I've worked with a lot of teams, groups, bunches, and gatherings of people, and by and large many seem (on the surface anyway) to understand what it means to work with other people. Others have no idea. Yet others think they do, but, well, nope.
Here'e the real deal: people argue. They clash. Discussions become "heated". And that's alright. Too often groups come to me with this mentality that if they don't ever argue, they're doing alright. They've been primed to believe that everyone needs to sit passively, waiting for each person to share their thoughts, and engage in polite conversation because that's how we come to a conclusion.
Not a chance. And if issues aren't explored, a team may very well implode as bottled resentment builds and builds and builds until the meltdown comes with such a roar that the ensuing strife is beyond repair.
In 1965, Bruce Tuckman introduced his stages of group development - forming, storming, norming, performing. Now I adhere to a slightly altered version, placing norming after forming and adding "re-norming" after storming, but the principle is the same: a storm is necessary in many situations, especially if there are undercurrents of frustration, if a team is expected to work together for some time, and if it's a collaborative environment. What the steps mean, in effect is that a group comes together ("forming") to accomplish a task. They're in the honeymoon phase, with everyone gently side-stepping any issues for the sake of cohesion. Think about it - it's far more comfortable to get along, even if that means going along. The group begins to drift into the norming phase, where individuals begin to establish their roles in the group - so-and-so is coming up with all the ideas, these two over here often hang back and do what this other person tells them, so on and so forth. People begin to establish their identities within the framework of the group, though often those identities are based off what others expect of them. Cue the storming stage. Suddenly Suzy is becoming more vocal, a bit aggressive because she's sick of not being heard. Fred over here is getting frustrated because Ralph isn't paying attention, always in his own world. Ralph snaps back it's because Gertrude never seems to let him speak. Things are tense.
And that's okay.
As a facilitator, when this point comes, it's an opportunity to get these frustrations known - in a constructive manner! - a chance for people to express themselves and how they're feeling. Even when that point comes after a particularly frustrating task or challenge. But we make these things known, clear-headed and even-toned; the explosion came and went, we think, we reflect, and we collaboratively (and by "we", I mean "they" - the facilitator's role is to instigate the process, guiding when necessary, but if the group can't work through on their own, suddenly they develop a crutch, a figure necessary for any progress) come up with a plan to address people's frustrations and work toward an environment that all are happy with. This step isn't cooperation. It's certainly not compromise. There are no concessions. This is collaboration - building on the strengths of each person to create what otherwise was uncreatable.
And I believe this is near impossible without the storm. Without that opportunity to voice your needs. So, please. Don't be afraid to be heard. But be sure you bring that issue to light with a solution because pointing out a flaw without adding a possible fix does no good. Believe me, I've been as guilty of it as any.
And, no, sitting in a circle and politely listening to everyone's idea is rarely a good solution. Find a happy medium between talk and action. Something I've wanted to get as a facilitation tool is a chess clock to measure the amount of time a group plans vs. how long they do something. Rarely is this an even sway and I'd love to see which a group does more and who's happy with it.
Next up: talking versus communicating. Yes, there is a difference. Think there could be some tension created there?
No comments:
Post a Comment