Groundrules: empowering or oppressive: part 2
Reflecting on Daniel Hunter’s article, mentioned in our previous post, a few things come out for me.
Firstly, not to be put off using of a group agreement (I don’t do ground rules and find the terminology too reminiscent of school for many of the groups I’ve worked with). It’s a good tool. Whilst Daniel is right to point out that, like any other facilitation tool, it can be done superficially, we shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
I find that a group agreement heads off the vast majority of ‘difficult’ behaviour and domination and does open up the way for the quieter voices and the least assertive to play a more active role. But it would be a mistake to think that the group agreement does all that on its own. Negotiating an agreement simply raises the consciousness of the group about issues of group dynamics and participation and it will need to be supported by a constant flow of reminders, gentle (and some less gentle) challenges, body language – gesture and facial expression.
I’ve reflected on whether my negotiated group agreements always list clear behaviours, and I’m not sure they do. That’s one tip I’ll be taking on. Here’s a few others I’d like to offer, in no particular order – some of which chime with Daniel’s thinking:
- Don’t use an agreement if it’s not appropriate – deal with issues that arise in the moment if that works better for you and/or the group using the facilitation tools we all have in our toolkits!
If you are going to use an agreement:
- Ensure the group agreement is framed in practical terms – what does this tool do for us as a group? For me people need to understand what they’re being asked to sign up to. Offering a rationale is essential for this – whether it comes from the facilitator or from the group. That way you get the process-skeptics on board
- That rationale can (and should?) be given in the language of the margins and mainstreams. It should answer the question ‘How will this behaviour make this meeting accessible for all of its participants?”. See every agreement as negotiating space for those who find the dominant culture difficult to participate in, for whatever reason – negotiate for full participation
- Get agreement! I’ve seen facilitators simply read through a proposed list for agreement and end with an “is that OK?”, accepting the low (indecipherable) murmur as assent
- Take the time to fully negotiate the agreement at the start. It sends a clear message to the group that you, the facilitator, are serious about participation and opening up the margins
- Use the negotiation process to cement your mandate to facilitate with the group. It’s a 2 step process – “Can you all sign up to these behaviours”? and “Can I have your mandate to support you in doing so?”
- Negotiate a culturally appropriate agreement. I think Daniel’s right – we can get lazy and fall back on the shorthand of things like ‘no interrupting’ without checking that our assumptions work for this group. I know I’ve been guilty of this at times
- Go back to the underlying purpose of the agreement – what do we want to achieve by our lazy shorthand of ‘no interrupting’? A safe space for everyone to feel able to contribute, have their voice heard and their point respected? So work from that – it may lead you to ‘no interrupting’ but it may not
Groundrules – empowering or oppressive? | rhizome: participation|activism|consensus
July 14, 2010 @ 5:57 pm
[…] rhizome: participation|activism|consensus Skip to content HomeBlogAbout RhizomeContact RhizomeThoughts on Rhizome’s organisation and structureValues, ethics and practiceWho we are (at the moment)What we doCapacity BuildingEducationFacilitationSharing informationTrainingWhat you say ← Planning campaigns at the grassroots Groundrules: empowering or oppressive: part 2 → […]
August 23, 2010 @ 9:43 am
Rhizome says: It should answer the question ‘How will this behaviour make this meeting accessible for all of its participants?”
I find that assertion quite challenging, with its focus on accessibility. My usual approach (in meetings which are small enough and long enough) is to check the aims / agenda / time boundaries with people and to give everyone a chance to introduce themselves, and then to ask:
“Given the people who are here, the time we have and the things we’d like to achieve together, what agreements do we need to make explicitly with each other about how we’ll work together today, to give us the best chance of a successful meeting?”
This has a clear task focus – and perhaps this is a reflection of the groups I usually facilitate: people at work.
There are some areas I always ensure get covered:
* I usually begin with a question around what people would like to agree about mobile phones / blackberries / teleportation devices (ho ho). This is expected, seems straightforward (safe) and injects some humour.
* I always ask the group about their confidentiality expectations, if this doesn’t come up from someone in the group.
* And I check with the group what they’d like me to do about timekeeping and note-taking: are they assuming that this is all my responsibility, do they want me to be strict on time or let it flow more?
And if agreements are not being stuck to, this is then something I feel I have a clear mandate to intervene around – and that intervention may be quite light touch. I might simply notice, reflect, enquire into, or be more assertive about requesting different behaviour.
Thanks for a very interesting and thought-provoking post.
September 8, 2010 @ 12:54 pm
Thanks Penny – I’ll borrow your very clear approach some time soon and see what happens.
In the meantime I had an opportunity this weekend to play with some of the learning from reading Daniel Hunter’s article – particularly around ensuring everything on a group agreement is expressed as a behaviour. Some participants found it very challenging to express concepts such as openness in more concrete terms. I wasn’t left thinking that they couldn’t envisage how they might behave to ensure openness, but that they struggled to articulate it to others. For at least one person much of the behaviour was internal – thought processes – and they shared that to say what they might be thinking would put them on the spot in an uncomfortable way. I need to keep exploring ways to support the process of concept to behaviour (because we didn’t all the way there this time). I also need to be aware that for some it takes time.
Consensus: the deep end | rhizome: participation|activism|consensus
October 11, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
[…] group explored the underlying concepts – how to make the group fully accessible to those at the margins of the […]
Form an orderly queue (but not a democratic one?) | rhizome
February 28, 2013 @ 10:20 pm
[…] You might also want to read our posts ‘Groundrules – empowering or oppressive?’ Part 1 and Part 2 […]
Groundrules - empowering or oppressive? - Rhizome
August 23, 2018 @ 6:25 pm
[…] not read Part 2 of this […]