Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

visions and agreements that thread through all the changes. These maps serve as a kind of software for groups, and we put version numbers on them. As they change, the charts get new numbers, and people can see how their thinking evolves.

Step 7: Leveraging Learning

Because of the intense amount of attention a graphic facilitator is paying to group process, the facilitator learns a huge amount. Over longer processes, it becomes important to share this bounty with the larger group by providing time for everyone to review and digest what has happened. Reviewing projects and processes with graphic history sessions provides strong support for group learning. Reviewing charts periodically with gallery walks and verbal summaries helps people reflect and think about where they have come. One of the great benefits of graphic facilitation is how it generates clear evidence of what is usually a large amount of work that people put into critical meetings.

CONCLUSION

Graphic facilitation is a rich and versatile way to support effective group process. It goes well beyond drawing images and recording words, to the larger purpose of making everything that happens as explicit and accessible as possible.

Graphic Facilitation

169

Creating a Positive

Participatory Climate

c h a p t e r

E L E V E N

A Meaning-Centered Counseling

Perspective

Paul T. P. Wong

Icannot think of any work more important than that of a group facilitator. Whether the task is adjudicating a family dispute, leading a seminar, chairing a board meeting, presiding over a large gathering, running a training camp, managing a company, or heading up a task force, whenever a group is involved in reaching decisions, the process

can be helped by a group facilitator.

Not all situations require the service of an external, professional group facilitator. CEOs, managers, trainers, professors, coaches, and even parents from time to time need to play the role of a group facilitator. However, when the issues are very complex, opinions are strongly divided, and the meetings are emotionally charged, an outside group facilitator can make the difference between success and failure (Schuman, 1996).

171

AN ILLUSTRATIVE STORY

In the heyday of campus gender politics, antiracism activism, and radical student movement, the president of my former university put together a task force on human rights. The president wanted to bring together representatives of different constituents of the university, especially various minority groups, to make recommendations regarding principles and processes that would protect the university and its members from human rights violations. The task force members included one representative from each of the following: administration, faculty, staff, student council, ethnic minority students, gay and lesbian students, and students with disabilities.

The vice president for student life, a mild-mannered administrator who truly tried to accommodate student needs, chaired the task force. Taking advantage of his concern, the four student representatives claimed that they did not feel safe and requested that they each needed a partner to attend the meeting. Therefore, there were eight students, one faculty representative (that was me), one staff representative, and the vice president. The composition of the task force and the dynamics of the group clearly favored students. Since the vice president had to chair all the meetings and the staff representative was busy taking minutes, I became the only nonstudent member who was able to get actively engaged in the meetings.

At the outset, the student representatives demanded that an external professional facilitator be brought in to chair all meetings of the task force. Their rationale was that they would trust only an outside person to chair the task force in spite of their overwhelming majority. Their proposal was not acceptable to the president, who did not think it proper to bring in an outsider to chair an important task force that dealt with internal affairs of the university. (I think at that time the administration did not have the faintest idea about what a group facilitator did.) The meetings proceeded without a facilitator and with the vice president as chair.

In the first semester, the meetings went quite smoothly. Each week we simply discussed some relevant documents and brought in an expert on a particular human rights issue, such as sexual harassment, violence against women, and racism and discrimination. Student representatives

172	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

recommended most of these external experts. However, even then, one problem, which proved to be undoing of the task force, became increasingly troublesome: none of the representatives of ethnic minorities stayed on the task force longer than two or three weeks. It became very disruptive to bring in new members who did not have the knowledge of what had already been covered in the meetings. The main stated reason for the high turnover rate was that these students of color did not feel comfortable sitting with the white folks. (Apparently my presence as a Chinese did not help make them feel at home.) (For a look at the role of newcomers in groups, see Cini, 2001.)

In the second semester, another problem developed: none of the student representatives would take part in the process as individuals because they stated that they needed to report back to the group and find out what their group wanted. They were neither socially nor intellectually engaged. They functioned only as the mouthpieces for some powerful individuals who were not part of the task force. Therefore, nothing could be decided before it was approved by some external groups. The vice president who chaired the meetings did not realize that by allowing these faceless external groups to dictate both the process and the decisions, the task force actually existed in name only.

The inevitable end came abruptly. One day the student representatives were unusually quiet. Shortly after the meeting started, about fifty people stormed into the boardroom, most of them nonstudents. Their leader, an angry and aggressive person of color, claimed he was president of the Rainbow Coalition, consisting of the Student Council, Antiracism Coalition, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Coalition, and others. He declared that the task force was illegitimate because it did not have any representation from persons of color and demanded that it dissolve itself immediately. When I pointed out that I represented visible minorities, the Rainbow Coalition leader walked up to me and threatened me with physical violence. Under duress, all members (except me) signed a prepared document declaring that the task force no longer existed because of its lack of legitimacy. I simply resigned from the task force.

After scoring this easy victory, the invaders stormed into the president’s office demanding that the university hire four human rights officers to be responsible for four human rights areas: sexual harassment, gender

Creating a Positive Participatory Climate

173

equity, racial equity, and sexual orientation. They demanded that these four officers develop all principles and procedures pertaining to human rights. Thus, they fully revealed their political strategy and agenda after they had succeeded in killing the task force.

I have often wondered what would have happened had we engaged an external group facilitator. The complexity of the issues and the lack of trust among members of the task force clearly justified the need. However, several questions have lingered. Since students were so keen to appoint one of their favored facilitators, could that facilitator have been completely neutral and objective? What would this person have done to ensure that all task force members, especially the student representatives, put aside their group loyalties, ideologies, and politics so that they could have fully participated in the process? How could the facilitator have prevented the task force from being hijacked by external groups with a different agenda?

These are some of the tough questions facing facilitators. From my perspective, an effective group facilitator needs some of the same skills and competencies of counselors and group therapists. More specifically, the theoretical perspective of meaning-centered counseling can enhance the efficacy of facilitation. In this chapter, I outline the development of my theoretical framework, highlight the process, competencies, and characteristics needed to create a positive participatory climate, and outline the conditions for success from a meaning-centered counseling perspective.

DEVELOPMENT OF THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Meaning-centered counseling (MCC) is an extension of Carl Rogers’s personcentered counseling (1951, 1957, 1986), Abraham Maslow’s existential/humanistic psychology (1968, 1970), and Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy (1985; Wong, 2002a). MCC (Wong, 1998, 1999) is integrative, because it integrates several theoretical models around the pivotal role of personal meaning. Personal meaning is an individually construed but socially constructed cognitive system that makes sense of events and endows life with a sense of purpose and significance. It consists of three components: cognitive, affective, and motivational. Feelings of fulfillment typically accompany coherent belief systems and the purposeful pursuit of meaningful goals.

174	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

Contribution of Carl Rogers

Rogers laid the foundation for nondirective counseling. His client-centered counseling (Rogers, 1951), which evolved into person-centered counseling (Rogers, 1986), posits that the main function of the therapist is to create a climate of safety and trust. Given a supportive, empowering environment, people can resolve their own problems without the direct intervention of a therapist. The necessary and sufficient conditions for successful therapeutic outcomes (Rogers, 1957) are the following:

•Unconditional positive regard. The therapist treats others with dignity and respect and accepts others in a nonjudgmental manner. The therapist also demonstrates a positive attitude of trust in the client’s agency and ability to make the right choices.

•Empathy. The therapist shows a genuine interest in the client’s phenomenological world of meaning, demonstrates the ability to understand the client’s internal frames of reference, and reflects an attitude of caring and concern for his or her well-being.

•Congruence. The therapist demonstrates genuineness or authenticity. It is important that the therapist be seen as the same person in and out of the clinic and that there is congruence between his or her words and deeds.

These attitudes or characteristics are essential in creating a positive, therapeutic environment, in which the clients will become less defensive and more open to self-exploration and the quest for meaning. The therapist empowers the client by creating a supportive climate; the primary responsibility in deciding on therapeutic direction and life goals rests with the client.

It does not take any stretch of imagination to see the importance of Rogers’s contribution to group facilitation. When a facilitator demonstrates the same kind of trust in the group and creates a supportive climate through positive regard, empathy, and congruence, the likelihood of achieving successful outcomes is increased.

However, there is one caveat: What will happen when the facilitator finds the values and attitudes of some group members offensive? If she expresses such negative feelings, she will violate the facilitator’s cardinal tenet of neutrality. (For additional perspectives on neutrality, see Chapter Thirty.)

Creating a Positive Participatory Climate

175

How could the facilitator be authentic and neutral at the same time? It seems to me that the only way to maintain strict neutrality is to perform the role of a facilitator as an actor, thus creating a safe distance between one’s own value judgments and feelings and the task one must perform.

Certainly, the facilitator must remain genuine as a person, but when it comes to cherished values and beliefs, she needs to be authentic and compelling in the role of facilitator by not allowing personal feelings to get into the way. This does not mean that the facilitator becomes diminished as a person. It means that the best way to ensure neutrality and thus fulfill her professional duty is to adopt the stance of an actor by temporarily putting aside her own feelings and values and letting the character of facilitator take over. Otherwise, her biases will be betrayed unconsciously through facial expressions, tone of voice, and other nonverbal communication.

The absolute imperative of neutrality cannot be overstated. Since it is almost inevitable that the facilitator will encounter individuals who are antagonistic, offensive, destructive, or seductive and that transference and countertransference may take place, the only way to ensure neutrality is for the facilitator to remain an authentic actor of the professional role.

Contributions of Maslow and May

Maslow and May share Rogers’s view that inherent in each person is the tendency toward purposefulness and growth. People will move toward self-actualization when their needs for acceptance and respect are met. According to Maslow (1968, 1970), self-actualizing persons welcome acceptance, spontaneity, creativity, and an open attitude toward life and exhibit a genuine caring for others.

Rollo May believed that “the creative person can affirm life in its three dimensions—affirm himself, affirm his fellow-men and affirm his destiny” (1940, p. 19). Also, he emphasized the importance of self-acceptance and the courage to maintain individuality as ways of experiencing authenticity and meaning (May, 1953, 1967).

The same positive psychological forces operate in group situations. Therefore, a facilitator who creates a climate of acceptance, affirmation, caring, openness, and authenticity unleashes creative energies for problem solving as well as personal and social transformation.

176	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation

Contribution of Viktor Frankl

Frankl (1985) emphasized meaning actualization rather than self-actualization (Wong, 1998, 2002a); the focus is shifted from self-fulfillment to social responsibility. Frankl’s logotherapy has three basic tenets:

•The freedom of will. This is the fundamental human capacity to choose, to take a stand, regardless of the predicaments confronting one. Since individuals have the freedom to make choices, they are responsible for the consequences. In exercising their freedom, they need to be concerned about the needs of friends, family, and society. They must ask what life demands of them rather than what they can get from life.

•The will to meaning. The primary and basic human motive is to discover and fulfill meaning and purpose. The will to meaning gives people hope and sustains them in their struggle for survival.

•The meaning of life. The discovery of meaning is possible even in the most appalling circumstances. The emphasis is not on why bad things happen to us, but on what we can do to find a meaningful solution. Meaning can be found only in responding to one’s calling or mission toward community, humanity, and a higher power.

These tenets provide not only positive motivation but also helpful guidelines in group facilitation. By emphasizing the freedom of will, the facilitator reinforces the need for group members to be free from party loyalty and situational constraints in order to make responsible choices and decisions. By framing the group task in terms of the will to meaning, the facilitator can encourage the group to persist in spite of setbacks. By adopting the criteria of meaningfulness and responsibility, the facilitator can encourage the group to evaluate the quality and ethical concerns of their decisions.

Wong’s Meaning-Centered Counseling

Wong (1998, 1999, 2002a, 2002b) has incorporated the major themes of existen- tial-humanistic psychology with cognitive-behavioral therapy and narrative therapy. He defines personal meaning as an individually construed, socially constructed cognitive system that makes sense of events and endows life with a sense of purpose and significance.

Creating a Positive Participatory Climate

177

One’s cognitive meaning consists of both the construed meaning of a specific event and the discovered meaning and purpose of one’s life goals. The meaning of a situation often takes on added significance from the perspective of one’s meaning of existence.

Consistent with Gergen (1994), Wong considers personal meaning as based on a unique set of personal history, temperament, and life circumstances, as well as social construction through language, culture, interactions, and dialogues. (For a more detailed analysis of the definition of meaning, see Wong, 1998.)

The facilitator has a twofold task: to understand and clarify the unique meaning each member individually construes from the situation and to guide the process of achieving a shared, or socially constructed, understanding.

This shared reality may emerge as members suspend their preconceived views and cherished beliefs, and seek to truly understand what each one has to say. Although the group can come up with amazing results, we should always be aware of the potential harm of groupthink. Janis and Mann (1977) have shown that groupthink may lead to risky and wrong decisions because of pressure for conformity and the illusion of unanimity. Schuman (2002) has wisely advised that facilitators need to trust the group process but also believe in doubt. (For additional information about groupthink, see Chapter Seven.)

That is why the facilitator needs to be vigilant about consensus reached through groupthink or through the undue influence of some charismatic and prominent group members. The facilitator not only encourages cooperative problem solving (Maier, 1967), but also creates a supportive climate that favors open inquiry and the quest for meaning. She would encourage members to express objections and doubts, consider unpopular alternatives, and evaluate each decision with respect to shared objectives.

A meaning-centered facilitator will use a technique that helps the group study the implications of its decisions, such as the fast-forwarding technique (Wong, 1998), which asks clients to imagine and anticipate likely scenarios and consequences given a particular choice. Then she will challenge members to evaluate the choice: Do you all feel comfortable with the decision? Are you sure that this is what you really want? Where will it get you? Is it consistent with your long-term goal?

Sibbet (2002) points out that facilitators need to make sense of all the interactions, expectations, emotions, and exchanges of information in order to facilitate the group process. Therefore, they need to manage the complex flow of meanings from individuals and the group, as well as from their own understandings. Facili-

178	The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation