Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 16:59:10 -0400 From: John Miller To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Q.1 - Seeking advice on "ground rules"... Jo-Anne asks about ground rules. One suggestion is: Own your own ground rules. If the group is not familiar with facilitators and the constructive use of ground rules, model it. I use a set of 5 "working assumptions" to help describe my role. Basically, I might say, "As a facilitator, I believe these things and by holding these beliefs it helps me to stay in my role. These are not naïve. They actually save my butt and help the group get along well. If you feel like I am not upholding them, please say so; police me with these values; interrupt me if you have to and point out: 'John, you are not acting like Everyone Has Wisdom!' If all of us hold onto these beliefs during the meeting, I'm willing to bet we have a great meeting. If you want to talk about them more, that's fine, but maybe we should do that during the break." Then I read through the list of working assumptions (or operating principles) with brief explanations. As a some-time adult, I agree that "rules" sound juvenile and I might react immaturely as a result. Rule require policing and I'd rather facilitate. (Actually, it "sounds like how adults often treat juveniles", not just "sounds juvenile". But that's a different story). > Question 1: > How important are ^Óground rules^Ô in a small group facilitation setting? > This is a group of 7 professionals who ^Ö as far as I know ^Ö do not have > much experience in working with a facilitator^Å I tend to think ground > rules could be quite helpful to the process we^Òre undertaking, and am > wondering how to introduce this concept to a group of adults who will > likely see this as being unecessary and perhaps even juvenile. Any > suggestions? ________________________________________________ John M. Miller. Facilitator & Technology of Participation^Á Trainer ICA Associates Inc. 579 Kingston Road. Toronto, ON, Canada. M4E 1R3 Website: http://www.icacan.ca Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 08:27:40 -0400 From: Sandor P Schuman To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Q.1 - Seeking advice on "ground rules"... On Tue, 20 May 2003, John Miller wrote: > Basically, I might say, "As a facilitator, I believe these > things and by holding these beliefs it helps me to stay in my > role. In so far as ground rules mirror values, it would be useful to take a look at IAF's Statement of Values and Code of Ethics for Group Facilitators: http://iaf-world.org/about/iaf/iafethics.cfm In brief: Statement of Values As group facilitators, we believe in the inherent value of the individual and the collective wisdom of the group. We strive to help the group make the best use of the contributions of each of its members. We set aside our personal opinions and support the group's right to make its own choices. We believe that collaborative and cooperative interaction builds consensus and produces meaningful outcomes. We value professional collaboration to improve our profession. Code of Ethics 1. Client Service We are in service to our clients, using our group facilitation competencies to add value to their work. 2. Conflict of Interest We openly acknowledge any potential conflict of interest. 3. Group Autonomy We respect the culture, rights, and autonomy of the group. 4. Processes, Methods, and Tools We use processes, methods and tools responsibly. 5. Respect, Safety, Equity, and Trust We strive to engender an environment of respect and safety where all participants trust that they can speak freely and where individual boundaries are honoured. We use our skills, knowledge, tools, and wisdom to elicit and honour the perspectives of all. 6. Stewardship of Process We practice stewardship of process and impartiality toward content. 7. Confidentiality We maintain confidentiality of information. 8. Professional Development We are responsible for continuous improvement of our facilitation skills and knowledge. What would you add, remove, or change? Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 22:18:49 +0100 From: Richard Seel To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations So far everyone seems to have been in favour of ground rules, whether of the full Roger Schwarz variety or a more informal group-generated set. I too used to use ground rules, most recently offering groups a 'small set of simple rules' like these: * Participate * Be honest * Be respectful * Be appreciative * Take risks But more recently I have begun to wonder about the theory underlying this approach to facilitating. All of the notions that I was brought up with: 'holding the space', standing outside the group so that it is they who do the work, being concerned with process rather than content, offering challenge when the group moves 'off track', dealing with 'difficult people' and so on - all these notions now seem problematic to me. I wonder if this model of facilitation is actually reinforcing an approach to organisational intervention in which I no longer believe. Is traditional facilitation actually based on outmoded Lewin-esque models of organisation as rational collections of people who can be 'operated upon' by experts - either managers, consultants or facilitators. There seems to be a notion of a 'system' (the group being facilitated) and one who can stand outside the system, at a higher logical level, able to see the system as a whole (at least in theory) and who can work with or on the system. I guess I now believe that this is a fiction (actually, I've always known it was a fiction - the difference is that I'm no longer sure that it is a useful fiction). The reality is that there are a group of people within a room. All of them bring skills and experiences; all of them can participate in conversations and build new meanings and realities. Labelling one of them as a facilitator and disqualifying that one from participating as a human being with other human beings may not be the most helpful way of bringing about change. Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to constrain group behaviours into particular channels. By prohibiting certain kinds of interaction we may be excluding the very conversations which need to be had. Any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change as well as an implied set of values. By 'programming' these into the group we run the risk of predetermining the results of the meeting or event. I'll leave it there, though there is much more that could be said. Patricia Shaw's "Changing Conversations in Organizations" Routledge 2002) expresses a similar view very eloquently. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Richard Seel New Paradigm Consulting Organisation Consultancy & Development richard@new-paradigm.co.uk http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk Seabrink, Beach Road, Bacton Green, Norfolk NR12 0EP, UK. Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 10:56:54 -0500 From: "Vukovic, David (HCJPD)" To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations If I could be so bold as to generalize your statements, I think you are trying to say Manipulation of the process can limit potential solutions. Definitions: + Solutions - any number of valuable OUTCOMES of an interaction. These outcomes could be a solution to the actual problem, or a better ability of the group to work together, or at least knowing that the outcome cannot be accomplished. + Potential - the possible solutions sets that COULD be explored. + Limit - an un-natural CONSTRAINT to the possible solutions explored. If these solution sets are limited the BEST solution may be overlooked. + Of the Process - the FACILITATIVE process + Manipulation - This word has so much negative emotion glued to it as to make it very difficult to use! From a very raw logical definition, manipulation is the WORKING of any material. I manipulate clay on a potters wheel to make a vase. No negative, just work. Definition 1 below. If I say I want to manipulate (WORK) people, then all the implications of heavy handed brow beating comes to mind. I am sure we all have stories of the MANIPULATIVE manager/ salesman/ parent/ etc! Definition 2b and 3 below. The moral use of the facilitative process is where the participants create and own the solution (constrained or not). Definition 2a below. Ground rules are actually SAFETY rules. The new question I would like to ask is: How does a facilitator sculpt a safe, high energy environment for the participants? (I used the work sculpt as I could not think of another word that has a positive ring to it.) I believe this question is the essence of the dichotomy between challenge and stress. What do others think? From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary: Main Entry: ma·nip·u·late Pronunciation: m&-'ni-py&-"lAt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing Etymology: back-formation from manipulation, from French, from manipuler to handle an apparatus in chemistry, ultimately from Latin manipulus Date: 1831 1 : to treat or operate with the hands or by mechanical means especially in a skillful manner 2 a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage 3 : to change by artful or unfair means so as to serve one's purpose : Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:05:53 -0400 From: Peter Altschul To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations I have never felt the need to "do ground-rules" except when facilitating dialogues between "unlikely allies" - pro-life and pro-choice activists, for example. And the reason for ground rule use has more to do with increasing the comfort level of participants prior to the opening meeting than facilitating the actual meeting. Peter Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 11:51:44 +0200 From: Jon Jenkins To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Richard wrote: "There seems to be a notion of a 'system' (the group being facilitated) and one who can stand outside the system, at a higher logical level, able to see the system as a whole (at least in theory) and who can work with or on the system. "I guess I now believe that this is a fiction (actually, I've always known it was a fiction - the difference is that I'm no longer sure that it is a useful fiction). The reality is that there are a group of people within a room. All of them bring skills and experiences; all of them can participate in conversations and build new meanings and realities. Labelling one of them as a facilitator and disqualifying that one from participating as a human being with other human beings may not be the most helpful way of bringing about change. "Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to constrain group behaviours into particular channels. By prohibiting certain kinds of interaction we may be excluding the very conversations which need to be had. Any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change as well as an implied set of values. By 'programming' these into the group we run the risk of predetermining the results of the meeting or event." This raises some very interesting questions about the assumptions behind different approaches to facilitation. One aspect of what you are bring to consciousness for me is the relationship between freedom and limits. Some facilitation systems push the freedom end of the spectrum, like open space and dynamic facilitation. The freedom oriented methods assume that creativity, change etc. is best accomplished by providing as much laditude as possible for people to make choices. This appraoch assumes that one of the problems organisations and people within ortganisations have are the constraints (often un necessary) of the system. By temporarily removing these constraints new ideas will emerge, new commintments made, etc. At the other end of the spectrum is limits oriented methods, like ToP methods. The assumption here is that creativity, change etc. is most likely when boundaries are established (by the group, by the facilitator, by the existence of the organisation). The! se limitations are recognized and people discover ways to invent within those boundaries. Personally, I lean toward the later. I suspect that there are constraints that you would impose - I once led a workshop where a guy walked to the front of the room, explained that he wanted to express his freedom, proceded to strip and went on about how this kind of expression was necessary for the group to really be free. We felt that his behaviour was not helping the group processes so we asked him if he would please come with one of the facilitators. He did and was offered professional help - which he seemed to need. I agree facilitation approaches are fictions - any model is a fiction but as you say are they helpful. I think choice of which end of the spectrum to use depends on the group, where they are in their journey, the intention of the meeting, where I (read facilitator) am, the external constraints and opportunities on the group, the internal dynamics and much more. I often facilitate technical decision making processes. Each person brings a kind of expertise to the session that as often as not is unique in the group - geology, petro-physics, well engineering, petro-chemistry, etc. I bring another expertise - facilitation. They are expected to aid the process of making decisions by sharing their expertise in the most user friendly way possible, as am I. I am not interested in becoming a geologist nor should I be expeced to be. I am really glad when the geologist is present and shares what he or she knows. If everyone was as dumb as I am about geology - some pretty bad decisions would be made. My thoughts - others? best Jon C. Jenkins Imaginal Trainining, Groningen, The Netherlands http://www.imaginal.nl/ International Facilitators Companion Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:50:04 -0400 From: Margo Menconi To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Using communication theory, within any group there are communication patterns (I guess we've all seen those - you know, communication always goes through a central leader, is linear, or is non-mediated communication between all members, for example). This is a kind of system, and as such, the facilitator is a part of it. So to take the facilitator out of it from a communication perspective is futile, especially when considering the facilitation event. However, after the event, the facilitator might not be so much of a part of the system. But s/he might have served as an "intervention" to change the pre-existing system between pre-existing group members (if they were a recognizable group or system prior to the facilitated event. Margo Menconi ************************************************ Margo Menconi 8902 60th Avenue * Berwyn Heights, MD 20740 * USA E-mail: malyme@hotmail.com Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:45:03 +0100 From: Richard Seel To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation David_Vukovic wrote: >If I could be so bold as to generalize your statements, I think you are >trying to say > >Manipulation of the process can limit potential solutions. Actually, David, I don't think that was what I was trying to say. I was trying to say something much more heretical; a fact which was brought home to me by Sandy's posting of the IAF values & ethics statements, especially: We set aside our personal opinions and support the group's right to make its own choices. 3. Group Autonomy We respect the culture, rights, and autonomy of the group. 6. Stewardship of Process We practice stewardship of process and impartiality toward content. I guess I am wondering to what extent I actually agree with these - or rather, I wonder if there are some contexts where I would not agree with them. For instance, if I have been hired by an organisation to help them change (and this is at the heart of most consulting assignments) I will use my facilitation skills as part of the process. Traditionally, I would have seen myself as guardian of process rather than content, and as being somehow 'outside the system'. I now believe that this is a fiction. As soon as I interact with people in an organisation I become part of the system. So increasingly I believe that I should act as part of the system and participate fully in the conversations, bearing in mind the skills and experiences I bring to the party (including the ability to listen and facilitate conversations). I would, therefore, not set aside my personal opinions and support the group's right to make its own choices because I have become part of the group. I would not be impartial toward content but passionately concerned. I would not respect the culture, rights, and autonomy of the group any more than I would any group of which I was a part. What I am challenging are some of the basic assumptions upon which much of facilitation is based - it's a bit more than saying that "Manipulation of the process can limit potential solutions". I hope I am being a little clearer this time. Best wishes, Richard. Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:45:47 -0400 From: Ned Ruete To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Jon wrote: > I think choice of which end of the spectrum to use > depends on the group, where they are in their journey, > the intention of the meeting, where I (read facilitator) > am, the external constraints and opportunities on the group, > the internal dynamics and much more. I agree, and would add cultural influences as part of the "much more." What came up for me as I read > The assumption here is that creativity, change etc. > is most likely when boundaries are established was a vision of the Japanese tea ceremony. True afficianados of the ceremony see tremendous creativity displayed by the masters as they follow in the minutest detail the exacting form of this ritual. Classical music is often the same. On the other end of the spectrum is improvisational jazz. So I'm thinking that cultural norms may play a part in where creativity is found. What do others think? Ned Ruete Waterford, CT USA Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:11:15 -0400 From: Wayne Nelson To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Richard wrote: > "Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to constrain group > behaviours into particular channels. By prohibiting certain kinds of > interaction we may be excluding the very conversations which need to be > had. Any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change as > well as an implied set of values. By 'programming' these into the group > we run the risk of predetermining the results of the meeting or event." Some thoughts I like calling these things "Participation Guidelines". I suppose that's because I don't much care for rules. I also believe people are better off creating their own ways of operating in relationship to each other. From IAF's Code of Ethics: < < < < < < Group Autonomy We respect the culture, rights, and autonomy of the group. We seek the group's conscious agreement to the process and their commitment to participate. We do not impose anything that risks the welfare and dignity of the participants, the freedom of choice of the group, or the credibility of its work. < < < < < < < I think this means that we strive to ensure that we can balance standing in the system and outside it at the same time. If we simply say that we cannot play an objective role, we no longer try to maintain that balance. We lose the ability if we don't practice it. We do not live in a world of absolutes. Very little of what we do falls on the far end of any spectrum - mental models created for the sake of understanding. I've created spectrums only to discover that it extended much farther than I imagined. To take up one value and make it paramount is ideological thinking. It tends to lead toward imposing things on people - whether it is rules of absence of rules - and making judgements about them. People are pretty good at making sense of their own situations. Facilitators, it seems to me, are better off approaching the group with questions rather than answers. When people create their own understandings and practices, they are likely to stick. It's difficult, however, to take the time to do this kind of work with groups you only work with for a short time, so sets of these participation guidelines provide a substitute. Wayne < > < > < > < > < > Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc. 416-691-2316 - http://icacan.ca Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:08:56 -0500 From: Paula Diller To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations "Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to constrain group behaviours into particular channels. By prohibiting certain kinds of interaction we may be excluding the very conversations which need to be had. Any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change as well as an implied set of values. By 'programming' these into the group we run the risk of predetermining the results of the meeting or event." I agree that ground rules constrain group behaviors. I don't have a problem with that concept. After all, gravity constrains my behavior into particular channels. To say that one would not impose ground rules in any way is, in my view, disingenuous. Ground rules already exist before the facilitator walks into the room, held by the individuals and the group as a whole (and by the facilitator). Some are known; some are not. So for me, establishing a set of *explicit* ground rules, based on behaviors (Schwarz), creates a transparent standard, tied to principles of effective group behavior, that all group members agree to follow. Paula Diller Another Way Missouri Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:02:53 -0400 From: Ned Ruete To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Paula wrote: > I agree that ground rules constrain group behaviors. I don't > have a problem with that concept. After all, gravity constrains > my behavior into particular channels. One of the concepts of systems thinking is that the system we find ourselves in limits our choices. At the same time, the choices we make within those limits are what create the system. Coincidentally, around the same time I was reading this is in _The Fifth Discipline_, I was reading almost exactly the same words in _Seeking the Heart of Wisdom_ as a definition of "karma." What does this mean for us? The system we create with our participants puts constraints on choices. Choices made within those constraints change the system. They may make the system more free, or they may create group norms that further constrain behavior, or they may lead to the need to impose more ground rules to avoid anarchy. What do others think? Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:48:24 -0400 From: michael walsh To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Ned Ruete wrote: "What does this mean for us? The system we create with our participants puts constraints on choices. Choices made within those constraints change the system. They may make the system more free, or they may create group norms that further constrain behavior, or they may lead to the need to impose more ground rules to avoid anarchy." Some thoughts: A paradoxical view of sub-optimization suggests that in order for the sum of the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts, each part must be some what sub-optimized to allow for an optimal manifestation of other parts in an integrated whole and if one part is wholly optimized for itself, it will constrain the sum of the whole as it inhibits the optimization of other parts more than it offers to the whole. In supporting the system to be as whole as possible (integrated in way that offers the greatest use of the parts) the facilitator/intervener would have to sub-optimize themselves and be aware that parts may not be cognizant of their impact on the whole or care in some cases - in other words the facilitator is attempting to help the system understand itself in light of the constraints of its environment. see: How Organizations Learn: An Integrated Strategy for Building Learning Capability Anthony DiBella, Edwin C. Nevis ISBN: 0-7879-1107-0 I quite agree that facilitator is part of the system once they enter it - even if it is only temporary - the "neutrality" of the facilitator is in supporting the system to be come as integrated as it can. -- mike Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:49:14 -0400 From: "Oppenheimer, Heather L (Heather)" To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations The only ground rules I find really useful have to do with safety and any expectations regarding privacy/confidentiality. Safety rules only need to be explictly stated if there is a risk that the group or environmental situation isn't basically safe. Privacy/confidentiality expectations have to be explictly stated if they are different than "normal" for the group or environment. (Anyone else find that the term "ground rules" reminds you of your grade four elementary school classroom?) Cheers Heather Oppenheimer Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:47:12 -0700 From: Bill Harris To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Hi, Heather. I'm curious. Do Lucent manufacturing sites have best practices encapsulated in process descriptions on how to build products? Do they help you deliver a repeatably good product to your customers at manageable costs? Are they modified from time to time, as Lucent discovers what works better and what doesn't? Do they in fact give you a controllable base on which to build your understanding and thus your future learning and improvement? I'm guessing they do. What's the difference between having those and having "ground rules" for effective work in groups? Regards, Bill PS: I won't quibble with you on the phrase itself :-), although I've heard it enough to come to regard it as a name -- similar to "Heather" or "Bill" -- which, in some cases, means a very broad framework for how to hold dialog (the Four Laws of OS, for example, or the Schwarzian list of 10 or 7, or maybe Argyris' 3 attributes of Model II dialog) and, in other cases, a list as prescriptive as Robert's Rules of Order and not to care too much about the general meaning of the term. Perhaps that's an oversight on my part. Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541 Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 17:44:33 -0700 From: Dale Emery To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Hi Richard, > There seems to be a notion of a 'system' (the group being > facilitated) and one who can stand outside the system, at a > higher logical level, able to see the system as a whole (at > least in theory) and who can work with or on the system. I see myself as a fully a part of the system, as a group member with a focus that differs from that of the other members. The value I add comes not from any objectivity (which I can't offer) or "higher logical level." It comes from my attending, in the moment, as a full member, on the process of the group. And from my not-yet-acculturated perspective. > Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to > constrain group behaviours into particular channels. I see the ground rules not as constraints, but as agreements about how we choose to work together, given what we know and believe and value at the time. They become constraints only if we treat the ground rules as fixed, and if we treat "violations" as bad things. If we treat them instead as signals that there are important values we haven't accounted for in our agreements, they are a source of learning about our values. (See the book "How the Way We Talk can Change the Way We Work" by Kegan and Lahey for more about treating "violations" as valuable information.) Whenever I use ground rules, I like to include the rule that the ground rules are open to discussion and revision at any time. Dale Web: http://www.dhemery.com Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/journal (Conversations with Dale) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 12:58:34 -0500 From: "Vukovic, David (HCJPD)" To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation Richard wrote: >> What I am challenging are some of the basic assumptions upon which much of facilitation is based I hear (read) what you are saying, challenging assumptions. An example would solidify it better for me. Do you have an example of which assumptions that facilitation is base that you have challenged? Do you have a practical example of what you have done in the past versus what you are doing now (or will do in the future) that exemplifies the challenge of these basic assumptions? Interesting topic, it cuts to the heart of 'what do I do' on an everyday basis. What do others think? All the best and keep in touch. David*Vukovic Houston Texas Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:30:27 -0500 From: Robert Bacal To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - offshoot topic Interesting discussion. On 22 May 03, at 13:48, michael walsh wrote: > Ned Ruete wrote: > "What does this mean for us? The system we create with our participants > puts constraints on choices. Choices made within those constraints change > the system. They may make the system more free, or they may create group > norms that further constrain behavior, or they may lead to the need to > impose more ground rules to avoid anarchy." > > > Some thoughts: > > A paradoxical view of sub-optimization suggests that in order for the sum > of the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts, each part must be > some what sub-optimized to allow for an optimal manifestation of other > parts in an integrated whole and if one part is wholly optimized > for itself, it will constrain the sum of the whole as it inhibits the > optimization of other parts more than it offers to the whole. and to add. If we are talking about system optimization, then it's also important that we be clear about the GOALS of the system. This is where things get interesting re: fields like OD and facilitation, where the VALUES are inherent in the definitions of OD and facilitation. So, we get completely different things depending on the following goals: a) To create a climate of communication for parties involved in the process. AND b) To develop a solution for [specific proble]. It's the basic process versus task issue. If you optimize a system for "b", then you may very well end up with a non-facilitative process. If you optimize for "a", you may sub-optimize solving a particular problem. (Sorry, this is vague because so much depends on the context). Robert Bacal http://performance-appraisals.org, Performance Management Resource Center. http://articles911.com - Over 2000 work related arti cles listed. http://relationships911.org for the relationships library. Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 13:20:01 -0700 From: Dutch Driver To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Scarcity and Abundance (Was Ground Rules & Expectations) I think that many people tend to operate from a model of scarcity instead of abundance. If my assumption rings true, these same people are likely to be resistant to any type of limitations and/or constraints as being restrictive. Take a regular 12-inch ruler. The metrics on the ruler occur at regular intervals of 1/16th of an inch meaning there are 192 segmented intervals on the standard 12-inch ruler. Say we agree to accept an arbitrary constraint that limits our operating between the 1-inch and 4-inch markings. How many points lie between the between the agreed upon limiting constraints? And I am going to through this in too. The screen of text you are reading is the result of binary thinking on the part of the computer's CPU. What we think we are seeing is really set of zeroes and ones in an ordered matrix that is a computer screen. _______________ Great Optimism, Dutch Driver San Bruno, CA 94066 Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:22:43 -0700 From: Bill Harris To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Scarcity and Abundance (Was Ground Rules & Expectations) Dutch Driver wrote: > Say we agree to accept an arbitrary constraint that limits our operating > between the 1-inch and 4-inch markings. > > How many points lie between the between the agreed upon limiting > constraints? As I recall, exactly the same number as lie between the 0 inch mark and the 12 inch mark (or, for that matter, between the 0 inch mark and the 360 inch mark on your 30 foot measuring tape): aleph-0. So maybe "ground rules" aren't so limiting after all! Just feeling onery this Thursday afternoon :-) Bill -- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541 Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:48:00 -0400 From: Roger Schwarz To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations I share Paula Diller's view that ground rules (usually explicit) already exist before a group works with a facilitator and that the facilitator him/herself also has a set of ground rules. Here's my reasoning about why ground rules are so central to effective facilitation. As facilitators we are hired to help groups change their process - to make it more effective. To do so requires that we have in our heads a model of what constitutes effective behavior and ineffective behavior in groups. Without such a model we cannot add value for our clients. If we have a model of effective behavior, to be useful the model needs to include behaviors that are specific enough that we can use them (and help group members use them) to identify when group members are engaging in behaviors that either enhancing or detracting from effective group process. Without this level of specificity, we cannot behaviorally model for our clients what we think constitute effective group process. Nor can we be held accountable for our own behavior. By making my model of facilitation explicit and open to challenge, I am, as Paula said, trying to be transparent with my clients. I have called these behaviors "Ground Rules for Effective Groups" (I originally called them "principles of effective groups"). For me, the ground rules are at the core of how I diagnose and intervene on behavior in groups. I'm curious, for those of you who do not use ground rules or use relatively abstract non-behavioral ground rules (e.g., treat everyone with respect) how do you (or do you) tell your clients what specifically you will do to help the group improve its process? In a paradoxical way, I see the ground rules as providing a structure (constraints), which enables the group more freedom to productively explore important issues. Unlike other facilitators, I do not ask the group to develop a list of ground rules. I give people copies of my article "Ground Rules for Effective Groups", ask them to read it, and then we discuss it before the facilitation when feasible. I advocate for the ground rules as specific ways (based on my underlying core values and assumptions, which I also make explicit) of helping them improve their process. I ask whether they have any concerns or whether they want to add/modify them. Yet, I do not automatically accept their additions. If their ground rules suggestions are congruent with my underlying core values and assumptions I can agree to use them as the bases of my diagnosis and intervention. If not, I share why and get their reactions. I have never had a client group say that they did not aspire to using the ground rules, although some groups say that they are not confident that they could change their behavior. Consequently, I ask groups to make two choices: 1) do they want to hire me to facilitate given my set of core values, assumptions, and ground rules? and 2) If they do want to hire me, do they want to try practicing the ground rules themselves in the meetings or do they just want me to help them use the ground rules to intervene? I think Richard Seel identifies a potential downside of ground rules - especially facilitator-generated ground rules when he writes: "Imposing ground rules, in whatever way, is an attempt to constrain group behaviours into particular channels. By prohibiting certain kinds of interaction we may be excluding the very conversations which need to be had. Any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change as well as an implied set of values. By 'programming' these into the group we run the risk of predetermining the results of the meeting or event. And at the same time, I think Richard's paragraph contains a paradox (or maybe a dilemma) for facilitators and groups. If Richard is correct that any set of ground rules contains an implicit theory of change (which I agree with) and that this increases the risk of predetermining the results (I'm less certain about this - it depends on what "results" means), then the paradox as currently framed is that to not determine the results would require no ground rules. Yet, this is also a kind of set of ground which would also shape if not predetermine the outcome. To the extent that process shapes outcomes, any process - including no constrained process - will shape outcomes. Finally, Richard raised what I think is a important point for us long-term as facilitators when he wrote: The reality is that there are a group of people within a room. All of them bring skills and experiences; all of them can participate in conversations and build new meanings and realities. Labelling one of them as a facilitator and disqualifying that one from participating as a human being with other human beings may not be the most helpful way of bringing about change. For this reason, my organization's developmental goal in working with clients is to build the capacity of each group member to serve as a facilitative leader. This enables each team member to simultaneously be involved in the content of the discussion while helping to effectively manage the process (including their own and others' behaviors). When groups learn to do this, they need my organization less for facilitation. When the client and I both believe that I have substantive expertise to share, I serve as a facilitative consultant rather than a facilitator. In the facilitative consultant role, I am integrating my content expertise on the subject with my ability to help productively influence the group process. In my ideal world, there is less need for facilitators in the neutral-third party sense because groups have developed the capacity to self-facilitate while discussing their content. One way we can model this is to act as facilitative consultants with our clients when we have expertise to share - and to distinguish the facilitative consultant (and facilitative leader) role from our traditional facilitator role. Reactions? Roger Schwarz Roger Schwarz & Associates, Inc. roger@schwarzassociates.com www.schwarzassociates.com Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 21:44:15 -0700 From: Michael Ward To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] GRP-FACL Digest - 22 May 2003 to 23 May 2003 (#2003-134) Roger Schwartz makes excellent observations about his use of "Ground Rules". I would like to add to his focus on the behavioral implications of this approach. I also clarify with clients up front my interest in developing ground rules as part of the process we will use to achieve their targeted ends. I - like others on this list who struggle with "rules" - prefer to frame these as "Group Process Agreements". The focus on "process agreements" establishes the initial capability of the group to come to agreement and sets the occasion for further agreements as the meeting proceeds. I usually provide a "starter set" with emphasis on behavioral descriptions (one person speaks at a time) rather than vague statements and invite the group to suggest additional process behaviors that they would like to see from others that they are also willing to abide. These agreements can be dynamically adjusted as the process requirements change depending upon the composition, length, scope, and levels of difficulty of the issues at hand. I also make it clear that the long term objective is to shift from a direct facilitation to facilitative consultant role by helping my clients learn to "facilitate from where they sit". Occasionally, I have worked with groups with such a contentious history that even an initial discussion of Group Process Agreements can trigger a recurrence of the problem behaviors that have occasioned the facilitation in the first place. Under these circumstances I have found the ToP method of using a Focused Conversation in the beginning to address the recent work history of the group is an excellent way of exposing the issues and behaviors for which process agreements would be helpful. This has been - for me - a good way to help the group determine what structure it needs to have the conversations necessary to move forward. I have appreciated the discussion of Ground Rules and other essential facilitation questions from the sidelines and appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this subject. My best, Michael Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 16:36:08 +0800 From: Ann Epps To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations I have been following the discussion re. ground rules with interest. Yesterday I was in a manufacturing plant discussing a future facilitation project with a client when I noticed a sign outside a meeting room regarding ground rules. Here are the rules posted on the door of the meeting room: "Meeting Ground Rules 1. Put all hand phones on silent mode. 2. Silence means assent. 3. No personal criticisms allowed. 4. No yelling allowed. 5. No leaving before meeting over. 6. Make a positive contribution to the meeting." The mind boggles at what might have happened in previous meetings to occasion these kind of ground rules. The mind also boggles as to the kind of assumptions the meeting leader has about the people coming to the meetings. One wonders if the terminology and assumptions in these rules might function as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of bringing out certain types of behaviour? Perhaps the language used for "ground rules" is as important or more important than the rules or guidelines themselves. Regards, Ann Epps LENS International Malaysia www.lensinternational.com Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 10:17:42 -0400 From: Cheryl Johnson To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations I don't find the ground rules you mentioned offensive at all and based on my experience, it is probably based on some very real experiences in which all of the items listed probably occurred with regularity. I have facilitated groups where cell phones are left on and ring during the meeting, where people think the word feedback means to attack the other person with criticism, where people get up and walk out in the middle of the meeting and do not return because they have something more important to do, and where there is tremendous pressure on me to let the meeting out early. I facilitate mediation sessions where there is a lot of yelling by both parties unless we agree up front they won't yell. I see ground rules as an agreement among group members about how they are going to behave and treat each other while they are together. I don't see anything wrong about that especially since people come to the table with different ideas about what it means to be civilized. If you can get the group to come up with a common understanding about how they will behave you generally spend a lot of time during the meeting addressing behavioral issues instead of content issues. cheryl J. Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 11:49:33 -0400 From: creative connections To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations Lots of great writing going on in this discussion. What a metaphor - ground rules.... maybe creativity meetings have air rules which keep you from deciding and staying light in your thoughts or forest rules for meetings....fun to play with... Ground rules seem to me to be rules that help people act in a normative way, in an unfamiliar setting, in a very short time period. The assumption being that we attend so few meetings that we may not be well versed in the proper behaviour (meaning behaviour that is in some way sanctioned). If this is the underlying assumption then over time as a group norms the rules are less relevant and they have become model meeting participants within their particular organizational culture. I think it's the match btw the cultural needs and context that creates the great diversity in ground rules or the absence of them. There are other types of approaches to this need for shared assumptions about behaviour and outcome: such as the question "what expectations do you have for this meeting? and your role in it?" Thus begins the dialogue from the individuals perspective of expectations vs. rules. The list on the door - is very interesting as obviously the behaviour they are trying to eliminate in the meeting room is obviously rewarded in other contexts within the company... or at least unchallenged, which must in some way get them some outcome they want. Jennifer La Trobe creative connection consultants Toronto, Canada +1 416 767 7530 Wales, UK +07 956 851 852 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:56:24 -0400 From: izzy gesell To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations Jennifer's connection to rules and creativity remind me of the paradox within Improv Theater activities-Without structure there is no freedom. It is the simple structure of the activity- the ground rules if you will- that allowsx for all the freedom, flexibility and co-creation that arises out of the activity. Of course, one of the ground rules in improv is that the players can adjust the structures as they go along as long as all players adapt to the new structure, izzy Helping Speakers, Trainers & All Who Get Up In Front of An Audience Become More Confident, Spontaneous and Effective. Where Are You Stuck? Author of PLAYING ALONG: GROUP LEARNING ACTIVITIES BORROWED FROM IMPROVISATION THEATER. Certified Speaking Professional (CSP), email to: izzy@izzyg.com www.izzyg.com 413-586-2634 Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 18:11:54 -0400 From: Cheryl Johnson To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations Jennifer, Interesting comments. With respect to the ground rules metaphor, If I may play on that further, maybe ground rules are intended to keep everyone from getting down on the ground as in "down and dirty." Also your point about people coming with behavior that has been rewarded is an interesting one. I think you are on to something. There is pay off in all behavior even dysfunctional, inappropriate behavior which is why we choose to engage in it in the first place, in my humble opinion. Cheryl J Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 10:37:34 -0400 From: John Butcher To: EVTT@yahoogroups.com, EVTT@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [EVTT] [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation (fwd) Hello: My immediate concern with Richard's thoughts and practices around "Group Autonomy" and "Stewardship of Process" is that he does not have the ultimate ownership of or accountability for the outcomes and decisions that the group produces. However much he may feel part of the group or system within which he is facilitating, the fact is that he is not part of that group or system except for the relatively short period of time in which he is serving as facilitator. (I assume that Richard is an independent consultant and not part of an in-house team.) By explicitly attempting to influence a group's outcomes, he risks a degree of irresponsibility that is intolerable. Caring about something or someone is not the same as being held accountable. In our work we can only be held accountable for what is embedded in the Statement of Values and Code of Ethics. That is where we limit our contribution. I feel that it is supremely important to "respect the rights, culture and autonomy of the group" unless and until the group identifies the need to change and requests my help in focusing their thinking to help them achieve that change. I have a high regard for the caring and passion that Richard obviously brings to his work. But that caring and passion must be constrained by the realities and principles of accountability and responsibility. This constraining role is one reason I like the Statement of Values and Code of Ethics so much. I trust these thoughts are useful. Best wishes. John Butcher **************************** John Butcher - JButcher@magma.ca Associates in Planning, Inc. http://www.associatesinplanning.ca (613) 725-2280 **************************** Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:52:09 -0400 From: Sharon Almerigi To: EVTT@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [EVTT] [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation (fwd) The fact that a facilitator does influence a group just by being there and by focusing our attention in various ways is something we have to consider when believing that a facilitator can be totally neutral. Therefore, because of that position and because that person is allowed to be "in charge" (from the front of the room as a leader would be) I think it is especially important that the facilitator try to avoid imposing his or her ideas on the group. On the other hand - asking critical questions that will press the group to move out of their rut and into the direction they aspire to go - is something I feel is valid. I think facilitation is a lot of trial and effort and by being perceptive one can usually sense when ideas and suggestions are not resonant with a group. Anyway, these are some of my thoughts. Regards, Sharon Almerigi Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 12:51:20 -0700 From: Jim Rough To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations At 12:48 PM -0400 5/23/03, Roger Schwarz wrote: > >Here's my reasoning about why ground rules are so central to effective >facilitation. As facilitators we are hired to help groups change their >process - to make it more effective. To do so requires that we have in our >heads a model of what constitutes effective behavior and ineffective >behavior in groups. Without such a model we cannot add value for our >clients. If we have a model of effective behavior, to be useful the model >needs to include behaviors that are specific enough that we can use them >(and help group members use them) to identify when group members are >engaging in behaviors that either enhancing or detracting from effective >group process. Without this level of specificity, we cannot behaviorally >model for our clients what we think constitute effective group process. Nor >can we be held accountable for our own behavior. By making my model of >facilitation explicit and open to challenge, I am, as Paula said, trying to >be transparent with my clients. > >I have called these behaviors "Ground Rules for Effective Groups" (I >originally called them "principles of effective groups"). For me, the >ground rules are at the core of how I diagnose and intervene on behavior in >groups. These are good points and questions, Roger. I think the issue boils down to what model of change the facilitator assumes. If he or she assumes a Newtonian, mechanical model of change, which has a specific range of application, then groundrules help. Then, it is possible to decide ahead of time the difference between good and bad behaviors and to help the group assess and correct them. Everything can be explicitly managed as you describe -- helping the group go from where they are to where they want to go. It's logical. Another model of change is transformation, which is not logical. This model has a wider range of application, especially for emotional, or impossible-to-solve issues. Transformation cannot be managed in the same way. To try and do so is to limit the transformational potential. Groundrules evoke critial thinking and encourage self-censorship, both of which are an anathema to creativity and transformation. To effectively work with transformational change, the facilitator must be willing to trust more in the unconscious, self-organizing capabilities within people and "let go" of trying to control ... or of helping clients control... change. I call the transformation-oriented approach "Dynamic Facilitation". It generates a different kind of thinking that is more oriented to breakthroughs, which I call "choice-creating" instead of "decision-making". For the facilitator to focus on explicit, external factors like behaviors, groundrules, agendas, and contractual agreements is fine for many issues, but not for those that require breakthroughs. (More on this in an article at my web site http://www.tobe.net/papers/facilitn.html > I'm curious, for those of you who do not use ground rules or use >relatively abstract non-behavioral ground rules (e.g., treat everyone with >respect) how do you (or do you) tell your clients what specifically you will do to help the group improve its process? I might briefly describe the distinction we've been talking about, between "decision-making" and "choice-creating," and then ask the group if they were to peak in on a good meeting of each kind, what would they see? Generally, they can imagine a "choice-creating" meeting and describe it. I'm not trying to give them a specific description of what I would do, but to have them give themselves permission to have a choice-creating meeting, and to recognize that the positive nature of the unconventional progress. Jim Rough New book: http://www.SocietysBreakthrough.com Dynamic Facilitation Skills seminars: http://www.ToBe.net Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 23:19:35 -0500 From: Paula M. Diller To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations > ... If he or she assumes a Newtonian, mechanical model of change, .... > Another model of change is transformation, which is not logical. This model has a wider range of application, especially for emotional, or impossible-to-solve issues. Transformation cannot be managed in the same way. To try and do so is to limit the transformational potential. Groundrules evoke critial thinking and encourage self-censorship, both of which are an anathema to creativity and transformation. To effectively work with transformational change, the facilitator must be willing to trust more in the unconscious, self-organizing capabilities within people and "let go" of trying to control ... or of helping clients control... change. > .... For the facilitator to focus on explicit, external factors like behaviors, groundrules, agendas, and contractual agreements is fine for many issues, but not for those that require breakthroughs. (More on this in an article at my web site http://www.tobe.net/papers/facilitn.html Jim, I read the article you cited above. My thoughts: I was discouraged that you created a Type I and Type II framework that resulted in an either/or, black/white, arguably good/bad construct. Example from the "Thinking" section: "Type I [the ground rules folks]: Stay rational ... avoid the unconscious mind. Decide on goals ... avoid feelings. Discern and analyze. Stop things from going wrong. Type II [the dynamic facilitation model]: Be creative ... work with the unconscious mind. Energy driven ... include feelings. Generate and synthesize. Seek what's right ... i.e. quality." I also question statements such as "ground rules ... anathema to creativity and transformation" and " ... to focus on explicit, external factors like behaviors, ground rules, agendas and contractual agreements is fine for many issues, but not for those that require breakthroughs." Furthermore, it's not been my experience that ground rules inhibit energy, synthesis, feelings, creativity, quality or transformation. In your article, you say: "Many facilitators focus on techniques. Brainstorming, visioning, the workshop method, Pareto's charts, or fishbone diagrams ... ." I propose that "dynamic facilitation" is itself a technique one that you train people to apply. For me, this means that it is another tool that I may choose to add to my tool box as a facilitator, depending on my own style and skill, and depending on a group's needs. Ultimately, though, I wonder why it is necessary to bash other facilitation models in order to promote a different model. This would seem to inhibit choice creating." Paula Diller Another Way Missouri Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 17:32:56 +0100 From: Richard Seel To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation I'm afraid this is rather a long post in which I will try to acknowledge and engage with some of the responses people have made Thank you for engaging with me in my own exploration of what it is to be a facilitator and/or organisation consultant. I'd like to offer some reflections on what people have said in response to my own somewhat provocative comments. Jon said, "One aspect of what you are bring to consciousness for me is the relationship between freedom and limits. Some facilitation systems push the freedom endâ^À¦At the other end of the spectrum is limits oriented methods, like ToP methods." I have a lot of sympathy and agreement with what you are saying, Jon, but what I'm struggling with is whether there are times when we need to leave that whole continuum behind. It is my belief that organisations are created by the conversations which occur within them. These conversations often fall into patterns which can become restrictive, inhibiting some kinds of subject matter and forms of discourse. The key to organisational change (or culture change, if preferred) is to have different conversations. Facilitators potentially have a key role in helping this to come about. However, what I'm no longer clear about is whether traditional methods are really effective. Jon also says, "I suspect that there are constraints that you would imposeâ^À¦" Who am I to impose constraints? There is a danger that by so doing I model patterns of control and power relations which perpetuate some of the structures which are instrumental in inhibiting desired change. What I might more appropriately do it to offer the response that a particular behaviour being exhibited affects me in a particular way-frustrates, annoys, angers, delights, interests, whatever. As a facilitator, one of the gifts/skills I bring into the room is a capacity for self-awareness and an ability to articulate my perception of the interactions in the room in a way which is accessible to others (at least, those are some of the skills I would like to think I haveâ^À¦). I don't need to establish a distinction between myself and others in order to be able to do this. Jon also notes that he facilitates a lot of technical decision-making groups. I agree that structured approaches are (probably) the best way to approach this sort of work. My reservation is that a focus on technical decisions can sometimes mask deeper organisational issues - it is on these latter that I am currently focusing. Margo wrote that, "â^À¦after the event, the facilitator might not be so much of a part of the system. But s/he might have served as an "intervention" to change the pre-existing systemâ^À¦". I agree. My current concern is how best to be that 'intervention.' If I've understood Ned correctly, he is saying that cultural norms play a key role in choice of facilitation approach. I guess they should, though I'm a little cautious about this. Do you choose an approach which 'resonates' with the culture and risk colluding with it and reinforcing existing patterns or do you choose an approach with which it would not be comfortable and risk being ejected by it? I think that I incline to the latter. Wayne offers an interpretation of the IAF code of ethics, "I think this means that we strive to ensure that we can balance standing in the system and outside it at the same time." When I studied anthropology the notion of the 'participant observer' was dominant. Now I'm not sure that I can accept it, which is why I am questioning some of my former practice and beliefs. Nevertheless, Wayne's point that we often have little time with a group is very valid. In such cases, a structured approach may well be the most helpful. Paula argues that, "Ground rules already exist before the facilitator walks into the room, held by the individuals and the group as a whole (and by the facilitator). Some are known; some are not." It seems to me that firstly, if rules are unknown it is a fiction to claim that they exist-groups may behave 'as if' they were following a set of implicit rules but the ontological status of those rules is very dubious, I think. Secondly, I remain doubtful as to whether groups follow explicit rules either. I have often had a set of explicit rules (either generated by the group, or a subset of Roger's rules or my own 'small set of simple rules') agreed by the group but had group interactions proceed in ways which simply didn't seem to bear any relation to the agreed rules. Perhaps I should have been firmer, perhaps I should have contracted more explicitly, perhaps I'm not a very good facilitator (I know I could be a lot better), or perhaps the rules never existed and there was only conversation and gesture, with all its nonlinear richness and unruly unpredictability. Robert brings up: "It's the basic process versus task issue." Is this still a viable distinction. If the medium is the message perhaps the process is the task. I think I may be babbling now but these dichotomies are analytically interesting and I often use them. My question is whether I simply use them as psychological props for myself (and others) to help cope with the anxiety of 'raw interaction'. Would I add more value if I just got into the mess instead of somehow trying to stand outside it and bring some notion of ideal order into the complexity? Dale seems closer to my view: "I see myself as a fully a part of the system, as a group member with a focus that differs from that of the other members. The value I add comes not from any objectivity (which I can't offer) or 'higher logical level.'" But he then goes on to say, "It comes from my attending, in the moment, as a full member, on the process of the group. And from my not-yet-acculturated perspective." There's that emphasis on process again. Perhaps it's just a matter of terminology and I'm being boringly pedantic or obtuse but I still sense that what I'm getting at is both more and less than just attending as a full member on the process of the group. Roger suggests that, "As facilitators we are hired to help groups change their process - to make it more effective. To do so requires that we have in our heads a model of what constitutes effective behavior and ineffective behavior in groups." That is very clear and challenging. Is that what I am hired for? Sometimes, yes. In such cases, I guess I see myself as a kind of group coach. I accept that ground rules in Roger's sense may be very effective here and I need to review my practice and see if I am being clear enough about what I am doing in such circumstances. But the kind of work that interest me more is when I am engaged to help and organisation change in a more fundamental way. This is closer to what Roger calls a facilitative consultant. It is in this sphere that I feel that the ground-rule approach has less to offer and is likely to close down possibilities by ruling our certain kinds of behaviour and interaction. Sometimes growth comes through the expression and acceptance of 'unacceptable' behaviour. It is in this kind of work that I am trying to explore the implications of engaging with client groups in a more direct and participative way. And finally (phew!), Jim also seems to dislike the ground rule approach. He speaks of non-Newtonian change, which I like, and suggests we read his article. Jim, its interesting but I do have a question: you contrast the manageable and self-organising change. The second, you say, is more like a garden than a machine. Do you see the facilitator as a gardener, working outside of the garden or is he or she just one more plant in the same soil as the rest of the plants? That's all for now folks. Sorry to have taken up so much bandwidth. Thank you very much for engaging with me. Best wishes, Richard. Richard Seel New Paradigm Consulting Organisation Consultancy & Development richard@new-paradigm.co.uk http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk Seabrink, Beach Road, Bacton Green, Norfolk NR12 0EP, UK. Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:40:57 -0700 From: Gypsi Luck To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations It is important, as in all communication, how ground rules are stated. Negative statements: 'No yelling' etc. are stated so that many peoples barriers will go up automatically. It is much more positive to state ground rules using positive language such as: 'quiet voices please' or 'talking voices please'. This states what is appropriate instead of telling what not to do. In facilitation as in life, it's not what you say but how you say it. Smiles, Gypsi Luck Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 12:42:35 -0700 From: Bill Harris To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations "Paula M. Diller" wrote: > Groundrules evoke critial thinking and encourage self-censorship, > both of which are an anathema to creativity and transformation. To > effectively work with transformational change, the facilitator must > be willing to trust more in the unconscious, self-organizing > capabilities within people and "let go" of trying to control ... or > of helping clients control... change. > Furthermore, it's not been my experience that ground rules inhibit energy, > synthesis, feelings, creativity, quality or transformation. Paula, I think yeu were quoting another message in the first paragraph and making your own statement in the second. If so, I want to agree. To reason by analogy, I (and, I suspect, a few others) regards J. S. Bach as one of the more creative musicians of all time, and yet he worked within (or brought to its culmination) the Baroque influence, a highly constrained form. I've often heard that excellence in the arts is often the result of high creativity working within serious constraints imposed by the art form (counterpoint, for example, in music of that era). Based on this discussion, I'm strengthening my belief in the need for me to use ground rules, as an aid both to creativity in the groups I'm working with and to improve results through action learning/research. Thanks! Bill -- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541 Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 22:28:10 +0200 From: Visuelle Protokolle To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] AW: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations coming late into this discussion I likec to add some comments: for me as a Visual Facilitator there are as many situations as projects, and most of the time I realize what situation I was in and what kind of service I offered only after the event. I don't believe in ground rules, but in rules. Rules for whom? sometimes for the conduct of the group, but more important for the relation between the group and the boss of the project (what will come out? is there allowance for unexpected results? how are we going on? do we use the results of the meeting, and in which form? ...), rules for my role in the process etc. Rules help to strucure a meeting. For example I was facilitating a series of interviews with our handdrawn pictures. Each session took 90 minutes, and we took 5 minutes to talk about the aims of the session, not more. Then the discussion started between the participants, because the item was important and the aims were satisfying. I only interveened if the group lost the track of their choosen aims or seemed to run out of time to cover all the aims, but only by asking them if they wanted to proceed as they had started. At the end I asked the group to look at the pictures we had drawn of the process and the results, and to discuss them or critisize them. In another meeting with another client there will be other, maybe totally other rules. It is important that the group makes use of rules, if they want to, to feel safe, and to ban these rules if they change their minds willingly. Sometimes it seems appropriate to me to propose rules, especially if the group is sailing in unknown waters and there is a lime limit. Sometimes I come in touch with something I think is a ground rule for my own life, but maybe the following day I have my daughts. Sometimes I make use of external help in these situations, to get some assistance in the struggle between the fascinating and irritating chaos and hope for clarity and order by some rules - like a client might ask for some help engaging a facilitator. Reinhard. VISUELLE PROTOKOLLE Kuchenmueller & Dr.Stifel Munich Germany http://www.visuelle-protokolle.de Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 16:43:28 -0700 From: Jim Rough To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation At 5:32 PM +0100 5/25/03, Richard Seel wrote: > I do have a question: you contrast >the manageable and self-organising change. The second, you say, is more >like a garden than a machine. Do you see the facilitator as a gardener, >working outside of the garden or is he or she just one more plant in the >same soil as the rest of the plants? Richard ... thank you for your summary ... beautifully written ... and your question. I see the dynamic facilitator in the garden metaphor as one more plant in the same soil ... part of a living process. But at the same time, the garden metaphor probably doesn't hold up. The dynamic can be more of an evolutionary process than a growing process, where each person and the whole system become something new and unforeseen. I think you and many other people on this list aim for a similar dynamic. Jim Jim Rough New book: http://www.SocietysBreakthrough.com Dynamic Facilitation Skills seminars: http://www.ToBe.net Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 16:43:45 +1200 From: Zenergy To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: [GF] Ground rules I am not responding to a particular Ground Rules post but giving my perspective on this discussion. For me group purpose and ground rules (I call them group culture) are very important. My work varies from practical task oriented work to transformational work. Group purpose is important either way. Why? Because explicit group purpose gives me and the group alignment and a place to "stand", refer to and work towards. If no purpose what are we up to? Explicit ground rules (group culture) help me and others to align with the group and behave appropriately to the group norms as they are or as the group decides it wants to be. Discussing ground rules provides a way to refer to behaviour (which is bothering one or more people or people want more of ). If I am working in a culture(s) I am not used to I sometimes ask for a culture guide to sit beside me and tell me if I have transgressed a cultural norm. "Rules" are there all right but if they are not explicit I will only find out when I break one. For example, Maori groups say grace before a meal even if a smorgasbord. Picking up food without grace having been said is a real no-no and can lead to a public reprimand. Explicit ground rules are not quite (but almost) as important as explicit group purpose. Sorry I just don't have time this minute to respond to all the interesting comments. Regards from Dale Hunter. Zenergy Whole people co-operating in a sustainable world 119 Mt Eden Rd, Mt Eden Auckland New Zealand Email: zenergy@xtra.co.nz Web: www.zenergyglobal.com Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:04:26 -0400 From: Wayne Nelson To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations "Ann Epps" wrote: > The mind boggles at what might have happened in previous meetings to > occasion these kind of ground rules. The mind also boggles as to the kind > of assumptions the meeting leader has about the people coming to the meetings. > > One wonders if the terminology and assumptions in these rules might > function as a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of bringing out > certain types of behaviour? Perhaps the language used for "ground rules" > is as important or more important than the rules or guidelines themselves. Public civility is one of the crying needs of our time, but legislating it and enforcing rules is a dubious beginning in my opinion. Organizations where things are top down and the corporate culture does not support participation are very different from organizations in which participation is welcomed and encouraged - where it has been woven into the cultural fabric of the organization. We get called upon to work in a wide variety of environments. Think of: - Hierarchical organizations in which people react to orders and do what they are told. - Institutional organizations in which people provide some input and feedback and there is a lot of "politics." - Collaborative organizations in which people participate creatively and proactively - Learning organizations in which people participate in generating new knowledge, practices, systems and structures. Look at Gareth Morgan's "Images of Organizations" His list of types is longer and more graphic. Imagine an organization that is what he calls a "psychic prison." The language we use is critical. If we use language to create images that tell people they are valuable and their contributions are important and necessary, people act in very different ways than they do if we use language that tells them that someone is going to tell them that they had better shape up quick or get censured. Reminds me of a severe Calvinistic enforcer. Limits do provide structure and limits are necessary. It is very difficult to operate if there are no boundaries at all. Sometimes, especially in groups early in their developmental process or in situation involving high emotion and controversy, it is necessary to play that kind of a role. If we find it necessary to use rules simply to keep order, I'd say we are working in a situation in the very early stages of group development. If we base our relationship to groups on rules, I think we can expect that the group is not likely to progress much beyond them. People know how to "toe the line." Get in - get through it - get a product - get out - write the report. If we want groups to develop, it seems to me that we need to enable the group to develop norms that promote self modulation. That's why I prefer to think about "participation guidelines" rather than rules. It places the responsibility for the organization's culture where it belongs and enables the group to develop. Facilitators can enable groups to develop participatory cultures by engaging their own capacity to be self reflective and self modulating. We can play a much greater role in organizational and societal development if we reach a bit further and enable people to work out their own ways of operating in relationship to each other. Wayne < > < > < > < > < > Wayne Nelson - ICA Associates Inc. 416-691-2316 - http://icacan.ca Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:33:58 +0200 From: Jon Jenkins To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations Dear Ned and all You wrote: "was a vision of the Japanese tea ceremony. True afficianados of the ceremony see tremendous creativity displayed by the masters as they follow in the minutest detail the exacting form of this ritual. Classical music is often the same. On the other end of the spectrum is improvisational jazz. So I'm thinking that cultural norms may play a part in where creativity is found." This is exacly what I was talking about - Bill's reference to Bach is also the same thing in my mind. One of the neat things about the tea ceremony is the preparation. It too is a kind of ritual. The tea master arranges the lightening, cleans the space, arranges the decor, washes the utensils, etc. I see this as a way of putting his spirit in the right space. I always feel better when I take care to do the room setup right when I facilitate a group. Part of the problem with seeing the spontaneity, creativity is the scale with which you see the act. Japanese tea masters use a different scale (as well as their own criteria) when viewing the innovation of another tea master. Your point of "minutest detail". If a client wants to build a project plan that will last 3 weeks and is willing to take a day to have a planning workshop, that is one scale. If a client wants to introduce a change process for the whole organisation that will take 10 years to implement that is a different scale. Both can require creativity. One way one of my clients avoids dealing with a decision is to change the scale of the discussion. If we are planning the construction of a building, they will want to discussion how the decision is made. Yes, I know that perhaps the discussion about how the decision was made should be discussed but in the specific example I am thinking of that is avoiding their responsibility. Another thought. The choice about rules are 1. Are the rule explict or implicit? Are they stated, put up and discussed? 2. Does the group, the assignment giver or the facilitator define the rules? There can be combination of these. 3. Are they implemented consciously and unconsciously. Those of us who do not explicitly use rules can unconsciously pick-up the behaviour patterns (rules) especially when working with them intensively over a long time. Even when we don't pick up behaviour patterns we do model behaviour that influences the behaviour of others. best Jon C. Jenkins Imaginal Trainining, Groningen, The Netherlands http://www.imaginal.nl/ International Facilitators Companion Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 16:11:54 +0100 From: Gary Purser To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground rules Dale This sounds a bit like a framework I came across splitting contracts into 3 types: FORMAL - the ones we up front agree about - Purpose and make up of the Group and what they are there to do. . Openly talked about . Often written down . Governs who can belong (membership), when they meet, the type of business that can be handled etc. The Role & Constitution of a group. INFORMAL - more about behaviours . Not readily talked about . Not written down - except by facilitators suggesting 'Ground Rules' . Just the way they 'do' business (or in your example of saying Grace - how they socialise) . How disagreements are handled . What feelings can be expressed and how etc. . Still governs who can belong, when they meet, type of business etc. PSYCHOLOGICAL:- if you are a new member of the group these are the ones you get the hang of by watching what's ok and what's not. You can be punished, ostracised etc. if you break these and not even know what you have done wrong. . Only talked about in times of crisis or intense disagreements . Again not written down . Governs how the group deal with interpersonal issues e.g. conflict or anger . The degree of personal disclosure that's allowed etc. . The way the group deals with minorities - who is 'heard'. . Often the most dangerous - everyone (in the know) knows it but no one mentions it. Whichever framework you apply it still seems that it is a description of what you have to do - or not do - to 'belong' Good theme. Regards Gary PS Hope you are all well down there - give my regards to Howard if you see him. Gary Purser & Associates Hollington House 12 Penn Road Park Street St Albans Hertfordshire AL2 2QS Website: www.gpassoc.demon.co.uk Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:08:25 -0700 From: Cherie' Barker-Reid To: EVTT@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [EVTT] [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation (fwd) Hello: John, thank you for your thoughts. In thinking on this discussion I am brought back to the belief in the "wisdom of the group" and my role as a facilitator to be of service. Working in an area of social change I can see the "good and right way" and can see the path that is right for the group. My challenge as a facilitator is to guide the group, at their speed, to discover their own wisdom and "goodness". Trusting the group and acting as a guide through a process of discovery, that is in alignment with the Code of Ethics, brings about "magic" - sometimes what I consider miracles. Ownership is not an issue as my role is to not have expectations on their decisions. If at any point a group would be in conflict with my own core values, I would be responsible to advise them that I am unable to be of service and work with them to find another facilitator. To insert my thinking and knowledge into the group's process of discovery would be most uncomfortable for me. If I have posted this inaccurately, kindly excuse me and redirect. In peace, Cherie' Barker-Reid Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:46:01 -0400 From: Frank Bell To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations Cheryl Johnson wrote: > With respect to the ground rules metaphor, If I may > play on that further, maybe ground rules are intended to keep everyone from > getting down on the ground as in "down and dirty." (aside) Actually, the term comes from baseball. Different parks have different conditions not anticipated in the "book rules." The "ground rules" are rules based on conditions at that particular playing field or "ground." Ground rules are unique to their environment and cannot, under the strictest interpretation, be extended to other environments because the conditions that make them necessary do not exist in other environments. For example, at Wrigley Field, in Chicago, Ill. USA, ivy grows on one of the outfield fences. The "ground rule" is that a hit ball that becomes stuck in the ivy and consequently is out of play is a double (two base hit). It's a ground rule and not a book rule, because ivy exists only at Wrigley, not a Yankee Stadium (New York City), Camden Yards (Baltimore, Md., USA), or Dodgers Stadium (Los Angeles, Calif., USA). The rule that a batted ball that bounces over the fence on the first bounce is a double is a "book rule," because it's in the rule book and applies in all playing venues. And this piece of trivia and five US dollars will get you a cup of coffee in New York City. Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 21:46:13 -0400 From: Frank Bell To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] ground rules and expectations creative connections wrote: > > There are other types of approaches to this need for shared assumptions > about behaviour and outcome: such as the question "what expectations do you > have for this meeting? and your role in it?" My best experiences have come, not from imposing ground rules, but in eliciting them. I think that, if a group is given a neutrally phrased overhead query ("How would you like to see people behave/be treated/etc. in a meeting/class?") and the results are captured on a chart or overhead, the facilitator will generally find that the group will come up with everything he or she had on his list and, possibly, a few extra items. With the added benefit that the group now owns the list. Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 15:54:05 -0700 From: Dale Emery To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation Hi Richard, > Dale seems closer to my view: "I see myself as a fully a part > of the system, as a group member with a focus that differs from > that of the other members. The value I add comes not from any > objectivity (which I can't offer) or 'higher logical level.'" > But he then goes on to say, "It comes from my attending, in the > moment, as a full member, on the process of the group. And from > my not-yet-acculturated perspective." There's that emphasis on > process again. Perhaps it's just a matter of terminology and > I'm being boringly pedantic or obtuse but I still sense that > what I'm getting at is both more and less than just attending > as a full member on the process of the group. More in what way? Less in what way? How does your role as faciliatator differ (if it does) from the roles of the other people in the group? In what ways is your role the same as others' roles? Dale -- Web: http://www.dhemery.com Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/journal (Conversations with Dale) Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:05:13 -0700 From: Dale Emery To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] [EVTT] [GF] Ground Rules & Expectations - Nature of Facilitation (fwd) Sharon Almerigi said: > The fact that a facilitator does influence a group just by > being there and by focusing our attention in various ways is > something we have to consider when believing that a facilitator > can be totally neutral. Therefore, because of that position and > because that person is allowed to be "in charge" (from the > front of the room as a leader would be) I think it is > especially important that the facilitator try to avoid imposing > his or her ideas on the group. > > On the other hand - asking critical questions that will press > the group to move out of their rut and into the direction they > aspire to go - is something I feel is valid. When I ask a critical question to move the group out of its rut, I am imposing my idea that the group is in a rut, and that my question is critical. I can't avoid imposing my ideas on the group. Every communication is, to some extent, an imposition. Dale Web: http://www.dhemery.com Weblog: http://www.dhemery.com/journal (Conversations with Dale) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:18:44 -0700 From: Rosa Zubizarreta To: GRP-FACL@listserv.albany.edu Subject: Re: [GF] Training People to be facilitators Ned, I really appreciated the following: >Things I think are key to facilitator training: > >Take a facilitative, not a training, approach. Faciliatation is to me a >state of mind. You don't instill that state of mind by being a trainer, >you do it by being a facilitator. It reminds me of one of my favorite sayings.... "attitudes are caught, not taught!"... >Tap the wisdom of the group. When doing facilitation training, just as >when doing a session, the group probably has a lot more knowledge than they >think. > Yes, yes, yes... I just finished, several weeks ago, leading a number of "experiential learning gatherings / orientations" for people who were volunteering to facilitate small groups at a large community event. It was a _lot_ of fun to do it taking an experiential approach... Something I've started doing in longer workshops, that others might find helpful, is a new twist on the "difficult people" question. As you (and others!) may know, I find that paradigm unhelpful... however, it _is_ important to meet others where they are, and many schools of facilitation are focused on 'difficult people', so I had to come up with _something_.... What I came up with, was a process centered around the question, "Think of a time when YOU were a difficult person at a meeting. What was happening for you?" After listening to everyone's story, and recording the major themes and highlights in each one, we are ready for a very rich conversation on the implications of the stories they have just shared... and, the conversation tends to have a much more 'empathic' feel to it, than it might otherwise... Another thing that has been fun to do in learning contexts, has been to share my own take on 'ground rules and expectations', again by modeling... (I missed much of this on-line conversation earlier, as I was in the crunch of the build-up to this community event.... here's my belated two cents!) I begin by mentioning that everyone has their own way of doing this part of the process, and that I will be sharing the way I like to set the stage for a difficult conversation in my own practice as a facilitator, as a preliminary for our actually engaging in one, in this learning context... Next, I explain that my basic principles are to a) let the group know what I will be doing, and b) make a minimum number of simple requests. Neither of these categories are really "rules", so I call this "setting a basic framework" instead. My current formulation is down to four items... two a)'s and two b)'s: 1) My main role here is to listen well, and to help each person be heard (a) 2) I'm only able to listen well to one person at a time, so in order to fulfill my function, I will need to ask folks to take turns (b) 3) If two people start getting into a verbal 'back and forth', I will need to come between you physically (I model this) and let each of you know that I really want each of you to be heard. Then I will ask you to please say your piece to me, so that I can write it up in the front of the room. I will ask you to please trust that the other person will be able to hear you better, if they are able to _overhear_ what it is you have to say, rather than feeling on-the-spot by having you say it directly to them. (a) 4) Everyone here has a piece of the puzzle, so I'm going to ask that you please not hold back or censor yourself, ESPECIALLY when you feel that you have a very different perspective than everyone else in the room. (b) Of course, some groups may want to have a conversation about 'ground rules', which is fine. I do point out that what is often most helpful, is the group's _conversation_ about the rules and what they mean, rather than the 'rules' themselves... as it tends to be in the process of asking questions, sharing one's reservations, offering clarifications, etc, that greater trust and understanding is built. Well, that's all for now... it's been a lot of fun to be 'facilitating learning contexts', and I look forward to doing a lot more of it... with all best wishes, Rosa ************************* Rosa Zubizarreta, M.A. Facilitating Creative Collaboration: Process Consulting * Conflict Transformation * Human Systems Redesign E-mail: rosalegria@igc.org