Journal Reflections from Module 2.2 - Group Process, Conflict and Facilitation Methods

[Editors note:  The following is a journal entry addressing specific questions provided by the CPM course instructors for module 2.2.]

1.  What learning stands out for you as your reflect on the classroom experience? Consider what you learned from the activities, instruments, readings, videos, and discussions.

“Dog Fooding”  Great name for the concept of beta testing by actually using the product.

 

Utilizing the three level framework for meetings/ interactions

• Content
• Process
• Relationship

Looking over this concept again brought to mind Francis Schaeffer’s three criteria for evaluating art.  1.  Technical skill in using the medium.  (Content Level)  2. How well the art conveys meaning.  (Process Level)  3.  The validity and value of the idea being conveyed.  (Relationship Level)

 

I liked the exercise of measuring or inquiring into your own or your audience’s level of Focus, Energy, and Engagement.

 

“Groups w/o meetings do not function well” is a great concept.  I had never heard it articulated before, but it does ring very true.  As much as we dread dull meetings, relationships built that way.

A corollary to this may be that Oshry’s Bottoms need to be included in meetings so they can become and feel interconnected.

 

Using the term “Requests”, rather than ground rules for establishing meeting norms.  Interesting way of reframing a subject by simply adjusting nomenclature.

 

The use of metaphors lends itself to Reflective, Creative, and Analytical thinking.  I have always admired and enjoyed working with individuals capable of effectively using metaphors but have never known why.  This class, combined with the questions in the Hay Group Survey from a couple of months ago, has lead to some additional thinking about that.  It seems like a valuable skill to develop and use.  I have been trying to allow myself to be more free in using metaphors and stories based on this information.

 

Framing difficult conversations as either:  Telling vs Learning.  Another reminder that we always need to be receptive to what others are adding to the pool of meaning.

 

Cognitive dissidence exercise of looking for blue items for a minute and then being asked to recall white items…  That was a powerful insight into how narrow our focus can be.  I hope to use this as a tool in my self focused project later this month.

 

When we were discussing the style preference, I kept recalling the initial meeting I participated in as part of Casey’s advisory team.  Casey was very focused on introductions and finding common ground between the team.

I didn’t exactly know how to interpret the conversation.  I was ready to work on getting Casey’s capstone project moving forward and making sure it is the ideal project for him to undertake.  Then we spent the time talking about things we all had in common and our backgrounds.  I began to wonder if I was being coddled, placated, or accommodated since I was the outsider to the group?  (My victim story.)

It was only in the style preference discussion that I realized Casey’s “Amiable” style preference lead him to prioritize ensuring we were all comfortable with each other as the ideal starting point.  I realized that my “Driver” preferences needs to be held in check in order to best accommodate Casey’s comfort level.

 

Tips for My Driver Style or Lack of Expressive Style.  I appreciated the help and suggestions the class provided in how to deal with my lack of expressiveness.

• Verbalize emotions
• Present intentionally
• Non-Verbal communication

 

Listening orientations.  “I Hear Me”  “ I Hear What You Say”  “I Understand You”.   I liked the comment that we revert to Level 1 as a defense mechanism.  It protects us by giving us opportunity to optimize our reply at the expense of others.

 

Huddling.  Implementing a standing 10 minute, check-in meeting in lieu of a formal drawn out meeting.  This avoids much of the dragging out and formal dreariness of meetings.  It also tends to limit extended discussions and fosters side conversations that can be more productive.

 

Two general concepts from the planning of meetings material are good to keep in mind.

• “What has to be different in the world because of this meeting.”
• DPPE of meetings.  Data, Purpose, Plan, and Evaluation.

 

I liked the stereotyping of meeting participants discussion.  (Silent One, Helper, Complainer, Whisperer, Joker, Info Miser, Sideliner, Roadblock and Inarticulare.)  The exercise of leading a meeting with various participants acting out different roles was worthwhile.

 

I had never heard of the 10 5 rule.  If you are within 10’ of another person you acknowledge a person.  If you are within 5’ of another person you should greet the person verbally. 

 

This would be a great rule for me, since I need to be more expressive and my “driver” side tends to brush past people in efficiently carrying out my objectives.

 

No pointing.  I’m not sure if this concept is to avoid an aggressive action of physically pointing, or if the intent is to bias people toward involvement and dialog over gesturing.  Either way it seems like a good idea.

 

2.  Oshry comments in his article that most conflict is seen and diagnosed through a personal framework. He suggests viewing organizational events through a "people in context" lens.

2a.  What's the difference?

When issues are reframed as people acting within their roles of “Responsible”, “Tearing”, or “Oppressed” we have another tool for understanding the sources of potential conflict.  This reframing then can help us build answers to the “why a reasonable, rational, and decent person is acting this way” question.

 

2c.  How does your “lens” influence what you notice and how you might work with people and conflict?

Broadly speaking the Top, Bottom, or Middle environments in which we live provide barriers to seeing how others perceive our actions and how we see others unless we explicitly look for them in this context.  I often miss this perspective.

 

2d.  Does his perspective mean there is no value in working on conflicts at the personal level?

Considering the concept of the waterline model, which suggests addressing issues first at structural roles and context as the preferred initial approach, reinforces Oshry’s perspective on dealing with issues at context levels.

Building on the waterline model, the shallower levels tend towards more immediate results that can be achieved with less investment.  The experience gained in initially addressing shallower levels problems may then build the capital in first hand knowledge and insights to begin the investment in addressing lower levels effectively.

 

2e.  How do Weisbord and Janoff’s ideas about facilitation inform this question? How can you determine the appropriate level for an intervention?

Weisbord and Janoff’s approach focuses on understanding one’s position relative to the group being facilitated and to allow the participants themselves to lead in seeking and finding resolutions.

As an aside, I wonder how Oshry’s context levels relate to Gen Y/X tendencies.  Since theses generations tend to have less respect for hierarchies, does this lack of clarity mix up the category for which they act compared with how they might be perceived?

 

3.  As a leader, how might a facilitative approach to conflict and group dynamics be useful? What specific skills and abilities would you like to develop

Being a neutral party to a conflict often seems like what is desired in order to help keep things moving toward resolution.  (Or in the crucial conversations terminology, for the parties to resume contributing to the shared pool of meaning.)  The perspective on mediation I found interesting from Weisbord and Janoff is that this neutral third parties role should be to shepherd the various other parties in building the skills needed for finding resolution rather than to arbitrate between them.

 

4.  What do you want to learn more about?  How might you do that? How will you apply that learning into intentional, observable behavior?

Since I am not presently leading extended retreat training meetings, much of the Weisbord/ Janoff material did not seem as applicable as it may to others.

From the subjects discussed this month, I want to continue to practice utilizing the Crucial Conversation skills.  To that end I am interested in focusing on mastering my stories, being expressive, and becoming more emotionally intelligent.

Conversely, finding the ‘your foible in my subconscience’ does not portend to likely be a productive endeavor.