Re: Right Mix for Group? LO3856

Julie Beedon (julie@vistabee.win-uk.net)
Sun, 26 Nov 1995 09:35:14

Replying to LO3825 --

In LO3825 William Hobler replying to John Warfield wrote

>Getting the group to design at least part of its process is a most
>successful way to get each member to buy into the process. It is my
>experience that plunging a group into a new process without preparing them
>is counter productive. They don't know why each step of the process is
>necessary. I prefer to start groups off in a work- shop about the process
>that ends with a plan of the project they will do. I find it most
>effective when members of the group volunteer to be responsible for the
>completion of project tasks. It is a sign that they have sign up for the
>goals and objectives and the process. This is a sign that the group can
>be "self organizing".

There is a lot of talk about this sort of issue in Merrlyn Emery's
sections of Marvin Weisbord's book Discovering Common Ground - the
question of the role of the facilitator is a tricky one for me -
do we have to justify our existence (and if external our $) by
'doing something' Process design is for me a partnership which
needs content knowledge and process knowledge - in general the
content knowledge rests with the people and the process with the
facilitator except that it is never that simple - sometimes an
external will see content issues which the organisation has become
blind to and often people from the organisation will know best
what sort of process will help deliver the purpose of a meeting or
session. I like William value building process design with a
group - it is their purpose and if they feel ownership of the
process they are likely to adapt it in real time to ensure the
purpose is achieved - rather than feedin back to us facilitator
types at the end that it didn't work... If I cannot design with
the group (ie the gourp is too large - then my preference is to
design with a microcosm of the group - all perspectives (including
the strongest cynics) to ensure the process, as well as the
content, is a good fit.

>In my humble opinion the content provided under these circumstances will
>not reach the depth of understanding that provides substantial benefit
>from the process. Content provided from a position of intrinsic
>understanding of the context and the process is much closer to the core of
>the substantive issues involved. Group members can provide knowledge by
>simply answering questions, they can provide wisdom from fully
>understanding the context and the position they are in with respect to the
>process.

This has ben my experience as well - and if we have designed a
process and we give enough information for the group to be wise
about why it is designed the way it is they can make choices about
the extent to which they use the process offered and the extent to
which they need to design there own - to be sure they achieve
their purpose.

>I don't want the group to merely answer questions. All the right
>questions will not be asked, they never are. Wisdom is being able to
>arrive at truth without having someone ask question after question. I
>think the group needs deep understanding of the context and process as a
>prelude to providing wisdom.

--
Julie Beedon
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
julie@vistabee.win-uk.net