|
PART SEVEN |
Organizing and Leading |
In addition to guiding the planning and implementation of an intervention, the intervener is responsible for its leadership. This means the intervener provides the vision for the project, builds internal collaboration, develops trust and openness, and models the new ways of doing things. The intervener is also responsible for the recruitment and operation of the steering committee or intervention team. In addition, the intervener is accountable for the training, coaching and personal development of the key stakeholders. Some of the activities related to these responsibilities will be taken on by others as part of the empowerment process but the "buck stops" in the lap of the intervener.
The position of the intervener as the
facilitator of the desired change program gives her a very visible
role in helping stakeholders see and feel the vision for the future the
intervention holds. Her experience as a community developer or organization
consultant gives her an unique perspective from which
to articulate this vision. In the early stages of an intervention the
stakeholders will be looking to the intervener for leader-ship and will give
extra consideration to what she has to say about what they can accomplish through
their collaboration.
The building or trust and openness in the
change program starts with the intervener. He is the model of authentic
behavior, up front about sharing his joys and anxieties, and consistent in his
dealings with the stakeholders. Trust is based on authenticity and
predictability. Risk taking is another essential component in all successful
interventions and the intervener is the personification of this goal for
stakeholders.
A difficult decision for the intervener in
giving leadership to the change program is the appropriate role to take on
controversial issues inside and outside the system. As an outsider the
intervener may be able to stay aloof from these issues citing a lack of
knowledge. But as the role model of authentic, up front risk taking
communication, a carefully chosen, well articulated position about issues is
also a choice to consider. My bias is to stay out of the controversial issues
unless you have the information and perspective to make a thoughtful response.
And where you have sufficient energy and feelings about the issue
that to withhold your opinion would not be up front and authentic for you.
|
FIGURE 22
|
The intervener as a
Role Model |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Successful interventions are led by a
person who also models a commitment to personal learning and development. This
means hunching about the likely outcomes of various actions, sharing
uncertainties, and seeking feedback to determine the accuracy of the
predictions. Like other risk taking activities of the intervener, this is done
very openly and the learning outcomes are frequently talked about with the
stakeholders. This role model supports the stakeholders in taking similar risks
and being open about the positive and negative feedback that contributed to
their learning and personal development.
Leadership Style
Our understandings at this time about
leadership style (Dimock, 1987a) provide authoritative evidence that the
intervener needs to be alert to the balance of task accomplishment behaviors
with relationship and group building behaviors. As the intervention gets
started and the stakeholders are looking to the consultant for answers, a
fairly directive style of leadership which provides a great deal of structure
is most likely to be effective. As the intervention gets under way the
challenge for the intervener is to increase her supportive, group building
behaviors and reduce her structuring and giving direction. The primary method
of empowering the stakeholders is giving them power. Decreasing direction and
increasing support is the way this is done. Thus, by the action taking phase of
the intervention, the consultant should be giving lots of support and
encouragement but only a small amount of direction. This change in leadership
is difficult for many interveners and they either provide
too little structure in the early stages or hang on too long giving direction.
My position is that it is easier to
withdraw direction than to add it. People who have been running their own show
resent more direction and control over their activities. But they certainly
appreciate being given more responsibility. In the early phases I recommend
erring on the side of providing too much direction. And then being very
sensitive to where the steering committee is in their competence and motivation
and withdrawing the direction slowly as soon as possible.
The intervener, then, consistently reduces
her direction and structuring activities in small bits, helping the group take
over and have success in doing it. For example, she may chair the first meeting
of the steering committee providing structure and acting as gatekeeper to
facilitate the participation of each member. Once the group is underway (1 to 3
meetings) she would propose and structure the selection of a chairperson or
perhaps an acting chair or agreement to rotate the position among members.
Hence, if the intervener was still in the chair by the goal setting phase, I
would hunch she was hanging on too long and creating dependency.
Proposing structure for the steering
committee is a form of direction and control yet it tells participants how to
do something (process) rather than what decisions they should make (content).
Direction is usually thought of as influencing or controlling what decisions
will be made and who will do what to whom. Structuring interventions are a
facilitative strategy that keeps the intervener in a consultant role rather
than the hi control expert role where members are told
what to do. Structuring how to work at planning and implementing an
intervention is the major contribution (and area of control) of the ICC
intervener.
Recruiting and Building the Steering Committee/
intervention Team
Many of the criteria for selecting steering
committee members were reviewed when the committee was discussed in the entry
phase of planning. Let me now review a few further considerations in
recruitment and group building. The six most important factors in developing
strong groups (Dimock, 1987) are presented here for focus.
The first consideration, attraction to the
group, consists of attraction to the vision of the intervention, and at least
as important, attraction to the other members and the way they work together.
The more members can meet their needs for recognition, approval, power and new
experience in the group and feel empowered in the process, the greater will be
their attraction to the group. Thus if the planning committee is seen as a high
status group that is going places and doing things the recruitment of attracted
members will be easy. Screening possible steering committee members using the
criteria of how attractive they will likely find the group is important in
recruitment. This is an extension of the Give/Gets technique. It is also possible
that a source of attraction to the group is the intervener personally and/or
professionally. While most committee members will be approached by other
committee members to be asked to join in the participative style of the ICC
method, the odd one may be best recruited by the intervener. This would likely
be the case if the potential member was not well known to the others or not in
the same communication network. Or perhaps was a high status person whom the
others felt uncomfortable approaching.
The whole ICC method is built on the second and third considerations: setting clear and attainable goals, and establishing structure to ensure their accomplishment. Encouraging teamwork and the sharing of leadership is also integral to the ICC method, yet there are two additional considerations worth mentioning here. They are the unique skills and outside status of the intervener that enables him to facilitate internal networking perhaps better than anyone else. He can invite two people in for coffee who might not otherwise talk to each other. He is the honest broker who can pull people together both internally and externally and encourage them to discuss mutual concerns. The intervener is well positioned to build coalitions and networks of potential supporters and collaborators. This increases teamwork both within the steering committee and with the rest of the community.
|
FIGURE 23
|
Developing Strong Groups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being a member of the steering committee
invariably takes a great deal of time and energy and the trick of
considerations five and six is to recognize and feel proud about the amount of
time spent in the committee and take time to recognize each member's specific
contribution. After six or eight meetings the steering committee would take an
hour, for example, and go around the group giving specific recognition to each
member. When it was a member's turn every other member would mention the contributions
they have appreciated from that person. This individual recognition process can
be further consolidated by capping it off with a total team recognition and
celebration. A review of progress to date with a heavy focus on accomplishments
is the method of celebrating small wins. When all members feel they make a
difference, that the committee is making good progress, that the work is
exciting and they have a sense of belonging to this committee, they will be
motivated, committed and empowered.
Making Planning Meetings Effective
The expectation of a high level of task
accomplishment is a powerful group builder. An important focus for team
building is helping the committee accomplish its tasks. A likely place for task
accomplishment to be blocked is with ineffectively run steering committee
meetings—or in the decision making meetings of the stakeholder's group.
Incompetence in facilitating decision making is also a common cause of a
participative interventions failure. Interveners and stakeholders end up
frustrated and in blaming the collaborative method revert to the "tried
and true" authoritarian approach saying something like "you can't get
all those people to make any decisions together".
At the point of setting priorities and
making decisions for change, difficulties often arise. These are usually of a
procedural nature as the decisions get hung up or conflicts flare, the
participants experience considerable frustration and may react against the
whole intervention and change process. Two techniques in group procedures are
most helpful here. One is a systematic problem solving sequence and the other
is to stay away from "majority rule" made decisions and work toward
group consensus.
My preferred systematic problem solving
method is outlined in the Guide (Figure 24) on the next page. A group's most
likely area of difficulty in using the eight steps in sequence is separating
the suggesting solutions phase (4) from the evaluating alternatives phase (5).
Most groups want to start evaluating an idea as soon as they hear it. It takes
a strong chair-person to hold them back until all of the possible solutions
have been suggested.
Gaining and maintaining participant's
commitment is crucial to the ICC method of change and nowhere is it more likely
to be neglected than at decision making meetings. Decisions made by majority
vote tend to polarize the group and reduce commitment and possibly promote
sabotage among the minority who lost the vote. It is more helpful to work
toward consensus where everyone is encouraged to express their point of view,
common ground is sought, and the group uses its cohesiveness and internal
pres-sure to secure agreements that everyone can live with. Consensus does not
mean holding out for total group agreement as one person withholding agreement
would have almost as much power as an autocrat.
|
FIGURE 24 |
Problem Solving Guide |
||
|
Problem Solving
Steps |
Useful Member |
Blocks |
Possible Methods |
|
1. Defining
the Problem |
Orienting,
Clarifying, Defines problem |
Ambiguity, Different perceptions, Generalizations |
Problem census,
Small groups, Need analysis |
|
2.
Checking
Involvement |
Testing,
Supporting, Revealing interest |
Silence, Yessing |
Going around
the group, Ranking
priorities |
|
3.
Collecting
Information |
Giving information,
Orienting, Summarizing |
Moving to next step too quickly,
Lack of focus |
Force field analysis, Advanced preparation, Data collection |
|
4.
Suggesting
Solutions |
Seeking opinions,
Giving
opinions, Coordinating |
Starting to evaluate ideas, Limited participation, Minority not heard |
Brainstorming, Small groups, Nominal group
technique |
|
5.
Evaluating
Alternatives |
Giving opinions,
Testing
feasibility, Mediating-harmonizing,
Coordinating |
Emotional distortions, Conflicts; Steamrolling, Majority voting, Loss
of focus |
Guided discussion, Going around, Force field analysis, Role playing
Risk technique |
|
6.
Decision
Making & Gaining Commitment |
Giving opinions,
Coordinating, Mediating-harmonizing,
Testing for consensus |
Majority voting, Polarizing, Uncommitted going along |
Risk technique, Provisional try, Total group
discussion, Protecting minority opinions |
|
7.
Planning
Implementation |
Giving information,
Testing
feasibility, Initiating |
Lack of involvement, Generalizations, Vague responsibility |
Implementation teams, Small groups, Committees |
|
8.
Evaluating
Replanning |
Coordinating,
Giving opinions, Giving information |
Expectations not clear, Implementation mechanics not dear |
Work groups, Committee reports, Data collection |
Another place to work at increasing
commitment is immediately after a decision is made. It is useful to encourage
each person to express their feeling about the decision that has been made. If
the group is still divided it may help to set up a definite time in the future
to review and perhaps reconsider the decision just made. Or, the use of the
risk technique de-scribed below may reduce resistance. In any case, the public
expression of opinion about a decision increases the commitment of those who
support it as well as those partly opposed.
The right hand column of the Problem
Solving Guide, Figure 24, lists a number of possible methods to use at the
different steps. Most of these methods have already been described, let me now
round out the list. Going Around the group is a method where the chairperson
says how important it is to hear each person's feelings about an issue. Each
person in turn is then called on for any comments they choose to share. This
procedure quickly indicates where the group is and indicates the number of
people supporting various views. Best of all, it facilitates the silent
majority being heard and shifts the focus from the aggressive
over-participators.
The Risk Technique is an extension of the
force field analysis that asks the participants to describe and explore the
possible risks involved in a specific course of action. The free expression of possible risks are encouraged in a
brainstorming style where no one can scoff at the reality of risk. This is
important for many risks do not have any basis in fact or reality
yet are effective blocks to action. By encouraging the expression of
fears and then examining them in the light of day with support from others the
method has proven to be highly effective in reducing these fears. And as our
assumption about change has stipulated, reducing the forces restraining a change
is the best way to facilitate positive action.
The role-playing method of facilitating
problem solving, calls for a proposed solution to be acted out during a few
minutes of the meeting to see more clearly what it might look like. For example
if someone had proposed that the best way to handle the lateness problem in the
committee was to have a private talk with the offenders, the chairperson/
consultant would ask the person making the proposal to select another member of
the group and imagine that person had been late today and actually show the
meeting what would be said to the offender.
Training
and Coaching Key Players
The intervener as organizer and leader of
the change program is in a unique position to facilitate the training and
coaching of the steering committee and other key players. There are likely new
skills and ways of working involved in building a strong steering committee and
running effective planning meetings. The consultant may give direct leadership
to some of these training activities or help mobilize community resources to do
the training. In many interventions, I have designed and led group-building
activities as the program got started and then trained and coached the
committee in using the problem solving guide and other skills for making
meetings effective. As I am on everyone's mailing list it's easy to describe
other training resources available and help participants make con-tact. And
many steering committee members have ended up in my university courses and
professional development seminars. In fact, for many years I made it a point to
take several key players of a current intervention program along with me to the
workshops and seminars I conducted as program assistants (this got them in for
free) to facilitate their framing experiences.
The focus of the change program may be such
that those people affected by it will be expected to do different things and
they will look for help in developing the new attitudes and skills. Recently, a
number of the change programs I have been working on resulted in a human
service organization deciding to shift the focus of its service delivery from
individuals to groups or the community. Once the stakeholders had agreed that
this was the way to go, there was a clamour for training in group work or
community development skills. As a consultant with knowledge and experience in
these areas I was in a key position to either organize the framing with the
group myself or help them find competent resources in their internal or
external community.
Thus, while increasing the personal and
professional competence of those involved in the intervention program is not
the primary focus of an ICC intervention (changing the social architecture or
culture is) it is an inevitable part of all successful ones. It is not an
either systems change or adult education situation. Learning and development
are always part of the intervention, but in the ICC model, training is one of
the methods, one of the supports, for building new ways of doing things. As a
trainer and supervisor of many hundred consultants I have found framing
programs to be their most popular focus for entry and the early stages of
intervention activity. Given the competence of these new consultants in
designing and conducting framing programs, this seems quite appropriate.
It is clear that the intervener is a
constant model of the attitudes and behaviors the intervention is trying to
promote. What is not as clear, and seldom discussed in books on community and
organization development is the intervener's role in coaching key players in
the project. Sometimes the coaching is an extension of the intervener as model
idea where the intervener draws attention to her actions and uses them as
illustrations of an area of concern. Hence, when the steering committee seeks
direction on how it is going to introduce the intervention program to the nine
departments in the organization the consultant may say, "Well, one place
to start might be taking a look at how I introduced the idea to you three weeks
ago and exploring the strengths and weaknesses of how that approach worked
out."
Informal coaching may take place between
meetings such as when the consultant gives feedback and encouragement during a
coffee break, "It was great to see you making that proposal about
networking just now. I really hope you will follow up on it when we go back
after coffee." Or when the frustrated chairperson says after the meeting
how difficult it was to manage, the consultant may set up an informal coaching
session. "Let's get together an hour before the next meeting and look over
your plans for it and maybe we can smooth out some of the trouble spots."
Hopefully, this would provide an opportunity for the consultant to do some
coaching on chairing meeting skills, perhaps approaches to handling the
over-participators, and how to increase the structure to keep the meeting on
the track. The two of them might even role play some of the difficult points
the chair wants to make and perhaps the consultant would model two or three
ways that point could be presented.
The person who is often under the greatest
stress as an intervention starts taking hold is the head person of the
community or organization undergoing the development program. This person may
be the senior elected official in a community, the band chief, the unit head or
the chief executive officer (CEO) in an organization, I assume this person is
heavily involved in the intervention and is likely on the steering committee
but not necessarily the chair. It is difficult for the head person to have much
of a support group within the organization, the top
position tends to distance many people. The job at the top is frequently
described as a lonely one as head people feel they have no one to confide in
about then-fears, concerns and aspirations. Here is another important
opportunity for the consultant to take on the role of coach.
Head people usually feel they have the most
at risk in the intervention and therefore have fears others do not share. They
also may have the most to gain from the intervention but as usual, fears
dominate behavior. As we saw in discussing the Risk Technique, the free
expression of fears in an accepting climate is a powerful method of reducing
them. With these considerations in mind, I have been trying to increase my
contact time with the head person in my interventions to build rapport and make
myself available as a support system and coach. When I have done this well, it
has been among the best uses of my time in the intervention. Usually I find it
hard to think of "little old me" as a major confidant, support person
and personal coach to this person who has tremendous power and earns ten times
what I do, yet I am the interested neutral outside person who has a lot of
listening and helping skills. (This is getting easier as at least now I am
usually older than they are and my financial assets are greater.)
My suggestion to you as intervention leader
is to make time early in the entry phase to sit down with the head person, try
to establish some rapport, and if things seem to be going well ask if the head
person would be interested in discussing some of the possible strengths and
weaknesses of the intervention. If the conversation moves in this direction
your authentic behavior would have you sharing your aspirations and fears about
the possible intervention and encouraging and supporting sharing by the head
person. At some point a question such as "What is the worst thing you
think might happen in this intervention?" could help to focus on the risks
and fears.
If the early rapport and sharing session
seemed helpful, the intervener could consider what time and frequency similar
coaching sessions might warrant during the intervention. The intervener might
play a useful sounding board role or continue with the coaching role in discussing
how the intervention was going and what new risks or fears were emerging. The
consultant is in a strategic position to give the head person descriptive
feedback (especially if little is forthcoming from the group) and encourage
discussion of how the head feels the consultant is working. Personal coaching
could range from ways to be less defensive to how to manage conflict within the
system.
As part of the "loneliness at the
top" syndrome few system members have much awareness of the head person's
personal thoughts and feelings of the pressures and concerns faced. They would
in fact have a difficult time describing what life was like for their head
person. As one of the intervention goals may be to increase this kind of
communication and sharing it is worth considering whether it would be
productive to conduct one of the coaching sessions in front of the steering
committee or intervention group. In these "let's try putting ourselves in
the shoes of the head person and see how things look from that position"
sessions, we carry on with our usual discussion of how things seem to be going.
I ask those watching to withhold their comments or questions until the end when
we will process the whole session with the group. I structure the processing
time to ensure it doesn't end up as a we-they bitch
session with the group dumping on the head person by encouraging them to work
as "assistant coaches".
The other key player in an intervention who
may deserve special attention and coaching is the person who proposed or
initiated the intervention. Or whose job it is to "ride heard" over
the intervention. As we discussed in the entry phase, many interventions start
through a personal contact with someone in the system. For me this could be a
former student, someone from one of my professional development or framing
programs, a friend or a person who's read my books or
articles. This person may be in change of personnel or training in the
organization, or just a player in the system. The consideration is what special
role, if any, should this person have in the
intervention. If this person brought you into the system and supported you as a
competent, helpful consultant then-reputation (and perhaps their job) is on the
line. The risks this person is taking exceeds those of
other stakeholders. Sometimes it seems most appropriate to let this person off
the hook by treating them the same as everyone else and not highlighting their
initiating or managing role (the intervention may be paid for through this
person's department budget so they sign all the checks). Often, though, it
seems to me best to acknowledge this person's special role in the intervention
and make them an assistant on the intervention team. This gives the person
visibility and legitimacy in the intervention, likely increases status, and
certainly expands the learning, framing opportunities. When appropriate, I have
included this person in my coaching sessions with the head person as both an
inclusion and framing activity but also in the hope that the use of each other's
resources would continue after I had departed.
Managing Conflict
The intervener also has a unique role in
managing the conflict generated by the intervention. This role is related to
the experience and skill of the consultant, the inside-outside, the system
status, the trust and respect earned, and the possibility that some
stakeholders will see the consultant as responsible for what happens in the
intervention. This is the last special area for the use of the consultants
organizing and leadership skill I'll describe but it is not the least
important. Dissatisfaction and conflict are the guts of any
intervention—without them and there would be no motivation to change the
system.
The role of the intervener is to help the
stakeholders learn how to harness and manage the tremendous energy the tensions
from conflict produce and use it to further the intervention goals. Most of us
have mixed feelings about conflict and have ended up seeing some conflict as
good and some as bad. On the hockey rinks and football field it is good—without
it there would be no game. But in the business organization and family it is
bad even though it may still be an important dynamic of the "game"
there. Management framing teaches conflict resolution skills as though the goal
was to resolve conflicts and live happily ever after.
Interventions are, and should be, full of
conflict. Conflict over goals, conflict over values, conflict
about how to do things (process), and conflict over power, status and
personalities. As intervention organizers I advise we look at conflict
as a neutral input and manage the conflict in ways that promote attitude and
behavior change, that facilitate learning, and that produce results that
enhance the program's goal achievement. I like the concept of Optimal
Tension—enough to supply the juice for the change program but not so much that
it immobilizes participants or develops warring factions.
Another source of conflict in an
intervention is the conflict within the participants generated by the ambiguity
of change program. When people don't know what is going to happen, what is
going to be expected of them, and whether they will be adequate for the new
order, tension is created. Ambiguity creates tension and the tension plays out
in the form of resistance and conflict.
A similar source of tension and conflict is
from the ambiguity created by changing the system's social architecture—the
usual roles, relationships and "pecking order". Cows have a gate
order in which they go through the gate and into the bam at milking time.
Everyone knowing their place in the order makes for an easy, peaceful entry
into the barn. But add new cows or change barns and the usual ways of doing
things have been upset. Now the cows are jostling for position, shoving,
butting, and squeezing to all get through the door at the same time. This is
constructive conflict and as soon as the cows work out a new gate order, or
resume the old one, the tension goes and the activity runs smoothly. Group
building activities, especially those involving roles, status and expectations,
can be beneficial in managing this kind of conflict in an intervention.
Take the conflict out of most interventions
and they would collapse. Yet interventions have failed because the tension
level climbed too high and stakeholders hunkered down or fled to maintain their
well being. The task is to maintain an appropriate balance of security giving
components such as some structure and direction for the intervention,
visibility of a competent, trusted consultant, and the support of a tight-knit
group with the anxiety creating aspects of change. This appropriate balance is
called optimal tension. Sanctioning conflict and using it constructively helps
to achieve optimal tension.
The consultant is the paramount role model
in demonstrating a healthy openness to conflict. In a very visible way she can
treat conflict as an everyday, expected occurrence and a source of motivation
to get more involved and push on with the planning of change. Certainly it is
not some-thing she pretends isn't happening or something to soothe over through
immediate resolution. If the conflict is hidden or avoided by the group, the
consultant can help to get it into the open. She may do this in a direct
intervention naming the conflict, or by making process observation focusing on
the problems the conflict is creating in the group. Or she may share her
personal feelings about the conflict and encourage others to do the same. Once
the conflict is in the open the consultant can teach participants new ways of
managing it such as starting by getting the conflict into the open.
The usual role of the intervener during a
conflict is as a third party consultant. The third party role is one of
neutrality on the issue (as the third or outside party), providing structure
within which to explore the conflict, facilitating the process, problem solving
ways to manage the conflict, analyzing or processing the experience and
consolidating possible learnings.
Power and control, as usual, is the
principal focus of conflict in an intervention. And one of the key players in
that conflict is likely to be the consultant whether he likes it or not. He may
see himself bending over backwards to give power away and strengthen others.
Yet as project organizer he has a lot of power to give away. It may also be
valuable for the consultant to consider the track records of the key players
and key sub-groups in the project with regard to power and control. This would
be like a stakeholder's analysis that asks how much power these individuals or
subgroups have had and how much they want. The second question in the analysis
is how much control these individuals and groups have accepted in the past and
how much they are likely to accept now. Such an analysis may help to put the
conflict over power into perspective and suggest some next step activities.
Part 8...