DnesInvestor Bloombergtv.bg Bulgaria On AirGolTialotoAz-jenataPulsTeenproblemImoti.netAz-detetoAutomediaStartBlog Posoka Boec

Тийм билдинг

TEAM BUILDING If a creature came from another planet to study earth civilization and returned to give a report, a “fair witness” about us would be “They do almost everything in groups. They grow up in groups, learn in groups, play in groups, live in groups, and work in groups.” Facilitators working in organizations understand that the basic building blocks of human systems are interdependent groups of people, or teams. Some of the most exciting things about organization development (OD) are the many different, potentially useful activities and interventions that are available in this field. Many of these are oriented toward the individual working in the organization: career planning, one-to-one coaching and counseling, job enrichments, life planning. In this focus, individuals look at themselves in relation to their organization. Another class of interventions, however—equally significant to an organization’s growth—focuses on groups within the organization. This direction includes such activities as problem solving at the group level, confrontation meetings, diagnostic meetings, and goal-setting sessions. A TEAM EFFORT Team building—another type of intervention at the group level—is an activity that appeals particularly to group facilitators because of their intensive growth-group background and also because it generates considerable excitement among team members. We, along with a number of other writers in the human relations field, contend that team-building activities represent the most important single class of OD interventions. This paper considers team building in depth: what it is, its goals, how it differs from other OD activities, the steps that have to be taken to assure that it is done well, and specifics about conducting team-building sessions. "Team,” as it is used here, pertains to various kinds of groups. Most typically, it refers to intact, relatively permanent work groups, composed of peers and their immediate supervisor. But there are other kinds of teams, which may be more temporary in nature, whose charter is to come together for the purpose of accomplishing a particular task. Committees, task forces, “start-up” groups—each of these may be a team. For a group to function effectively as a team, several important elements must be present. (1) The group must have a charter or reason for working together; (2) members of the group must be interdependent—they need each other’s experience, abilities, and commitment in order to arrive at mutual goals; (3) group members must be committed to the idea that working together as a group leads to more effective decisions than working in isolation; and (4) the group must be accountable as a functioning unit within a larger organizational context. In this light, team building is seen as a vital part of an OD effort. It affords a work group the opportunity to assess its strengths, as well as those areas that need improvement and growth. A group’s team-building effort has definite implications for the total effectiveness of the entire organization. Team-Building Goals Certain task and interpersonal issues impede a team’s functioning. Team building aims at improving the problem-solving ability among team members by working through these issues. This major goal includes a number of subgoals:  1. A better understanding of each team member’s role in the work group;  2. A better understanding of the team’s charter—its purpose and role in the total functioning of the organization;  3. Increased communication among team members about issues that affect the efficiency of the group;  4. Greater support among group members;  5. A clearer understanding of group process—the behavior and dynamics of any group that works closely together;  6. More effective ways of working through problems inherent to the team—at both task and interpersonal levels;  7. The ability to use conflict in a positive rather than a destructive way;  8. Greater collaboration among team members and the reduction of competition that is costly to individual, group, and organization;  9. A group’s increased ability to work with other work groups in the organization; and  10. A sense of interdependence among group members. The final aim of team building, then, is a more cohesive, mutually supportive, and trusting group that will have high expectations for task accomplishment and will, at the same time, respect individual differences in values, personalities, skills, and idiosyncratic behavior. Successful team building should nurture individual potential. Team Building vs. Training and Skill Building The activities and norms developed in team-building sessions are different but complementary to those characteristic of management-training and skill-building sessions. Concepts such as leadership styles, decision making, communication patterns, motivation, competition, and morale are all relevant to the process of team development. However, management training may encourage sameness rather than difference in the individuals’ approaches to work and the organization. Instilling company values and philosophy into an individual’s work personality does promote company loyalty. Nevertheless, we contend that such an approach can reach the point of diminishing returns; if it neglects the development of the individual employee, it will ultimately become costly to the organization (Reilly, 1973). The Consultant’s Role The consultant working with a group in a team-building effort has a key task: “responsibility”—the skill of responding to the group and of intervening in the group’s life in such a way as to facilitate its problem-solving capability. Thus the consultant’s allegiance is to the entire group, not to the supervisor or to a particular clique within the team. This must be clear before the team-building venture begins. Of course, the consultant does not ignore the person in charge! Indeed, this person may need special counsel from the consultant outside the formal team-building session. But, in order to function in the best way possible, the consultant must be his or her own person, free to respond equally to each team member. We see the consultant’s role in team building as a “process” consultant rather than an “expert” consultant. It is the consultant’s responsibility to develop the process awareness by which the team can take a meaningful look at itself, its functions, its method of working, and its goals for change. The process consultant in team building should help the group solve its own problems by making it aware of its own group process and the way that process affects the quality of the team’s work. In other words, the consultant’s aim is to work himself or herself out of a job. With this approach, the strength of the facilitator’s influence in team building is not obvious to himself or herself or to members of the team. Yet we find that the consultant’s skills and values generally carry considerable weight in the work group’s opinion. It is the consultant’s responsibility to be aware of his or her own impact on the group. The Role of Games and Simulations Since the focus of team building centers on real-life issues and concerns that the work group faces on a day-to-day basis, inventories, simulations, or structured experiences generally play a minor role in team-building sessions. They are best used when there is a need to generate data that the team uses to get a clearer understanding of its own process. Inventories such as FIRO-B, for example, may serve as excellent interventions to focus on behaviors of group members. Or a structured experience aimed at discerning group-leadership functions may prove very helpful in uniting the group. We find that an activity or inventory can be especially useful in team-building sessions for the following purposes:  1. To help team members diagnose where they are as a group—what they do well or poorly;  2. To aid in the understanding of group members’ communication patterns, decision-making approaches, and leadership styles;  3. To surface latent or hidden issues;  4. To focus an issue which the team understands but seems unable to investigate deeply; and  5. To demonstrate specific techniques that group members can use to improve the quality of their time together. However, using activities and simulations in team-building sessions can have potential pitfalls. A group may spend valuable time working on issues unrelated to its day-to-day work as a group; or a facilitator may get caught up in the excitement that comes as a result of participating in simulations and inventories of an introspective type, even though such learnings are not the main objectives of team building. The facilitator must be able to balance both the concerns of team building and the learning needs of team members. Issues A number of issues are important in beginning a team-building effort. Since many facilitators approach team development from T-group and/or clinical backgrounds, it is worthwhile to consider some special concerns about working with intact groups. Climate Setting. Expectations about the differences in a group’s way of working together at the completion of a team-building endeavor should be explored with the manager or supervisor of a group. In team building, the overall objective is to improve the team’s performance and satisfaction through looking at its process and resolving conflicting situations. The kind of climate or atmosphere established in the group is affected by the group’s new behaviors: communicating candidly, confronting and dealing with issues, and utilizing each group member’s resourcefulness. Once a climate is created, it is important that it be supported and nourished. It is critical that the consultant help the group leader understand the implications of the group’s climate. For example, the supervisor may be accustomed to interacting with subordinates in an authoritarian manner. As a result, team members may harbor resentment toward him or her and also feel that they are underutilized in the group. If a norm of openness becomes established as the team building progresses, chances are that the supervisor will get this feedback. Therefore, it is vital to the success of the sessions that the supervisor enter the activity with a good understanding of the implications of opening up communications within the group. Establishing Expectations. By devoting special time to examining its own workings, a group generally raises its expectation of improvement. This is usually realistic. However, it is easy for group members to develop unrealistic expectations. They may assume that as a result of a three- or four-day meeting, their group will be cured of all its ills. Such a notion, if not dealt with, can lead to considerable strain for the consultant and can frustrate team members so that they lose confidence in the team-building process. It is the consultant’s job to help the group set realistic and attainable objectives for its session. At the end of the meetings, participants should be able to evaluate the extent to which they have accomplished their aims. It is important that group members take responsibility for what they accomplish as well as for what they fail to accomplish in their team-building session. At the same time, the consultant must be aware of the degree of responsibility he or she is willing to assume for the group’s working through its issues. It is foolish for a consultant to guarantee that a group’s problems will be solved. Rather, the facilitator’s contract is to help develop a process which gives members the potential to work through their own problems. The self-fulfilling prophecy is apparent here: If the consultant and group members set high but realistic expectations for themselves, they often accomplish their goals; on the other hand, if they expect to accomplish little, chances are they will accomplish little. One-Shot Efforts. Ideally, team building is not a one-time experience. It can help a group develop to a higher level of functioning by strengthening group members’ functional behaviors and deleting dysfunctional ones. The effectiveness of most team-building efforts is increased if there is some follow-through after the initial sessions. This may be done formally by way of additional sessions or less formally by continuing to build on norms developed during the initial session. In either case, the consultant should stress the need for continuity in the team—that together the group is involved in an ongoing process. Such follow-up helps to ensure that action steps are implemented to resolve the issues focused during the session. Also the group is able to reassess where it is and exactly how it is functioning differently as a result of its earlier experience. As an isolated event, then, team building decreases the learning potential for the group. It is most effectively carried out as part of a well-planned OD effort. Systemic Effects. It is safe to assume that an intact group does not function independently of other work groups. What is done to one group more often than not affects the affairs of other groups. Team building often has systemic effects. For example, to go into an organization and work with one district within a region is likely to affect the entire region. People who have experienced successful team building are apt to want to share their enthusiasm with colleagues from other districts. By establishing new norms of working together more effectively, a particular work group can have quite a significant impact on the lives of other groups. Similarly, if a group has an unsuccessful experience, the negative fallout may affect the entire system. Inherent in team building is a potential for change in specified areas. It is assumed that one team cannot change without affecting, at least indirectly, the functioning of other teams. The consultant must be aware of the impact of the intervention on the immediate group with whom he or she works as well as on related groups in the organization. Such awareness can mean the difference between success and failure. Task vs. Interpersonal Focus. Just as it is important for a consultant to have an understanding of the climate of the groups with which he or she works, so in team-building sessions it is vitally important for the consultant and the client groups to agree on the kinds of issues around which the group focuses its efforts. Identifying needs and designing effective interventions through which the group can meet its needs are the consultant’s prime tasks. It is difficult, but extremely important, to consider the balance between task and interpersonal concerns prior to the team-building session. The consultant’s job is to state his or her own biases and help the group define workable boundaries. Some teams consciously decide not to work at an interpersonal level during a team-building session, while other teams decide to invest considerable energy at this level. We have found it helpful to work those interpersonal conflicts that interfere with the group’s accomplishment of its task goals. It may be desirable to negotiate a contract with the group to determine what data will be considered out of bounds. A group whose members have had intensive growth-group experience may profitably wrestle with issues concerning their feeling reactions to each other’s behavior. Touchy-Feely. Most individuals become members of work groups to meet goals other than intrapersonal or interpersonal development. Therefore, it is usually inappropriate for the facilitator to advocate such growth in a team-building session. It is particularly unwise, in our judgment, to use techniques commonly associated with “sensitivity training” with people who must work together on a day-to-day basis. Effective Problem Solving Process awareness is, to our mind, the essence of team building. When it understands and monitors its own process, a group is better able to accomplish its tasks and to utilize the talents of its group members. Each process dimension—such as sharing ideas in the group, making decisions, the feeling tone of the group, and its morale—needs to be focused on as the opportunity arises in the group. Norms of Trust and Openness. As a result of their increased ability to confront what develops in a group, members often grow toward a greater sense of trust and openness with one another. “Trust” and “openness” are two of the softest terms used in all of human relations training—and two of the hardest dimensions to cultivate in a group of individuals who work closely together. But it is our contention that greater trust and openness provide a greater potential for group task accomplishment as well as for personal satisfaction. Trust and openness also lead to a climate in which conflicts are seen as healthy and productive. Dealing with conflict in a direct and forthright manner energizes groups. People say what they want to other individuals and expect other individuals on the team to do the same. Feedback. Effective team building leads to more effective feedback to group members about their contributions to the work group. Individuals learn the value of being willing to give, solicit, and utilize feedback from their colleagues. This can lead not only to increased overall effectiveness for the group, but also to personal development and growth for team members. Prelude to Intergroup Problem Solving Before two groups meet jointly to improve their “interface,” it is vitally important that each team first experience team building as an intact work group. Each group should have its own house in order before attempting to join other groups to explore mutual problems. This is not to say that a group should be functioning “perfectly.” Rather, it means that group members should be able to listen effectively to one another and to approach problems straightforwardly. Some of the variables that help pave the way for successful intergroup exchanges include being able to identify problems, to engage in feedback processes in a relatively nondefensive manner, and to be authentic and not play the game of one-upmanship. One of the most helpful and effective interventions in getting groups prepared for an inter-group meeting is an activity commonly referred to as an organization mirror, or image exchange. Briefly, it is an activity whereby each group writes down adjectives or phrases that describe its perceptions of itself and of the other group. Group members also predict the other group’s perceptions of them as a group. These lists are generated by the two groups separately. The consultant may help each group prepare to accept and react to the feedback or exchange perceptions it is about to receive. In our experience, Group A generally predicts that Group B sees it much more negatively than Group B actually does. Furthermore, Group B often sees Group A more positively than Group A sees itself. Such discoveries quickly dispel a lot of ogres and nonproductive anxiety. PREPARING FOR THE MEETING It is important for the consultant to prepare participants for what will happen during the session. The sensing interview—which will be covered in more depth later in this paper—provides an opportunity for expectations to be clarified. The consultant can describe in general what the meeting will be about. Expectation gaps can be checked out and worked through if they exist. Participants usually want to know exactly what kind of interactions they can anticipate in the meeting. For the consultant to withhold responses to such legitimate inquiries can generate nonproductive anxiety. Planning the Team-Building Session Another relevant concern has to do with the physical environment surrounding the team-building session. At least two days of uninterrupted time away from the day-to-day work distractions are essential. Being away from the telephone and office interruptions can generate or free significant energy. It is also imperative that participants commit themselves to the entire team-building session. For several people to come and go over the course of the event spells potential disaster for the experience. It almost goes without saying, of course, that the team leader must be present for the entire session. Sensing One of the best ways for a consultant to make certain that he or she at least partially understands an intact work group is to talk with each member before the team-building session. Face-to-face interviews or “sensing” enables the facilitator to do a number of specific things in preparation for the team-building session (Jones, 1973). First, sensing enables the consultant to gather diagnostic information about the group in its members’ own words, information that is quite subjective, since it represents personal opinions. Secondly, sensing enables the consultant to clarify his or her own perceptions of how the team functions collectively. It serves as a supplement to other available sources of information about the group. And thirdly, sensing increases the psychological ownership of the information used in the team session, because it is generated by the actual group members. We find the following guidelines helpful in conducting sensing interviews:  1. Sensing interviews should remain anonymous but not confidential. Since it is a frustrating experience for a consultant to receive confidential data that cannot be discussed in the session, we prefer to set an expectation of non confidentiality. Whatever information a team member shares with the interviewer becomes legitimate information for the session. We do, however, maintain anonymity. Thus, a team member can discuss a concern without his or her name being attached to it.  2. Only information that might realistically be dealt with over the course of the team-building session should be generated. To collect more data than can be processed may lead to false expectations and frustration.  3. Sensing is a rapport-building opportunity for the consultant. He or she has to make contact with each team member and vice versa.  4. During the interview the consultant should be quite open about answering questions about the session, its objectives, format, flavor—whatever may be of importance to the individual participants.  5. It is vital that sensing data not be shared with participants before the session begins, even though it is sometimes tempting to confirm what one person has said through probing with another.  6. Taking notes during the interviews is helpful. By writing down verbatim a group member’s response to a question, individual quotes can be used to substantiate general points during the session. Doing this increases ownership of the data for the team members.  7. It is important that people being interviewed be told how the information that they share with the consultant is to be used. They may not ask directly, but they do want to know. Sensing interviews are usually far more desirable than questionnaire-type surveys. The personal contact between consultant and participants can pave the way for an effective team-building session. The two approaches, sensing interviews and surveys, can be used together to good effect. Preparing Data Feedback Once sensing interviews are completed, it is the consultant’s job to make some sense out of the data collected. He or she may note common themes, which become major categories for feedback to the group. We find it useful to make a series of posters depicting the general themes of the data, including specific quotes, to make the data come alive. Posters may be made representing different categories of feedback: feedback for each team member; team members’ perceptions of how the group makes decisions; and goal statements for the session. The exact nature of the posters depends on the consultant’s judgment of the group’s level of readiness for working at a particular level. This reality should be kept in mind when designing the feedback session. Coaching the Team Leader Of all the individuals participating in the team-building session, it is the supervisor (boss, chairman, leader, etc.) who probably has the most, potentially, to gain or to lose from the experience. Often it is he or she who suggests team building. Making the proposal for a session is a significant intervention in a group’s life. It is bound to cause group members to react, varying from enthusiastic support to indifference to overt resistance. It is crucial that the supervisor be adequately prepared for the session, since it is he or she who is most likely to be a target of feedback in the team-building session. To help make this a growth experience for both the supervisor and subordinates, the consultant should attend to several dimensions during the planning phase. One guideline we firmly adhere to is that the consultant should never surprise the boss. Nothing can destroy trust faster than for the consultant to make a big intervention for which the supervisor is completely unprepared. For example, if the leader expects nothing but positive and supportive feedback in the session—however unrealistic this expectation may be—and the consultant confronts him or her with heavily negative feedback, one can well imagine the probable outcomes: hurt, defensiveness, disbelief, the feeling of being betrayed. To safeguard against this result, the consultant is wise to prepare the supervisor for the meeting. However, the leader must not conclude, from this function of the consultant, that the consultant’s role is to protect him or her from the feedback of the team members. Rather, the consultant’s job is to work for the entire group, not to be partial to any one individual or to any subgroup. The client is the team, not the supervisor. In an OD effort, the real client is the organization of which the team is a part. The method used to prepare the supervisor depends on who actually takes charge of and conducts the session, the supervisor or the consultant. Some consultants prefer for the supervisor to run the meeting. In this case, the supervisor must be given the results from the sensing interviews in enough detail to present data to the group. The consultant, then, generally will serve as a process observer, encouraging the group to take a look at its methods of working during the session. Another option is for the consultant to conduct the majority of the session. In this case, it is of utmost importance that he or she know exactly what is going on with the group and exactly what outcome he or she wants the group to reach at the end of the session. If the consultant does not have this background or knowledge, it is better for him or her to concentrate on functioning as a reactive observer to the group’s behavior. Our own preference takes both options into account. That is, we prefer that the supervisor conduct the staff meeting while we observe the process and assist the group in studying its own process. But we also structure into the session specific activities, aimed at clarifying problems and working through to solutions. Regardless of the format followed, the supervisor should be encouraged to be open to feedback and not to be defensive. Group members pay close attention to his or her receptivity, and his or her behavior is powerful in setting expectations. It is necessary, too, that the supervisor be authentic, that he or she not fake, for example, being receptive when actually feeling defensive. The norm should be one of strategic openness (Pfeiffer & Jones, 1972). THE MEETING ITSELF Expectations It is helpful to begin the opening session by talking about what is actually going to take place. There should be no big surprises for anyone. One effective way to begin is to have both group members and the consultant specify their expectations for the meeting. In this way expectation gaps can be dealt with early. One strategy is to have members list specifically what they want to happen and what they do not want to happen. The consultant may ask, “What is the best thing that could happen here, and what is the worst thing?” Publishing the Sensing Data After obtaining expectations, the data gained from the sensing interviews should be published in some form. During the presentation it is important that the team not begin to process the data. Team members should, however, be encouraged to ask for clarification so that everybody understands what the data say. Agenda Setting The group’s next task is to set its agenda, focusing on the data at hand. This should be done within the time constraints of the meeting. If the group members commit themselves to a five-day agenda for a two-day meeting, the result can only be a frustrating experience. Setting Priorities Having an agenda to work on, the group should then prioritize the problem areas. It is important that the group (especially if it is undergoing its first team-building experience) be encouraged to start with a problem that can be solved. Members can then experience a feeling of success and begin to feel that they are a part of a team that is pulling together. Problem Solving We consider problem solving to be a pervasive and cyclical phenomenon that occurs throughout the team-building process. To assure its effectiveness, we find two techniques, used between cycles, to be helpful. One is to have the group critique (or process) its own style in working each problem on the list of priorities. That is, the group works one round, processes its functioning, and then takes on another problem. Such an approach provides an opportunity for the group to improve its problem-solving effectiveness over the course of a work session. Members can reinforce one another for their helpful behaviors and work through or lessen their dysfunctional behaviors. Another technique is to post charts. These may include points of view about a problem, solutions, and action decisions. Such an approach enables the group to monitor its own progress or lack thereof. The chart serves as public “minutes” of the meeting, including problem statements, solutions, deadlines, and people responsible for implementing solutions. Planning Follow-Up The purpose of this phase of team building is to assure that the work begun by the group does not die once the group ends its formal team-building session. It is helpful to have the group summarize the work accomplished during the team-building session: to take stock of decisions made during the session, and to reiterate which people are responsible for implementing which decisions within specific time parameters. Within a month following the session a follow-up meeting should be held so that group members can assess the degree to which they have carried out expectations and commitments made during the team session. DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORS During a team-building session it is likely that a consultant will have to assist a team in confronting dysfunctional team behaviors. Listed below are the commonly observed behaviors that tend to obstruct team development, including ways of coping with and working the behaviors in a productive way. Sabotage A person who commits “sabotage” engages in behaviors designed to destroy or significantly impair the progress made by the team. Examples: “I got you” (trying to catch people in the act of making mistakes), “Wait until J.B. sees what you’re up to,” “Yes, but . . .,” and “This will never work!” Sniping A person who takes cheap shots at group members (whether they are present or not) by throwing verbal or nonverbal “barbs” is likely to lessen the productivity of the group. For example, the sniper might say, “When we were talking about plant expansion, old J.B. (who always ignores such issues) made several points, all of which were roundly refuted.” Assisting Trainer A team member who wants to demonstrate his or her awareness of group process may make interventions in order to “make points” with the consultant. He or she may make procedural suggestions to the point of being obnoxious. One of this person’s favorite interventions is, “Don’t tell me what you think; tell me how you feel!” Denying The denier plays the “Who, me?” game. When confronted, he or she backs off immediately. The denier may also ask many questions to mask his or her statements or points of view and generally refuses to take a strong stand on a problem. Too Quiet Members may be quiet for innumerable reasons. It has been remarked about silence: “It is never misquoted, but it is often misinterpreted.” Anxiety The anxious member may engage in such counter-productive behaviors as smoothing over conflict, avoiding confrontation, doodling, “red-crossing” other members, and protecting the leader. Dominating Some team members simply take up too much air time. By talking too much, they control the group through their verbosity. Side Tracking The side tracker siphons off the group’s energy by bringing up new concerns (“deflecting”) rather than staying with the problem being worked on. Under his or her influence, groups can rapidly generate an enormous list of superfluous issues and concerns and become oblivious to the problem at hand. The game the side tracker plays is generally something like, “Oh, yeah, and another thing . . .” Hand Clasping Legitimacy and safety can be borrowed by agreeing with other people. For example, this person says, “I go along with Tom when he says . . .” Polarizing A person who points out differences among team members rather than helping the team members see sameness in the ownership of group problems can prevent the development of group cohesion. This is a person likely to have a predisposition toward seeing mutually exclusive points of view. Attention Seeking This behavior is designed to cover the group member’s anxiety by excessive joking, horsing around, and drawing attention to himself or herself. He or she may do this very subtly by using the personal pronoun “I” often. The attention seeker may also be a person who describes many of his or her own experiences in an attempt to look good to other group members. Clowning This person engages in disruptive behavior of a loud, boisterous type. He or she may set a tone of play rather than of problem solving. CONFRONTING DYSFUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORS The characters described briefly above have one common theme: Each inhibits and distracts the group from working at an optimal level. In dealing with such dysfunctional roles, the consultant will find it helpful to follow three general steps.  1. Draw attention to the dysfunctional behavior itself but avoid the trap of labeling or classifying the person as, for example, a “sniper” or a “hand clasper.” Such evaluative labeling only elicits defensiveness from the individual. Instead, the behavior that is getting in the group’s way should be described.  2. Spell out what appear to be the specific dysfunctional effects of the behavior. This should not be done in a punitive fashion, but in a supportive, confrontive manner. Often the person distracting the group is unaware of the negative impact of his or her behavior. Sometimes the person really wants to be making a contribution and does not know how to be an effective team member.  3. Suggest alternative behaviors that will lead to a more productive and satisfying climate for the disruptive person and his or her colleagues. FACILITATOR INTERVENTIONS Process Interventions Centering around the ongoing work of the group as it engages in problem-solving activities, process interventions include ones aimed at improving the team’s task accomplishment as well as helping to build the group into a more cohesive unit. Process interventions to heighten task accomplishment include the following examples: ˜ Having the group translate an issue into a problem statement; ˜ Observing that the group is attending to several problems simultaneously rather than sticking to one problem at a time; ˜ Observing that a decision was made out of a “hearing-no-objections” norm and having the group deal with this posture; ˜ Inviting the group to develop action plans related to a problem solution; ˜ Suggesting that the group summarize what has been covered within a given problem-solving period; ˜ Helping the group to monitor its own style, using its resources; and ˜ Using instruments, questionnaires, and ratings to assess the group’s position on a particular topic. Process interventions aimed at group maintenance or group building include the following examples: ˜ Pointing out dysfunctional behaviors that keep the group from achieving a cohesive climate; ˜ Encouraging group members to express feelings about decisions the group makes; ˜ Encouraging group members to respond to one another’s ideas and opinions verbally, whether in terms of agreement or disagreement; ˜ Confronting behaviors that lead to defensiveness and lack of trust among group members, e.g., evaluative feedback and hidden agendas; and ˜ Verbally reinforcing group-building behaviors such as harmonizing and gatekeeping. Structural Interventions Another class of interventions is termed structural because it deals with the way group members are arranged physically as a group. Structural interventions include the following: ˜ Having group members work privately—making notes to themselves, for example, before they discuss the topic jointly as a total group; ˜ Having members pair off to interview each other about the problem; ˜ Forming subgroups to explore the different aspects of the problem and then share their work with the remainder of the group; and ˜ Forming a group-on-group design, to enable an inner group to work independently of an outer group, which, in turn, gives process feedback to inner-group members. FACILITATOR EFFECTIVENESS The technology behind effective team building is vitally important. Of greater importance, however, is the facilitator’s own personal uniqueness. To become more complete as a facilitator means to become more complete as a person. Managing one’s own personal growth is an important precondition to effectiveness in facilitating team-building sessions. If a facilitator is aware of his or her own needs, biases, and fears, he or she is less likely to project these onto the groups with which he or she works. Consequently, the facilitator is able to concentrate on the needs of the group. A consultant can increase his or her team-building skills by working with different kinds of groups. Seeking out experiences in various organizations, with different types of clients, can be a creative challenge for the facilitator. It is important that, whenever feasible, two people co-facilitate team-building sessions. Doing so serves as a source of perception checks for each facilitator. It also gives each the opportunity to support and enrich the personal and professional growth of the other. Team building is an exciting activity for the facilitator. Intervening in the life of work groups affords both challenges and opportunities for direct application of behavioral science concepts.





{START_COUNTER}