Is there someone you are intent on influencing?
Do you need their commitment to a goal you have defined?
Are you wondering whether your programme to influence this person is achieving what you intended?
Here is a tool I have used in facilitating groups. I have found that the vocabulary useful to gauge where they are on a continuum between openly obstructing and actively working towards achieving a goal. This scale can also be used with individuals.
You may experience the following behaviours at each stage on the continuum.
- Strike: Is this person openly obstructing your goal?
- Sabotage: Are they covertly trying to obstruct you, behind the scenes?
- Slow down: Do you find that you have to drag the conversation or the work out of them?
- Protest: Are they engaged in the conversation or the work but at the same time voicing their displeasure at your ideas?
- Indifference: Are they party to the discussion but without any interest, energy or input.
- Interest: the conversation generates its own energy but their stance may be contrary to your own.
- Agreement: May not guarantee any action or delivery.
- Cooperation: Working alongside.
- Participation: Actively contribute ideas when drawn they are drawn in to conversation.
- Commitment: The person works on their own towards achieving the same goal.
I have found people seldom move more than one or two steps along the continuum at a time. While someone may profess a 180 degree change in view, and it is possible to win someone over, often this means they are consciously or unconsciously suppressing their views. But accept the gains; the profession of support is useful to confirm their cognitive dissonance on the matter even though they still have work to deal with it. And remember: a “ Flight into Health” is also a form of resistance.
I have found the scale useful in a moment-by-moment interaction with someone where I may ask myself “what can I do to hold this person at ‘Protest’ (or whatever)”
You can also use the vocabulary to help the person to take ownership of their stance, though the risk of doing this is higher if the person is in the negative area of the scale. In working with groups I have sometimes found it useful to say something like “from the conversation I get the sense that most of you are willing to cooperate but still need to be convinced to fully commit to this project”. I have also used the scale to be more challenging. “Well I think most of you are willing to participate in this work but this group here (indicating the group with the poker-faces) seem to be indifferent to the ideas being discussed”.
So what is your experience of this? Please leave me a comment to let me know what you think.
Hi Stephen
I got here through your Facebook! Your interlinking works.
This is a most uselful means of getting a conversation going about where your discussion partners are. I like the idea that you introduce this scale as a means of getting your discussion partners to gauge their stance. We could also use your scale in our meetings! (Mmm I’ll have to rethink my contributions!)
Many thanks for all your inputs during our conversations. I often do not respond quickly as I am so busy running with matters which relate directly to our discussions – which provided the impetus.
Albert
Hey cool – that is good. nice to see you here. Yes we are due for another cup of chino soon. S
I’d be interested to know how you make participants rate themselves on this scale. What is the discovery process, if any, or do you confront them with the scale and say “Pick your stance!”? I’d be pretty intimidated myself and would probably more negative than I really feel.
Hey Marius
Thanks for the question.
I suppose the danger of the model is that it provides a way to interpret what you observe. The most effective approach would be to describe specific behaviours in the group without referring to the model, to allow the group to take ownership of how they are handling the situation. At the same time, sometimes we need a short-cut in working with groups. And then it is not a bad idea to present the model for the group to decide where they stand. This will almost always generate a discussion which, if handled carefully can benefit the group.
Of course if the situation is very bad, someone may say “We are on ‘strike’, can’t you see? Where have you been for the last hour?”. Though even this can be cathartic. I once had someone in a workshop say to me “when we heard we were getting Steve Quirke, I thought we were getting a good facilitator but…” and then she went on to unload some unwarranted criticism. My response at the end of it was “OK, so what are you going to do about this now?” And this lead to a conversation which lead them out of the slough of despond. At the end she came and apologised for her comments. But as I said to her, sometimes the role of facilitator is to act as catalyst or buffer for the more extreme reactions of the group. This isn’t always an easy role and I suppose some will disagree with this. But that has been my experience.
In addition to this, your role as facilitator is also to offer the perspective, if you feel it is appropriate for the group. It is then up to the group to take ownership of their stance and to engage with each other about whether the facilitator’s perception is correct and if they are comfortable with their behaviour. If they choose not to do this, you as facilitator have done what is required of you. The group, or individuals in the group may ponder the situation and the scale. And long after the workshop they may come to a fresh understanding of the situation, the group and themselves.
So that is my approach. How does that work for you?
Cheers – Stephen