When Teams Begin LO21279

Malcolm Burson (mburson@mint.net)
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:06:55 -0500

I've been following with interest the conversations on "Icebreakers" and
"When a Small Group Dominates," and I'm noticing some congruences in the
discussions. Both were initiated by persons who have been assigned a
leadership / facilitation role, and are looking for ways to overcome some
initial barriers to performance. I'm going to briefly summarize what I've
heard, and propose a way of looking at the similarities. I suspect this
may not be original, but perhaps it will be helpful.

My premise for this is as follows:
When new groups/teams come together, leaders and facilitators
find that some type of "forming" activity, such as an ice-breaker
exercise, may be helpful in moving the group towards its
purpose.

The "Icebreakers" discussion began with a request for useful tools, moved
through some strong feelings about "touchie-feelie" activities, and has
recently looked at differences in the way people with Extravert or
Introvert MBTI preferences experience these sorts of activities,
culminating (if that's the right word!) in Emil Goobersneke's handbook for
subverting well-meaning trainers. I hear two threads winding around each
other here:

1. That there may be a continuum of preference between those who bring an
initial focus on the explicit or implicit _content_ of the team [what
we're supposed to be here to accomplish], and those who value the
establishment of some inter-personal connection between team members as an
important process. The midpoint here might be described by a person who
values explicit common ground about assumptions, beliefs, values, etc.
related to the designed task.

2. On the Myers-Briggs E - I scale, it's not that Introverts hate ice-
breakers by definition; it's that they hate to be treated as Extraverts,
but may not say so (like Emil, they'll quietly sabotage the process).
Given that some attention to group formation may be seen as valuable,
introverts would prefer that it take place in a reflective (deeper??)
manner that honors thoughtfulness and doesn't demand uncomfortable levels
of self-disclosure right off the bat. As has been pointed out, trainers
are often extraverts who design for the outgoing, verbal members of a
team.

This suggests a simple matrix that a leader / facilitator might use in
evaluating how best to help a new group begin its work. Knowing that
tables don't always work in LO, I'll keep the grid simple and add
explanation below. The quadrants would be:

Extravert Introvert

Content


Process

Thus, if a group was composed primarily of those with an extraverted
content focus, then formation activities might include an active
"icebreaker" exercise, the content of which allowed the group to work with
the task issues in a direct way. Similarly, a team with many introverted
but process-oriented members would benefit from an activity which allowed
people to build inter-personal relationships in a thoughtful, dyadic
manner that could be built on as the team grew. I'm sure others can come
up with the characteristics of the remaining quadrants.

At the same time, recognizing that individual differences among members
will need to be honored, any exercise must account for the needs of those
with other preferences: never easy, but possible given some care.

Now, to move on to John H's "When a Small Group Dominates," it occurs to
me that part of the issue may be that his dominant members, whom he
describes as more verbal, more skilled, and more forceful than others, may
be either significantly extraverted, more content focused, or both. Thus,
if John could identify which quadrant the dominant members inhabit, it
might help him think of what the others _aren't_ getting from the process.
While I certainly agree with Harriet Robles in LO 21254 that making ground
rules clear from the beginning is vital, I begin to wonder what the
implicit "rules" are in the group. And while I like Lon's suggestion in LO
21257 to giving the dominant group the task of designing ways to include
the others, I can't assume they have the skills to get beyond their own
preferred style.

For me this suggests the need here, as in the "Icebreaker" presenting
situation, of testing for the Mental Models and Team Learning stances that
the participants are bringing. Sounds to me as if both situations have
folks positively leaping up and down the ladder of inference, and are a
bit short on skillful discussion skills. Creating a beginning activity
based on "Suspending Assumptions" might be useful in both cases.

I've rambled on long enough. What would others like to add?

Malcolm Burson

-- 

mburson@mint.net Orono, Maine (207) 866-0019

"When old words die out on the tongue, new melodies break forth from the heart; and where the old tracks are lost, new country is revealed with its wonders." -- Rabindranath Tagore

Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>