stage Four – High Performance/Self Renewing Activities

High Performance is not a given, but if you have followed the path we have outlined thus far, it is likely. By successfully influencing your group dynamics your team will be characterized by a minimum of disruptive conflict, balanced and appropriate participation, adequate support from the organization, as well as a high degree of task clarity, role clarity, and decision clarity. Ultimately the work will be done on time and with quality. The challenge becomes how to maintain high performance until the completion of your task.

With successful work in the “Inclusive Forming” stage of group development, you skip or, at least, seriously reduce the negative aspects of Tuckman’s “Storming” phase as the issues of inclusion and initial group concerns are identified and managed. You have also developed group norms that are the key for productive work. This creates an atmosphere where productivity can more quickly evolve. For instance, if many have been contributing you may have discovered more real issues. You can deliberately “capture” these and record them for problem-solving, perhaps by a small sub-group with particular interest and knowledge about an issue. Also, you are hearing from each other and learning more about the various roles of each. Role clarity is critical for the effectiveness of the individual, but it is equally important that each member know what to expect from the other. Otherwise, time is wasted asking others to do what is not expected of them.

But…first, if you’ve broadened participation, there are other likely stumbling blocks. Some will believe that they now will be in on every decision. The two extremes of authoritarianism and anarchy are familiar. The middle styles (consultative and delegative) are rarely understood or even known. The belief developed, perhaps, in one’s growing up years is that either the boss (parent) decides or it’s up for grabs. Aware of this common developmental belief, a productive work group spends enough time to clarify who decides, who influences, and how that influence impacts many, but not all, decisions. The leader of the group should keep an eye on delegating decision authority to the employees as they become more competent and are in need of quick decisions, but always in way that adds structure and clarity versus chaos and anarchy.

Broadening participation through the dispersed participation process is a key to manage an aware group or much information held by the employees will not be shared. Once it is clear that all can speak then you can sharpen who speaks on what topic. A critical component of this is that those who are working in the area that is being discussed need to be engaged and expressing their specific data and opinions. Everyone will not speak on every topic. With clarity about the roles and skills of each group member, who is more knowledgeable about differing issues will become apparent. This will not be based on hierarchy but on expertise.

A final critical component of high performance is problem solving in a disciplined participative way which, of course, includes follow-through. Using a participative process in problem solving, like dispersed participation, does not mean using all people for all topics yet it does mean involving those closest to the work in solving the problems in their areas. And it also means using an effective methodology that helps to ensure that all data gets out and is worked in an effective way. Once the concepts of forming, dispersed participation, and high performance are in place the actual method of problem solving becomes less important. One such method is “force-field analysis” by Kurt Lewin.

Finally, follow-through is essential to success and requires more discipline than most leaders and organizations seem to realize. In “Culture Change in Organizations,” Appendix A – “Do You Really Want Change: Eleven Do’s and Don’ts for Those Who Are Serious,” Chris Crosby put it this way:

Be Serious About Follow Up

Many treat events and task lists as the end product of change rather than an important step toward achieving a desired result. If you check off a list of tasks and expect that to get you to your end game, then you are missing the point. Tasks are merely a hypothesis about what will solve a problem. Follow up is the process of driving tasks to completion and making sure you obtain your stated objective. Don’t stop the process if you have little or no results. Create a new hypothesis and test it until the problem is really solved. This takes time, diligence, patience and commitment. Ironically, without it, you will waste more time by living with problems and poor processes which could be solved by effective follow up.
Bottom Line: You are not serious about change until you are serious about follow up.

Self-Renewing Activities

Self-Renewing activities are about looking at how your group is functioning as a unit, and making small adjustments to maintain or improve your level of performance. It amounts to holding up a mirror to your group’s overall performance and choosing what needs to be different so that productive work continues to happen. It is a stage intended to extend indefinitely the “performing” sequence of Tuckman’s model.
Professional sports teams understand this stage and spend more time practicing their plays and reflecting on them than actually playing. Yet work groups rarely, if ever, practice or reflect about how they are working together in a disciplined way. There are many ways to do this and some involve the use of a survey. (Read Chapter 5 in Robert P. Crosby’s “Walking the Empowerment Tightrope” about how to use a survey to gain work group feedback). This stage does not have to be difficult or tricky. The trick is to make sure it happens.

The questions to focus on are simple: What’s working? What’s not? Are goals clear? Do measurements measure what the work team thinks is relevant? Are roles clear, wisely defined, and known to each other? Are resources readily available?

By asking questions such as these, or others that you determine are important, and problem-solving with the total work group, you will recycle through the stages in a deeper and even more productive and satisfying way!
Creating a high performance group is hard work, but achievable. For a small minority it comes easily (and many who think they are masters of group leadership have significant blind spots), but for most it takes intentional learning and strategy. Many have been able to achieve predictable results when working with groups utilizing these concepts. The cost of not doing this work gets reflected directly in the bottom line. Work groups and meetings held within these parameters tend to create motivated employees who feel valued, understand the issues, contribute to problem solving, have clarity about roles and goals, and work harder to achieve results.

By actively navigating Tuckman’s stages as Inclusive Forming, Constructive Storming, Active Norming and High Performing/Self Renewing, leaders and group members have choices and interventions they can take to be more effective. It is our experience that leaders who have this clarity about group development…who learn these skills and strategies in-depth…increase their leadership effectiveness and consistently achieve high business results.

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Groups from Forming to High Performing Post #5

Posted on October 1, 2013 by crosbyod

Continued from an earlier blog entry:

Stage Three – Active Norming

As an active leader, if you have followed our guidance, you have already established “norms” by now of inclusion, dispersed participation, and of calmly and intentionally surfacing differences. There will always be some norms in any group that the members are unaware of, but taking an active role makes it far more likely that the norms in your group will support high performance, whereas a passive approach might lead to performance barriers such as members being alienated and under-utilized, or important topics being avoided. Besides the norms we have already covered, there are others which consistently support high group and organizational performance. The “Characteristics of Healthy and Unhealthy Systems” chart, from our founder Robert P. Crosby’s “Solving the Crosswork Puzzle,” illustrates such norms (for example, regarding Influence is there “None” or an “Appropriate” amount? Is Management “Frantic” or “centered?” More of these norms are mentioned below). I can’t post the chart here due to wordpresses format, so if you would like a copy please contact me.

These characteristics apply to groups as well as to whole systems. For the purpose of your group, it’s very important that you have clear and aligned sponsorship from every boss that has a member in the group. This sponsorship should be traced to a single point in the organization (the initiating sponsor) to the extent possible (trickier, if not all members are from the same organization for example). The measurable outcomes to be achieved by the group must also be clear and understood by all members and all bosses sponsoring a group member. This work on clarity and alignment is often minimized or even skipped, and if so, always resulting in a significant barrier to the group achieving its goals.

Hand in hand with sponsorship alignment, and again often neglected, is role clarity (including time commitment/management) and consequence management if group members and/or their superiors fail to support needed and agreed upon activity. The initiating sponsor must monitor these dynamics and overall progress if they want the group to succeed. The ability to monitor and the likelihood of progress depend on yet another of the characteristics graphed above: a commitment to single point accountability for decisions and tasks (who will do and decide what by-when). Further decision clarity, such as who needs to be consulted prior to key decisions, and who needs to be informed, is also vital (for more on decision making clarity, see “Stage Four,” below). This clarity must be driven both by the team leader and the initiating sponsor.

Along with inclusion, dispersed participation, and constructive management of conflict, the above are minimum norms necessary if you want your group to succeed. If not, why bother forming the group in the first place?

Next segment: Stage Four – High Performance/Self Renewing Activities

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Groups from Forming to High Performing Post #4

Posted on September 20, 2013 by crosbyod

Continued from an earlier blog entry:

Stage Two – Constructive Storming/Managing Differences

As mentioned, storming, while a handy word because it rhymes, tends to evoke unfortunate images of dramatic conflict. We’ve witnessed faculty in a graduate program actually get upset with a highly functioning group because they didn’t appear to be “storming,” and mark them down based on the criticism “how could they be a healthy group?” We think that is serious and common misunderstanding of Tuckman. While intense confrontation may happen in any relationship, differences can also be managed effectively without dramatics. Stage two in Tuckman’s model is primarily about the shift in the group’s dynamics from a predictable and understandable focus on fitting in (managing initial anxiety by focusing on similarities and on the leader) to noticing and addressing differences. It is the end of the honeymoon phase. This happens when people begin to feel comfortable, a process our inclusive forming speeds up. Ironically, it is this very sense of becoming comfortable with the group that increases anxiety as one begins to note differences. “I’m just starting to feel good about this…why rock the boat by bringing that up?” An active leader, using the methods already outlined, can help the group past any such anxiety by maintaining norms of inclusion and dispersed participation, and by openly valuing the surfacing and exploration of differences.

A fundamental key to this stage lies in one’s beliefs about conflict. Many, especially in the early stages of beginning to be a member of a group, fear conflict will fracture the group, or at least their relationship to it. It is tempting to play it safe, and avoid “rocking the boat.” In contrast, we believe that differences between any two people, and certainly in a group, are inevitable, and if managed well are a source of higher performance. Toyota’s culture is a prime example. Their climb to high quality and performance was built upon immediately praising employees for bringing production problems to management’s attention (a vital cultural detail ironically overlooked by many adapting the Toyota system and/or lean manufacturing). Upon review, you and the group are not going to put time and effort into every problem raised, but it is far better to be aware of potential issues than to be ignorant of them. If the attempt to raise concerns is met with defensiveness and other forms of push-back, all but the most persistent group members will stop trying. Information and engagement will be lost. The likelihood of high performance will diminish.

This is the critical juncture for the group and nowhere is the shadow of the leader cast more strongly than in the management of conflict. As objectively as possible, a wise leader is clear about their own beliefs about conflict, and manages conflict in a manner that is best for group performance, even if it in some ways runs counter to their own beliefs. Conflict, according to noted expert Dr. Jay Hall, “is a natural part of human interaction…the way we, as individuals, think about and choose to handle conflict is more important in determining its outcome than the nature of the conflict itself.” Dr. Hall goes on to say that conflict itself is neither good nor bad: what matters is how we think about it and manage it. A simple way to think about it is that a conflict is any differences, whether large or small, whether high or low in emotional intensity, that matter to either party. Ignoring small “differences,” while tempting, often leads to even more complicated clashes down the road, or to avoidance of issues and/or individuals. Surfacing differences about work issues is far better for performance than driving them underground.

Of equal or greater importance as one’s beliefs, and related to them, is one’s behavior. We all have habits when managing conflict. An accurate understanding of your behavioral tendencies allows you to not be limited by them. For example, is it easy to give you feedback, or do your reactions make it difficult? Ideally, you are able to calmly listen and make sure you really understand even when the person raising an issue is doing so in a less than polished or stellar manner. A master of conflict can help the parties involved (including themselves) get to clarity, even if they initially feel defensive and upset by the topic or the manner in which it was raised.

In sum, to navigate stage two, a wise leader assesses their own beliefs and behaviors, and does the work necessary to overcome their own shortcomings, such as seeking feedback and skill building. With a patient and non-defensive approach, with norms of inclusion and dispersed participation, Tuckman’s phase two can unfold smoothly, without high drama. And if there are some fireworks, or difficult conflicts, the team will be much better positioned to move forward trusting that they can handle any difficulties that emerge.

Next segment: Stage Three – Active Norming

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Groups from Forming to High Performing post #3

Posted on September 14, 2013 by crosbyod

Continued from an earlier blog entry:

Dispersed Participation

Dispersed participation means tapping into the minds of all who are in the meeting and encouraging that they become engaged. It is living the value of wanting everyone’s opinion and knowing that if left to chance, this will be unlikely to occur, and the group’s ability to pull off their business goals will be diminished. Dispersed participation immediately begins establishing healthy norms around managing differences (thus you are actively navigating Tuckman’s second and third stages from the very beginning!). Establishing this norm involves added structure such as occasional pairings to your meetings (see below) and will only happen if someone actively creates it! It is a blend of Inclusive Forming, Constructive Storming, and Active Norming. It is not so much a stage as it is a planned evolving strategy to involve all as co-creators of the product of each meeting which, in an aware group, begins in the Inclusive Forming stage. It is a strategy that acknowledges that humans have a wide range of interactional patterns and need structure to have dispersed participation.

By some of the above mentioned interventions you (the reader) have already moved participation from a one or two person dominated meeting towards a meeting where the voices of all are more likely to be heard and reinforced as important.

In addition to our earlier less formal suggestions, if you are the meeting leader, you will choose moments in the meeting to inject dispersed participation: “Here’s our agenda. Take that first item and talk to the person beside you to warm up for our discussion.” Or perhaps you will disperse participation by suggesting that they talk in pairs about whether there’s any topic that needs to be added to the agenda. In a sense you are inviting an organized “sidebar” conversation in order to engage everyone. The goal is to have everyone hear their own voice talking so as to reduce anxiety especially with newer or “lower in the hierarchy” employees, to allow more introverted members a chance to think out loud but with some privacy (talking to one peer is a lot less threatening to most than is trying to articulate their view to an entire group), and to set a norm that engages all and invites all to take ownership of the outcomes.

Now who would resist this? Well, those few who have learned how to function well in a meeting where participation is not dispersed!

Example: Imagine a meeting with 50 employees attending. The manager who has called the meeting talks for a while and then asks, “Any questions?” Who speaks when the manager asks this, or if the custom is to do so, who raises their hands?

In our experience, there are usually two or three in the audience who will speak up first and do most, or even all, of the talking. They know how to be heard in a non-dispersed situation. Also, in smaller groups, two or three often do most of the talking. Worse, since wider participation is not the norm, these few are likely to represent any hostility resident in the group and do so in an angry, blaming way!

These few resist participation being dispersed!

Of course, it’s easier to change this dynamic if you are the leader of the meeting. As a member, you would be wise to wait and make this and related suggestions privately to the leader before the next meeting, rather than try to control such dynamics on your own. Put yourself in the leader’s shoes…it’s easier to receive “corrective” feedback (even if it is simply intended as helpful) privately than publicly. And it will be less awkward for you if the leader rejects your suggestion. To the leader, here is what we suggest:

Begin with a brief statement about the agenda or a key issue. Then say, “Discuss this with someone beside you and in a few minutes I would like to hear what you think.” Do not ask if this is ok!! Immediately turn your back, avert your eyes, or do whatever you need to do to not get sucked into immediately engaging with the two or three who do not want their influence to be diffused (walk out of the room, take a sip of water, turn and talk to a colleague, etc.).

In many cases, just asking the participants to turn and say or do something like that suggested above will be enough for them to do it, but in extreme cases like illustrated above you will need to be firm. I’ve seen these few raise their hands vigorously and even shout their objections in an attempt to try and stop such pairings. Consciously or not, they may anxiously want to maintain their status as the spokespersons. They speak in “we” language as if they represent all! Rarely do they speak for themselves. Also, many silent employees are glad to empower the few who speak so they can stay safely on the sidelines. The purpose here is not to end dissent, but rather to empower all to join in the co-creation of the group or meeting and to do so in a problem solving, not a blaming, way.

Three or four minutes are long enough (although if people are obviously engaged in their paired conversations, you might wisely give them more time). Now you have a next critical intervention. “Ok, I want to hear what you’re thinking. Speak for yourself. Someone over there start (pointing in a direction away from the vocal few).” I once witnessed a large meeting of ninety go from seven participating to over fifty speaking in a meeting two weeks later. This is not easy, but the “tyranny of the few” (usually the more extroverted) must be broken if you are to move to the next stage in a productive way. Also ask, “Any comments?” not, “Any questions?” When you ask for questions people often, wanting to make a statement, twist their comments into a fake question. Not catching this, leaders try to answer and are almost always then immediately refuted. If someone makes a “disguised as a question” remark, say, “Do you have an opinion you want to state?” Almost always the response will be, “Yes!”

Next segment: Stage Two – Constructive Storming/Managing Differences

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Navigating Tuckman’s Stages: Leading Groups from Forming to High Performing post #2

Posted on September 5, 2013 by crosbyod

Continued from an earlier blog entry:

Stage One – Inclusive Forming

Even if you all know each other you still must form as a group. There is no skipping stage one, though of course if you’ve worked together often and well, stage one could be relatively easy. By taking an active rather than a passive approach, forming is a developmental stage that can be managed in order to ensure effective group process and, ultimately, productive work.

Therefore we call the first stage “Inclusive Forming” because inclusion is the key component of the forming stage. Here’s what to look for while forming. Here also are possible interventions towards the goal of constantly increasing the productivity of the group and any meeting. As mentioned, even if you seem to be the only one aware of these dynamic stages, you can likely help the others.

When you observe the group you notice that: 1) Some are being silent…2) one comes late…3) one person is constantly interrupted…4) another has a pattern of talking at great length…5) and still another is new to the group. These are forming, or perhaps with the long talker, storming (control) issues in Tuckman’s sequence. Inclusive Forming holds a key to minimizing needless conflict and managing differences in a constructive manner during the storming phase.

In the order mentioned above, you might say: 1) “Tom, is that issue of concern to you or those on your work crew?” 2) After the late one has settled in, “Mary just before you came in we were discussing…” 3) Some group members are more prone to wait and/or give their time to others. You must be active to bring them in. “Mike, I think you wanted to say something.” 4) A riskier suggestion -Those who talk long often repeat the same point over and over. Therefore, interrupt after their first paragraph and say, “Just a minute…I want to make sure I understand you and also that others get to comment. Do you mean that, ‘…………..’? Did I get it?” “Yes? No? OK, but before you continue let’s hear from others.” 5) “Susan, welcome! In case anyone doesn’t know, would you tell us your job responsibilities?”

The formal leader, or whoever is aware of these dynamics, can initiate bringing order and clarity in this beginning stage. There are also formal topics of inclusion, such as the team and meeting’s purpose, current agenda, the team member’s roles, etc. Of course many are anxious when a meeting begins. Many are still thinking about unfinished tasks elsewhere. You can help them “arrive” and be present and engaged in the meeting!

Of course the suggested statements above are merely illustrative. Each situation is unique. You will invent what is best for you given your tendencies, your dominant conflict style, and the urgency of the moment. The fundamental issues in Stage One are: How will this go for me and the group? If I am not the leader, how will the leader handle the group, including inclusion, conflict, and managing the task? Why am I here? Why are others? What is the purpose of this (formal or informal) gathering? Will anyone listen to me? Can I focus on what is happening immediately in the meeting and on what the other participants are saying, especially the new or quieter attendees when they risk speaking up? As goals and roles are clarified, who should be here and who is missing? Who speaks first? Is anyone listening in an active way? How do we help each bring their own unique expertise to bear on achieving our goals?

If you are aware of the importance of these issues, you can then help bring both clarity about goals and of the important role of each participant. Aided by your interventions in the Inclusive Forming Stage, the group is now poised to minimize any negative aspects of the “Storming” Stage.

Next segment: Dispersed Participation (or how to engage as many as possible)

Posted in Leadership | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment