Bill wrote,
> A colleague keeps reminding me by her actions (and, occasionally, her
> words) that one important part of interventions is asking what the other
> party wants. Maybe that would be a way to help them first consider and
> then verbalize their responsibility in the matter.
That is generally the approach I take with a group that has not personally
invited me in (as in this case, when it was the director who invited me).
Works well when the group members will speak up and articulate . . .
something, anyway.
What happens when they don't? Many of the ideas people have put forth
have been based on the assumption that the people will talk--they will
engage in some way. I will make the guess that, over time, these people
might begin to voice their ideas, opinions, frustrations, anger, or
whatever.
In one way, perhaps we could look at this case and say that yes, these
people did engage--just not in the way I had expected (e.g., via their
silence). There is perhaps some value in looking at what was not said, as
well as in looking at what they did say (limited as that was). The danger
there, of course, is that I fall back on my own experience, assumptions,
and meaning schemes, if I have no other opportunity to interact with them.
If/when you meet with such a silent group (and I agree with what someone
else tonight said, that this is certainly not a case limited to the
workplace; as a former public educator, I had similar moments like this),
would you persist in trying to draw them out (short of the cajolling)?
And for how long would you persist, if you would? If, instead, we change
tactics, does this then creep over that gray line towards manipulation?
Is there any value in continuing to work with the group, or better all
around to simply work with the manager and director?
Just some more random thoughts . . .
--Terri A Deems tadeems@aol.com
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>