By Richard K. Moore
March 2010
Simpol Chapter in Brighton, UK
John Bunzl invited me to facilitate a meeting of the main chapter of SIMPOL, in Brighton. The chapter was facing a management crisis.
Results
The management crisis was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
The organization
SIMPOL is a volunteer activist organization, with chapters globally. The management crisis had nothing to do with the nature or purpose of the organization. The problem was simply about how the local chapter, of about a dozen people, could work more effectively together, and be clearer about its organizational objectives.
Needs that led to our involvement
I was in dialog with the SIMPOL people due to my interest in their activities. They were planning a meeting to work on their management issues and I suggested DF might be useful. After some discussion, John invited me to give it a try.
Description of our work
We had a one day session using standard DF, with 4 charts, participants in a semi-circle, etc. It was my first time to facilitate, following my training in Victoria. I was surprised how natural it was. I asked a volunteer from the group to tear off the sheets and paste them up, in order to keep the process going more smoothly.
For most of the session it seemed like we weren’t getting anywhere. People would identify problems, or bring up ideas, and we meandered along noting everything on the charts. Interestingly enough, we never referred to the charts, and I wasn’t always careful about which chart to use for each comment.
The energy began to shift when one of the participants, let’s call him ‘Joe’, said he was ready to quit because he had little hope the chapter could get it together. I didn’t think of pursuing a ‘purge’ with Joe, as I should have, but the purge happened anyway as the dialog continued.
As Joe stated his various complaints and misgivings, I could sense that he had a framework in his head about how the group could be operating. And I could sense that he felt capable of helping guide the group, if he were given the opportunity. So after some internal hesitation, I decided to intervene in the dialog.
For the first time I referred to the charts. I pointed to a few of the charts, reviewing the main problems and suggestions. I then pointed out how Joe had been homing in on a better way of proceeding. So I asked Joe, “Would you be willing to take charge for the next six months, and see if you can turn things around?”. He said yes, and then I asked the rest of the group if they’d be willing to support Joe in that process. They all said yes. End of problem; everyone happy.
Outcomes
Joe did take charge, his negative energy having been transformed into positive energy. And the other group members saw Joe’s leadership as a valuable service to the group, not as a ‘boss’, but as an ‘effectiveness facilitator’. If he asked one of them to do something, they’d take it on with enthusiasm, knowing it would be a contribution to a coherent undertaking, and that they didn’t want to be the one to ‘let the side down’.
Lessons
I learned a lot about the role of leadership in an egalitarian group, and how the energy and synergy of the group can be maximized if the relationship of the leader to the group is worked out by the group as a whole. I particularly liked the notion of leader-as-facilitator. In retrospect it’s all obvious of course, but I hadn’t seen it.
I also learned that facilitation should not be restricted to always being content-neutral. My intervention, suggesting Joe as leader, was a ‘content’ intervention, something that might have come from the group but didn’t. I’d like to understand better when such interventions are ‘OK’, as regards the integrity and neutrality of facilitation.
I also learned how valuable are the complainers! Of course this was mentioned in our training, and in the material on DF, but it’s different seeing it happen dramatically in real time.
I also learned something from the fact that we didn’t refer to the charts. I felt that much of DF could happen without the charts. That led eventually to some ideas I worked out about about circles, and how ongoing circles could be a way to build up to choice-creating dialog.