|
|
The Electronic Discussion on |
|
Neutral vs. Affirmation Thread.
Some interesting facts:
The thread had:
51 responses
23 different people
responses from England, 3 cities in Canada, 3 cities in Austrailia
Columbia, Texas, CT, NM, Mi, OH, NY and some others I couldn't
identify
changed topics 3 times: Neutral vs Affirmation to Situational
Facilitation (where I dropped off) to Christmas pudding (included at
the end for some humor) and facilitator hats. Not bad for a thread
started on Friday 13th :-)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 19:25:32 -0500
From: Jim O'Brien <job@nynexst.com>
Subject: Neutral vs. affirmation
During a recent JAD training session, the issue of neutrality versus
affirmation came up. According to the trainer, the facilitator strives
to be neutral with his/her interventions. The facilitator indicates no
personal preference, does not favor one comment more than another. The
facilitator maintains a position of neutrality towards the group.
While working with the training group, I commented "Very fine." I
observed that one particular comment helped the group accomplish its
work. In the evaluation, the instructor said that I had not maintained
a neutral position when I made the affirming comment. The instructor
believed that I had made a judgment by giving specific praise to one
individual.
Obviously I am having second thoughts about this evaluation. I believe
that well placed affirmation as positive feedback can help people in
their work, can help groups function effectively.
Does facilitator neutrality necessarily exclude affirmation? Is
affirmation, such as "Excellent", "Good work", "Nice going."
judgmental and thus, detrimental to the group? I'd appreciate feedback
either to the newsgroup or to me personally.
Jim O'Brien job@nynexst.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:58:27 -0800
From: John Walker <John_Walker@mindlink.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
Yes, I've found this to be a tough one. The rule of thumb that I've
worked out is to think through what kind of group/session it is.
The "strict" neutrality rule is more formal, and is a reflection of a
cool relationship between the facilitator and the group. It is most
appropriate with more senior and more formal groups, that really don't
want or need interaction with the facilitator. They just want
a referee. In such case, the strict rule should be observed: neither
positive or negative comment. This is difficult for those of us who
tend to be less formal, but we need to do it.
But this is a bit too rigid for some groups, who really want a person
up front to interact with. In this case, the occasional supportive
comment works, but shouldn't be overdone.
John Walker Ethika Performance Enhancement, Vancouver. B.C.
Canada Phone: (604) 980-9448
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:43:30 -0600
From: Gary Kimble & Metta Zetty <gkmz@onr.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
I think your query is a very important one, Jim, because it surfaces a
pervasive "Myth of Objectivity and Neutrality." Interestingly enough,
if we have learned anything at all from the "new" sciences of
complexity, chaos and systems theory it is that pure "neutrality" and
"objectivity" are humanly impossible. We each see through our own
perceptual filters and experiential lenses, and everything we say or
do, personally or professionally, is processed through these
subjective, interpretive mechanisms.
I genuinely believe it is naive to assume that we can ever be
completely objective in any situation, and I agree with you
whole-heatedly that positive feedback is extremely valuable, if not
essential, in our work as facilitators. In fact, genuine and positive
feedback can be one the best ways of building rapport between team
members, and I believe it is incumbent upon the facilitator to model
behaviors that are consistent with his/her values and beliefs.
Since much of my work involves mediation and conflict resolution, I am
very sensitive to the complexity of this issue, Jim, and I know there
are no easy answers. But, if it is at all helpful, I would offer my
own positive feedback to you now by encouraging you to trust your
instincts on this one. We are not value-neutral automatons (valuing
"objectivity" is itself a bias), and if I can step briefly on my
soap-box, I believe that attempts to adopt a position of "sterile"
objectivity can perpetuate much that potentially de-humanizing in the
workplace.
Although I have not read any of his work, I also suspect that David
Cooperrider might also address some aspects of this issue in his
ground-breaking work on Appreciative Inquiry. Could any readers on
this listserve share any references or titles as a starting point or
introduction to David's work?
Metta Zetty
KIMBLE/ZETTY, Change and Development Facilitation, 11300 Expo
Boulevard #2404
San Antonio, Texas [78230], TEL: 210-561-6945
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 15:45:18 -0700
From: Greg Giesen <ggiesen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
Although I can see both sides of this philosophical dilemma, I
strongly suggest you also pose that question to the actual group you
facilitate. After all, it is their process and their perceptions are
what matter here. However, next time you are in this scenario and want
to make an affirmation, I might suggest you consider stepping out of
your facilitator role to do so. Food for thought.
Greg Giesen
Mgmt Consultant/Trainer
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 18:36:43 폍
From: "nic.ron" <nic.ron@vianet.net.au>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. Affirmation
What I do in these situations is to consider my intention when making
any comments on content. If my comments are designed to encourage
participation and input, as your comment was designed to, I feel that
it is appropriate to give positive feedback. If I was intervening as
a result of my agreement with what was said I would notice this and
reflect later on what was appropriate - focusing on the effect my
intervention had on the group. If my feedback seemed to constrain
other participants it may not have appropriate. I find with my work I
am often required to wear more than one hat - often that of
facilitator and also process consultant. I often let the group know I
am changing roles so that they are clear about what role I am basing
my intervention from - and that they can accept or reject my
suggestions as a process consultant.
I'm not sure if remaining neutral is always the best approach. Some
participants need some encouragement in order to feel comfortable
contributing - especially in newly formed groups.
Nicky
Austrailia
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 09:01:53 -0500
From: Andrea Tannenbaum <IntraGroup@aol.com>
Subject: Re: neutral vs. affirmation
I have been puzzling over this question, wondering what I do in this
situation to accomplish the job in a "human" way. I do provide
affirmation for the attendees, but I try to affirm their participation
in the process, not their content.
- I thank them for their entry into the conversation.
- I applaud their progress.
- I point out how far we've come, and how far the journey is.
->I congratulate when they pass a sticky point or encourage them to
see the light at the end of the tunnel
As others have pointed out, it is extremely difficult to stay neutral,
and may possibly make you seem disinterested or disengaged in the
process. I agree with Greg, "Although I can see both sides of this
philosophical dilemma, I strongly suggest you also pose that question
to the actual group you facilitate. After all, it is their process and
their perceptions are what matter here." Make them all "table"
facilitators. This is their meeting, their content, their results,
their accountability. The more you encourage them to own, the more
energy and ownership you'll create. I would also encourage them to
provide the affirmation on content if it is appropriate. After all,
what will they do when you leave?
Ask them to keep you neutral. You are also modeling the way if a
participant catches you out of line - and you accept responsibility.
I admit that occasionally I step into content big time - just so that
the group WILL yell at me. Lots of good energy in that!
Andrea Tannenbaum, IntraGroup Dynamics 22 Wyndcliffe Park, Bloomfield,
CT 06002
phone(860) 286-0004; fax (860) 286-0307
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 16:26:24 -0700
From: Anne R Tyler <tylerar@unm.edu>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. Affirmation
I agree with Metta Zetty (below) about the myth of objectivity. And I
mention a specific method that helps a great deal because it is not
objective.
I recently was reminded about Peter Elbow's writing feedback
method--no judgment but giving owned emotional responses. Example:
instead of using objective phrasing such as "Very fine," Elbow
suggests things more specific to the person's emotional response, such
as, "I really felt an opening there," or "I really appreciated the
visual image there." Several of us tried it in responses to written
material and the results to the writer, in contrast to the
judgment-laden "objective" phrasing results, were wonderful. It was
harder work, because we were not as familiar with
this kind of feedback, but it was much more useful to each of us
because it identified specific reactions and facilitated revisions.
Anne Tyler, masters candidate in Community and Regional Planning
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:28:57 -0500
From: "Dr. Gilbert Brenson Lazan" <gbrenson@correo.inter.net.co>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
Our experience with this (very difficult) issue in a very
"people-centered" culture is that the situational or contextual
evaluation that John mentions is of utmost importance.
At the same time, there is another factor we learned from family
therapy and that we transfer to group facilitation: equidistancing.
Whatever the level of affirmation that is decided upon (according to
group needs, culture and task), we firmly believe that it should be
applied equally to all participants, be it quantitatively (in time,
space, etc.) or qualitatively (in degree of intimacy, question
difficulty, etc.).
Gil
FUNDACION NEO-HUMANISTA - Dr. Gilbert Brenson Lazan, Exec. Dir.
Facilitando y Formando Facilitadores de Gerencia Social
Transformacional, Correo: Apartado Aereo 50717, Tel: 1-345-2724
Fax: 1-345-2072 Santafe de Bogota, Colombia
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:48:29 퍍
From: tony crawford <tony.crawford@sheridanc.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
A simple way to feel comfortable with the role of neutrality is to use
the group's reaction to a suggestion/idea as a barometer of success
versus your own opinion. If Jim felt he was praising an individual
based on a personal benchmark, that may not be deemed as impartiality.
However, if Jim was simply responding to the groups "feel" or
consensus to the idea, he is only reflecting the team's understanding
that this is indeed a good idea. Sometimes, a good idea still needs to
be challenged or praised to ensure all extreme viewpoints
(for/against) are ironed out before moving on to the next topic at
hand. This will, in the long run, prove the viability of the
suggestion and promote a better sense of accomplishment because the
solution was proven viable by the team and not just because they
thought it may be viable without due analysis.
These observations are made from my experience in facilitating JAD
workshops.
Roman Soltys
Process Improvement Institute, 461 Lakeshore Road West, Oakville,
Ontario L6K 1G4, Canada
Phone 905 845 3844 Fax 905 849 0252
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 20:35:00 -0500
From: Steve J Rice (Facilitator/Coach/NLP Practitioner),
steve@hursley.ibm.com
Subject: Re: neutral vs affirmation
I was just about to respond to the original note when I decided to see
what responses followed. What a good job I did as Andrea appears to
have said everything I would have said. I absolutely agree, THEY know
CONTENT I know PROCESS and isn't it so much better if THEY realize how
well THEY are doing. As to jumping in bigtime, OH YES, and ain't it
fun to use this to generate more energy (as long as you can duck and
dive, physically and metaphorically). Great response Andrea.
Steve J Rice (Facilitator/Coach/NLP Practitioner)
DS (IBM Global Services), Hursley MP 100 England
Tele: 7-246478 44(0)1962-816478
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:37:53 -0500
From: "Sandor P. Schuman" <sschuman@cnsvax.albany.edu>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
James Laue, in a classic article entitled "Sociologists as advocates:
there are no neutrals," suggested that one cannot be neutral and still
play a role in a controversy. He argued that he has to be an advocate
for either:
o a party (one of the parties involved in the controversy)
o an outcome (a particular outcome or end result) or
o a process (how the controversy will play out)
As facilitators it is our role to be neutral with respect to party and
outcome, but advocates with respect to process.
Sandy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 15:23:35 폍
From: JOHN PINKARD < email: epinkard@cc.curtin.edu.au >
Subject: Neutral vs. affirmation
IMHO, facilitation can encompass both neutral and affirming
approaches. For me, facilitation isn't about "either / or" choices.
Rather, facilitation can be inclusive of both approaches, along with
an infinite spectrum of variations in between. I see that facilitators
must choose an approach that best meets the needs of the situation and
that can be effectively accommodated by their own repertoire of
facilitative skills.
To be more specific, I see that this thread is at least in part about
the degree of control a facilitator exerts over group processes and
outcomes. The spectrum associated with facilitator control might, for
example, involve "Full Facilitator Control Over Process / Outcomes" at
one end of a continuum, with "Full Group Control Over Process /
Outcomes" at the other end. An infinite number of variations are
possible between these extremes.
In addition, I believe that the particular approach to control that a
facilitator chooses will be influenced by a number of variables. These
will include, although not be limited to the following variables.
a) Individual Participants...
b) The Group...
c) The Facilitator...
d) The Context...
I guess what I'm saying is that I prefer to use a situational approach
to facilitation. The approach a facilitator chooses to use (e.g. high
/ medium / low degree of facilitator control over group process and /
or outcomes) can be based on situational considerations. In my mind,
both neutral and affirming approaches can be effective and "right".
Alternatively, both might be "wrong" for a given situation. It all
depends.
John Pinkard, John Pinkard Consulting, P.O. Box 983 ,Fremantle. 6160
Western Australia
Phone: (International access code) 41-111 6562
------------------------------
SMEVERS asked: A thought - what kind of Christmas pudding would result
if the people making it were all *good* facilitators?
Dutch Driver: Blandness on the level of over-boiled oatmeal if the
facilitator is outcome-neutral. I should've resisted but couldn't. I
expect I'll have a lump of coal in my stocking. ;} Merry Christmas.
Ned Ruete: Responding to Dutch's "Blandness:" In the worst case. In
the best case it would probably be about as good as a conference
designed by a bunch of facilitators. Just depends on someone(s) able
to step outside the process role and show some leadership. Bring your
chef's hat as well as your facilitator's hat. (By the way, does anyone
know where we can get facilitator's hats? I made one with a white
painters hat and a label maker, but it's not very good and the laser
toner is flaking off the label.)
Dr. Larry A. Pace:
A process-pudding, blended well
But of the outcome, who can tell?
Andrea Tannenbaum:
- Diverse flavors that work together with spicy spots that smooth over
and add richness to the mix.
- A product that invites others not directly involved to bring
complementary sauces/dishes.
- Plenty for all. May even be more than we can handle.
- Finished in time and then celebrated.
- Can I have some more, please?
Mary Margaret Palmer:The best way to find the answer to this question
is to come to the IAF conference and find out.
----------------
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 20:21:42 -0500
From: "Dr. Gilbert Brenson Lazan" <gbrenson@correo.inter.net.co>
Subject: Re: Neutral vs. affirmation
John Pinkard's opinions are also those of many of us, especially those
of us outside what appears to be a typically North American posture on
facilitation; I feel a second wind coming on regarding this subject.
It seems that many listers consider "facilitation" as an exclusive
role within a broader range that many others of us also consider
facilitating. We use a double-entry matrix with task-process baselines
and a diagonal low-protagonism to high-protagonism continuum. I have
read some authors that say that only 1/4 to 1/9 of this type of
intervention matrix is facilitating (process, low protagonism,
"neutrality", etc.). Why is that any more facilitating than high
protagonism and/or task orientation, if the goal (and result) is group
empowerment, self-development, autonomy, co-evolution or what ever
else you want to call it? In some other cultures I work in, both
organizational and ethnic, that kind of limitation on facilitating
behavior would only be seen as arrogant, aloof, uncaring, etc.
In our experience, situational facilitating does not require months or
years of evaluation, just a few minutes of sensitivity and observation
of what's going on in the group right now. At the same time, I
realize that my years of experience as a brief family and group
therapist are showing through, as is my paranoia about cultural
hegemony in facilitation techniques. At least for many of us that
work with very, very culturally diverse groups (in our case, from slum
neighborhood self-help groups to cartel sicario rehab to transnational
corporations), facilitation that is not situational is not
facilitating much of anything.
Best wishes and don't flame...it's Christmas,
Dr. Gilbert Brenson Lazan (address information in previous note).
Santafe de Bogota, Colombia
-------------------------