Post edited 6:20 pm – February 15, 2011 by James Cumming

As a consultant I often process group dynamics and give feedback. Below is my attempt to do that for the CGF meeting that followed the retreat. My hope is that it contributes to a dialogue about the need for structure in CGF meetings. From the point of view of minorities, structure creates safety and enables participation. There is an excellent article about this called “The Tyranny of Structurelessness” which a Google search should easily find.

What went well?

• Good turn-out of people energized from the retreat.
• Big dream of changing society for the better.
• Talented group of people with many different skills and experiences.
• Interactions respectful.
• Wide ranging, free-flowing discussion. We covered a lot of ground.
• Nice place to meet with welcoming hosts.

What was problematic?

As this meeting came soon after the retreat, which was very well organized and expertly facilitated and where it was clear an enormous amount of preparation work had been done, I was expecting a similar approach to running this meeting. I was disappointed because:

• the objectives and agenda were not clear
• the meeting started one hour late
• no norms were established so members could be held accountable (for example, to being on time for future meetings)
• the discussions were not focused, participants pursued their own agendas, the dynamics were competitive
• it was not clear to me what criteria had been used to invite people to this meeting
• there was not enough structure to provide the feeling of safety that would invite minority participation
• there was little sense that participants felt authorized to make decisions on behalf of the groups formed at the retreat
• we concluded without any assessment of how participants felt about the meeting and no clarity about next steps.

 It is hard to criticize Todd as he is talented and dedicated supporter of CGF. He was probably given the facilitator’s role to give him experience and perhaps because he was from out-of-town. However, I think it was asking too much of him to run this particular meeting and I hope this experience has not damaged his confidence. When you think about the complexity of our task and the dynamics of the interactions of sophisticated people all with their own agendas, managing this group would have been a challenging job for even the most experienced facilitator. It is to be expected that our meetings will be a struggle, particularly in the early stages when there is so much uncertainty. However, it was my experience was that none of us in the group who are experienced facilitators did much to help Todd. So, even my own behavior was strange to me.

On reflection, what did I learn about what might have been going on?

What did I learn?

1. There seem to be two contradictory dynamics I experience in groups in the USA. One dynamic is to avoid doing anything that is seen as imposition on an individual by a group. Consequently, there is great resistance to setting norms, structuring meetings and holding people accountable. The second dynamic is to push for finding common ground with the assumption that fundamentally we all hold in our hearts common values. Consequently, there is reluctance to explore differences before pushing for common ground and to develop the skills needed to manage the differences that emerge. As a result, bringing diversity to any group is problematic. My experience was that we were struggling with ourdifferences at many different levels in that meeting and that we would need a better structure and process to bring them out.

2. There seems to be an existing structure to CGF that I cannot quite grasp and would like to see mapped. There is also a strong informal structure of relationships that have developed over the years. In the meeting, it seemed like we were being asked to move forward as though those structures do not exist. That feeling may have prevented the group from moving forward.

3. Influential members of the group were pushing their own agendas and I have no objection to that. However, I was not satisfied that the concerns group members may have had about them were given the space they needed to fully emerge. For example, there were two times when I was silent because I could not find a way to voice my concerns:

• Rick talked about his ideas for a campaign. There was a call for participants to commit to a task and volunteer a specific amount of time. It reminded me of my time in political campaigns and how easily volunteers can get exploited. I am sure that is the furthest thing from Rick’s mind but in the context of this meeting, I was not able to bring that point up.
• John talked about his inspiring vision for CGF which seems to be one of a new way of being and relating. I was not able to say that maybe from the strategic point of view of getting the bank going, that idea should not be figural at the present.

My concerns may be valid or not but my point is that both Rick and John’s agendas are such that they deserve their own meetings where differences of opinion can emerge and decisions made. There was too much content in the 2/5/11 meeting for us to process.

4. I think William’s absence had a significant effect on the meeting apart from the obvious effects of the absence of a leader, I do not know what it might have been. Any ideas?

Next steps

1. I would like to see all participants debrief this meeting (I find the format I have used here helpful: what went well, what was problematic, what did I learn, next steps). This will help us evaluate the meeting and make recommendations on how to organize future meetings. It may also assist us to become a learning organization and to get into the habit of debriefing all our meetings and events.

2. I would like to see the leaders of the various groups formed at the retreat complete their reports and distribute them.