|
The Help Desk
It’s OK to be Political if You Use a Process to
Influence Change
Politics. It’s a word that makes most people
cringe—particularly in this day of recalls,
impeachments, and candidates trying to run for
elected offices from within prison walls.
But in their book, Process Politics: A Guide
for Group Leaders (University Associates, Inc.,
San Diego, CA), Eileen Guthrie and Warren Sam Miller,
point out that both “individuals and groups
share a desire to be political—to influence
events that affect them and to manage change in ways
that lead to success and prosperity.” (p. 1)
The authors go on to redefine the role of change
agents, calling them process politicians and charging
them to “bring about positive change through
democratic processes.” (p. v)
|
Commonly
Identified Roles and Their
Definitions
Task Roles:
Initiator:
Proposes tasks, goals, or actions; defines
group
problems; and suggests procedures.
Information seeker: Asks for factual
clarification and requests facts pertinent to
the discussion.
Opinion seeker:
Asks for clarification of the values
pertinent
to the topic under discussion and questions
values involved
in the alternative suggestions.
Informer: Offers
facts, gives expression of feelings, and
gives opinions.
Clarifier:
Interprets ideas or suggestions, defines
terms,
clarifies issues before the group, and clears
up confusion.
Summarizer: Pulls
together related ideas, restates suggestions,
and offers decisions or conclusions for the
group to consider.
Reality tester:
Makes critical analyses of ideas and tests
ideas against data to see if the ideas would
work.
Orienter: Defines
the position of the group with respect to its
goals, points to departures from agreed-on
directions or goals, and raises questions about
the directions pursued in group
discussions.
Follower: Goes
along with the movement of the group, passively
accepts the ideas of others, and serves as an
audience in group discussion and decision
making.
Maintenance Roles:
Harmonizer:
Attempts to reconcile disagreements,
reduces
tension, and gets people to explore
differences.
Gatekeeper: Helps
to keep communication channels open,
facilitates the participation of others, and
suggests procedures that permit sharing
remarks.
Consensus taker:
Asks to see whether the group is nearing a
decision and sends up trial balloons to test
possible solutions.
Encourager: Is
friendly, warm, and responsive to others
and
indicates by facial expressions or remarks the
acceptance of
others’ contributions.
Compromiser:
Offers compromises that yield status when
his/her own ideas are involved in conflicts and
modifies in the interest of group cohesion or
growth.
Standard setter:
Expresses standards for the group to
attempt
to achieve and applies standards in evaluating
the quality of group processes.
From
Process Politics: A Guide for
Group Leaders, Eileen Guthrie and Warren
Sam Miller, University Associates, Inc., San
Diego, CA, pp. 76-77 (adapted
from “What to Observe in a Group,”
Edgar H. Schein, Reading Book,
Cyril R. Mill and Lawrence C. Porter, Editors,
NTL National Institute for Applied Behavioral
Science).
|
In a similar way, most people are uncomfortable
with the word power and often have emotionally
charged responses when they perceive that some other
person or group has power over them. Guthrie and
Miller challenge most of the existing notions about
power, based on findings they have obtained in their
Power Lab, a simulation of groups and community
dynamics in which people belong to different groups.
The following key learnings have emerged about
power:
- “There is nothing inherently bad (or
good) about it. The key issue is, ‘How is it
used?’
- “It is unlikely that a group is totally
powerless in any situation. A helpful perspective
is to think of ways to influence the
situation.
“Feelings of powerlessness often come from
untested assumptions. Information shared directly
between groups ‘tests’ assumptions and
gives people real data to act on, thereby clarifying
issues and increasing possibilities for cooperation.
Too much energy is wasted acting on assumptions about
what the ‘other side’ is doing.”
(pp. 10-11)
Within teams, all members usually are not
perceived as equal—no matter what norms are
set. The perception of power is based on individual
assumptions and experiences. A person who may seem
very powerful to one team member may seem powerless
to another.
Process politicians are aware that there are both
formal (organizational position, authority, etc.) and
informal power structures (sociological position,
personality, age, etc.). Process politicians are
willing to use their knowledge of members’
power, as well as their skills in creating power
shifts to help the team make progress toward its
goals and avoid “log jams.”
One way that power can be shifted involves
re-arranging team members’ roles. The sidebar
lists 15 roles that Guthrie and Miller have developed
based on their review of group dynamics literature.
These roles are divided into two categories, task
(roles that help the group accomplish things) and
maintenance (roles that deal with the participation
of group members). These roles relate to behaviors
within the group, not assigned team roles such as
leader or scribe.
In most teams, members naturally assume one or
more of these roles, but the process politician who
serves as a facilitator can exert subtle, but
definitive pressure on members to try on new roles
for short periods of time. In some cases, these
manipulated shifts can provide opportunities for
long-term growth and development of team members who
have been stereotyped by organizational
leaders.
For example, let’s assume that a team member
usually takes on the role of “follower.”
After several discussion sessions where other team
members have presented facts and data, shared their
opinions, and declared positions, the group appears
deadlocked.
The process politician might find it useful to
shift the balance of power toward this normally
acquiescent person by saying, “Martha,
you’ve been fairly quiet during our recent
discussions on this matter. Could you please
summarize what you’ve heard and propose an
alternative?”
At first, the temptation may be to shift the
“follower” to the “informer”
role, but that is likely
to make the team member uncomfortable. If you were
normally quiet during discussions, you might feel as
if you’d been put on the spot if you were asked
to state your opinion without warning.
Obviously, this approach has great
value—particularly for broadening the thoughts
and ideas under consideration and for ensuring that
individual members don’t dominate discussions
and decision making.
However, it does not shift the power
substantially. Instead, this “every member gets
to speak” approach attempts to equalize the
power. Generally, team members won’t even
recognize that a power shift has occurred when this
tactic is employed.
But think of how powerful it is to summarize a
discussion. You get to choose what to include in the
review and what to ignore. You get to choose what to
emphasize and what to diminish. You get to
state—and even to build—connections that
often lead to more integrated thinking for other team
members. Just being asked to assume that role implies
that you have special insights, knowledge, and/or
skills that can help the group move forward.
Knowing when and how to create power shifts within
a team takes time and practice, but it is an
invaluable tool for change agents—particularly
if they want to become process politicians.
|
