Resource-Oriented Teamwork: A Systemic Approach to Collegial Consultation 9783666491603, 9783525491607, 9783647491608

Citation preview

V

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Johannes Herwig-Lempp

Resource-Oriented Teamwork A Systemic Approach to Collegial Consultation

With 10 Figures

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The translation of this book was subsidised by the project “Systemic Social Work Throughout Europe (STEP)” (2011–2013), which was funded by the European Commission in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme. More information: http://www.asys.ac.at/step/

Translator: Charlotte Weston-Horsmann Proofreader: Jennifer Bodde Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data available online: http://dnb.dnb.de. ISBN 978-3-525-49160-7 ISBN 978-3-647-49160-8 (e-book) © 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen /  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht LLC, Bristol, CT, U.S.A. www.v-r.de All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without prior written permission from the publisher. Typesetting by SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen Printed and bound in Germany by e Hubert & Co., Göttingen Printed on non-aging paper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■ Table of Contents

More Than the Sum of Its Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Collegial Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The History behind This Model of Team Consultation . . . . . . . . . 10 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 How to Read This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Team and Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 What Makes a Group a Team? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 The Team as a System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Different Levels of Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Level 1: Task-Oriented Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Level 2: Organizational Teamwork/Team Organization . . . . . . . . 30 Level 3: Developmental Teamwork/Team Development . . . . . . . . 31 What Is the Purpose of Three-Tiered Levels? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Too Much Ado about Teams? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Systemic Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Basic Premise of Systemic Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Systemic Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Systemic Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 The Team and the Systemic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 What Do We Mean by “Systemic”? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Systemic Perspective in Team Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 The Mandate of the Colleague to Be Counseled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Colleagues’ Strengths, Abilities and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 The Context of Collegial Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 The Solutions and the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Diversifying Possibilities for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Colleagues’ Autonomy and Self-Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

6

Table of Contents

Other Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 The Readiness of Colleagues to Collaborate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Colleague Appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Team Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 The Team Consultation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Presenting and Clarifying Mandates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Developing Question Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Method 1: Mind Jogging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Method 2: Expanding Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Method 3: Reciprocal Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Method 4: Assessing Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Method 5: Configuring, Playing and Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Method 6: The Reflecting Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Final Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 The Entire Team Consultation Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 How Does Team Consultation Work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 The Limitations of Team Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation . . . . . . . . 137 Method 8: Self-Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Team Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Organizing a Team Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 The Facilitator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 The Facilitator’s Responsibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Facilitating Is Hard Work – Some Tips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Team Decision-Making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Team Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 How Can We Change the Way We Work Together? . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Conflict within the Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 How Can I Initiate Change within My Team? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Systemic Reassurances for the Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 List of Key Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■More Than the Sum of Its Parts

Teamwork has always been a preferred method of accomplishing tasks – in social work with its diverse areas of responsibility, in many service sector jobs and in production. While people don’t rely on teamwork to work miracles, they do, however, expect an unusually high success rate in keeping with the saying: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Teamwork is expected to generate synergies. The aim is to make the most of each team member’s strengths and resources which, when channeled, become a valuable resource for the organization or company in achieving their goals. From a systemic perspective, there is no doubt that each individual team member has a number of resources to draw on: firstly, these are his/her professional qualifications and skills that have been acquired and continually enhanced through training and work experience. However, due to differences in the lines of work including where the training took place, the specialists they were trained by and the members’ individual strengths, a number of multifaceted competencies flow into the team. Each new experience in an individual’s daily work shapes their professional character. Aside from career choices, life experience in general influences the way we see and experience the world around us; the opportunities and options at our disposal and which of these we can actually access when we need them. While talking to a Turkish client, we may suddenly remember our own experience in France when we felt that we were unable to communicate effectively. A social worker who has no children may experience different emotions and have different ideas while dealing with parents who have problems with their teenage son’s puberty-related issues than his colleague who has two adult daughters. A psychologist will most likely be able to draw upon his/her past experience and knowledge in treating geriatric cases on an out-patient basis in the psychiatric ward – moreover, his/her knowledge and background provide a valuable source of reference for his colleagues. By the same token, a young intern in the same team and facility might, precisely because of his/her lack of work and life experience, pose

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

8

More Than the Sum of Its Parts

the rather naïve sounding question: “Why do you do it this way? Couldn’t one also approach it differently?” thereby providing the decisive impetus for further development. It seems also somewhat arbitrary to want to use all members of a team for their resources based on their various different qualifications and life experiences.

Collegial Consultation The key question is how these resources containing multiple perspectives and competencies can be gainfully exploited and made accessible to the team. One possible option in this respect is collegial consultation. Collegial consultation refers to reciprocal reflection among colleagues with the aim of generating new impetus for their daily work. Collegial consultation generally takes place on a voluntary basis and on equal terms. In practice, however, this approach can take many different forms and different people may not share the same understanding of what is expected, as is illustrated in the following examples. –– A team at an organization for adolescent services meets once a week to discuss colleagues’ “cases”: the purpose is partly to keep each other up to date, partly to seek advice and support in particularly difficult situations and decisions, and partly, to agree on specific services (a measure prescribed by management: decisions are to be made by the entire team). –– The employees of an adolescent psychiatric ward (physician, psychologist, caregivers, nurses, social educator) have a half hour at noon to hand over their duties, during which time they bring each other up to date on patients and how to proceed with atypical cases. –– Two street workers meet for coffee during their break and complain about the current heavy workload. They share experiences and empathize with one another. –– A caregiver in a geriatric ward asks his wife for advice about the condition of a patient in his care, upon returning home from work. His wife, a physician who works at another geriatric facility, asks a few questions in return and comes up with a few suggestions. –– The employees in a day group at a facility for social education meet on a weekly basis for two and a half hours to discuss organizational and administrative matters. If they have time, they talk about the children in their group and the plans they have for them in the near future – or they plan the next parent-child meeting.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Collegial Consultation9

–– A therapist calls a colleague to ask for a few minutes of her time and to seek her opinion on a particular case she is dealing with at the moment. –– A group of two social workers, a physician, a freelance therapist, a care­ giver and a supervisor, each working at different facilities, agreed to meet once a month for three hours at one another’s homes to consult on work-related issues. –– A group of five students pursuing degrees in social work meet during their traineeship on a regular basis every four to six weeks in order to share practical experiences, problems, fears and their successes. Collegial consultation is common practice in socio-psychological work: It can take place within or outside the work place, after hours or in a private setting. It can be official as an integral part of the work process in which specific times are set aside for discussion and two-way consultation, or it can be an informal affair over coffee or a telephone call. As soon as the meetings become an official modus operandi they take place on a weekly or bi-weekly basis within the scope of a team meeting. By the same token, consultations can take the form of group consultations: one or two colleagues from several teams or divisions meet to consult with each other. Collegial consultation can be referred to in many different ways and can vary from team to team and facility to facility: team consultation, case consultation, case conference, intervision, peer supervision, collegial supervision and others. This variety also corresponds to a number of different proposals that were designed for this form of consultation (cf. Fallner & Grässlin, 1989; Holtz & Thiel, 1996; Haug-Benin, 1998; Hendriksen, 2011; Brinkmann, 2002; German Association for Public and Private Welfare, 2002; Franz & Kopp, 2003; Schlee, 2012; Tietze, 2012; Schulz von Thun, 2006; Lippmann, 2009; Natho, 2005; Kühl, 2007). Often too little notice is taken of the fact that collegial consultation is in itself a form of consultation so that the approaches used explicitly in work with clients could also be applied to it. For me, a significant feature of consultation is that it takes place prior to a decision, regardless of who made it – and consequently can be seen as separate from it. In keeping with a systemic approach where the client makes his/her own decisions, colleagues engaging in collegiate consultation receive advice but in the end decide for themselves which option to choose. When team consultation is mentioned in this context, referral is most often made to consultation in general. I feel that there is a significant and fundamental difference between consultation and decision-making (“Are we giving you advice at this point or do we want to influence your decision?”), a factor that should be clarified before beginning the consultation process. A later

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

10

More Than the Sum of Its Parts

chapter will introduce options on how teams can deal with decision-making processes. The place to pool and synergize individual employee resources is within the team where the individual’s work becomes part of and contributes to both the common “product” and goal. It seems only logical and an expression of the team’s synergy: the whole is more than the sum of its parts. A team that works well together is more likely to master assigned tasks than if each member tackles a problem on his/her own. However, one shouldn’t forget that the opposite also holds true: the individual is not only a part of the whole but always much more than merely a member of the team. Each person has their own unique life experiences, background knowledge and skills. His/her special traits, characteristics, his/her distinctive perspective and thoughts are resources that make him/her a valuable team member. There is a vested interest in teamwork involving expectations that teams outperform individuals. To this end, team members pool their respective resources to enhance a team’s overall performance. Conversely, each team member can count on the team’s support to do his/her best toward achieving the goal. Ultimately, a team is as effective as its members and the more the members enjoy the team’s support and empowerment, the more likely they are to contribute to high-performing teams. The purpose of this book is primarily to introduce a model of team consultation with a focus on it within a team. This form of counseling does not require the assistance of a professional clinical supervisor or “team facilitator”. Rather, it is based on the collective input from team members. Together with a team of social educators from the Family Support Center in the Böblingen area, I created this model in the early 1990s. The idea came into being after many years of experimentation followed by extensive revision and further development in training programs with different teams and supervisors.

The History behind This Model of Team Consultation This idea was conceived after noticing that while our team at the facility for family welfare worked together in a very resourceful, multifaceted, task- and goal oriented as well as structured manner, our regular team meetings fell short of this standard. While we did have time-consuming team meetings each week, they were becoming increasingly unpopular. We generally spent a lot of time discussing basic and organizational issues – and found that it left us too little time to discuss the real topics, the so-called cases and our work

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The History behind This Model of Team Consultation11

with the families. Priority was given to “the most difficult cases”, which took up most of the remaining time so that other issues could not be addressed. One co-worker tended to give a detailed description followed by a whole host of questions interspersed by advice and personal experience, ending in a lengthy discussion about the best possible solution. In the end, everyone had to get back to their “real” work with “their families”. Once we shared our feelings about how the team meetings were structured, it became clear just how far removed we were from what could be considered good consultation practice, at least where our client-counselor dialogues were concerned. Most us had a basic background in the field (social work and social education) and had acquired further qualifications, often in systemic approaches. All of us had practice in structuring client-counselor dialogues and applying a variety of different approaches. It was important to us to identify and further develop each member’s resources in order to benefit from their contribution toward finding workable solutions, in the same way that we encourage our patients to discover and integrate their own solutions into the counseling process. We aimed to adjust to our clients’ needs and their own goals. We developed ideas and approaches to meet these objectives in a way that would best convey our respect for the client, an element that was entirely lacking in our own team meetings. Eventually we began to realize that we could benefit from our joint expertise in our own team meetings and that collegial consultation was in fact a form of consultation which opened up the option of applying and implementing the approaches we used with our patients to consultation within our team. We began with a few simple structural changes. For instance, we scheduled the current case studies for the beginning of the meeting. By addressing them during the first half of the meeting, we made sure the important items were given enough time and agreed on taking turns at facilitating the session: at the end of the meeting, we agreed on a person to chair the next meeting. The previously detailed minutes, which no one ever bothered to read, were revised to include only the essential points and taken by a different member each time. Refreshments were prepared before the meeting – and a break was scheduled halfway through. Although these slight modifications were merely of an organizational nature and had no significant influence on the session itself, they lead to a noticeable improvement within the team. This improvement was particularly evident during our case discussions, a definition we changed to “team consultation”: on the one hand, because we wanted to talk about people (us as a team and our clients) instead of “cases”, and on the other, to underline the changes that had developed and thus reinforce them for ourselves. We then agreed to integrate new structures and

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

12

More Than the Sum of Its Parts

approaches into our collegial consultation sessions, granting the discussion leader the mandate and permission to call team members to order and ask them to adhere to the terms of the agreement. The first step in structuring our collegial consultation began with the request for a question on which to base the session. Then, the issue was briefly outlined and limited to the most important information. The members were invited to ask a few follow-up questions before the beginning of the session. Finally, the time allocated to discussing concerns was agreed upon (thereby setting a limit) in advance. The actual consultation took place with the help of standard systemic (or other) approaches: establishing hypotheses, circular questions, discussions, exchanging advice, suggestions on how to make the situation worse, etc. The success that we experienced for ourselves and in our work validated our new approach. This is not to say that the members’ problems and concerns automatically disappeared (also not the case in our previous approach), but the atmosphere (as well as the participants) felt more “relaxed”. Our main objective had been realized: new perspectives had opened up for the team members seeking advice. Furthermore, several more team members had a chance to speak up, the sessions were more varied, stimulating and also entertaining and members actually enjoyed attending. We continued to experiment by bringing in, modifying and creating new approaches that we adapted to our consultations. Together with a team of colleagues, among them Ute Große-Freese (later Fernis), Ludger Kühling, Cornelia Münch and Annette Glück, I introduced this model into training seminars. The former team at the Social Education and Family Assistance Facility in Böblingen (1990 to 1998) was also instrumental in the development of this model. Moreover, I used this model in supervision and organizational consulting and introduced it occasionally there as such. Many teams expressed interest in adopting these ideas: although collegial consulting is generally given a high level of importance in social work, there are often only vague notions about how this form of consultation can be meaningfully implemented.

Definition of Terms Language serves to describe reality. However, it is not a one-to-one exchange rather it assists us in constructing our message depending on the definition we use (and the meaning we attribute to it); we also perceive the reality it is

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Definition of Terms13

meant to describe differently. As far as I’m concerned, there is a difference between whether I refer to “cases”, “concerns” or “practical examples”. Or whether I “take measures”, “offer options” or “provide services” in work with adolescents. For this reason I would like to briefly discuss here the terms “model” and “team consultation”. The definition of “model” in this sense does not refer to a closed form of collegial consultation – that underlies criteria of right or wrong. When introducing the models in this book, I may use the imperative form, e.g. “one should …”, “he must …”, “she’s not allowed to …”, however, my point is merely to capture a precise definition of approaches that have proved successful for myself and the team with which I have worked. It does not mean that it can’t be modified or entirely changed. I would like though, to draw a parallel here between this approach and playing the violin or guitar: it’s a good idea to learn all the rules for playing such instruments and spend years practicing before attempting to improvise. Continual development on a given model is a natural consequence. Models provide the basis for further reflection and discovery. My intention is to provide the impetus for further experimentation and perhaps to generate new ideas and new forms of collegial consultation. The second note concerns the term “team consultation”. Sometimes the idea of “team consultation” within the field of social education is confused with external consulting (similar to supervision), measures for team development or a team meeting to discuss cases chaired by a supervisor. Since the term is not protected by copyright, has already been widely adopted within the context of our team meetings and our trainings, and furthermore, hits the nail on the head with regard to our work, I will nevertheless continue using it. By team consultation I mean professional collegial consultation, which includes one-on-one consultation as well as issues and concerns that are dealt with within the team: What can I do differently/better in my next encounter with Ms. C? What means do I have at my disposal to assist in Ms. C’s development? What can we do in our next time off? How should we handle appraisals? What changes in our plans are on the horizon? – In contrast, we refer to official meetings in this book where the exchange of information and general internal messages, independent of consultation is concerned; the professional knowledge of each team member isn’t required in this case. An understanding of team consultation and an official meeting differs from team to team.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

14

More Than the Sum of Its Parts

How to Read This Book Central to this book are the methods of team consultation, a model of systemic collegial consultation. We begin with a rather theoretical chapter about teamwork and an introduction to the basics of systemic work. Following the detailed description of possible procedures and methods of team consultation, we discuss how to organize team meetings and consultations: What has proved effective in the past? In closing, we deal with the issue of “team development”: What can teams do to evolve and change the way they work together? This book introduces a model of team consultation intended to stimulate teams and their individual members and show how to generate ideas and develop new forms of collegial consultation based on this model. The author suggests different methods of dealing with change in the hope of encouraging users to take the first step and experiment as they go. Team consultation is no great mystery and it does not take years of expensive training to be able to experiment with the ideas we have introduced. While my premise is based on teamwork within the scope of social education and family assistance, the form of team consultation introduced here is not limited to work with adolescents or social work. Experiences with supervisors, educators and organizational consultants have shown that these methods are suited to any number of teams within all conceivable professional fields. Furthermore, they can be applied in group settings for the purpose of reciprocal collegial consultation. I encourage you to experience for yourself the integral role collegiate consultation plays in professional and quality-conscious social work. Like continuing education and supervision, it encourages us as professionals to keep up to date through continual development in the field. Once we recognize this, collegial consultation can serve as a training ground for our work with clients and vice-versa, our work with clients can enhance our collegial consultation. Reading an entire book on the subject may not exactly give the impression of being compatible with a practical approach: the text contains theoretical parts (“Does one really have to read the whole book before understanding the approach?”) as well as a variety of methods (“How can I remember all of these?”), so that the reader may indeed lose the general overview and perhaps even his/her motivation to continue reading. Do not despair – there is no need to read through the book chapter for chapter, instead skim through it and let yourself be inspired, highlighting parts here and there that you may want to refer to later. Perhaps you’ll want to try out one thing or another or

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How to Read This Book15

suggest that your team experiment with an idea. The main thing is: do it. Best of all, try out your idea before you continue reading. Dare to suggest the experiment to your colleagues on the team. Treat this book like a cookbook: Look through it and stimulate your appetite, remember your own experiences and ideas that were actually quite good and that may now prove enriching to the group. Let yourself be inspired to experiment with whatever strikes you as interesting. Try not to reject ideas on the spur of the moment; some approaches should be given more time before deciding whether or not to include them in one’s repertoire. Suggestions on How to Use This Book –– Look through this book and select those parts that you would like to try out in your own team or collegial consulting group. –– Before testing the exercises and approaches suggested in this book with others and within the team, make sure all participants agree with the plan. –– Try out methods that you feel comfortable using, that are simple to use and interest you. –– Experiment with new methods when nothing or very little can go wrong, e.g. where simple matters and questions are concerned or where problem-solving has run aground. –– When in doubt, be sure to stick with proven methods or fall back on them when the new method doesn’t seem to work. –– It’s not unusual for things not to work out the way one thought they would on the first try. Be brave enough to calmly repeat your approach two or three times. –– Don’t hesitate too long. Just try it. –– Be patient with yourself when you “really” wanted to try something new but then decided not to or if things just don’t work out the way you expected them to. –– Contact me if you are (dis)satisfied, your attempts were (not) what you expected them to be or whether or not this book proved useful in your work. You will find my address at the back of the book.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Team and Teamwork

“A good crew was like an elective family in which everyone in the little hot world of the kitchen stood on equal footing and every cook had weirdnesses concealed in her past or in his character and even in the midst of the most sweaty togetherness each family member enjoyed privacy and autonomy: she loved this.” Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections, 2001, p. 378

What Makes a Group a Team? Opinions differ on what constitutes a team, the function it should serve and at what point it can be considered a team. The scope ranges from the number of members a team should have and the type of tasks involved to whether or not the team should have a leader. As is the case with all concepts and definitions, it is important to remember that definitions are “created” and are neither “objective” nor “exist in the real world”. A definition is based on subjective interpretation – if I imbue the definition with meaning, then I commit to the description. Definitions are neither “true” nor “false” – they are simply tools that may or may not prove useful, depending on where and how they are applied. It is usually helpful to agree on definitions based on specific functions and the purpose they serve. Meaningful definitions are determined by different purposes and whether one speaks of teams, task groups or groups depends on the intended meaning and message. The term “team” originates from Old English and referred to a team of horses or oxen, hitched to a wagon for a specific purpose (see figure 1). Today, in both English and German, the term is used to indicate a group of individuals who collaborate on a task at the organizational level or when referring to a sports team, where individuals group together to compete against other teams.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Makes a Group a Team?17

Figure 1: A team of oxen

What follows is a brief overview of the definitions and descriptions commonly applied to the terms team and teamwork in the literature: “Teamwork describes a gathering of individuals within a group who pool their expert knowledge and personal skills and agree to adhere to a set of specific rules in order to achieve a common objective. In such situations, the team is usually a part of a larger organization with a commitment to the former’s objective and overall goal” (Stahmer, 1996, p. 621). “A team is a small group of people whose abilities complement one another, who are committed to a common task and agree on a common approach while assuming collective responsibility” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 70, quote from Kriz & Nöbauer, 2008, p. 24). Francis and Young (1992, p. 9) define a team as “a high-performing task group whose members are actively interdependent and share common performance objectives. Not all groups are teams. Notice that the definition includes the expressions ‘high performing,’ ‘actively interdependent’ and ‘share common performance objectives’.” “In contrast [to ‘work groups’], teams not only share information but team members also collaborate and communicate as a unit. Decisions are geared toward enabling members to work together effectively on a common task with the goal of creating tangible products and services. On the whole, tasks and goal orientation are more prevalent in the team than in work groups. The original meaning of the Old English term, ‘a team of work animals pulling a load’, illustrates this analogy. In other words, a team is a group of individuals with common interests who are ‘harnessed’ or ‘bound together’ for the purpose of achieving a specific task” (Kriz & Nöbauer, 2008, p. 23).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

18

Team and Teamwork

“A team is a group of employees, responsible for a specific work process, which delivers the results of their work in the form of a product or service to an internal or external beneficiary” (Bender, 2002, p. 17). Francis and Young (1992, p. 10 ff.) speak of energy, objectives, output, structure and mutual support when referring to some of the “characteristics of an effective team”: –– Energy: “In an effective team, members gain strength from another. Collectively, they feel more potent and find that team activities renew their vitality and enjoyment.” –– Objectives: “Every team needs a purpose that is understood, shared, and considered worthwhile by its members. This purpose can be described as the team’s mission.” –– Output: “The ‘acid test’ of a team is its capacity to deliver the goods. High standards are essential. A team is capable of achieving results (both in quality and quantity), that its members cannot achieve in isolation.” –– Structure: “A mature team has dealt with thorny questions about control, leadership, procedures, organization, and roles. The team as structure is finely attuned to the tasks that are undertaken.“ –– Mutual support: “Members of an effective team develop a distinctive team spirit that encourages mutual respect, support, and simple enjoyment of one another. Team members identify themselves with their team.” Kriz and Nöbauer (2002, p. 23 ff.) elaborate on a number of core features of teams (setting them apart from work groups) for which there seems to be some consensus in the literature: –– Goals: “Work teams have specific and very clearly defined performance work goals. Work groups, on the other hand, tend to formulate more general and all-encompassing goals”. –– Synergetic effects: “Often cited metaphorically as an important indication of a team’s existence is the maxim, a team is more than simply the sum of its parts. This means that the team shows positive synergy in its performance. […] A team is expected to recognize potential threats to the group dynamic well in advance, to generate measures to remedy the situation by drawing on appropriate competencies within the team, to initiate a decision-making process and to formulate an action plan to ensure effective group cohesion.” –– Team member skills: “Work teams […] require that the members’ expertise and skills complement each other in order to reach the defined goal.” –– Multidisciplinary skills: “A variety of different competencies as well as the ability to assume different perspectives play a greater role in a team than in a work group.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Makes a Group a Team?19

–– Responsibility: “Responsibility is shared among team members of a work team. Decision-making is handled in a collegial manner via participatory decision-making processes. There is no separation between individuals doing the work and those who make decisions. Leadership responsibilities are also shared among members.” –– Self-organization: “The team is flexible where team structures, methods of achieving the goal or work styles is concerned. Reaching decisions and problem-solving, as well as supervision, reflection and the coordination of work processes are determined by the team itself.” Haug offers a broader definition: “In this sense, ‘team’ represents an exceptional group, –– that is high-performing due to the synergy of each member’s strengths even under difficult conditions, –– that is goal-driven thanks to each member’s unyielding sense of responsibility and willingness to put team interests before their own, –– in which the members motivate one another, thus achieving a synergetic effect, e.g. the overall performance is greater than the sum of individual performances, –– that knows how to split and coordinate tasks into smaller units of individual skills and expertise in order to achieve the objective, –– in which an atmosphere of mutual trust and candor exists, and individual members can strongly identify with “their” team and –– in which members communicate on the basis of mutual understanding, allowing optimal integration of information and a guaranteed forum for different points of view” (Haug, 2009, p. 19). Often, the initial reaction to these definitions is uncertainty, as people might feel unsure about living up to these expectations. Conspicuously enough, most definitions of the term “team” tend to idealize its function and in most cases refer to “extraordinary” (!) teams. This leads “normal” teams to draw the discouraging conclusion “We don’t function like that – and so it seems we’re not a team.” This becomes particularly apparent when the members have not yet succeeded in assessing themselves from a resource oriented point of view: Which of these criteria do we meet? Very few teams manage to defy these criteria and simply claim: “We are a team!” Just taking a look at some of the features ascribed to teams: “exceptionally effective”, “mutually stimulating”, “high-performing”, “team spirited”, “ideally connected” and also the “ability to communicate openly”, “enthusiasm” or “sharing responsibilities”: if one were to take a critical view, it would seem

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

20

Team and Teamwork

almost impossible to meet even a few of these criteria. Seen from this perspective, these idealized concepts (according to the principle “Only a good team is a real team!”) are usually unhelpful even if they may seem to temporarily motivate the team. A number of teams have reported back to me in all seriousness: “We aren’t really a team because we aren’t really sincere with one another nor do we work together effectively.” Other teams have spent hours discussing whether or not they actually are a team because they have a leader. Aside from serving one’s own understanding, such standardized definitions are of course impractical. It is as if an organization (and a team is a form of organization) doesn’t merit this description unless its traits are good or excellent. As far as I can see, a work group can thus also be defined as a team even if the requirements are only partially met. Actually, the only prerequisite is that the group considers itself a team – and manages to agree on an effective modus operandi. An important and very helpful step in the team’s further development can be set in motion by a team exchanging their views on, –– what the members believe constitutes a team, –– to what extent they believe that they meet their own criteria and –– what they can agree upon to further develop the team in the future. Or, more to the point: even if the members of a work group argue about whether or not they actually meet the prerequisites of a team, they are in fact contributing significantly to building the team. Exercise With contributing to the development of your own team in mind, discuss the different definitions of teamwork by, for instance: –– each member giving their opinion on the subject, –– the pros and cons of each definition being listed, –– reaching agreement as to what extent you as a team conform to this definition – and deciding, for the time being, on a plan of action in order to comply with it. My suggestion of a definition for the team is: A team is a work group, –– that uses its members’ diverse resources, –– to work toward one or more common goals, –– in a controlled, structured and organized way and –– reflects upon this structure and organization (at regular intervals).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Makes a Group a Team?21

As far as I’m concerned, this also applies when a team does not adequately meet the criteria, but would like to. The decisive factor is if a group wants to develop in this direction. Then, questions can be answered, such as: May a team have a leader? According to this definition it is possible. A team can then strive for or even achieve the above requirements regardless of whether there is a team leader. Similar conditions apply to the size of a team. The maximum size of a team is commonly set at between seven and nine members. This question, too, can be decided by the team itself (or the work group for that matter if they are unwilling to be considered a team on the basis of the number of members). A Team Uses the Resources of Its Members A team’s unique strength is based on the manifold increase in available resources due to the number of members. Not only can more people achieve more in less time due to their sheer number, but they also benefit from more experience, knowledge and perspectives than a single person. The added value is not only a result of quantity but more importantly a difference in quality. Furthermore, more people are available to take on a given task and share responsibility, take the burden off any one individual’s shoulders, four eyes are better than two, more brains generate more ideas, and different points of view contribute multiple perspectives. The different resources that each member brings to the team due to their diverse educational backgrounds, expertise, job and life experience and their ensuing intuition are key to the team’s strength. The differences may be a result of age, education and approach but also of work experience, temperament, ability to handle conflicts, observation skills, communication skills and life experience. Thus, work in adolescent psychology benefits not only from the interaction between different fields of expertise (physicians, psychologists, care­givers, educators, social workers, music therapists), as well as professionals from different age groups, with experience abroad and previous work experience: each individual can contribute their unique experiences and views of life. Exercise Which ten resources can I contribute to my team? And which five resources do I believe each colleague brings to the team? (If you do this exercise as a team, we suggest that you note down your opinions for yourself first, before you share them with the team.)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

22

Team and Teamwork

A Team Has a Task, a Common Goal This definition implies that there can be several tasks and goals involved. Within the scope of social work, teams consist of employees in a facility or department who are responsible for creating a work-friendly environment and making sure that the work gets done: they consist of care­givers who supervise in-house facilities, teams designated by department heads in charge of centers for the handicapped and professionals (social educators, physicians, nurses, psychologists) who provide psychological services. All of them are responsible for the service they provide to their patients, including counseling support, ensuring that the facility presents itself in a positive light, that finances are in order, and of course, that the services and care provided remain a sought-after resource. Teams are frequently required to take on a number of tasks and fulfill different expectations, not to mention the expectations and tasks the team may have for themselves (that, at first, are not necessarily compatible). In addition, it’s also possible that teams might be tasked with a particular short-term assignment (developing a new proposal, creating and staffing a new ward), after which the team splits up. Or, a group of individual employees decide on the task they want to accomplish (development and implementation of vacation activities for patients within a larger facility), after which they go their separate ways. Frequently, one task or accomplished goal will lead to further related assignments. In addition, the teams set goals for further development such as effective collaboration in a pleasant atmosphere, projecting a positive image and remaining competitive with other teams. Exercise Name the tasks that you as a team or the team itself must fulfill. You can differentiate between assigned or self-assigned goals, and primary and sub goals. One suggestion is to limit yourself to six to ten goals. A Team Organizes Its Own Form of Collaboration A team functions according to structures and rules and what “effect” it has – in this sense it is organized. These rules and structures relate to how the team is put together, the type of processes in place, the rules of communication and so on. It’s possible that these structures and rules are defined or are implicit.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Makes a Group a Team?23

Thus, decisions differ according to whether the secretary or volunteer workers should also belong in a team. Occasionally, the same individuals will answer this question differently depending on the context in which the question is asked: volunteers may not attend meetings, although they and the secretaries are included in the team when visitors are invited to the facility. Interestingly, in this case one could actually refer to two separate teams, thus avoiding (or creating new) confusion and misunderstanding. When organizing a team, it’s important to agree on whether and how the team is to work together: Does one always think of oneself as a team or only during the actual meeting? Do sub-groups count as partial teams or entirely new teams? How is communication handled within the team? Is there a leader? What are the leader’s responsibilities in the team? How are the meetings and get-togethers handled: are they organized or free-form? Is there a facilitator or is responsibility shared? Do they take place on a regular basis? Is the tone formal or informal? Is there a seating plan, how is the room set up (tables, chairs), what is the policy on refreshments, mobile phones and snacks during the meeting? How are discussions and decisions dealt with? A team needn’t necessarily be responsible for the entire organization. To a certain extent, this can be done by the facility, supervisors or other departments (e.g. if the meeting is chaired by the department head or if it’s obvious that the secretary takes the minutes). Exercise Think of eight to ten structures and rules (according to priority) that have proven effective in the past. First, generate thoughts on your own and then together with your teammates. A Team Regularly Thinks About How to Improve Their Collaboration A team determines at least partially its own rules and structures it will adhere to. Team members do not merely rely on formal structures when they work together as a team. Instead, they create their own team culture within the structure. They think about how they can effectively achieve their goals. The flexibility of different teams varies. Quite often, however, the available resources are not sufficiently exploited – because the individuals involved fail to react in time or don’t think it’s necessary to share views on the existing structures and regulations, for example, over their suitability for working toward the common goal. While team members often feel that it makes sense

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

24

Team and Teamwork

to structure their meetings in a more effective way (e.g. beginning on time, facilitation, agenda and finishing on schedule), no one thinks to take matters in hand. A policy of this nature could be considered a meta-organization. On the one hand it is evident that a team could very well have a meta-organization, i.e. the ability to create or modify their own structures and rules, and on the other, the team chooses not to exert its influence in this direction. Often, teams realize quite quickly which organizational elements they can’t influence themselves because they are prescribed by the sponsor, the facility or long-standing regulations. In the process, they lose sight of the available latitude. Once a team realizes that it has structural elements at its disposal to work more effectively and can directly influence the way the team is organized and works together, they jump at the opportunity to implement this option. Exercise Think back to the last time your team shared views on its own internal organization and possible modification in the way you work together, in the structures and rules. The concept of what constitutes a “team” is not entirely arbitrary but corresponds to existing definitions and descriptions (see above). Teams differ from other groups along these lines. A team can exist as a team even if it chooses not to question its existing rules and structures. Not all criteria have to be fulfilled according to the same standards, giving rise to each team’s identity: Do we consider ourselves a team? Do we want to consider ourselves a team? And: What do we consider a team? The answers to these questions or the differences in opinion expressed by members when answering these questions are significant factors in the team’s development.

The Team as a System We would like to emphasize the different approaches to creating and transforming teamwork and the varying ways in which each member’s resources and commitment can contribute to the team effort. To this end, we would like to take a closer look at the way a team functions in abstract terms as a system and differentiate between three phases of complexity, depending on how closely we examine the system: the team as a machine, as an organized system and finally, as a self-organizing system.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Team as a System25

The Team as a Black Box If a team is perceived only in terms of the goals and tasks it accomplishes, it can be described as a “black box”, which serves a particular function within a larger entity and as such operates as a machine. In this case, what is important is simply the “input” (nature of the task) and “output” (results). Everything else “within the machine” is expected to function on its own without further input (figure 2).

Team in

out

Figure 2: The team as a black box

The director of a facility telling a team: “As long as you do your work and the kids in your in-house groups are well taken care of (or the finances are in order, or we present a positive image), I’m not interested in what you do or how you do it”, illustrates one attitude towards a black box. The team members can take such an attitude as both positive if they are happy with a more open structure, and at the same time feel it is cynical and disinterested. The Team as an Organized System Taking a closer look inside this black box, the observer can identify and describe both the individuals who make up the team as well as the rules and structures to which it adheres. He/she might perceive the team as an organized system that functions more or less effectively. From an outside observer’s perspective he/she possibly begins to notice where individuals, rules and structures function particularly well – and where improvements could perhaps be made (figure 3).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

26

Team and Teamwork

Team in

out

Figure 3: The team as an organized system

When a department head considers the way that employees in a center for the handicapped interact and questions whether it would be helpful to change how the team is composed, or the frequency and duration of team meetings, or insists on reassessing workloads, he perceives the team as an organized entity (and one that he can organize). He is aware that the team’s effectiveness depends on a number of factors and that they can be modified. He feels that it is his job to initiate change to boost motivation with regard to the team effort. Here too, the team is perceived from an outside observer’s perspective and “dealt with” accordingly. The Team as a Self-Organizing System One must, however, take into account that this system is not composed of mechanical parts, but rather of human beings, who have their own opinions and thoughts, can and do act independently, are self-directed in that they attribute their own intrinsic meaning and therefore cannot be predictably steered. In short they are pro-active individuals who take responsibility for their part in the team effort, thus, we can consider this team as a self-organizing system. Not only the observer’s view determines what happens within a team, nor simply the inputs influence what takes place. Instead, the parts of the system determine how they see themselves, how they experience a situation and how they behave and act. The individual parts of the system have a life of their own and a self-perception. What may seem reasonable to an observer in terms of judging a team according to its input and output often makes no sense to the team from an insider’s perspective: The team does not perceive itself as merely a small wheel in a machine but rather as a contributing and self-actualizing entity of the system. A graphic representation (figure 4) doesn’t do justice to this process of self-organization by individuals (we are

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Team as a System27

used to describing systems from an observer’s perspective and, in doing so, are usually not able to grasp its individual intrinsic meaning, autonomy, self-sufficiency and independent nature).

Team in

out

Figure 4: The team as a self-organizing system

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Different Levels of Teamwork

We can establish different levels and terms to differentiate teamwork that are suggestions only and are open to interpretation. We are not referring to “real” definitions, however they may perhaps prove to be useful tools.

Level 1: Task-Oriented Teamwork The first level includes the team’s “actual” task which is: to use the members’ resources to achieve a task in a well-defined manner. Generally, this happens via a combination of “informing, consulting, deciding (I/C/D)”, i.e. team members inform and consult each other in order to reach decisions. The task’s order of importance depends on the team’s objective or individual members. A team that ensures its members have access to channels of information so that they can be informed will assume a different approach from a team that offers its members advice and support. Additionally, a team that is tasked with finalizing a project and producing results will have to reach decisions at least once during the process. The goal at this level of teamwork is, as a rule, to guarantee the best possible information flow, to support and advise each other well and to reach well-founded decisions. All of this is geared toward the best possible outcome with respect to the team’s actual task, as well as to the often present but not always mentioned “peripheral tasks”. Thus, in addition to the professional management of the in-house group or ward, the ward’s public image must be maintained or its occupancy assured. These tasks aren’t always reconcilable. Informationsharing helps to make matters more transparent regarding different objectives, events, advice and decision making.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Level 1: Task-Oriented Teamwork29

Informing Team members share information regarding important facts, know-how and observations. Information is the basis for taking action – two pairs of eyes being better than one. Often it’s enough to bring each other up to date on new rules or a summary of an interesting article in a trade journal, as well as a brief description of the process involving a current client. Ultimately, the goal here is to facilitate knowledge sharing among team members. An exchange of such information leads to further inquiry and opinions and quite possibly motivates others to disclose information worth sharing. Consulting (Team Consultation) Consulting begins when more than an exchange of information is required: “I need your support”, “I’d like to hear a few ideas on what could be done here”, “I’d really like to try out something new with you”. These are only one person’s requests that could very likely give rise to joint questions: “How could we be more creative in planning our summer festival?” “How could we make our offer more attractive?” A key factor in consulting is that no decisions are involved but nevertheless the resources of different members are brought into play: they participate without reaching a decision. For example, when a co-worker at the youth welfare department considers whether or not to finance a day group for a particular adolescent. In the chapter on “Team Consulting”, I will cover peer consulting, where the decision regarding consequences is the responsibility of individual co-worker(s). Decision-Making Decision-making can be viewed separately from consulting. Consulting serves to explore and compare options. The decision-making process can’t begin until this preliminary work has been completed. Not everything has to be decided as a team, as each co-worker is responsible for his/her choices, such as what setting he/she chooses for the next client meeting or what services will be granted in individual cases. Then there are cases where a team makes a decision, in fact, where the team must decide together and convenes in advance to negotiate and discuss

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

30

Different Levels of Teamwork

the actual decision (How should we structure our office hours? How do we allocate our budget and who is in charge of the budget? Which proposals for a new brochure can we agree on? Where shall we go on our next departmental outing? Should certain individuals have the right to veto particular questions? Do we support these educational measures although our budget is limited?). What is often overlooked or forgotten is that decisions of the team can also be responsible for rejecting decisions or leaving them to another authority. For instance, when teams have to reach decisions which go against their professional judgment (such as declining necessary support simply because there are no financial means): “We aren’t willing to make a decision which goes against our professional opinion.” This applies even if one is convinced that the employers or supporting organization could be affected (“How should we react to the allegations in the daily press?”). In summary, this first level of teamwork can be described as “doing something” – this is the “actual” level of teamwork we mean, when we refer to team and teamwork.

Level 2: Organizational Teamwork/Team Organization A team can consider itself as such at the level of “informing/consulting/ decision-making” and try to achieve the best possible results together. On the next level up, the team can consider how it will achieve these tasks. It can review the way members interact, the rules and structures to which they adhere and what can be improved in their collaboration. Creating this form of collaboration can also be one (or part of one) of the team’s tasks. Team members are not only expected to inform themselves, share information as best they can and make good joint decisions, but also to think about how these processes can be optimized. This includes reflection: How do we work together? What explicit (and what implicit) rules are in place? What methods do we use? How do we feel about our team meetings? How do we plan and facilitate our teamwork, meetings and informal collaboration? Each participant will give a different account and impression of these processes and can make a valuable contribution to the ‘bigger picture’. Each participant will bring in his/her own experience and skills and, in the same vein, have ideas about how teamwork can be improved. In this way, each participant’s resources can be put to use. (This book too, adheres largely to this level of team organization: it encourages experimentation with new methods and approaches.)

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Level 3: Developmental Teamwork/Team Development31

In summary, this second level of teamwork can be described in terms of “reflecting and then changing the way in which we work together as a team”.

Level 3: Developmental Teamwork/Team Development The third level of “team development” refers to questions such as: How can we improve our team’s cognitive processes? The term “team development” might imply that it’s about developing a team or, in other words, creating something that didn’t exist before – this is not meant here. On the contrary: the more appropriate term would be “further development” – we are talking about a team here. If this team not only accomplishes its work as a team, but also thinks about how this can be done in the best possible way and then goes on to reflect how the process of generating ideas can be improved. (“Would it be better to set two hours a week aside just for contemplating teamwork, should we organize an annual workshop – or would it make more sense to send individual members to training seminars in order to get inspiration for change in our teamwork?” – both of these situations are examples of team development.) It is also important that members’ joint resources are brought in here and everyone is given the chance to contribute to questions such as: How should we organize our team in order to enhance our teamwork and achieve satisfactory results? Do we leave the decision to our supervisor or can we come up with our own ideas? In summary, this third level of teamwork can be described as “doing something to change the way we think about doing something”.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

32

Different Levels of Teamwork

Overview: Different Levels of Teamwork Teamwork can take place on different levels. The tasks involved at each level can be considered tasks that are to be completed as a team – or not. Level 1: Field-Specific Teamwork Informing, consulting, deciding (I/C/D) with regard to the team’s collective tasks Goal: to adequately inform others and be informed, to give sound advice and support decision-making –– providing information – facilitating mutual exchange –– consulting (team consulting) • to generate ideas • to practice, try out and experiment • to support members in their decisions –– decision-making • the team negotiates and makes their own decisions • the team decides to pass the decision on to the responsible authority “Doing something.” Level 2: Organizational Teamwork/Team Organization Structuring and organizing the I/C/D process within the team Goal: to optimize the I/C/D process –– moderating and structuring (facilitating, agenda) –– defining the rules for working together –– choosing specific methods –– active participation, adhering to the rules “Reflecting and then changing the way in which we work together as a team.” Level 3: Developmental Teamwork/Team Development Changing structural and organizational processes Goal: to optimize the organization and structure of teamwork –– reflecting on the way teamwork operates: “How can we improve organization within our team?” –– learning about new methods and approaches: at workshops and training seminars designed to enhance teamwork “Doing something to change the way we think about doing something.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Is the Purpose of Three-Tiered Levels?33

What Is the Purpose of Three-Tiered Levels? From a constructivist perspective, we are dealing here with analytical distinctions that an observer might choose to make. Any one particular team task cannot be unequivocally allocated to any one of these levels. When a team plans to hold a feedback session to close a meeting, it can be seen as –– subject-specific teamwork-since one of the team’s tasks is to set up collaboration in a way that will achieve the best possible results (and the introduction of a feedback session will certainly contribute to the goal of achieving good results); –– a step toward improving the organization of the team since feedback sessions constitute an integral element of team organization; –– as a measure of team development since considerations on how to improve the nature of collaboration can be a fundamental factor. Like all types of differentiation and definition, feedback sessions are contingent – that is, they can take other forms. The decisive factor is in the way they will be implemented. In this case it can be helpful to clarify on which level the change is to take place: Is our main goal to perform better? Do we want to change the form of our collaboration or do we want to change the approach we use to reflect on how we can improve our work together? For some teams it might be helpful to consider which one of the levels they want to work together on. Agreeing on a concept of how the collaboration should be organized is another step in the phase of how we can present ourselves to the public as a team. Conversely, a team might perceive itself as a team and work together often without considering how to organize the actual teamwork much less plan even a one-day training seminar. The general feeling here seems to be that an external facilitator or department head should take on this task. On every one of the levels mentioned, a team can (not must) strive for common goals and exploit the diverse resources within the team: –– Members contribute to the assigned task(s) by contributing expertise in the field, skills and know-how required for a given job. –– Members support the team’s organization by bringing in key resources such as the ability to facilitate guided conversation in a meeting, take professional meeting minutes, maintain order (adherence to rules, time frames, order of presentations etc.) and having a trained eye for ways to improve the team’s overall structure. –– Each member plays a part in the team’s meta-organization, i.e. the design and modification of rules and structures. Practical resources here include:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

34

Different Levels of Teamwork

experience from team training seminars, ideas for change, the courage to present new ideas, suggesting changes, initiating and facilitating discussions regarding change processes. Of course, members are not expected to contribute to the team effort in the same way at every level and on the same scale. Here too, resources brought in by different team members in terms of diverse levels of commitment and areas of particular interest add to the joint endeavor. On the one hand, these resources can be implemented directly and on the other, they will evolve and become effective by members exchanging views and learning from each other. The team members’ background knowledge, experience, know-how, skills and commitment flow into each one of these three levels without individual members having to contribute to the same extent at each point. This book offers suggestions on how members of a team can bring about change in the organization of the team. Moreover, we encourage the reader to consider the idea of meta-organization in order to open up possibilities and room for experimentation that can later be implemented in actual practice. In this way, each team member plays an active role in a self-generating system instead of functioning as a small wheel within an organization. The first prerequisite for a high-performing team is for all members to identify with the team effort. Despite the term team originating from work with oxen, human beings are clearly not oxen – although both can have a will of their own, think for themselves and act independently. Nevertheless, just as the power of a team of oxen is reached through multiplying the strength of one beast, so is the ability to use the many individual experiences, abilities and know-how in a team of human beings. In addition, the autonomy and team members’ self-confidence can be used as a resource. Exercise “Assuming we wanted to improve our teamwork: what initial steps would we take?” Ask members to brainstorm ideas on this theme: Take turns presenting ideas beginning with the words “First we could …”. Continue after the first round until each participant has presented two or three ideas (cf. below “brain jogging”). Refrain from commenting on or discussing the ideas. If a person can’t come up with an idea, he/she may simply “pass”. The team could then reach a consensus on which idea could lead to a workable solution.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Too Much Ado about Teams?35

TEAM or “Who’s Going to Do What” This is a story about four people called Everyone, Someone, Anyone and Nobody. There was an important job waiting to be done and Everyone was supposed to do it. Everyone was sure that Someone would take care of it. Anyone could have done it but Nobody did. Someone became furious because it was Everyone’s job. Everyone thought Anyone could do it but Nobody thought that Everyone would try to weasel out of it. The upshot was that Everyone blamed Someone because Nobody did what Anyone could have done.

Too Much Ado about Teams? You might have the impression that too much is being made of teams, teamwork and team consulting. Quite possibly there is a tendency to overestimate the ability of a team and the impression could arise that the whole issue is simply overrated. Teamwork has certainly been idealized in recent years, perhaps even decades, in both the non-profit and profit sectors, which has ultimately led to an unrealistic concept (see above) of teams and teamwork. This has provoked some controversy, in particular from Malik in his work “The Myth of the Team”. Here he claims that “all truly outstanding human performance has been achieved by individuals” (Malik, 1999, p. 33) although it is not at all clear whether it is in fact all that important for “human beings to achieve great deeds”. In a provocative statement, Malik claims that the most efficient form of work consists of letting the competent individual work in peace. Teamwork also, undoubtedly, has its fair share of disadvantages. Not only are individual team members’ resources put to use but they are also used up. Teamwork costs participants’ time, effort and concentration (calculating personal expenses during a boring team meeting might prove to be an entertaining distraction). Whenever team members turn to colleagues for answers and perhaps even agree with a general decision instead of simply relying on their own judgment, they have to muster patience, a willingness to cooperate and compromise. Moreover, teamwork requires an initial warm-up phase until all members feel comfortable in the group. The commitment to team spirit requires considerable focus and an eye to detail to keep teamwork organized and on track, in order to keep developing in a beneficial manner. The number of participating members is commensurate with an increased risk of conflict. Individual members can dominate the entire team or create

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

36

Different Levels of Teamwork

a general atmosphere of confusion, sapping the team’s reserves and causing it to grind to a standstill. The opposite is true as well: the team becomes smug and self-satisfied and loses momentum because members no longer feel the need to bring up controversial issues to sustain lively debate. There are enough horror scenarios involving teamwork to prove this point. As is so often the case, it is a question of strengths and weaknesses. Teamwork is not self-serving. It is up to the participating individuals to decide whether or not forming a project team serves the objective rather than opting for teamwork because it’s the “thing to do.” Essentially, it is the team’s responsibility to work toward fulfilling the assigned task. The end result determines the team’s success and raises the question of how much time should be spent on discussing the virtues of teamwork, the team’s structure and development. Managing these aspects effectively should be the main concern, apart from anything else, so that the team doesn’t end up “stewing in its own juices”. I am confident, however, that each team and each member of the team will, with the help of suggestions introduced in this book, eventually find the approach and scale that is most appropriate. In the process, one might even realize that one is actually quite happy with the existing form of teamwork and that changes are not required at the moment.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Systemic Tools

In the following chapter, I would like to digress from the concept of “team” for a moment and introduce the fundamentals of systemic work. Those of you who are already familiar with this approach or don’t find it relevant to their work are welcome to skip this part. On the other hand, many of the methods and approaches introduced here will be easier to follow if the reader is already familiar with the theoretical background of systemic work. The systemic approach is often used by professionals involved in the field of social work. Developed on the basis of family therapy, it eventually led to being placed in the same category as family therapy and counseling. Systemic work, however, is much more complex – it would be more to the point to refer to systemic approaches rather than the singular approach. In contrast to the many approaches in consulting and therapeutic work, there is no single “school of thought” but rather an entire range of individuals and approaches that differ in any number of ways. Basically, a variety of perspectives and results-oriented options are postulated and sought after and, in fact, most of the various systemic approaches follow a similar approach. In this chapter, I will give an overview of the systemic-constructivist approach and how it is central to myself and my work (a more in-depth discussion about the background and different approaches can be found in von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2009; Reiter, Brunner & Reiter-Theil, 1997; Herwig-Lempp, 2002; applying a systemic approach in social work cf. Ritscher, 2013; Pfeifer-Schaupp, 2002; Simmen, Buss, Hassler & Immoos, 2010; Schwing & Fryszer, 2012). The systemic-constructivist approach offers a tool that social educators, consultants, psychotherapists, early education teachers as well as professionals in related fields may find helpful. The image of a “tool” suggests that there is a range of options available for those who wish to use them and simultaneously emphasizes freedom of choice. Furthermore the idea of a “tool” suggests it can be used for a specific purpose and implies that working with such a tool is a skill that can be learned.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

38

Systemic Tools

Similar to a toolbox, I have a variety of instruments at my disposal to support my systemic approach, including the theory upon which it is based and its basic premise and methods – all of which allow me to work effectively in my field. As with a toolbox, I have to decide upon and choose the tool I’ll use for a specific purpose. Usually, I make a decision based on the task at hand. I choose the tools that I feel are most appropriate for the occasion. It makes little sense to decide on the “best” tool too far in advance without knowing the context. Metaphorically speaking, even if I have successfully used a hammer to nail nails a hundred times, I won’t insist on using a hammer if I want to screw in a screw. Instead, I will reach for a screwdriver, or a saw if I want to cut a board. In order to use a tool sensibly, (or just to know how to apply it at the precise moment it is needed) I need prior experience and lots of practice. If I want to use a saw or a water level appropriately, I must have previously learned how to use it and have experimented and practiced with it in order to be able to assess in which situations to use it. Practicing professionals are above all interested in methodology, and in the different family therapy and systemic schools of thought, from which developed the particularly well-known techniques of circular questioning, genograms, sculpting and paradox interventions. Certainly these tangible approaches influence our perception of systemic work as well as our understanding of what constitutes the “tools” involved. I feel, however, that the various tools used in systemic work are not limited to methodology but also include its theoretical basis and core premise. Here too, we can choose depending on the situation and the goal. The theory offers guidelines and provides an idea of which situations with what purpose, and how certain methods can be applied. Our core beliefs or concept of humanity underlying our thought processes and actions play a decisive role in the theories and methodology we decide to implement. All three elements are considered from the perspective of applicability, independent of the specific situation, the person acting as well as the goals (figure 5).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Basic Premise of Systemic Work 39

Systemic Work

Mindset

Theory Methods Figure 5: The tools involved in systemic work

The focus here is on the methods involved in systemic work for collegial consultation. In order to better understand these instruments and their underlying theoretical implication, I would like to introduce some elements of the basic premise and the principal theories.

Basic Premise of Systemic Work The systemic make up of human beings is formed by their perception of self-determination and individuality – regardless of whether they are friends, clients, business partners, acquaintances, strangers or confidants, adults or children. It can be assumed that they are free individuals who can decide for themselves what they want and what is right and good for them. They are “self-determined” which means that they decide what meaning they will draw from their experiences and actions. They reserve the right to judge for themselves what they find meaningful – and what not. Consequently, if we accept that people are self-determining, we grant them the right to make their own decisions. This doesn’t mean, however, that we have to agree with their judgments, assessments and decisions, or that we can’t stand up to them. However, there is one basic conclusion: we don’t have to automatically consider clients unwell or in need of treatment if they behave in an unusual or other-than-normal manner. “Individuals are autonomous beings” means that they decide for themselves and are free to choose between a range of different perception and action options as far as they are actually aware of such options, and make the best possible choices for themselves. This doesn’t (unfortunately) mean

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

40

Systemic Tools

that they have all possible options at their disposal, but merely that they decide freely among the options available to them: I don’t know what is best for someone else, because he/she can decide that for themselves. These assumptions seem somewhat unusual only because we generally imbue individuals to whom we are close (life partners, children, friends) with such inalienable rights. Although “self-determined” used to be considered a negative characteristic in children, we tend to appreciate it nowadays even at the expense of our own interests. With our clients on the other hand, we sometimes find it difficult to regard them as autonomous and self-determined beings. Traditionally one tends to want to “see through” them, to understand them and to want to explain and change their unusual behavior. If autonomy and self-determination is a given, however, directed guidance or “instructive interaction” is not possible. Human beings are not machines, they have a soul. No matter how I behave with respect to my clients, they will have their own ideas about it and will place each experience within its own context. Although one can get a person to perform a certain task by force or misinformation, he/she will still have freedom of choice. If I happen not to succeed in convincing the person that there are, in fact, no other choices and that he/she must choose the one that is left, I cannot predict with certainty how he or she will react. Since clients essentially know what is good for them, they will always be responsible for themselves. “The responsibility of professionals – regardless of whether they work in early childhood development, social education or medicine – is to provide their clients with the best possible support and to open up a wider range of options. In a very simplified version, the professional maxim might state: “Let’s find at least three alternatives!” The client should be able to make a conscious choice. Accordingly, we will offer a number of feasible options for the client to choose from. Heinz von Foerster expressed this in his statement on “ethical imperatives”: “Always act in a way that will increase the range of possible options” (von Foerster, 1999, p. 41). These basic premises make up the essence of systemic work, that the individuals with whom we work are always “whole”. The individuals themselves are not deficient or flawed in any way, rather it is the perspectives, choices and the action they choose to take that determines their behavior. This spectrum must be expanded, not the individuals themselves. This humanistic view is certainly not entirely self-evident in the field of social work or health services. Perhaps it is helpful to keep in mind that we are dealing with an image of the individual here. Again the question is (as with the tool metaphor), if and how this image can be helpful (and not necessarily whether it is true!): how this image of autonomous beings can support

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Theory41

our client, reopen more personal space – and where our efforts to help can support them along the way. The basic premises start off with a statement of intention and assumption. They describe a particular view of humanity while leaving the question open with regard to how new and original it actually is. The bottom line is that we reflect and formulate this view for ourselves – and are able to refer back to it as needed: does the way I think and act still correspond to my basic beliefs?

Systemic Theory Assuming that the wish to change is a basic theme in social work (either clients want something or someone to change – or the professionals want the client to change), the most important questions regarding systemic theory are: how does change occur? What can it set in motion? In what way will the change be beneficial? Although systemic theory goes much beyond this, I will focus primarily on the areas mentioned. The systemic approach developed out of the systems theory, a theory which was originally referred to as “cybernetics” and dealt with the adjustment and control of machines, before it was further developed to include more complex systems such as “living systems” and “social systems”. The main focus lies in the understanding and defining of structures and rules, the elements and connections according to which systems “function”. The goal, naturally, was to be able to improve the control and influencing mechanisms of such systems. A few of today’s well-known cybernetic principles were devised following observation of mechanical functions – such as feedback cycles, circularity or homeostasis (balance). Ross W. Ashby, one of the founding fathers of cybernetics and the systems theory came up with a key concept in 1956: “A system is not an object but rather a list of variables. These lists of variables can vary and the collective task for the experimenters is to vary the list (to consider different variables) until he/she obtains the desired group of clearly unambiguous variables” (Ashby, 1958, p. 40). Or as Fritz Simon expressed it later: “The concept of a system stands for an abstract entity and can be ascribed to any number of relative factors. The observer decides what he/she defines as a system and where he/ she wants to draw the limits. The observer’s prior definition always precedes any discussion about systems” (Simon, 2005, p. 17 f.). The core realization is: Systems don’t simply exist, they are combinations of “variables” that the observer or experimenter bring to life by interpreting the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

42

Systemic Tools

concept – according to his/her needs. Claims pertaining to the construction or invention of systems are also called “cybernetics of the second order”, in as far as they generally relate to awareness (on the human level) they are referred to as “constructivism”. For example the concept of a “team”: of course everyone will agree with the assertion that a team is a system. However, a closer look will show that different participants are likely to have a very different understanding of “team” or the “team system”: who belongs to this system, what function it has and to which rules it adheres. Exercise Answer the following questions for yourself and compare them with the answers of other members of your team and other individuals (e.g. colleagues from other teams, friends, partner, clients): –– Who are the members of your team? –– What is your team called? –– What is your team’s special trademark? –– What rules and structures govern your team? –– What are you team’s tasks? –– What significance does gender ratio in your team have? In the process of trying to determine the “real” team and obtaining an objective description of it, one will notice that different perspectives and definitions overlap. Traditionally in such cases we try to find the correct description in these situations. Here we draw a key theoretical conclusion: an objective definition is not possible, that is, we are always dealing with descriptions of individuals or subjects. The best we can do is to agree on a description (or one side manages to force the other to accept a particular definition). “Systems” are abstracts; they are an expression of subjective description. But we are always the ones who determine such descriptions: “… it could simply be very useful when we speak of one single system and its characteristics, to keep in mind that we are the ones who define the system in our own way” (Steier & Smith, 1985). This puts truth into perspective. Apparently self-evident aspects too, such as the “function” of systems or the causality principle of cause-and-effect suddenly fall into perspective: a system fulfills a particular function when a person describes the function, and in so doing ends up attributing a definition. Every definition of reality can always be traced back to someone who describes this reality in a certain way – we are incapable of grasping the “actual” reality.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Theory43

What appears initially to be an ancient philosophical problem (and one which might be considered irrelevant for daily life) can actually become quite relevant in practice: if systems (ergo, descriptions of things, people, situations, processes) don’t “exist” but instead are “invented” or “construed” then we can understand why individuals will describe seemingly similar situations in different ways. And consequently, we can give up trying to find the one true description. However, this means that we assume responsibility for what we deem right, necessary and true: we decide for ourselves. If our reality is always just our reality and if we interpret this reality, then it is up to us to decide how we interpret and create this reality. It is our responsibility not that of the reality. Here systemic theory clearly brings the individual’s responsibility and the way in which he/she chooses to lead his/her life into focus. Underlying a desire for change is the assumption that I am able to bring it about and influence the direction it takes. There are different types of change. Basically, one can differentiate between a new situation and modified behavior on the one hand, (“My son gets better grades in school now.” Or: “We don’t argue as much as we used to.”) and a new perspective and assessment of an unchanged situation on the other (“It’s not his grades that we’re worried about at the moment.” Or: “We really enjoy our discussions now.”). Building on the idea that complex systems can be described following the idea that “everything is interconnected” (an ironic and relatively useless statement about the “holistic” nature of connectedness), small changes can lead to a ripple effect and lead to more profound changes. A child who wets themself does not have to be immediately toilet-trained in response – success for everyone involved could mean that the child achieves a “dry day” once a week and then decides by themself if they would like more dry days. The systemic approach rates individual responsibility for experienced reality highly. Accordingly, the assumption that experts know what is good and necessary for individual clients loses its meaning. If meaning and assessment are reached subjectively at the time, the person decides for themselves what they deem to be true and meaningful. This is a claim I feel I can make as a professional and speak for both colleagues in the field as well as clients. Both theoretical claims and applications in practice were developed for professionals in the field who encourage others to change – such changes can affect both behavioral aspects as well as perspectives in the sense of description and assessment of certain situations. Accordingly, the following

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

44

Systemic Tools

elements of professional intervention enhance the chances of effecting change when viewed from the perspectives described below: –– The meaning behind the client’s mandate: clients often have their own ideas about the kind of changes they desire, which often differ from the wishes and expectations of those around them (their relatives, other professional facilities such as counseling centers, clinics, sources of financial support such as a social security, youth welfare or health insurance). When I succeed in being guided by the wishes, expectations and tasks of those who are directly related to my work and who wish to change a situation (or who should change, according to a third party), I increase the probability of bringing about the desired change. –– The significance of the clients’ resources: clients always have a range of strengths, abilities and background knowledge to draw on, even when they themselves and the supporting professional staff are not aware of them. These abilities include experience of previous attempts to change or to find solutions as well as their own ideas about potential outcomes. If I manage to tap into clients’ own resources, to recognize them and to use them in the change process, I increase the chances of bringing about change. These resources also include the exceptions to the problem – that is all situations where the undesirable experiences and forms of behavior do not exist. –– Increasing the range of options for clients: one can assume that people will always choose for themselves the best possible option from the range they can identify. I am responsible for broadening the scope of conceivable behavioral and cognitive options in order to expand the total range of alternatives available. We can use the image of an upside-down funnel to illustrate this point: broadening rather than narrowing is the aim. –– The client’s personal responsibility: since human beings aren’t machines and are neither subject to a uniform sense of meaning (“function”) nor able to be maneuvered at will, I (through instructive interaction) as an outsider am unable to direct their behavior. Even as a professional this is impossible. My responsibility is to open up the largest possible range of options for them: by assuming that clients are prepared to take responsibility for their actions and by accompanying them in their search for alternatives. –– The significance of respect and appreciation with regard to the client: I can accept their behavior or their view as an expression of their decision – regardless of whether I agree with it or would decide the same in their position, even if it is contrary to my own interests. I can always assume that there are good reasons for behaving in a certain way (even if it is only because they are not aware of better alternatives). If individuals feel their

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Methods45

behavior is respected, they will be more willing to entertain the idea of possible changes (and, for example, to experiment and bounce a few ideas around) than if they feel threatened, attacked or put down. Basically, the ideas expressed above illustrate the systemic view of humanity from a theoretical perspective. In summary one could say that: If we behave respectfully towards the individuals with whom we work and acknowledge their autonomy and individual will by being guided by their issues, their own vision of the outcome and their resources, and finally let them decide by themselves what changes they actually want to make, then we greatly enhance the chances and possibility of bringing about change. Here too, for every tool or assumption the maxim holds: these theoretical statements are neither more nor less correct than others. They too, can be understood “only” in terms of a tool that is judged according to its use – for those individuals who are familiar with the tools and have worked with them successfully. (We seem to find it extremely difficult to refrain from wanting to find absolute and permanent truths. We seem to harbor a strong impulse within us that keeps us wishing that our subjective descriptions and explanations are more than mere subjective descriptions and explanations and as such are no longer just tools or instruments for specific purposes but are permanent and “objectively true”.)

Systemic Methods The systemic premise and theoretical basic assumptions are the foundation and “framework” for the implementation of systemic methods. I would like to give a brief overview of these methods, knowing that the methods can be construed in many different ways from a “systemic perspective”. This range of possible methods can be considered a meta tool in itself as it allows me to choose the appropriate method at the precise moment I need it. The “systemic perspective” is neither self-evident nor mandatory. It offers options that can be referred to if required. Thus, the systemic method serves as a memory backup to keep specific aspects in mind.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

46

Systemic Tools

The Systemic Perspective Focuses on –– the mandate; –– resources, strengths and competencies; –– context; –– long-term solutions; –– a range of behavioral options; –– autonomy and self-determination; –– further perspectives; –– willingness to cooperate; –– showing appreciation. Systemic methods can, with the help of theoretical conclusions and guiding principles, be roughly divided into methodological concepts. The methods themselves are mainly “verbal”, i.e. they are made use of during dialogue. The systemic approach is known for its many different types of questions that may not be entirely new, however when implemented by professionals in a prepared and clearly structured dialogue, they put a new spin on ideas and purpose. Moreover, there are illustrations (e.g. genograms) and other visual and interactive approaches available such as sculpturing, family boards, role plays etc.) as well as other tasks, experiments and exercises. In addition, particular settings (face-to-face, reflecting teams etc.) can be introduced. More detailed descriptions can be found in the current textbooks and systemic-constructivist, short-term therapeutic, solution-oriented literature. Here is merely a quick look at a number of methods from a systemic point of view that are (can be) implemented and when. The Mandate In our work together with clients, in social work, counseling or therapy, there is, as a rule, a range of expectations and mandates involved either explicitly or implicitly that is passed down: from (various) clients, from third parties who have initiated intervention, from our employers and colleagues and from the sponsor’s representatives. Interestingly, the clients’ own mandates are often forgotten in the process. It makes sense to remind oneself of this issue but also any other hidden agendas that additional participants (apparent or not) might have by: –– discussing how the idea of working together came about: What brought you here? Who sent you, who recommended me? –– asking about the mandate, wishes, expectations and outcome suggestions:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Methods47

What would you like to have happen? What do you expect? What don’t you expect? –– disclosing and describing the services and possibilities I can offer: clients are not always aware of the expectations, wishes and mandates they can present me with. –– clarifying the expectations and mandates of others involved and professionals, through circular questioning with regard to third party participants. –– using graphics or sculpturing to clarify the mandate. Well thought-out mission statements that are reviewed on a regular basis and modified where necessary are central to the consulting process. Third parties to the mandate (spouse, youth welfare, family doctor etc.) are important but not “more important”. Adhering to these methods and clear discourse structures helps the professional to focus on client needs rather than his/her own agenda, goals, expectations or the demands of third party members. Resources, Strengths and Abilities We normally see the reason why individuals seek change as “problems”, or rather this is the definition of “problem”: it should go away. The danger is when one begins focusing on aspects of the problem in order to explain it and then get caught up in a “problem aura”. The thing that gets lost in the process is what was originally alright, did not need changing in the first place, what had already successfully undergone change. From a methods perspective, this can be an inspiration to look carefully for resources and skills and to recognize them, for example, by: –– questioning and discussion about • abilities: What can you do? What are your strengths? • achievements: What have you already managed to successfully change? How did you manage to do it? In what other areas are you successful? What can be learned and carried over from previous positive experience? • overcoming difficult situations: How did you deal with this? What helped you to “survive” this situation? Where do you get your strength and energy from? • client ideas for solving the problem: How would you like things to be once the change has come about? How do you think you can solve the problem?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

48

Systemic Tools

• exceptions: When does the problem seem less present? When is it absent? What do you do differently? –– complimenting: I recognize the client and acknowledge his/her resources. I support him/her in efforts to access his/her resources; at the same time I focus on the client’s abilities, resources and achievements when I compliment him/her. –– reinterpretation and reframing: new perspectives are brought to the surface and shed light on potentially new behavioral options. Context Context seems to be the systemic specialists’ discovery (if we are to believe them): the belief that there is continual interconnectedness and that a system doesn’t become a system until it has disconnected itself from its immediate surroundings with which it interacts in a number of different ways (while defining itself and creating its identity from both connecting and disconnecting in the process). This makes it possible to explore and take into consideration this interconnectedness by: –– asking about how the current consultation or counseling session came about or was initiated by a third party: What was the motivational factor? –– asking about the circumstances and relationships in which the individuals are currently involved – and exploring the situations within the context of time, space and social contacts in which the problems and their solutions occur. –– exploring background connections and contexts between individuals and situations which until now haven’t been important: Who else is important to you? In which situations does the problem not arise? The Resolution and Future Direction The goal of consultation/counseling is to bring about change for the better and this is what the systemic perspective is focused on (rather than on the past e.g. the background and causes of the problematic situation). This can be brought about by: –– supporting the client (and others who are involved) in their search for new ideas on how to best solve the problem without being taken over by professional resource persons. –– asking the miracle question and leading in to a special approach: “Assum-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Methods49

ing a miracle were to happen tonight while you slept, and the difficulties we are talking about today would disappear. Since you were asleep, you wouldn’t have been aware of a miracle occurring. How would you recognize that a miracle had happened the next morning?” This, in addition to the key question, can generate many more questions: “What do you mean by ‘I enjoy getting up in the morning?’” “What exactly do you do then?” “What change would your partner notice?” (cf. Berg, 1994, p. 97 ff.). Broadening the Scope of Behavioral Options The systemic approach assumes that individuals are autonomous and self-determined. They create their own meaning and decide for themselves what they feel is right and important for them. The aim of systemic work is to expand the scope of available options so that clients can choose for themselves: the broader the range of available options, the better. From a methodological perspective, for example, I could –– work together with and support a client in choosing three or four (and preferably more!) alternatives, particularly where he/she is unable to come up with any real ideas on their own. In so doing, alternatives and further options are developed, regardless of whether all of them appear to be worthwhile. (For example, one such situation could be someone saying “I have no other choice but to submit.” The professional could react by saying: “Let’s take a look at seven possible options that you have at your disposal.”) –– generate diversity in the search for descriptions, explanations and possible resolutions by: • asking for different descriptions of situations and individuals (e.g. by circular questioning), • generating a number of hypotheses (instead of just one) together with the client to explore why something is the way it is, or what course the development with regard to a particular concern could take, or • looking for a broader range of alternatives instead of being satisfied with just two or three.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

50

Systemic Tools

Autonomy and Self-Determination The moment I manage to see my clients as autonomous and self-determined beings, I can let them make their own important decisions instead of taking over. I am aware that not only I am unable to make the “right” decision for them but also that it wouldn’t be conducive to our work together or their willingness to collaborate. Conversely, from a methodological standpoint, I can encourage autonomy and self-determination on the interactive level by –– formulating my requests in terms of an invitation: I frame my suggestions and actions (even if we are only talking about simple questions or suggestions for action) as offers and invitations and make sure that my clients understand them as such. Invitations can be rejected without the inviter feeling disappointed or hurt. They emphasize the fact that the invitee is free to decide whether or not to accept. Gregory Bateson illustrated this with the following image: “You can take a horse to the water but you cannot make him drink. The drinking is his business. But even if your horse is thirsty, he cannot drink unless you take him. The taking is your business” (Bateson, 2002, p. 95). –– experimenting and suggesting that clients experiment with various exercises that again, I present as an offer rather than “homework” or an obligation to accept particular ideas or outcomes negotiated during the counseling session. –– assuming an attitude of “sound reason”: for every behavior, reaction and action, I can presume that he or she has “good reason” to behave exactly as he/she did within the scope of possibilities of which he or she is aware. From the client’s perspective, this behavior made sense and I can accept that he/she has made this choice of his/her own volition (I don’t necessarily have to agree with these “good reasons,” even if I admit that from the client’s perspective and within the current context the choices were appropriate). Further Perspectives Problems arise when one believes there are no more choices (or only a choice between a few unattractive alternatives). The systemic perspective adopts the premise that there are always more ways of seeing a situation than we are actually aware of and that we are not tempted therefore to consider some perspectives as “truer” than others. Consequently, we are not at a loss for

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Systemic Methods51

alternatives. A number of methods in particular invite the client to experiment with new perspectives: –– Circular questions: “What do you think your husband would say about this if I asked him?” “How would your daughter react if she heard this?” I ask the person questioned to assume in her answer a third-person perspective in the hope that she will broaden her scope of perception and interpretation possibilities in response to particular situations. –– Remembering that perspectives and the awareness and feelings resulting from them are always subjective: “You felt it like that then”, “You experience it like this now” in an unspoken yet more or less explicit manner, the offer might be formulated as follows: further possibilities for feeling and experiencing circumstances are not dependent on the situation or time. –– “Assuming that …” by introducing something as a purely hypothetical statement, I can make seemingly impossible situations possible by experimenting with my thoughts and actually think the unthinkable: “Supposing someone were observing you in this process, what would he/she see …” “Supposing you were to observe yourself …”, “Supposing you knew what the solution was …”. –– Looking back from the future: hypothetical assumptions transcend time and space and introduce additional perspectives: “Assume for a moment that a year has passed and at that time you were able to solve the problems successfully. How do you see the situation from today’s perspective?” Seemingly fixed perceptions can be tempered and diluted – and by so doing the door is opened to new, previously un-thought-of images, ideas and observations. Willingness to Collaborate Applying labels to client behavior can be avoided: “resistance” can be replaced by a sincere belief in “willingness to cooperate”, a perspective that is conducive to a systemic point of view: “Each family, individual, or couple shows a unique way of attempting to cooperate, and the therapist’s job becomes, first, to describe that particular manner to himself that the family shows and, then, to cooperate with the client’s way and, thus to promote change” (de Shazer, 1989, p. 229). Regardless of how the client reacts, I assume and signal a willingness to cooperate. From a methodological perspective, I can emphasize this by:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

52

Systemic Tools

–– identifying even the slightest sign of a client’s willingness to collaborate and ways to acknowledge this, for example, by complimenting the client in some way. –– interpreting (formerly interpreted as “resistant” behavior as an expression of self-determination and autonomy, thereby attributing to this behavior a right to exist instead of passing it off as “resistance”. –– attributing a different value to this behavior and interpreting it as helpful to the consultation: clients must be allowed to articulate the way they feel and to give immediate feedback in case they don’t want us to intervene, experience it as inappropriate or if they don’t understand what you mean. Clients of this kind know what they need, which is expressed in their self-determination and acknowledging this can encourage their further development and minimize dependency on us. Perhaps at first sight this approach appears to be more challenging than focusing on longer-term results of the mandate. The value of being able to shift perspectives is that it shows clients that we take them and their issues seriously and accept that they don’t necessarily share our views, instead preferring to make their own decisions. At the same time, every client will be more inclined to accept our invitations and offers on a trial basis if we display willingness to cooperate instead of resistance. Appreciation The same is true for appreciation: when we manage to make clients feel that they are appreciated – regardless of their behavior or whether or not they fulfill your expectations, then they are likely to respond to your proposals and perhaps even try out some of your suggestions. Appreciation of this nature can also be expressed (and here I would like to refer in part to the list of possible systemic perspectives again) by: –– complimenting clients on their abilities and resources, for their collaboration and their achievements, even minor ones; –– exploring client perspectives in more detail; –– being guided by their expectations, wishes and mandates or negotiating these issues with them; –– being guided by their description of the problem and their suggested solutions; –– consistently allowing, or developing with them, as many choices and decision-making opportunities as possible.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Team and the Systemic Approach 53

These perspectives are not all-encompassing and complete, nor are they meant to be. After all, when can a tool kit be expected to be all-purpose and complete? Some instruments are used more often than others. For some, more effective modifications come along, or sometimes entirely new tools are discovered. Sometimes they turn up suddenly and surprise us and sometimes one saves up for a long time in order to buy a particularly valuable instrument while improvising in the meantime. The “systemic perspective” provides access and gives an idea of which tools are appropriate in what situations. Other perspectives (and here perhaps even entirely new functions in the tool kit) could be earmarked for curiosity, multifunctionality or neutrality.

The Team and the Systemic Approach The team concept is paramount to the development of systemic work. Teams have always played an important role in this domain when new ideas have been developed. Family therapists and proponents of systemic thought started early on to work with teams, and have benefitted from the diversity of perspectives. On the other hand, the concept of systemic teamwork as it relates to client-counselor collaboration has never been explicitly defined. While I can’t entirely subscribe to the idea of a team constituting the basis of systemic thinking and interaction, I would, nevertheless, like to refer to several points of view. Family therapy started out with pair work: after inviting so-called index-patients and their families to attend the therapy sessions, they suddenly found themselves surrounded by a large number of people. The therapist found it helpful to have a colleague at his/her side since two pairs of eyes had a better overview of the proceedings. What was really novel about this first step toward introducing therapeutic teams was that colleagues now shared the intimacy of the therapist’s inner sanctum. What went on in the office was no longer secret and inaccessible. Instead, the sessions became open to observation (and criticism) from colleagues. Working together in pairs allowed therapists to share thoughts, observations and perspectives about the families and in the process develop intuitive rather than reflective approaches: How do I go about sharing views on what my colleague and I observed if we perceived the same events differently? How do I tell my colleague that not only did I find her approach inappropriate but also suggest how she could improve it? Can we agree on an intervention at the end of a session even if we have different opinions?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

54

Systemic Tools

Family therapists have always perceived their work as experimental and were eager to experiment with new approaches. The work in larger teams resulted in participants splitting into two groups: the therapists who lead the discussions with the clients, and the observing therapists behind a one-waymirror. The groups thought of themselves as a large therapeutic team who prepared together for the session (by forming hypotheses), being involved in the session both in front of and behind the mirror but from different vantage points, developing ideas for the final commentary and interventions developed, and preparing the follow-up to the session. The group considered themselves to be a “therapeutic team” without actually giving much thought to the concept of a team or the form of collegial collaboration it was meant to comprise. One of the most famous systemic teams existed during the 1970s. This was the so-called Milan team to which Mara Selvini Palazzoli, Gianfranco Cecchin, Luigi Boscolo and Guiliana Prata belonged. Work done in such therapeutic teams took time and required considerable manpower. Training groups were occasionally integrated into the therapeutic process. Training groups and visiting colleagues behind the one-way-mirror were included as members of the therapeutic team. The decisive factor as to who could be considered a member of the therapeutic team was determined by who happened to be observing from the outside (other side of the window) rather than someone who was a regular member on an officially recognized team. The point was to bring in the different points of view and perspectives of those involved in the process so far. The Norwegian, Tom Andersen and his team in Tromsø, developed the idea of the one-way window and the different perspectives of a therapeutic team even further and came up with the model of a “reflecting team” – an approach in which the roles of the therapists and clients in front of the window on the one hand and the observing therapists behind the window on the other, change positions for a few minutes in the middle of the session. Those sitting “in front of ” the pane now listened in to what was being said “behind” the window. These groups considered themselves a team that shared what they had observed during the course of the session in the team according to mutually agreed, specific guidelines. However, in nearly all cases, it seemed that the systemic therapists based their understanding of the term “team” and the questions of content and organizational structure on the therapeutic situation. The same is true for the contribution of Selvini and Selvini Palazzoli (1992) and Speed (1992), who support the creative possibilities inherent in teamwork but also subscribe to the advantages of the therapist working alone with a client. Both refer exclusively to the “therapeutic team” in the sense of collaboration between several

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

What Do We Mean by “Systemic”? 55

therapists in front of and behind the one-way window. Beyond this, systemic teamwork doesn’t seem to exist (an exception here is Bosselmann, 1993). Traditional therapeutic teams seemed to be satisfied with the way things were, which wasn’t conducive to sharing experiences in an effort to create mutually enriching and novel approaches to consulting and therapeutic teamwork.

What Do We Mean by “Systemic”? So much for a brief introduction to systemic work. We hope that it will help you to discover the “systemic elements” inherent in different models of team consulting. Quite possibly this may leave open the question as to what the “systemic” element in the process actually is. The term refers back to the history of systemic work at a time when therapists began working with families and then extended the term to apply to systems in general. Furthermore, “systems theories” were being developed in parallel with a variety of disciplines. The term system might easily suggest that we are working with “systems” which is, in my judgment, a misunderstanding. We aren’t dealing with systems in our work – rather, our focus is on individuals, families, teams, groups, classes and organizations – and never with systems. A system is abstract, something intangible, a network of thoughts and ideas. We think in terms of systems but we don’t work with them: “At this point we must be clear about how a ‘system’ is to be defined. Our first impulse is to point at the pendulum and to say ‘the system is that thing there’. This method, however, has a fundamental disadvantage: every material object contains no less than an infinity of variables and therefore of possible systems” (Ashby, 1958, p. 39). Systems don’t exist (cf. Herwig-Lempp, 1987). Accordingly, the term systemic means that aside from all the implications already mentioned, we should always bear in mind that we are the ones who put together systems and that we could just as well construct them differently. We are the ones who choose the particular way of seeing things and we are responsible for the perspectives we use to describe and explain our surroundings. We cannot rely on objective truths nor do we have to. We can and may attribute self-determination and autonomy to our clients. We are responsible for the way we perceive our surroundings including our fellow human beings and their situations. Most importantly, our task is to open up new options for interaction and forms of behavior – for both ourselves and our clients.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■The Systemic Perspective in Team Consultation

We can obtain a pretty exact description of what team consultation is all about if we translate the “systemic perspective” from work with clients into collegial collaboration and consultation in a team. At the same time, we can discern a number of basic methodological principles inherent in the model of collegial consultation.

The Mandate of the Colleague to Be Counseled As a rule, a particular colleague has a request or a difficult situation he/she is confronted with when he/she participates in team consultation, although it doesn’t necessarily have to be a problem. It could just as well be some form of success or the wish to reflect as a group on a routine situation. In any case, it is up to the facilitator to prepare the client’s request thoroughly and to be guided by and mindful of their questions and mandate. This avoids answering spontaneous questions and fulfilling mandates that the client never intended. The colleague who presents her issue has the right to “call the shots”. She is asked: “What is it that you want from us? In what way can we offer you support?” In this case, she is the client. Focusing on one or more designated clients prevents participants from getting bogged down in their own agenda. The colleague’s objective is the deciding factor – not what others might consider necessary. Of course, it can happen that all participants have a common mandate in which case the team may ask: “How shall we deal with the request from youth services?” “What ideas can we come up with for our youth camps?” “What could go wrong at our next group meeting?” These concerns could also be an issue for several or all team members. However, it is important to clarify the mandate by agreeing on all details and checking regularly to make sure that the goals stipulated in the mandate still apply.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Colleagues’ Strengths, Abilities and Resources 57

Colleagues’ Strengths, Abilities and Resources The basic resource in every team consultation is its team members: they are experienced professionals with a strong background in the field. They know all the ins and outs, are comfortable with success and skilled at problem-solving. Moreover, they are able to generate a variety of different hypotheses and ideas based on past developments and future possibilities. The methods involved in team consultation aim to exploit these resources in the best possible way. Since these resources are intangible, they remain available after being used – in fact, experience has shown that not only do they “grow”, but the more intensively they are put to use, the quicker they grow, prompting me to refer to a model of “collegial exploitation” without any negative connotation. Resource sharing is similar for all teams, regardless of whether they meet in a facility or specifically for this purpose, as a collegial consultation group. The art of team consultation consists of using the members’ experience together with their different skills, perspectives, views and opinions. In contrast to the traditional theory that another’s problem or point of view must be well understood in order to support him/her, we believe that it is precisely this difference in perception and the inability to fully comprehend that is the prerequisite for generating new ideas and inspiration.

The Context of Collegial Consultation Team consultation is not self-serving. Rather, it takes place within the context of the team’s actual task and serves to enhance the quality of services rendered by both individual team members and the entire team. Just like an individual care­giver, the entire team is tasked with accompanying in-house clients, counseling them in the best possible way, ensuring their well-being and representing them outside the facility. The structure and organization of team consultation will always be guided by this context in an effort to achieve maximum effectiveness. Quality will be evaluated and measured along the lines of these conditions – both members of the team and individuals within the context of the team will evaluate quality on the basis of results. Collegial consultation cannot be reduced to definitions of good or bad. Instead, as in the case of all evaluations, it depends on who evaluates it according to what standards.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

58

The Systemic Perspective in Team Consultation

The Solutions and the Future One basic premise of systemic work is to proceed from the desired outcomes of those clients who are looking for clarification and/or a solution. This means that we will explore all situations that may shed light on the issue and possibly lead to a solution. If a colleague reports difficulties with a client, one can begin by asking her about situations in which she was able to work well with this client or with similar clients where she managed to overcome such difficulties. Asking about exceptions (“When do things proceed more smoothly? At what times do you not experience difficulties with this client?”) can provide the colleague with a psychological boost: before receiving advice from others, it is first necessary to ask her about her own experiences and ideas, in order to come back to them later on. Frequently, the colleague will come up with her own ideas about exceptions to her problem during the course of more in-depth questioning. The model of team consultation is based on the finding solutions. According to Steve de Shazer: “Problem talk creates problems, solution talk creates solutions”. The focus is on the goal, the possible solution(s), clarification and mastering of difficult situations. There is little need to focus on the problem, mistakes or the causes of failure. Team consultation is results oriented. The ideas that come up are needed when approaching a particular situation. The emphasis is on future situations. Even where individual events, experiences or constellations in the past are brought to mind, they are played out against the backdrop of being able to access these reflections in the future.

Diversifying Possibilities for Action The main objective is to increase individual colleagues’ or the entire team’s choice and range of possible action. Each colleague should have the chance to choose between different accounts, explanations or modes of behavior. The element of free choice is the basic thrust and driving force. This is the reason that team consultation strikes outside observers, who experience this for the first time, as somewhat open-ended and lacking commitment. In the end, there is no single best solution but a large number (best case scenario) of hypotheses and interventions. The colleague who initiated the whole process often doesn’t make a decision on the spot, instead might want some time to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Colleagues’ Autonomy and Self-Determination59

reflect on the input and end the consultation by thanking the team members for their ideas and suggestions and adding: “But something entirely different has just occurred to me and I need to think about it.”

Colleagues’ Autonomy and Self-Determination Like all human beings, colleagues create their own sense of meaning. They have their own views and ideas about what is good and meaningful. They interpret situations as individuals in their own way. This self-determination (assumed to be already present), the ability to create meaning from within is important, meaningful and is worth protecting. Team consultation is designed not only to protect and appreciate each member’s sense of self-determination but also to support the team effort. Different views and interpretations, i.e. the different ways of attributing meaning, flow into the process. We open up a range of perspectives and expand the playing field for action without stipulating the one “real” perspective or mode of behavior by consciously calling upon different descriptions of particular individuals, situations and behavior and generating a range of different possibilities for explaining behavior. There is no further need to insist on an “objective” description of reality thereby rendering the search for an “objective” outcome obsolete. The individual themself assumes the responsibility for what they feel is right for them. This is precisely what this model of team consultation aims to achieve: in the end, the colleagues themselves are responsible for how they choose to react to the consultation and suggestions, inspiration, advice and warnings given. How and where they want to implement this input is entirely up to them. The willingness to bring a query into the team together with the uncertainty and difficulty involved in one’s personal work situation does not obligate the person to actually implement the advice provided. In fact, there are so many suggestions and ideas on the table that it is generally impossible to follow through on all of them. Even if the colleague asks the team to make a particular decision for her (“I would like you to tell me whether or not I should stop working with this client after the last incident!”), it is clear to everyone that it is up to the colleague to decide if he/she intends to implement the suggestions offered in the team. Of course it is also possible that individual teams or their leaders actually want to take responsibility for certain decisions in which case it is no longer a part of the team consultation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

60

The Systemic Perspective in Team Consultation

Other Perspectives Members of a team consultation include individuals with different backgrounds who bring in their distinct perspectives. The team can encourage this diversity by integrating different professional backgrounds, from both men and women, younger and older members from different disciplines (psychoanalysis, systemics and behavior therapy), individuals in different life situations (singles, in families or in homosexual partnerships), from both rural and urban environments, etc. Furthermore, a team can encourage inner diversity by priding itself on assuming a stance that is not necessarily based on a consensus of opinion or approach. For such teams diversity is the prerequisite for identity rather than consistency. There is no need for all members to agree. Sometimes it suffices to agree to disagree.

The Readiness of Colleagues to Collaborate The concept of resistance as being essential to explain the behavior of clients who refuse to do what the professional wants them to is used less frequently in teamwork. At least concerning those teams actively cooperating, it hardly matters. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t any disagreement or conflict, but they are used as a contribution to enhancing teamwork and development rather than an expression of opposition. At the point when I attribute responsibility for self and autonomy to each team member and take their expertise and professionalism as a given, I can accept his/her behavior as a contribution to achieving the assigned task.

Colleague Appreciation The idea behind team consultation includes appreciating each team member. The member taking part in a consultation receives his/her colleagues’ support without forfeiting autonomy and independence in his/her work: their concerns are taken seriously and the colleagues discuss the issue, but in the end, however, the person decides him/herself what to do with suggestions and advice. Colleagues who assume the role of consultant (or better still are allowed to do the consulting) experience appreciation in that their experiences, opinions

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Colleague Appreciation61

and advice are called upon. Even if the advice given is not explicitly implemented (and perhaps all aspects cannot be implemented) by the person in question, it is quite evident to all present that the amount of input in itself is already a big help. Appreciation of fellow team members can be further enhanced by allowing members to take turns acting as advice-seeker, advisor, facilitator, minute taker etc. Perhaps it’s even this ongoing role-changing that leads to changes and improvements in collegial consultation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Team Consultation

The Team Consultation Process A team consultation session generally includes several individual consultations. A team that has two hours every two weeks for collegial consultation is likely to have more than one practical example to work on. As a rule, several colleagues will have the opportunity to bring in their experience, consult with the team and benefit from the group’s reflection. Both team and individual consultation achieve a high level of creativity due to clear structure and setting. I assume that the team will select a facilitator to maintain structure and ensure that team members adhere to the rules. At the beginning of the session, this person will fix the order in which the various issues will be handled, allocate timelines, ensure that minutes are taken and ask a team member for support in staying within the time frame. A prerequisite for collegial consultation is the desire of colleagues for consultation and mutual reflection. The client’s needs or those of the person seeking consultation are the main focus. As a rule, there can be no consultation without a mandate. The bottom line is that a person must want a consultation for him/herself and not want it for someone else (“I think Christopher should get some advice on how to run his afternoon groups”). Several individuals may be involved; however, it helps to keep in mind that they probably have different ideas of what it’s about and what is important. The reasons for agreeing to team consultation may differ and it is important to point out that less pressing issues can also be brought up for discussion: –– I can’t get this issue out of my head … –– I’d like to share a success story I had recently … –– I’d really appreciate a few more ideas on how I could respond … –– I’d like to know your views on … –– I really don’t know any more what I can do … –– Just recently, I really enjoyed my work when … –– How could I approach X so that she might go along with this?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Team Consultation Process63

–– How can I manage to see child X in a more positive light? –– How can we improve our work with youth services? –– I haven’t thought about something for ages, it has just become routine for me … The facilitator can follow a framework to structure the course of individual consultations: the colleague desiring consultation, in other words, the “client”, introduces her topic by giving a brief overview of the situation and the issue at hand. After a (limited) question-answer session among colleagues and possibly further clarification of the topic or the client’s mandate (in agreement with the facilitator and the client), a modus operandi is chosen for the consultation. At the end of the session, the client has the chance to give a final statement. A Possible Course for Action for Team Consultation –– presenting and clarifying the request, –– developing the issue further, –– finding an appropriate approach, –– implementation, –– final statement. Future consultations follow the same course of action. The more practice a team has and the more familiar the team is with this approach, the more it will open up to new ideas and find its own unique model. Relevant Terms Client, advice-seeker, employer, speaker are all terms that apply to the co-worker seeking consultation and the person who puts into words the issue he/she wishes to address. Concern, mandate or issue/problem indicates what prompts consultation. The colleague facilitating and managing the directed dialogue is referred to as the facilitator or moderator. The team or the team members, the advising colleagues or participants assume the role of consultant.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

64

Team Consultation

Presenting and Clarifying Mandates Consultation begins with an explanation of the background situation and the reason for requesting consultation. Even at this point, one can begin exploring and experimenting in search of a new direction. The Story The mandate should be briefly outlined and left open-ended. The client can prepare her story by thinking in advance about the essential elements that she wishes to convey. In addition, the speaker can use graphic means (a rough outline of the location, genograms, organigrams, VIP cards, photographs) or media (short recordings or video clips) to illustrate the most important points (generally one of these materials will suffice). To illustrate how many people are involved and in what relation they stand to each other, the client can form a sculpture from the objects on the table or with the help of those present. It makes sense to introduce the mandate as briefly and concisely as possible, knowing that the story will be purposely left open-ended. This may require the speaker to hold back as she will probably be tempted to provide participants with background information in order to be fully understood. Depending on the situation, the facilitator can help by limiting speaking time to two to five minutes and asking the client to follow up her story with a further (important or otherwise!) point before colleagues begin asking questions. Why It Can Be Helpful If Problems Are Not Fully Understood We normally assume that the essential prerequisite for solving problems is to understand the problem as best we can, which frequently leads to an in-depth preoccupation with the problem description. When we present the issue, we try to give a detailed description so that the listener fully understands the topic to be discussed. When we engage in a consultation with a client, we try to gain a precise understanding of him/her and his/ her point of view. From a systemic perspective, there are good reasons for not dealing with the problem in too much detail or, for that matter, for wanting to understand it. Focusing on the problem might lead to being sucked into a hypnotic, problem-centered state, causing us to center our attention on what is not okay instead of allowing us to develop a feeling for how to solve the problem. The consultant is more interested in the client’s idea of how to solve the problem than in thoroughly understanding the problem.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Presenting and Clarifying Mandates65

There is another reason for not becoming too preoccupied with the problem diagnosis and spending too much time on it during a team consultation: The better I am able to understand the client and the issue, the more I assume his/her point of view and can perceive the problems and difficulties from his/her perspective and thereby begin building rapport. Ideally, I’ll take on my colleague’s perspective, which puts me in a similar situation (it is no coincidence that metaphors such as stance, standpoint, view and perspective play an important role). And vice versa: the more distance there is between us, the more my point of view deviates from that of my client and the more leeway I create for unforeseen ideas. Ultimately, this distance between us, incomplete background information including the “story’s” complexity will prevent me from becoming too involved in the client’s issue and trying to solve his/her problem in their stead. I can always remind myself that I haven’t fully understood the problem and can leave the client to make a decision based on possible situations: not being privy to all the details makes it easier for me to leave the decision to the other person. In short, it can be advantageous if problem definition and clarification is kept to a minimum during team consultation. Three Clarification Questions from Team Members Generally, listeners have many questions about the story before they are ready to begin with the consultation. They are, of course, interested in understanding their colleague’s standpoint so that they can follow his/her point of view. Now is the time (and only now, if possible) to ask questions. The facilitator can limit the number of questions to three and ensure that opening questions are asked. It is advisable to establish in advance the number of questions the client can be asked – three questions are entirely sufficient. Limiting the number allowed encourages colleagues to decide whether or not their off the cuff question (“How old is the child?”) is actually important for the colleague’s consultation and avoids superfluous interviewing. Finally, the facilitator makes sure that questions are asked in a way that will “open up” while avoiding new input such as ideas, advice and opinions. For example: “Have you ever thought about speaking with the client’s partner?” “Well, in your place I would have …” “I feel that …” The facilitator is faced with the challenge of intervening in a friendly yet assertive manner to limit discussion to clarifying questions and relative background information. Quite possibly a member may feel slighted by not

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

66

Team Consultation

being able to ask his/her question. This, however, must be accepted as part of the game plan. It’s not easy to avoid wanting to know more and asking further questions (or the client wanting to give a detailed account of the situation). It takes considerable practice and experience to realize that detailed information is not required for generating creative new ideas. At this point, some teams don’t see any need for asking about “hard facts”. Instead they begin immediately with a resource- and solution-oriented perspective with the following range of possible questions: –– What do you like about this client? –– What have you already done? –– What is this client particularly good at? –– What are this client’s passions and hobbies? –– What success have you had so far with this client? –– What would you like to do if you didn’t have to take others into consideration? –– What other situations, in which you handled the occasion well, come to mind in connection with this? –– What are your current hobbies or special interests? Some questions (such as those about the client’s hobbies or particular passions) seem a bit odd at first and inappropriate for the situation. Perhaps the potential they contain only becomes evident and can be evaluated once one goes along with the process and remains confident that they can actually prove helpful. What Are “Opening Questions”? The difference between the questions “What did you do then?” and “Did you tell him what you thought about it then?” is evident: while the first question conveys curiosity about how my counterpart reacted, the second one actually carries my own opinion, insinuating that he should have told him how he feels about the situation. The first question opens up while the second closes down and can be answered with a simple yes or no, similar to the questions that already offer alternatives: “Did you stay or did you leave?” (a third option is not considered for the time being). By consciously choosing opening questions, I can remain open to what the other person wants to tell me. I avoid packing in too many of my own ideas, which doesn’t mean that by enquiring further I can’t introduce new perspectives into the speaker’s story. The more unusual my questions are, the more novel and inspiring the speaker’s (self-generated) answers are likely to be (cf. Herwig-Lempp, 2001).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Presenting and Clarifying Mandates67

Exercise Watch some interviews on television and pay attention to the kind of questions the interviewer asks. Does he/she ask questions that encourage people to open up or remain reticent? And how do interviewees react in response? Then you can hone your observation skills in conversations that you engage in. Observe (or count) the kinds of question your counterpart asks. Eventually, focus on asking two questions that will open up dialogue and two that will close it down. The idea is to develop a feeling for the kind of questions to ask that will either emphasize or play down my own ideas depending on whether I want to get information quickly or give my counterpart more space. “About Me”: Talking about Myself in the Third Person … “In the desiring always not to suffer, one only heightened suffering. So now he employed the climber’s trick, which was also the slugging infantryman’s trick, of working to detach his mind from his body, of standing aside as best he could, observing his labored, tortuous progress instead of enduring it.” David Guterson, East of the Mountain, 2000, p. 132

Another approach could be to illustrate the client’s story by suggesting that the speaker stand behind the chair (or even at the other end of the room) and continue the story by referring to himself in the third person. In other words, the client speaks about himself. It helps if he imagines that he’s sitting on the chair and can actually point to himself. Imagining the situation is made easier if the client outlines the contours of the person across the room and says, “That’s Julia sitting over there.” Then the storytelling can begin: “Last week Julia had an unforgettable experience. She would now like to hear your comments with regard to this incident: She was just …” If the client falls back into the first person mode, the facilitator will remind him to only speak of himself in the third person. Many team members appreciate this form of storytelling because it allows them to distance themselves from the topic and view their (own) story from a different perspective. It becomes evident very quickly that one begins to describe a situation that has been told many times before in an entirely different way. Concentrating on how one tells a story and, at the same time, adhering to a certain format creates the necessary distance and gives the story a new perspective. Looking at this more closely, it seems that some find it easier to tell their story and give it a more interesting twist because they

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

68

Team Consultation

have a contextual structure. Often, they are surprised that it seems easier to talk about successes and failures in the meta-perspective. In keeping with this approach, clarification questions are also asked in the third person: “What did Julia do when the boy ran away?” “What was Julia thinking when the conversation ended?” Distance and proximity are not qualities in themselves. Their virtues are revealed in the “game”: when we can change, create and minimize distance. When there is closeness, it is easier for us to feel empathy and understanding. When we create distance we are in a better position to understand the context, the interconnectedness of situations and how they relate to the person and the “case”. From my perspective, the ability to vary the amount of distance indicates the professional handling of a situation. A professional should be able to effect a smooth transition between distance and proximity to a given case and the people they work with. This approach is not for everyone. Some are irritated by the structure and feel that it lacks authenticity. For those who are asking the questions, it isn’t always easy to stick to the format. In any case, the approach takes some getting used to. You have to work with it several times before it becomes familiar. As with all methods, it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to use it. It is simply a tool. Those of you who warm to this form of reporting might want to experiment with another approach: while telling the story and answering questions, the speaker can slowly move away from where they imagine themselves to be sitting and point to it from some distance away as they continue their story: “When Julia told her husband about this situation the same evening, he said …” You might be surprised by another shift due to the considerable difference in distance to the subject. Crossfire Questioning A variation on this approach might be to forego the story and instead bombard the client with quick-fire questions: the client has to answer short questions in quick succession in no more than one or two sentences, under the assumption that the client has agreed to forfeit telling their story. The facilitator can ask participants to provide 20 or 30 questions to shed light on the background to the case. And they can also suggest (just to complicate matters further) that the questions are in a particular form, open or circular. This method might lead the client to tell an entirely different story than was originally intended. The content is more influenced by what the colleague

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Presenting and Clarifying Mandates69

finds interesting, what he notices and what seems worth asking. This is exactly what is intended: to gain new perspectives and ways of seeing a given situation. Occasionally, the questions alone achieve this effect. Epstein, Kellenbenz-Epstein and Wiesner (1998) developed and introduced an approach for supervision in which the person being supervised is asked “to share his issue with the team in a first-person narrative helped by a couple of questions. He may give a short background description of the situation relating to the questions, if he feels it is necessary. The team is then asked to develop several of their own questions based on the client’s question. This can be done in small groups or individually. The questions should be based on the initial questions and less on the situation that has been described. The person being supervised listens to the questions in silence. In follow-up, he is asked if a new question has come up or if it has remained unchanged. Then the process is repeated. In the following conversation the person being supervised can share his experience with the questions or thought processes with the group” (p. 47). Epstein et al. discovered that with the help of this method the focus on the description, problems related to the “case” and the creation of new “truths” can be redirected: “It (the method) serves to foster understanding and avoid ‘freezing up’ when faced with recounting difficult situations” (Epstein et al., 1998, p. 47). Exercise To gain understanding of the difference between question forms, the facilitator can ask that each pose ten questions, according to the following formal characteristics: –– closing questions that can (but don’t have to) be answered with yes or no; –– closing questions that provide alternative answers from which the person questioned may choose (“Did you get involved or keep out of it?”); –– questions beginning with “Why …”; –– opening questions that tend to start with “How …?” or “What …?” or “What for …?”; –– circular questions (“What do you think X would answer if I asked him/her how she/he feels?”). Accepting Interrogation If the speaker wishes to talk about something and would like team members to ask her critical questions, she can ask for an “interrogation”:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

70

Team Consultation

The speaker shares her issue and encourages the others to “cross-examine” her to uncover pitfalls, mistakes and contradictions. Here, the contributions may and should have critical undercurrents. This approach is helpful if the speaker is thinking about trying out an idea but is not absolutely sure if it is sound. Colleagues can help out by slipping into the role of benign critics. The client takes charge as she encourages the team to uncover and question discrepancies, a process that takes the form of a playful “cross-interrogation”. Practicing in this way allows her to gauge the extent to which she can back up her position. Casimir would like to reduce the time spent on informing parties interested in retirement homes about existing offers. However, he is not sure how this will affect the quality of service provided. He briefly introduces his concept and asks the team to cross-examine him. The team members respond to his uncertainty and begin asking him “critical questions”. Casimir responds defensively: “Why do you want to reduce services to the elderly?” “How do you expect to give a satisfactory consultation in approximately seven minutes?” “Assuming your employer asked for an explanation: How would you justify your position?” “How do you intend to make the obvious deterioration of your initial offer plausible to the public?” “Do you give your clients the attention they deserve?”

Speculating In the following approach, the client benefits from the experience and familiarity of a long-standing team because it tells her something about how she is perceived by other team members during a consultation. Before the client presents her issue, the other team members get together in a first round (one idea per person) to speculate on what she might say. In a second round, the subject turns to how the questions might be formulated and in a third round, the group speculates on the way in which she would like the consultation to proceed. “Cathrin will probably talk about her problematic relationship with her charge, Mr. Stahl, at the supervised living facility.” “Maybe she is looking for input on how she can deal with the situation.” “Or she wants to know if she can finally pass him on to someone else only to decide later that she will continue looking after him.” “Perhaps this time she’s after something completely different such as, for example, how she can be better prepared for the team meetings.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Presenting and Clarifying Mandates71

Observation Tasks While the Story Is Being Told The facilitator can also give the colleagues observation tasks prior to presentation of the story: What she can be complimented on; what personal situations they are reminded of; what types of questions they would be likely to have if they were in the client’s position and what lessons could be drawn and information gleaned from the story. A variation on the theme could be to give each listener a different observation task. It is easier for a listener to concentrate on the subject if she has a task. The feedback from such observations motivates the speaker to discover new takes on her own story. The first tentative feedback from the observation team can develop into a productive consultation session during which new perspectives are shared and options created for dealing with a given situation. Being Receptive to Compliments While listening to the colleague’s story, the members make a point of finding at least one aspect upon which to make a compliment. Once the speaker’s story is told, the team members begin their comments with “I would like to compliment you on …” “… the way you dealt with the situation.” “… being able to describe the process, including the client’s reaction, in such detail.” “… being able to see the client’s positive sides.”

This approach is indicated in situations where the client was dissatisfied with herself. In such situations it is helpful for team members to emphasize positive aspects. A variation on this theme can be for members to agree to find compliments for all characters in the story, regardless of whether they are clients or colleagues. This task requires more commitment and concentration and takes somewhat longer. Observation Task for New Developments The listeners are asked to listen carefully to the story and to note one particular aspect that is new for them. At the end of the story, they begin their feedback round with the sentence “I learned from your story that …” “… one can react strongly without it having negative effects.” “… Ms. X actually has a nice side.” “… our clients can actually get support at the Y center.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

72

Team Consultation

Focusing Initially, the facilitator (after checking back with the client) can encourage participants to focus on one particular aspect so that different perspectives are represented by different members. Each member shares their view at the end of the session. The possibilities offered by focusing are manifold: –– body language, mimicry, gesticulation –– key definitions/words in the story –– metaphors that are used –– situations that have been mastered –– solution-oriented approaches –– describing problem situations –– the client’s goals –– the client’s judgments/opinions –– language style –– positive or negative descriptions of the client Attention Mix Here several observation tasks can be combined: during the story, the colleagues focus on –– observing a particular ability that the client exhibits –– observing an aspect that in their opinion demonstrates the client’s success –– finding an aspect that they can offer advice on. Following the story, observations are commented on and the speaker responds. Perspective Chairs Chairs are arranged around the room as stand-ins for given perspectives, and roles are ascribed: “the exotic”, “the dove”, “the gentle one”, “the unyielding”, “the man”, “the woman”, “the child”. Your task is to follow the client’s story from your role’s perspective. It is possible to use characters from fairy tales, films or protagonists from novels, abstract concepts, feelings and other aspects (anger, joy, fun, gender differences, economics, church). Participants comment from their role’s perspective and engage in an open-ended discussion. The client listens. “In the role of the ‘gentle one’ I was surprised at how intense the situation was. I would have been shocked by the intensity.” “As a man, I ask myself if the father’s perspective plays any kind of role for the speaker: she only mentioned the mother and grandmother.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Developing Question Types73 “In the role of anger, I felt the urge to just barge in and defend those who were neglected in this story, that is, the child and the speaker, and to avenge them for the humiliation that they were subjected to. I wanted to bring them to a safe place.” “In my role as ‘anger and fury’, I asked myself where I fit in. I was unable to find myself anywhere.” (The “gentle one”) “Well really, I thought there was an incredible amount of anger when the mother complained about the preschool teacher …”

Another option is for the speaker to name the perspectives from which she would like to have the story told. The group too, can make suggestions. During this exercise the participants focus on diversity and originality to make sure there are a few unusual suggestions available. Every suggestion is written on a card with felt pen so that they are easier to remember. Each team member picks a card and listens to the story in exactly the perspective that is on the card. After some clarification questions, each participant comments from his perspective while raising the card for everyone to see: “Anger speaks up …”, “As Bruce Willis, I would like to call your attention to …” “From the perspective of ‘role distribution’, I can see that …”

Developing Question Types A colleague introduces her situation into the consultation round. Before she finishes her story, other colleagues assume they know what she is going to say and barge into the consultation. Sometimes their questions for clarification sound more like advice and occasionally they have already tuned her out by the time the colleague asks her question. Exercise Read this report: “Vera has been in the youth services psychological ward for four days, has not yet contacted her parents and has had little interaction with the other children. The carers like her because she is uncomplicated. However, last night she cried herself to sleep. She shows no conspicuous behavior in school.” Think of a question (and write it down) that you might have if this child were your charge. Now, write down five other possible concerns you or your colleagues might have. A Variation on the Exercise Ask a colleague in the team to summarize your concern in a few sentences. Before she asks her questions, you and your team hypothesize about what

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

74

Team Consultation

this question could be (have each person generate three or four hypotheses). You will be surprised at how many different questions there are even though each one of you was initially convinced that you had identified the decisive question or the key issue. In fact, there are far more possibilities than any of us can come up with on the spur of the moment about what the issue could actually be about. “No consultation without a mandate” is a basic premise to keep in mind whether you’re dealing with clients, teammates or even in a conversation with your spouse. It is important to remember that a person (subject) is behind the mandate. These individuals will give a clear idea of what their expectations are, as well as what is to be achieved as a result of the consultation. The facilitator’s most important task is to reformulate the mandate in question form. Generally, this is done by asking follow-up questions: “What do you want to ask us?” “What do you expect from us as a team?” “In what areas do you need help?” “What would you like to have happen as a result of the consultation?” What Question Do You Want to Ask the Team? The facilitator can ask the colleague to begin summarizing a situation by asking questions before going into background details and structuring the story. Sometimes the client begins with his questions: “I would like some hypotheses from you regarding a client’s wife …” Without the facilitator’s intervention, however, he is likely to save his question until the end. By then he might have two or three burning questions. It can be helpful to familiarize yourself with the questions prior to the summary so that your attention will be focused. Another Possible Course of Action for Team Consultation 1. The client’s question 2. Introducing the issue 3. Colleagues’ questions 4. The client reformulates the question 6. Conducting the session 7. Concluding comments

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Developing Question Types75

On the other hand, it could also be advantageous to listen to the story without being influenced in any way beforehand. Both approaches have their advantages. It’s a good idea to vary approaches from time to time. In any case, the facilitator should encourage the client to present her concern and restate her mandate herself before the colleagues have asked their questions: “Could you please repeat your question?” The reason for this is quite simple. Issues and expectations brought into a team consultation may vary from time to time. The “same” question is asked differently at the beginning of the story than at the end and, consequently, is no longer the “same” question. Exercise Try it … just ask your colleague to state her question in a simple sentence before the consultation. Then ask her to do this again at the end of her story and a third time, after the colleagues have posed their questions: “What is your question at this moment?” Note how the way in which the question is answered has already changed. We are often tempted to treat abstract combinations as if they were real objects: To treat a “problem” like a “table”, that is to say, something we can point to, see and identify in the same way. However, this is not real even if we think we are talking about the same thing: Our colleague Robert’s punctuality issue takes on a different meaning for each of the participants (himself, the supervisors, his colleagues Eva and Florentine and the client Mrs. Berghoff) and for some of them it may not even be a problem at all. So actually in the end everyone has a different problem and it could actually be misleading to refer to a single problem. Thus it becomes evident that the problem or issue begins to change as soon as you start thinking, talking and asking questions about it. Most likely, it will no longer be the same issue it was before the consultation or after questioning by colleagues. Consequently, it is important that the colleague herself formulate the question (instead of the facilitator repeating it in his/her own words from memory). Otherwise, chances are that the facilitator and other well-meaning colleagues will reinterpret the client’s concern and shift the focus away from the consultation’s objective. If the client designates two or three questions, the facilitator will ask her to choose one of them. This does not mean it has to be the first or most pressing question. It is also possible to start with the simplest, most interesting or the shortest one.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

76

Team Consultation

Creating Questions It can happen that a colleague wants to describe a situation but has no question to accompany it. Perhaps there has been too little time for preparation or they are confused about what is actually happening and find the questions difficult to follow. This happens occasionally and is no problem whatsoever. On the contrary, it allows the team to come up with suggestions. You could start with the suggestion: “If I were you, I’d ask myself …” The client listens without commenting. After each participant has offered two or three suggestions, she can choose one of the options. Quite possibly, she may have thought of a question for herself that hadn’t been mentioned. In most cases, she is able to identify her key concern of the moment by taking the roundabout way via suggestions offered by her colleagues. Preparing for the Appropriate Questions Each team member may present his/her own questions. There is no one “right” question for a consultation. It becomes clear, however, that some types of questions are better suited than others to collegial consultation. This approach grants the colleague a range of options to choose from, assumes that she will take responsibility for herself and can rely on her colleagues’ (different) perspectives and ideas. Compare the following questions (depending on how they are formulated, the “hidden” question will be different): –– I would like to know what I should do in case X. –– I actually know what I would like to do, but I would like to know what the right approach is. –– I don’t know anymore. What shall I do? –– I’d like to hear some new ideas because I don’t have any of my own at the moment. –– I have enough ideas but I don’t know how to put them into practice. I’d really appreciate getting some feedback on how I could put my idea A to work. I think it’s basically sound but just don’t know exactly how to make something out of it. –– I’ve kind of lost my overview of the situation. I’d like your help in getting things sorted out. Once again: there is no such thing as a “wrong” question. Any question may be asked. It is the facilitator’s and the team’s job to negotiate the client’s mandate and to suggest different types of questions that will support the available

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Developing Question Types77

consulting tools. The goal of collegial consultation is not to determine the “right”, “wrong” or “possible” course of action, but to offer the client a range of options to choose from and if they like, to consider the colleagues’ suggestions of what they would do in the client’s place. “I don’t know what to do anymore: the client and I agree that I will conduct a house visit but then I’m not invited in. How should I react in this situation?” Frequently, Julia knows very well what she wants to do (refuse to agree to house visits, terminate the consultation, pass the client on to another colleague or simply try to be more patient), but may be unsure about the appropriateness of these measures. Perhaps she would like her colleagues’ opinion or she would like them to come up with further options.

The colleague can prepare in advance and generate appropriate questions or she can have both the facilitator and the team help her to find questions and an appropriate approach (perhaps it helps to imagine that working out the questions, clarifying the mandate and the approach is already part of the consultation rather than the preparation). Finding an Approach We have invented and adapted a number of methods for this model of team consultation. They have been repeatedly tested and in some cases further developed. The basis for this was presumably that we enjoyed experimenting and saw it as a refreshing change. Furthermore, we wanted to experiment with and practice certain methods of consultation (based on work with clients) that we had read about or experienced in training workshops. We were lucky in being able to work within the protected setting of our long-standing team, which offered us an ideal learning environment. As soon as there is an option of approaches, choices must be made. Choosing the appropriate approach involves several factors: the team’s familiarity with the methods; members’ motivation to experiment and the facilitator’s level of confidence. It’s easy just to ask the client herself as soon as she poses her question: “How should we proceed? According to which method would you like to conduct the consultation?” Beginning with this question raises the chances that the consultation will be beneficial for her as, from her point of view, the method corresponds to her question, enhancing the likelihood that she will agree in general to the approach. The client doesn’t always want to make the decision on her own, perhaps because she is at a loss for ideas or because she is hoping for something new.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

78

Team Consultation

The facilitator can make suggestions – but doesn’t have to (sometimes the latter experiences considerable pressure if she gets the feeling that she alone is responsible at this point). She can ask the team for suggestions and offer these to the client. Other possibilities open up when teams are prepared to experiment. Where this is the case, the facilitator can choose a method to work with during the session without knowing the questions and issues in advance. The team too, can decide on a small selection of methods to work with on this occasion. In addition, the client could draw lots on the method to be used or designate a colleague to make the choice for her. This may appear too risky for some teams since there is a chance that the results will be unsatisfactory. However, the positive aspect of this approach is that suddenly entirely new aspects will turn up, precisely because the method doesn’t seem to be a perfect match at just that moment. The facilitator is in charge of both the method-finding process and managing the consultation session. She is responsible for moderating discussions and questions, keeping within the time frame and ensuring that all members are sufficiently familiar with the method.

Method 1: Mind Jogging Rather than advising about what to do in particular situations it helps to take a look at causes and explanations. Ultimately, the focus is on possible and impossible future developments (hypotheses), on associations (comments, memories) and different points of view and descriptions (rephrasing, compliments) in reference to particular situations and reports. The goal is to develop new perspectives with more options for action. The simplest method for generating ideas is to brainstorm or say what comes spontaneously to mind. The advantage here is that it is absolutely voluntary – no one is under pressure to contribute. On the other hand, the risk involved in brainstorming, where each person is free to choose if and when to contribute may lead to not having enough input. Often participants may have difficulty thinking of something to say ad hoc or think that their ideas are not good enough. Naturally, this blocks the creative flow of ideas.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 1: Mind Jogging79

Jump-Starting Ideas through Mind Jogging Mind jogging, also called the “circle” is one of the simplest, most straightforward and time-effective methods of team consultation. Furthermore, the method circumvents the risks mentioned above: team members take turns to express their ideas in several rounds. Mind jogging provides a clear structure, conveys unambiguous expectations and doesn’t insist on immediate resolution. In effect, the “end product” is an accumulation of verbal contributions. Mind jogging is particularly well suited to introducing models of team consultation and offers a risk-free forum for experimentation. Basically, mind jogging always functions in the same way. The facilitator asks each member in turn for their input after the team has “jogged up” either hypotheses, ideas about what could make the situation worse, questions or advice. One approach that has proven effective has the facilitator offering a standard phrase to begin each sentence such as “I would ask myself …”, “My hypothesis is …”, “I have some very good advice …” followed up by repeating the rules and purpose of this method. The goal is to generate a variety of different perspectives. To this end, it is helpful for each member to contribute when it is their turn, regardless of whether the input is “right” or “helpful”. It is not particularly helpful for a member to second another. A better idea would be to repeat the idea in one’s own words without reference to the source since otherwise the others in the group will concentrate on remembering what had been initially said. Furthermore, it is alright to say what spontaneously comes to mind – even if one can’t back it up. Proceeding in this fashion stimulates the group’s creative potential. Checking for feasibility is the client’s job. The group is responsible for quantity not quality. The fact that “bad” ideas can also be useful is an important realization – useful because the client thinks they are quite good and because they may also serve to stimulate other colleagues to generate new ideas. The facilitator indicates which member’s turn it is while still maintaining momentum. Pace should be adapted to the client’s needs so that she can follow the ideas presented (she might appreciate short five to ten second breaks between contributions). If an initial opening phrase (see above) has been agreed upon, the facilitator will make sure that everyone adheres to the rule and ask for a modified version (while maintaining the initial phrase), for example, if someone asks a question instead of commenting or stating a hypothesis. Individual contributions are not commented on, discussed or otherwise judged in any way. Further questioning or explanation is not encouraged.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

80

Team Consultation

Suggestions and ideas flow more naturally when members don’t have to worry about having their ideas dissected later. Actually, it is a double bonus: It’s a good way of overcoming one’s resistance to speak and it saves time. Following the first round, the facilitator will continue with a second and third. The longer the round lasts, the easier it is to generate ideas even if the initial assumption is that the first round is likely to “dry up” half way through because participants have run out of ideas. Just keep going! We refer to such sessions as mind jogging. Just like real jogging, mind jogging requires effort. If a person pushes on to reach their goal in spite of exhaustion, they might be surprised to discover what resources they have left, that mind jogging is worthwhile and that it can be fun. The advantage of the “rounds” lies in their clear structure, asking for voluntary contributions and the guiding principle of “quantity not quality”. The objective is not to say the “right thing” or come up with an especially clever contribution. On the one hand, the pressure to spontaneously contribute before there is time to analyze content (and then possibly reject it) is beneficial; on the other, every team member retains the option of withholding comment by saying “pass”. Perhaps she will contribute in the next round. (It is precisely this mix of “gentle pressure” and the possibility of withdrawing that fosters a relaxed and creative atmosphere.) Variations: There are several other variations of this method (or even invent one’s own!): The facilitator points arbitrarily to a team member. The surprise effect (and the pressure it brings) is somewhat increased and the facilitator can focus on colleagues who seem to have more ideas in store than other team members. Or the facilitator designates one colleague to begin her comment. She, in turn, points to the next colleague who begins to speak and so on. In a smooth functioning team things proceed without interference. Otherwise, it is up to the facilitator to keep the comments coming, maintain the pace and ensure that each individual has a chance to comment at least once. Toward the end of this exercise, when there are no more comments and things quieten down, the facilitator can move away from the established structure and ask for any additional comments or advice. Even if there are intermittent pauses, comments will keep coming. Quite often the client will find more useful ideas here. Another approach that might prove helpful, despite seeming unusual at first, is to ask the listening client to turn her chair 180 degrees around and listen to the comments without seeing the speakers. In this way, the team won’t be influenced by the listener’s mimicry and gesticulation and conse-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 1: Mind Jogging81

quently can express ideas more freely. The client, on the other hand, doesn’t feel she has to comment on the team’s verbal or non-verbal commentary. (One variation for teams that enjoy experimenting is to have the members sit in a circle with their backs facing the center. The facilitator should, however, keep an eye on the group.) Taking minutes: Sometimes a member can record the ideas and proposals in the minutes (not the client, as her job is simply to listen). Another approach is to pass around a dictating machine for the colleagues to speak into and then later give the client the spoken text to take home. In general, however, it’s enough for the client to remember what has been said. After pooling all the ideas, it’s time for the client to narrow down her choice and decide which ones she will keep. As a rule, this occurs naturally through the process of forgetting and retention. If she wishes, the client can comment after the final round. She has the opportunity to expound on the ideas, explain the issues that were addressed or simply to share her general impression and thank the colleagues for their contribution, even if this particular round didn’t provide ideas that she found useful. Forming Hypotheses We are constantly in the process of forming hypotheses which means that we ask ourselves why something is the way it is; what is bound to happen under certain circumstances; how we or others will behave; what the cause for certain events is, etc. Frequently, one gets “stuck” on a particular hypothesis and in time begins to believe it is true. From a systemic point of view it makes sense not to equate hypotheses with actual fact or accuracy, but to see them for what they are – namely, possibilities among a range of other possibilities. We might think we know why Mr. X was so “unfriendly to me again” or what the educational perspectives of one of the young charges are. Or, we might already have a good idea of how colleagues will react if I suggest changing our approach to the team sessions. One can in fact summon ideas and interpretations in addition to those that come spontaneously to mind. In order to turn ideas into practice, the team is tasked with generating hypotheses, thus bringing more options into play. Sarah asks for hypotheses on how the preliminary meeting with the client at the rehabilitation center might proceed because she’s afraid she won’t be able to get results. The facilitator

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

82

Team Consultation

suggests beginning with the standard phrase: “One hypothesis would be to … when you meet the client tomorrow” and to include both positive and negative options. “Another could be … … tomorrow will be your lucky day and you will have the best meeting of the year.” … the client will be ill and not show up.” … you will be ill because you don’t want to deal with the situation.” … you’ll have a totally new idea that you’re eager to try out.” … you’ll try an approach that you learned in your training workshop since it doesn’t matter what happens anyway in this seemingly futile situation.” … you will remind yourself to allow plenty of time.” After several rounds and about 30 “future scenarios”, Sarah may still not know what the next day will bring, but she’ll be able to visualize a range of possible events and will perhaps want some advice regarding one or more hypotheses on how to behave, should the occasion arise.

Quite often, hypotheses replace the actual consultation, as long as the initial question was clearly formulated and the rules are adhered to. Members take turns expressing an idea in keeping with a standard phrase (“One hypothesis could be …” or “My hypothesis is that …”), ensuring that a variety of options are developed. (The hypotheses will differ when Sarah expresses an interest in “how the discussion will proceed” or “what course the conversation will take in a less-than-optimal setting”. Furthermore, it can help to have colleagues list the many positive options to develop a feeling in that direction.) Good Advice Advice-giving is looked upon unfavorably in the field of social work, especially if the focus is on finding solutions and available resources relevant to the individual’s ideas. At the same time, people enjoy giving advice and it is difficult to refrain from doing so. When others ask for advice it allows us to feel competent and even flattered. On the other hand, if the client specifically asks for it, advice would be in his/her interest and thus client-focused. The “problem” with good advice is that it is so unique and is given from an expert to a person seeking advice, which consequently must or should be accepted by the latter. Occasionally, however, individuals seeking advice do not always agree with the advice given by the consultant or have difficulty seeing its benefit. As a result, they don’t follow the recommendations and end up offending the experts without intending to. It’s different if the amount of “good advice” offered is more than can actually be considered. It’s up to the person receiving advice to choose from the range offered, deciding what they find useful and what can be left out. As

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 1: Mind Jogging83

soon as the underlying conditions are clear to everyone, the giving (definitely) and receiving of advice can turn into an enjoyable game. In circles where collegial tips are exchanged (“Let me give you some good advice, …”) and the sequence is repeated several times, participants are free to develop proposals and ideas without the risk of implementing them on their own or being held responsible (if the client actually decides to follow the advice). Besides, it is possible to come up with ideas that on further inspection aren’t as useful as they initially seemed, since what counts is quantity not quality. In short, one is freer and more inventive with the advice one offers. The person receiving the advice, on the other hand, is free to choose the options that he finds meaningful and inspiring while ignoring other possibilities. Because he doesn’t speak out in response to each and every recommendation (nor seem to react through body language, I may remind you that his back is to the other participants, making any kind of non-verbal feedback impossible), no one can tell which suggestions he feels are useful. No one has to feel snubbed if their particular “great advice” isn’t chosen because everyone knows that the limit is only two or three viable choices. Taking a closer look at the reasons for refraining from immediate judgment of different recommendations and making this clear to the team in general, one can, as the moderator, refer to the “results-oriented factor” mentioned by von Schmitz (2002, p. 114): “Many of us expressed advice and recommendations that we think are helpful. However, we do not assume that they are necessarily useful for you. Therefore, there is no need for discussion. Just listen to them and make a note of the ones you like or the ones you want to come back to.” Matilda is planning an outing with her preschool play group and asks the group for advice about what she should look out for: “I recommend … … asking the children what they would like to do.” … repeating last year’s program: it was effective without much effort.” ... leaving the task to the intern.” … getting vacation program information at the municipal youth services center.” … negotiating reduced entrance fees.” … getting to bed early the night before to be in shape the following day.” … planning as little as possible so that there is be room left for creativity.” … asking a parent to accompany the group.” … planning everything down to the last detail, to be prepared for anything.” … bringing the first-aid kit: last year it certainly would have come in handy.” … calling in sick that day so that others will have to do the job.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

84

Team Consultation

Making Things Worse The opposite of giving “good advice” is to evoke “worst case scenarios”: Here too the client is given advice, although this time they focus on exacerbating the situation, how the client can contribute to making things worse, escalating an already precarious situation or ruining things in general. Again, the purpose is to generate as many creative ideas as possible and here too, there is a standard opener (“To make sure that things really go wrong, I recommend that you …” or “I recommend you make it worse by …). The point again, is not to come up with particularly useful or practical ideas (aside from the fact that no one seriously believes that the client will follow this advice). I encounter the most skepticism and resistance to this particular approach whenever I introduce it, usually at workshops or during peer supervision sessions. However, once it is put into practice, the groups can experience the value of it firsthand. Its particular merit undoubtedly lies in the relatively unstructured and non-binding characteristics with which the advice is given. Everyone is aware that these are “useless” recommendations. The playful effect (that can always be close to the surface in team consultation) gives the setting a real-life character. It’s simply fun to come up with “off the wall” interventions. There is much laughter and members cheer each other on to find even more ridiculous versions. As with earlier approaches, each person should make a suggestion when it’s their turn. The method can be both helpful and meaningful to the client in many different ways: Firstly, the issue can suddenly be seen in a completely different light, – not only is it part of the official meeting, it is also a welcome interlude to view the situation from a totally new and humorous perspective. Secondly, it becomes evident that the problems and difficulties contribute to a feeling of helplessness, and that even though things as such may not have indeed changed, I feel more in control of the situation. If I can’t improve the situation or resolve the tension, then at least I can make it worse. At any rate, I will still have some influence even if it may not be much. And finally, it frequently happens that suggestions on how to exacerbate the situation lead the client to suddenly think of what can actually be done in a given situation and lend it a positive twist. Perhaps she inverts some of the ideas on how to make things worse or she begins to notice that a certain idea doesn’t actually make matters worse, but on the contrary, improves things. Experimenting with this approach is a way to avoid skepticism and takes at least two or three trial runs. This is not to say that everyone in the field

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 1: Mind Jogging85

finds this approach to their liking. Just think of this book as a recipe book from which to pick and choose the method that appeals to you. Exercise Constance is a social worker at a job training facility for young people training to become metal workers. Meetings are held twice weekly and trainees regularly show up late. Constance is unhappy about this situation and would like some ideas about how she can change it. One team member suggests developing ideas to exacerbate the situation. Constance agrees. The facilitator suggests opening with: “You could worsen their inability to arrive on time by …” Compile at least twenty ideas on how Constance could contribute to the trainees becoming even more unpunctual, either on your own or in a team. After this exercise, consider how Constance might feel when she hears these ideas. Compliments Giving compliments may appear somewhat unusual for some teams but can be quite effective within the scope of collegial consultation. Of course, they are appropriate for celebrating success and act as positive reinforcement. Following a colleague’s success story, the jogging begins and each member compliments the colleague on the part she played in it: “I compliment you on …” Interestingly, compliments are also a helpful tool when someone reports on difficult, impossible-to-solve or failed situations in which they feel they didn’t respond appropriately. Perhaps the client hits upon the idea herself and asks her colleagues to look for the “silver lining”: “I compliment you on …” Another option, providing the client agrees, is for the facilitator or another team member to suggest “jogging” for compliments when faced with a failure to deliver, before discussing the client’s actual question. Complimenting used as a tool in collegial consultation might seem strange to most teams and seem a bit odd at first. Here too, new perspectives and possibilities can be objectively judged once the method has been experimented with. Aside from the “good feeling” experienced by the colleague, this approach is, above all, a good exercise for resource-oriented observation and the client is bound to benefit straight away from these available resources.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

86

Team Consultation

Affirmations The client wants to be reassured that she did the right thing in a particular situation. After she has reported on her case, each member expresses their confirmation: “I think it was the right thing to do to …” Colleagues refrain from criticism and rejection at this point. Their job at the moment is to pick out elements that they approve of and can agree with. The consultation method is designed to avoid criticism and rejection. If the facilitator feels, however, that certain colleagues would also like to express critique, she can offer to open a round for “critical feedback” or “good advice”, as long as the client wishes to do this. Criticism and Doubt Similar to the “confirmation round” the client asks the team to evaluate her behavior in a specific situation (intention or plan), but this time from a critical viewpoint: “I question …” “I don’t agree…” As long as the team is still somewhat inexperienced with the method, the facilitator can proceed particularly carefully by trying the method out in relatively non-threatening practice rounds. The client reserves the right to call an end to the session. It is probably easier to deal with praise and advice that with direct critique. “If I Were You, I’d …” Communication in this form invites comment that doesn’t adhere to any kind of prescribed structure. It signals involvement and a wish to talk about personal experiences in the speaker’s past. The facilitator might make a point of emphasizing that any comment merely begins with this standard phrase but can continue on freely. It stands to reason that the participants should try to generate a variety of suggestions and to express recommendations, tips, resources and empathy in terms of their own personal experiences. A colleague, Charlotte, recounts a conversation she had with one of the adolescents that she felt had failed. She is now uncertain about what could have gone wrong. She gives some details and the colleagues ask three follow-up questions. Next, she asks how others would have experienced the situation in her place and what they would have done … The facilitator asks the group to comment briefly in no more than three sentences beginning with: “If were you, I’d … … feel that I’d failed.” … change jobs.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 1: Mind Jogging87 … see to it that I get training as a coach.” … be furious with the boy because …” … prepare my next meeting more carefully.” … try not to prepare and rely on intuition and improvisation.” … be proud of myself for getting through it.”

Complaints The others listen actively and then share what would have caused them to complain and what would have infuriated them (either directly related to the story or what was mentioned in passing). Here too, the facilitator can suggest an opening statement such as: “I’d be really upset about …” or “You’d have good reason to complain about …” Generating complaint options allows the client to realize that she not only has good reason to complain but could actually complain much more than she does. Furthermore: after a reasonable time of complaining and giving vent to this side, she is more likely to feel prepared to face the possible changes and to deal with them pro-actively. Finding Good Reasons From a systemic perspective, “good reasons” for the client acting as they do, can always be assumed. If I manage to find “good reasons” for the client’s behavior, it will be easier for me to work with him and come up with options for responding than if I presume that his behavior is due to a disease, malevolence or his mental state. It is particularly important to look for “good reasons” when our counterpart’s behavior seems to make little sense and appears to be unreasonable. Here, it is better to ask “what for” rather than “why”. The team can be a big help in this situation especially if they aren’t well acquainted with the client. Sophia is very upset with Mr. Dombrock because he started drinking again after abstaining from alcohol for seven weeks. She is tired of looking for “good reasons” and asks the team to help her. The facilitator suggests opening the session with “A good reason could be that …” “A good reason could be that … … he just wanted to irritate you.” … he had other problems without having to add alcohol to the list.” … he wanted to irritate his wife.” … he happened upon a cheap bottle of wine.”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

88

Team Consultation

… friends pressurized him and he succumbed.” … he was subconsciously trying to get more attention from you.” … he didn’t know what to do with his money, his energy and his time.” … he feared that the sessions with you would soon be over.” If she likes, Sophia can choose one or two reasons that will facilitate the next encounter with Mr. Dombrock and pretend that one of these reasons was responsible for the relapse.

Types of Mind Jogging Activities There is a wide variety of different types of mind jogging activities. For example, when the client asks to be made aware of certain dangers (“I want to warn you that …”) or to give her a choice of mottos to go by (“I suggest that you use the motto …”). The client chooses one or two of the options for possible later use. Many different brainstorming approaches introduced in this book can be used in collegial consultation (observations, metaphors, reinterpretations etc.). Many further variations of brainstorming are possible. Everyone can develop their own ideas: opening up the space for creative experimentation. These sessions are both productive and motivating because they constitute a mixture of commitment and clear structure (each person knows when it is his turn to say something) on the one hand, and the resemblance to a game with lax rules on the other (no one is obliged to contribute the one right idea and no one is held responsible for their contribution after the session is over). In other words, mind jogging in its various adaptations is the foundation upon which the model of team consultation is based and therefore offers a particularly beneficial method of structuring the setting for collegial consultation. It is surprisingly similar to brainstorming in its approach: the principle is to develop as many ideas as possible in the shortest amount of time without judgment or discussion.

Method 2: Expanding Perception The role of “observer” fulfills a key role in systemic work. There is no objective view of what we experience as reality. All we have is a spectrum of subjective perspectives that we may perceive as being true and which we agree to regard as the truth. If we choose to do so, however, we can call to mind at any time that there is more than just one perspective and any number of points of view. From a systemic standpoint, we choose to work with more potential per-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception89

spectives. In systemic consultation it is always about enlarging the spectrum of perception, this being all that can be achieved (i.e. it isn’t possible to change other people). The following methods focus in particular on broadening the scope of perception. Pros and Cons This method is indicated when two opposite positions are introduced at the beginning of the session: “Should I let this adolescent do her thing (and possibly fail) – or should I intervene with all the means I have at my disposal?” “Should or shouldn’t I trust her one more time?” The mutually exclusive issues can be dealt with by dividing the group and having them stand in rows facing each other. Each side is assigned a position (for and against) and must prepare arguments. Both the client and the moderator sit at one of the ends of the “alley” and listen to the arguments from both sides: “I am for … because … ” – “I am against … because …” The speaker limits him/herself to one argument consisting of one sentence. The facilitator sets the pace and the parties confront each other by signaling when it’s another speaker’s turn. Or she allows the client to assume this task. The client is likely to take more time to listen and reflect and ask the colleagues to slow down. The facilitator ends the session when there are no further opinions and after having announced the end stretch (“two more points from either side, please”). As a rule, sides are not switched. However, if the groups become agitated, places can be changed to allow participants to voice further arguments for the opposing side. Michael, one of the colleagues, asks: Should I keep on meeting with the client even though he is constantly late or cancels the session? The facilitator suggests doing a round of for and against comments and Michael agrees. After three clarification questions, the facilitator directs Michael to one end of the row while he takes a seat at the other end and explains the standard phrases: “I’m in favor of ending the commitment because …” and “I’m in favor of giving the client a second chance because …” He asks the groups to come forth with their arguments in turn and gives Michael the option of determining the pace. For: “I’m in favor of a second chance because our mission statement states that client satisfaction is our primary goal.” Against: “I’m against continuing because I feel your time and energy is better spent on other clients.” For: “I’m in favor of continuing because you seem to be a patient sort of person.” Against: “I’m in favor of ending the sessions because we’ve been patient enough with him.” For: “I’m in favor of giving him another chance because actually you like him well enough und who knows what will follow!”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

90

Team Consultation

Against: “I’m against giving him another chance because I feel sorry for you.” For: “I’m in favor of giving him another chance because …”

In this approach both sides are weighted equally and ambivalences become apparent. No decision is required at this point. There is no need for the client to participate, thus allowing the different perspectives to “sink in”. With an observer’s distance to the subject, the opposing points may now seem more plausible. The advantage of this method is that it allows the client to observe the discussion from an outside perspective, thereby externalizing the process and preventing it from becoming a mere intellectual exercise. Both perspectives are well represented. Frequently, it becomes clear to the client which side she feels drawn to or which arguments she would like to take up again. A variation on this exercise can be to leave one or two chairs empty on either side of the opposing parties to allow for a change of sides as soon as one person voices an opinion and vice versa. A further approach can be developed by introducing a third side with the comment “I might decide to end the commitment (or be in favor of a second chance) because …”, leaving the client free to follow the argument of her choice. At the same time, the two opposing parties would have the chance to develop interim results. “I might decide to end the commitment because …” “I might decide in favor of a second chance because …” “I would decide in favor of giving him a trial chance because …” “I would decide in favor of ending up to 60 % of the commitment because …”

The facilitator makes sure that the rationalization expressed in “because” doesn’t turn into an intention “by”, thereby implying unsolicited advice. As a variation, the third party can be tasked with making suggestions based on “either/or” or “in addition to” statements: “A third possibility just came to mind …” “Both options could be feasible if one were to …”

The “Inner Parliament” Gunther Schmidt provides a very insightful illustration of the “inner parliament”. The image can be used where “inner turmoil”, “mixed feelings” and other forms of ambivalence compete with each other, create doubt and lead

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception91

to an inability to make decisions. What appears as “the self ”, as a unit, is actually divided up into different fractions, each focusing on particular interests. The image of the “inner parliament” clearly depicts how decisions generally require the input of a number of different aspects before a choice can be made. We can assume that the “inner parliament” calls a meeting before an important decision is made, at which point the different factions begin competing with each other. They might attack each other or form coalitions, tear each other down or try to reason with one another and in so doing they will block the entire decision-making process. Consequently, the outcome may be an entirely different kind of decision: I have decided to make no decision whatsoever at the moment. The “inner parliament approach” serves to externalize ambivalence, pros and cons and different interests that a person experiences by making these factors visible and considering them separately. This approach is indicated where the client describes her difficulty with different interests involved in her decision. Like the client, the listeners suggest different factions, which are written on the flipchart or on index cards and distributed to the team members. The team now confers in “parliament” and each faction adheres to its interests. The facilitator chairs the meeting and functions as “parliamentary president”, while the client listens and observes. Similar to the “pros and cons” exercise, the idea here is to externalize inner dialogue and concerns: the client can hear from a distance what normally takes place within her. This grants her distance to the controversy that otherwise turns into inner turmoil. One can also let the factions take votes on a trial basis. Finally, the consultation comes to an end and as usual, the client wraps up the session with a final comment. Mathew is experiencing “inner turmoil” – he is unsure whether to maintain contact with his client, Mr. Tropper, to simply let a few weeks go by without a meeting or to have a colleague take his place. The more time he spends thinking about it, the more uncertain he feels. He expresses his concern in the group and the facilitator suggests calling together the “inner parliament”. Mathew asks the team to form sides based on his brief description, and groups are formed of two colleagues each consisting of the resigned (“There is no point in continuing with Mr. Tropper.”), the committed (“a big challenge”), the pragmatist (“It would be better for a colleague to take over.”), and the “recreationist” (as they call themselves: “After a break we’ll have more energy.”). Mathew sits back and observes while the facilitator introduces a ten minute parliamentary debate on the question: How will it continue? Comments are limited to thirty seconds each in order to encourage lively debate. Participants engage in an animated discussion that ends up in utter chaos without any kind of reconcilement. When the discussions are over, Mathew still hasn’t decided what to do. However, he is impressed by the variety of different options. A week later he reports that due to the discussions, he had decided in the end to ask a colleague to take over Mr. Tropper.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

92

Team Consultation

The effect of the consultation on the client and its outcome are not immediately evident for the other team members. It’s easier to notice and to experience the positive effect that the debate can have on the entire team and the enjoyment that comes with it. Short, Unsolicited Comments The methods introduced here are relatively rigid in form. As a result, comments that do not strictly adhere to the structure (a person speaks only when it is his turn) are not expressed, leaving the team member frustrated in his attempt to contribute an important question or prudent advice. To minimize general irritation, the facilitator can introduce other options. She can either bring out the yellow card (disciplinary measure in soccer) or explicitly draw attention to it. The yellow card allows each team member to join the discussion out of turn (the number of interventions of this kind to be tolerated or considered potentially useful, or the extent to which this approach can be included in the methodology is left to the team’s discretion). On the other hand, one can “legalize” the interim questions and comments by initiating a method of “short, unsolicited comments”: Each member has the chance to make a “short, unsolicited comment” to vent feelings. At the same time, the team agrees not to react to the comments (in contrast to when the yellow card is shown to deliberately intervene in the process). The facilitator can make sure that the person making the comment has the group’s attention and that the contribution (question, advice) is in fact brief. The comment is “unsolicited” because it disrupts the structure and process flow. At the same time, however, the comment is “welcome” because it is a part of the method and is justified as it lends the consultation a new perspective. Then, the facilitator thanks the speaker for the contribution and brings the session back to order. Circular Questioning A colleague would like to engage in a round of circular questioning based on her story. She outlines her concern and the background situation in a few sentences. The consultation consists exclusively of asking circular questions according to the following pattern: “What would X say if I were to ask him …”, “How would Y react if …”, “What would Z say if I were to ask him how you experienced this situation …”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception93

The facilitator’s job is to make sure this form of questioning is maintained and to limit the sequences to ten or fifteen minutes. This method offers the client perspectives that she hadn’t been previously aware of. In addition, it offers team members the opportunity to practice the method of circular questioning by asking questions themselves, hearing the others’ questions and observing the client’s reactions and answers. The more practice and experience one gains with this approach, especially as a member of a team, the easier it is to generate the kind of questions that will actually offer new perspectives. The questions tend to raise the curiosity of both the persons asking and those answering as they anticipate the outcome. In addition, one learns to ask the circular questions in a way (if this is the intention) that will “hide” one’s own good advice for the colleague whom one wishes to be rid of. Experience has shown that it helps the client to introduce her subject by setting up sculptures of the persons involved or using objects available (coins, lighters, pens, a pack of tissues, cups, etc.), or drawing a diagram (genogram, sociogram) on the flipchart so that everyone can follow. Circular Questioning Circular questions are questions which are posed “in the round”: “What do you think your mother would say if I asked her what she thought of your behavior yesterday?” “Let’s suppose I ask your husband: how might he describe your current relationship?” “What do you think your teacher particularly appreciates about you?” Circular questions invite reflection about the perspectives, thoughts and feelings evoked in others in response to certain situations and events. These third parties (mother, spouse, teacher) may or may not be present. If they are present they are likely to be curious about the outcome. In the process of setting up circular questioning it helps to be aware of the following principles: –– Ask a particular person: What do you think …? –– Ask about his or her subjective opinion (and emphasize this): What do you think, … or: What do you mean, … or: Let’s suppose you knew what he would say … –– Ask what they think someone else would say or do (speculating about observed behavior is often easier). –– Ask about descriptions that neither you nor others can possibly know: the point is not to come up with right answers but to motivate participants to think in a circular manner and to assume different perspectives. Circular questions can introduce new ways of looking at something and smooth relationships between those involved. In addition, circular ques-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

94

Team Consultation

tions can be combined with questions about exceptions, resources, possible solutions and future developments: “What do you think your girlfriend would say in answer to the question of how she would recognize the first signs of a positive development in your daughter?” “What suggestions for a solution do you think a social worker at the rehabilitation center would have, if we were to ask her?” As with all unfamiliar questioning techniques, the approach requires some practice and experience before it can be easily integrated into a conversation. Until then, the questions sound somewhat awkward. For professionals who would like to experiment with this method but do not yet have the necessary experience, practicing within the scope of a collegial consultation is ideal. The fact that the questions seem awkward underlines the need for practice – if it didn’t feel cumbersome it wouldn’t be an exercise to practice on (cf. von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 2009, p. 138 ff.)! Reframing “Seeing the silver lining” even when faced with what seem to be immense problems and using any positive aspects as a resource is one of the central ideas in systemic work. Reframing can also be defined as rephrasing or attributing “positive connotations”: a certain mode of behavior or characteristic that is initially experienced as negative is examined closer in order to determine to what extent positive or desirable traits can be identified. This involves finding a new angle that leads to seeing the behavior within a different context and framework. We tend to focus on negative aspects of behavior especially when dealing with “problematic” clients. For example, we might perceive an individual in a group of adolescents as being particularly quick-tempered, aggressive and provocative while we see another as shy, introverted and closed – both have rather negative connotations. However, in certain circumstances it may be more helpful to focus on the positive aspects: the first individual is open, courageous, knows how to assert and watch out for himself while the other youth knows how to take a back seat, watch out for others, observe and doesn’t attempt to steal the show at the expense of others. From a systemic perspective the point is not to determine which perspective is better or more suited. However, it can be helpful to rephrase descriptions and have them ready if needed, which in turn enables us to remain open, develop more empathy and obtain new ideas for future collaboration. Perhaps it’s easier for me to start a conversation with the shy

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception95

youth if I can say: “I think it’s great the way you show consideration for the group by giving them so much space and don’t insist on stealing the show. Sometimes I wonder how you feel in these situations …”, instead of saying, already annoyed: “Why don’t you just open up a bit and say what you mean.” Reframing offers alternatives when numerous approaches have been tried and no progress has been made. In other words, when the “problem” persists and the point is reached when finding anything positive seems absolutely impossible. A colleague asks the group to generate reframing options for a particular client. Each colleague is given a sheet of paper that is divided into two columns. Under the heading “The client …”, they write five to seven negative, undesirable or irritating characteristics and behavioral quirks in the left hand column (the comments can be deliberately exaggerated or one-sided): The client … is always late. … doesn’t wash. … is a know-it-all. … always interrupts me. … makes no effort to change anything. … complains about me to colleagues.

After making this list, the colleagues have exactly five minutes to rephrase each point to give it a positive twist or offer an acceptable explanation (referring only to the sentence and not to additional information about the client in question). The exercise is done individually without conferring with each other or asking questions. Occasionally, someone might chuckle to themselves softly, which rouses the others’ curiosity and spurs them on even more. Someone might be strapped for time. The facilitator can request that participants come up with a positive formulation to each item even if it doesn’t quite fit. When the time is over, a source sentence is read out loud (“The client is always late.”) and each participant contributes her reformulated sentence in a way in which others can follow her train of thought. The client simply listens. Later, she can have her colleagues’ notes. Possible reframed sentences could be: –– “The client is always late”: … she is self-confident; she looks after herself; she has her own way of dealing with time; she always manages to make it to the session … –– “The client doesn’t wash”: … she is concerned about wasting water and soap; she wants to protect the environment; she knows how to keep others at a distance; she values her personal freedom and personal integrity … –– “The client is a know-it-all”: … she is sure of herself; she doesn’t want to seem weak or stupid; she looks after her interests; the client is proud of her knowledge …

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

96

Team Consultation

–– “The client constantly interrupts me”: … she knows how to get attention; she won’t let herself be intimidated by you; she sees herself as a client and a partner on equal footing … –– “The client makes no effort to change anything”: … she appreciates the advantages offered by the situation; she doesn’t want to bring up anything negative; she wants to be a challenge for you and not make things too easy for you; she has staying power … –– “The client complains about me to colleagues”: … she wants to give feedback; she wants to let you know sensitively that she wants to switch social workers; she still hopes you might change; she wants to take care of you without hurting you; she is able to express her needs …

Not all of these reframing choices will make sense or be helpful for the colleague. Presumably she will reject some of them on the spot. In some cases, she might think to herself: “It could be seen from this perspective as well”, and after the second or third suggestion (with practice and more experience), she might think: That’s something I could keep in mind for the next encounter with my client. She may even come up with an idea on how to approach the client, how to address her or what issues she can ask about, maybe think of a funny remark or compliment. It’s not about having to see things or people as positive – sometimes you simply don’t feel like doing that. The colleague may find it helpful, however, to ask other team members for support in seeing the situation differently if their perspective is stuck in a negative and irritating rut. In Place of … The team assumes the roles of people from completely different backgrounds (managers, police officers, hippies, artists, clients) who might approach the chosen subject from an entirely different angle. They discuss the subject from their role perspective for about ten or fifteen minutes: How might managers discuss this “case”? Or: How would our clients react to this case? The colleague who brings up the subject can decide which roles the team members choose and then step back to observe. Some teams use the phrase “In place of ” to approach the subject in an unstructured way: they imagine themselves as punks sitting in a park talking about the issue with a beer bottle in one hand and petting a dog with the other. Clarifying the Mandate In social work, therapy and consulting we are generally faced with a variety of tasks involving our professional expertise: wishes, expectations, hopes

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception97

and demands, many of which we would like to fulfill. We deal not only with the clients’ expectations of us (“help me deal with this situation”, “support my efforts”), but also with those of their relatives and friends (“help her get better”, “take steps to make sure he behaves himself from now on”, “leave us alone”). In addition, we are faced with the demands of those who carry the costs and other professionals involved (youth services employees, teachers, police officers, judges, physicians, social workers, etc.). Members of the team at our own facility approach us with their issues: team colleagues (“Keep this client off our backs!”), supervisors (“Keep the public out of this!”), administrative staff (“There will be no dismissals; we have to keep every position filled!”) – and finally the issues we have with ourselves (“Work as diligently as possible!” “Don’t get on the wrong side of anyone!”). With all these responsibilities to deal with, it’s not always possible to keep an overview. In addition, some assignments might be contradictory or can’t be dealt with simultaneously, some requests you simply can’t or don’t want to follow up on. Finally, there may be any number of open tasks on the table. Some are not explicit and are only “accomplished” without having been asked because you simply assumed it was your job without asking if you were actually expected to do it. We introduce a method for clarifying mandates that will help to simplify the above situation. The goal is to ensure that the client who is to be counseled is clear about the expectations, issues and tasks assumed by all those involved so that she can decide which assignments to accept, reject, address and perhaps renegotiate or put on hold. The request for clarification of the mandate may come from outside. A more objective view from someone who is not directly involved may help to clarify the complicated network of tasks or confusion caused by trying to meet all expectations. Materials required include a flipchart, different colored felt pens and possibly index cards. The facilitator starts by asking the client to illustrate the situation in a few sentences. Questions are not required at this point: it’s not important for the team to understand the situation at present. Next, the facilitator draws a symbol (circle or square) in the middle of the flipchart to illustrate the client’s story and asks her which individuals have expectations of her in this context. It’s a good idea to refer to actual people here rather than the affiliated institutions, as the individuals represent the interest of the institution: e.g. Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Sparrow or Mr. Schoenfeld, the division head, has commissioned me, not “youth services”. The facilitator writes the individuals’ names on the chart in a circle around the client’s name

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

98

Team Consultation

and adds a symbol for each one. She can ask the client if there are any other parties involved or colleagues can suggest that others be included. Next, the client states the tasks she believes she is responsible for. She differentiates between “open tasks” that she is aware of because they were communicated to her directly and “hidden expectations” that she merely presumes she has to fulfill or knows about from a third party (it’s less important whether they are “actually” hidden or open, rather how the client perceives them at this particular moment in time). She begins with the task (and the person) that first comes to mind. Claudia wishes to reflect on the mandate pertaining to 17-year old Mandy. Mandy lives alone in an apartment and is assisted only by Claudia. When asked who instigated the assistance, Claudia cites Mandy, her parents, a neighbor, Mandy’s boyfriend, the department head, and two of Claudia’s colleagues, as well as Mandy’s teacher at vocational school. The team members suggest adding Mandy’s grandmother (who Claudia has mentioned previously) to the list. However, Claudia rejects this proposal. The colleagues suggest that Ms. Meininger, an employee at the youth services center, may also have tasked Claudia with a mandate. Claudia agrees and Ms. Meininger is included on the chart.

The facilitator draws arrows between Claudia and those others involved indicated on the flipchart. The arrows point to the client’s name in the middle and are numbered. She uses different colored pens for open and hidden expectations. A team member writes each expectation on an index card (or separate flipchart) as it is spoken. The facilitator’s job is to make sure that expectations are not confused with wishes or feelings. Reactions such as “I’m afraid” or “I want to go home” do not constitute expectations. Ask the client to begin her requests with “I would like you to …” or “Make sure that …”. The requests should be brief, concise and phrased accordingly. Here too, open and hidden expectations are indicated by different colored pens (figure 6).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception99

Mandy mother

father

neighbor teacher Claudia

boyfriend

supervisor

Ms. M, youth services

colleague A

colleague B

open hidden, assumed 1. Mandy:

Leave me alone! (open)

2. Mandy:

Please help me to keep my parents happy! (hidden)

3. Teacher:

Make sure Mandy gets to school on time! (open)

4. Teacher:

Make Mandy leave her gang! (open)

5. Mother:

Make Mandy be friendly and nice again! (open)

6. Neighbor: Turn off the blaring music – but don’t tell anyone that I complained! (hidden) 7. M’s boyfriend: Make sure Mandy doesn’t leave me! (open) 8. Colleague A: Just don’t pass this case off on me! (open) 9. Claudia:

(to herself) Don’t give up too soon!

Figure 6: Open and hidden mandates

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

100

Team Consultation

The client is free to choose the order in which she addresses each mandate. The facilitator makes sure that the team refrains from rephrasing for the client or putting words in her mouth. An exception is if the client has difficulty finding the right words and asks the team to suggest five to ten options to help her out. Not all mandates involving the participants who were originally included in the illustration need to be expressed, nor is it necessary to address imagined mandates. It’s enough to concentrate on issues that are important at any given moment. Perfectionism and trying to meet many different expectations (which by now we know is impossible) is bound to have a paralyzing effect. After eight or nine mandates have been worked through, the facilitator asks the colleague what expectations she has of herself: “We have heard eight requests from others and now we would like to hear from you what you expect from yourself.” After collecting about ten mandates the facilitator brings this phase to an end (it is a question of time and practicality to limit the requests to ten, at which point those that are most important to the client will have already been addressed). The facilitator attaches the request cards to the board (separately so they can be moved around later) and invites the client to take a moment to study the diagram depicting the various mandates, including the arrows that point to them and the cards upon which the mandates are written. She might notice something in particular that she would like to comment on. With the client’s permission, the team members proceed to comment on both the illustration and the list. “What do you notice when you look at the chart?” “What does this remind you of?” At this point, no advice is asked for. Instead, participants are asked to observe and comment on their observations. “I notice that there are a number of open mandates.” “I notice that a number of people have become involved whose mandates you are reluctant to fulfill.” “Some mandates seem to contradict each other.” “It reminds me of an adolescent who rejected outside support but at the same time I felt that he didn’t want me to leave.”

In follow up, the client can decide if she would like to hear more advice, tips, ideas or suggestions. Sometimes the overview in itself is enough and anything else would be too much. On the other hand, colleagues may be eager to share their ideas about how to deal with the mandate constellation. Provided the client agrees to it, they can be asked to comment: “What would you do in her place?” “How would you proceed in this matter or what advice would you

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception101

give your colleague?” “How could you remind them of the variety of ways in which to work with the mandate?” We tend to believe that mandates must always be accepted and fulfilled. If we consider, however, that we are not alone in receiving orders or assignments and that carrying out tasks is part of daily life – from the bank, delivery persons and various handymen and also within the family or between spouses in the form of expectations, this reminds us that our options of how to deal with such task are endless: we can agree to meet expectations and to fulfill them; we can avoid or reject them outright; forget, overlook, postpone, deal with them without delay, prioritize them (according to urgency, importance, facility, difficulty, scope or commissioner). We can neglect, renegotiate, delegate, misunderstand, confirm or ignore them etc. Accordingly, one or more of the following questions could be helpful in clarifying the mandate as soon as one has an overview of the most important tasks: –– What do I (or others) notice? –– How do I find out more precisely what my task is? –– Which issues will/can/must/may I accept, which not? –– Which issues will/must/can I reject or delegate? –– How should I represent and elaborate on my potential? –– In what order and according to what criteria should I proceed? –– How should I negotiate each mandate with potential clients? –– Which of the tasks can I ignore, forget or neglect? The index cards upon which the tasks are written (figure 6) can now be sorted out: Which tasks are urgent? Which mandates do I need to renegotiate? Which tasks do I want to reject and which ones do I want to put on a back burner? The advantage of this method is that the different tasks and expectations in the client’s mind are addressed and given a structure. Frequently, colleagues are surprised to find that there are actually quite a few tasks involved, many of which are incompatible or outright contradictory. Grasping an often vague idea and translating it into a short and concise definition is an important part of the process. In addition, the request to distinguish between “open” and “hidden” tasks often leads to the surprising realization that what I’m assuming here is actually right on target.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

102

Team Consultation

VIP-Maps “The map is not the territory.” Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 2005, p. 58

Maps provide an overview, help to structure conversation and spark curiosity and interest. They serve as a basis for generating hypotheses and developing questions. The most well-known map, the genogram (cf. von Schlippe u. Schweitzer, 2009, p. 130 ff.) is used in family therapy and depicts the family tree, offering background information which can be useful in given situations (abilities, jobs, illnesses, etc.). The genogram is also used within the scope of collegial consultation where it is illustrated on a flipchart and occasionally used as supporting material. Generally, close relatives are not considered to be the only important contact persons. In this case, the VIP-map, a tool that has many uses, among them the “network map” (cf. Bulliger & Nowak, 1998; Möbius & Klawe, 2003). (I feel that the definition “network-map” misses the target since networks don’t always play a part and are not appropriate in every instance.) The “Very Important Persons” who are close to the client are indicated on the VIP-map and assembled in a “VIP-lounge” so to speak. Not only family members, but friends, colleagues from work or fellow students and professional care­givers can be acknowledged here. Their names are written on the chart and can be enlisted as potential resources and used as a basis for collegial consultation (cf. in more detail Herwig-Lempp, 2009). The map can be developed together with the clients or alone to be used as a tool for reflection and recalling individuals who are most important in the client’s life. The map helps to keep the group affiliation straight while asking and thinking about who might belong to this group and the role they play in the client’s life. A simple version of the VIP-map consists of four sections with the main person (“MP”, the client in question) indicated by a symbol, circle or, as in the case of the genogram, a square at its center (see figure 7). Each group of key persons appears in one of the four fields (e.g. family, friends, work/school, professional care­givers). Next, the five to ten most important individuals in these areas are assigned symbols e.g. circles for women and squares for men with their names inside. Or, the persons are represented by coins or small figures before being written on the chart. The order of importance of each person can be demonstrated by his or her proximity to the main person and is quite similar to the family board.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 2: Expanding Perception103

FAMILY

FRIENDS

MP

PROFESSIONALS

WORK/APPRENTICESHIP

Figure 7: The VIP-map (MP = main person)

The space provided in each section encourages further probing and questioning in that area. Limiting the section to between five and seven individuals offers a more comprehensive overview and serves as a reminder that it’s not possible to include “all really” or “really all” important parties, especially as these are perceived differently by different individuals and in different situations. The current date and the names of those involved in drawing up the diagram are written on the VIP-map to indicate that the participants aren’t dealing with an “objective”, permanent and immutable description. In collegial consultation, a VIP-map can be used as a means of peer reflection by preparing it as a large poster and using it to supplement case presentations (“I notice here that there seem to be many family members but not too many friends.” “I notice that many care professionals are included.” “I notice that only women are included in the spaces provided for friends, family and work and all professionals are men.”). In order to obtain a range of observations, the facilitator can ask the participants to contribute at least one

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

104

Team Consultation

observation (as one cannot “not observe”. In other words everyone observes something). In teams where the VIP-map of a client who has previously been the subject of a meeting is discussed, it is often surprising to find that other individuals become the focus of attention. In a second round, the colleagues have the opportunity to generate hypotheses about other resources, undiscovered “VIPs”, including additional prospective individuals in the change process. Or they can pose questions and if they like, practice forms of circular questioning: “Is it true that there are no women represented in the non-professional areas?” “How would the client’s wife have drawn the network map?” “What other professionals could be included – which ones could be left out?” “Who could provide the most support?” “Who would the client like to have present?” These questions don’t have to be answered by the team. Sometimes they prove inspiring and arouse curiosity, motivating the colleague to refer back to them the next time they meet. The VIP-map is a useful tool in collegial consultation as long as one doesn’t start believing in its “objectivity”. It can, however, serve as a prompt and be adapted in form and approach to the current purpose. An example here would be if both the work or school context is missing and one introduces a second category for “friends”, dividing it into friends within the closed setting and those on the outside. VIP-maps offer the additional advantage of being able to restart a conversation from a different angle with both colleagues and clients, thus broadening the scope of perception. We can assume that this tool will increase in importance in the future. Exercise Take a look at figure 8, illustrating the VIP-map drawn up by Ms. Gehrer, a social worker, and Monica, a 17-year old participant in a year-long career preparatory course. Write down seven observations or key points and develop five questions that you might ask Ms. Gehrer or Monica.

Method 3: Reciprocal Information Occasionally, situations arise where teams don’t know much about each other: I don’t know enough about my colleagues’ work (when they are not in the team), what issues they’re dealing with or how they solve certain problems and deal with questions. This is particularly true when each colleague counsels his/her clients behind closed doors or in family counseling, where most team members are with “their families” and therefore not visible to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 3: Reciprocal Information 105

the colleagues. The same thing is true for the department heads who meet only once a week for an official report on their work in progress. To avoid dealing specifically with problem cases, difficulties and urgent issues, one can agree to dedicate a certain amount of time during the meeting to sharing information about current work and take note of the types of question that arise. It helps to structure the conversation about daily work in advance with a view to how information is to be shared. One approach is to report briefly about unresolved issues and questions and give feedback on previous team consultations. FAMILY

FRIENDS brother (21)

father

Eva (18)

mother Hannah (17)

sister (16)

Amelia (18)

grandmother

MP fellow students

physician

specialist teacher work-study advisor

PROFESSIONALS

Ms. Gehrer

WORK/APPRENTICESHIP

Figure 8: Monica’s VIP-map

Feedback on the Last Team Consultation This is actually a matter of course: colleagues who reported on their issues during the last meeting and were counseled by team members share their experiences. The time spent on the feedback session can be limited and the facilitator can remind the speaker of the following key points: a short

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

106

Team Consultation

reminder of the questions raised, the content and methods used in the consultation and most importantly an overview of how the colleague applied and dealt with the information gained and what she learned from the experience. Depending on how much time she needs for the feedback, the facilitator can allow brief comments from the team. Thomas: “At the last meeting we talked about clarifying my mandate. Among other things, it concerned my assumption that M.’s grandparents had a hidden demand of me. This week I forced myself to confront them and just go ahead and ask what their expectations of me were. It turned out that they were actually hoping that I would resume my close contact with their daughter-in-law. I explained that I couldn’t wasn’t able to do that and wouldn’t even try.” Anna: “During our last meeting I asked how I could reframe a situation I have with a client with a hygiene problem. She refuses to shower and consequently stinks to high heaven. I just wanted to mention that, with the help of reframing, I was finally able to address the issue by suggesting that her refusal to shower kept people at a distance. She was somewhat taken aback and quickly changed the subject. I left it at that … but still …” Daniel: “The consultation concerning where my adolescent charge might be in two years’ time didn’t really help. I’m still at square one as to what I should do. Perhaps we could bring up the issue again today and you can advise me.”

Structured Short Reports Sharing structured short reports is an efficient way of keeping one another informed within the team. Team members agree to share information about daily work and not just the exceptional or emergency cases that come up. Reports can center around a specific theme (“my participation in work group X”, “my last training”, my after-work group”), a particular client or situation (“my last house visit”) or a general overview (“my workday”). The facilitator can invite the group to structure their stories by giving them (together with the team) a few points to consider in their presentation. These suggestions are written on the flipchart. Generally, participants can choose between four and six points from the list: –– one important piece of information; –– a peripheral, rather irrelevant aspect; –– something funny or sad; –– a significant experience that can be passed on to colleagues as advice; –– a success story where a goal was reached; –– a compliment directed at someone (client or oneself, etc.); –– an assessment on a self-established scale (“On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 stands for … and 10 stands for …, my actual assessment of the situation is …”);

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 3: Reciprocal Information 107

–– a sketch depicting a genogram, organigram, sociogram, etc. for clarification purposes; –– a question directed at a colleague. This type of structuring offers the chance to recreate one’s story and to discover surprising, new aspects. An essential prerequisite for using this approach is to limit oneself to a few (predetermined) points that have been selected by the facilitator or the speaker. The positive surprise effect can only be experienced by participating in the actual experience, as is the case with many of the other methods. Thus, the second point on the list, “something peripheral” becomes superfluous: Once one focuses on a peripheral event and others in the group join in, the information becomes relevant even if it is still considered “peripheral”. Suzanne: I’d like to briefly introduce you to my client, Mr. Marber, who has been a member of the in-house group for the past six months.” Facilitator: “Okay, then can I ask you to tell us something about the following items. – 1. A piece of important information.” Suzanne: “I think the most important information I would like to share with you is that Mr. Marber’s behavior has been totally inconspicuous. No changes have taken place in the last two months.” Facilitator: “2. A peripheral aspect.” Suzanne: (hesitates) “Something peripheral … Mr. Marber went to an important football game by himself.” Facilitator: “3. A word of advice for a colleague.” Suzanne: “One suggestion could be to be very patient with quiet or introverted clients and not to pressurize them. That worked very well with Mr. Marber when I didn’t push him too hard.” Facilitator: “4. On a scale of …” Suzanne: “On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 stands for dissatisfied and 10 stands for very satisfied, I would rate Mr. Marber’s development at 7.” Facilitator: “5. A compliment?” Suzanne: “I compliment myself for being very patient with Mr. Marber.” Facilitator: “Great, you’ve obviously deserved the compliment. Thank you very much for sharing with us.”

Rating Scale A rating scale is a tool often used in systemic work to determine a person’s attitude and current state in an uncomplicated way. The results form a basis for further solution-oriented enquiry. Examples of rating scale questions: –– On a scale of 0 to 10; were 0 stands for “negligible” and 10 stands for “very serious”: How would you assess the importance of Ms. Bohlen’s problem?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

108

Team Consultation

–– Given the same scale: How do you think Ms. Bohlen would assess the problem’s importance? –– What would have to happen for you to give the problem one point less? –– On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 stands for “hopeless” and 10 stands for “absolutely certain”: How do you assess the probability of our teamwork improving within the next year? –– Assuming you assessed our work at “4”: What would be different in our team and our collaboration if your rating had been “3”? –– How could other team member contribute for your assessment to increase to 5? –– On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 stands for “very bad” and 10 stands for “very good”: Where would you place the quality of our teamwork? –– What would you do differently if you could move your rating up one point? Rating scales offer both quick and differentiated answers that go beyond a mere “good or bad” ranking. The answers can be used as a point of reference for more detailed descriptions (cf. de Shazer & Berg, 1993). Routine Reports At the beginning of an official meeting, each participant agrees (or rather only those who wish to) to give a three-minute report on the present routine situation: what comprises “work as usual”, what sort of routine exists in your daily work and what would you describe as normal activity within this scope? The scope can be extended to include other parameters such as giving a general overview of everyday work or a description of a “normal” event for each day of the week. At first, this suggestion may strike some as banal – some of the others may too. Interesting details usually become apparent once resistance to repetition is overcome and the process is tested a number of times. Occasionally, the processes do seem to follow a similar pattern. However, from a systemic perspective, things may appear identical, similar or entirely different depending on who is observing, their points of view and individual criteria. It can be both an interesting and useful team exercise to discover differences in events that appear to be similar.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 4: Assessing Success109

Leftover Questions and Problems Not all questions, concerns and problems can be addressed in team consultation. There are many good reasons for not addressing all issues or deciding which concerns could be addressed, all of which are justified (e.g. lack of time, insufficiently prepared to present the concern, uncertainty regarding one’s own questioning approach, shyness, consideration for colleagues with more pressing issues, fear of embarrassment, simply forgetting, a desire not to get involved as a client in a team session). One can, at least, keep colleagues informed about issues that one would have had as long as there was good reason for not having broached these subjects. If a team has just recently introduced team consultation it’s likely that at first very few concerns are brought up for consultation. To break the ice, it can be helpful at the beginning for each member to introduce three issues that they could address – without feeling obligated to actually present them to the group.

Method 4: Assessing Success This is the story of a duke who grew to be very, very old because he knew how to enjoy life to its fullest: He never left the house without taking a handful of beans with him. He did this not to have something to chew along the way. Not at all! He did this in order to remind himself of the beautiful moments he experienced each day and to keep count of them. For every positive little thing that happened during his day – for instance a cheerful chat at the street corner, his wife’s laughter, a delicious meal, a fine cigar, a shady place in the midday heat, a glass of excellent wine – for everything that delighted the senses, he moved a bean from one pocket into the other. Sometimes there were two or three at the same time. At home later in the evening, he took the beans out of his left pocket and counted them. He celebrated these precious minutes. In this way, he reminded himself of how many pleasant things had happened that day and was glad. And even on the evenings when he counted only one bean, the day had been a success – life had been worth living. (untitled)

In this chapter we will focus in particular on assessing success – simply because it represents a form of collegial consultation that it is often forgotten and overlooked. We are prepared to a certain extent (but nevertheless ready) to report mistakes or mishaps that happen to us to our supervisors and col-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

110

Team Consultation

leagues, whether because we feel it’s our duty to be forthright or to garner their help and support (or at least their protection and backing) in order to rectify our mistakes, or at least to be able to avoid them the next time. This rarely happens with successes. Here we tend to be more careful, secretive or perhaps too modest. We often tend to think it’s not worth taking the time to dwell on our accomplishments, to bring them up in meetings or to share them with our colleagues. On the contrary, there are many good reasons for not hiding our light under a bushel, to remind ourselves of our success stories, share them with our colleagues and answer any questions they may have. It goes without saying that it feels good to talk about our achievements, especially if others take an active interest and want to know more. However, for most of us, “feeling good” is not reason enough to bring the issue up within a professional context even if we are aware that positive emotions are likely to enhance motivation: If I feel good about myself because I’m proud of what I have achieved, if I know that I did a particularly good job then perhaps I’ll feel more inclined to take on the next difficult situation – and overcome it under better circumstances because I felt up to the challenge. Furthermore, I’ll be more likely to enjoy the work I’m doing because I realize that I’m good at what I do. (Once I know what I’m really good at, I can become more involved in those areas in which I can make a difference.) Exercise Think of three situations in the last three days in which you “worked well”, were successful, reached a target or accomplished something, even if it was just a small step. Write down two or three keywords for each accomplishment. If you can’t think of anything offhand, think of situations when your colleagues may have perceived you as competent. (At this point, you may want to ask your “critical voice” that keeps whispering “You call that success?” or “That’s ridiculous, anyone can do that, it’s no big deal” to keep out of this exercise and not try to confuse you.) We are actually more successful in our work than we think. We tend to overlook our achievements and are less aware of the things that we actually accomplish because we take them for granted. If we could manage to become more aware of and appreciate what we do well, we could actually “live” our success story as we put them into practice: We could learn from our achievements and use them in difficult situations where we need advice and support. As long as we aren’t aware of our achievements – due to a lack of sensitivity and perception – we are unlikely to profit from them.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 4: Assessing Success111

In addition, we are dealing here with work for which we are getting paid. Employers and clients, both, expect us to deliver good work and, in addition, we expect the same from ourselves. Being professional includes working together competently and sharing success. If we are unable to achieve this goal, we will, of course, reflect on what we could do differently and how we could do better next time. As long as we are successful, we hardly ever appreciate it and enjoy the feeling. Frequently, we don’t even attribute it to ourselves. For instance, a person can plan a difficult meeting between a spouse and their physician. When it actually takes place and turns out better than expected, they might not even mention the part they played in the success of the meeting: “Oh, that’s because the doctor was so cooperative and the client was sober for a change, and it was generally a good day.” We can assume among other things that the degree to which one is able to reflect on and appreciate one’s own accomplishments, the good work achieved and the attainment of goals one has set for oneself, shows professional excellence. Sharing success stories and systematically recalling and analyzing situations that were handled successfully thus becomes a form of “quality assurance”: we reflect on how we handled situations and what worked out well and then what exactly we did to achieve this positive outcome in order to use it as a resource in similar future situations. Being fully aware of our own achievements first, and subsequently sharing this experience with colleagues allows team members to learn from our experience (what may appear somewhat overly “self-confident” here, e.g. for the team to apply resources gleaned from individual team members, should actually be a matter of course for a well-functioning team). If we share information about what we have done well, then others can profit from it by integrating new ideas into their own work or by building on the original initiative. In this way, sharing success stories within the team assumes a considerably more important role than the mere creation of a good working atmosphere: it constitutes a substantial ingredient of the quality assurance process similar to other approaches that we are more familiar with such as error analysis or client questionnaires. Sharing stories about one’s achievements actually evolves into putting ideas into practice in a methodical way based on the initial abstract principle of “resource orientation” (a term which many facilities subscribe to as a guiding principle in their work with clients as well as in working together in teams). Naturally, we can always consider achievements as a resource, especially if there is a tendency to focus more on problems and other difficulties in discussions within the team. When dealing with actual cases, it can be especially helpful to turn the discussion to what has actually been achieved. We have developed a number of methods in this regard, in particular, a discourse guideline we

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

112

Team Consultation

call “evaluating success”, which is probably new to the team to whom speaking about their achievements is unfamiliar and to whom it is likely to be most helpful – simply because the approach is clearly structured and is a reason to explore this approach in more detail (cf. Herwig-Lempp, 2000a, 2000b). Discourse Guideline “Evaluating Successes” Speaking about one’s achievement may be prompted by a colleague’s report on a situation that she handled well and feels good about: “My session with Mrs. Berger went much better than I thought.” “The trip to the zoo with the class was really fun.” “I feel that by intervening in the crisis that erupted among my in-house charges, I was able to turn the situation around.” Or initiated by a question like: “Tell me something you achieved last week?” “What went really well for you recently?” “Would you like to tell me about a minor incident that occurred at work that you felt proud of?” “What did you like about work today?” Most of the time it’s immediately obvious what the speaker considers successful. Occasionally, however, especially when several achievements become apparent, one can follow up by asking: “What does this success mean to you?” or “Of the achievements you mentioned, which one do you consider most important?” The listener can also give positive feedback (“Really, that’s a great achievement!” “Great!” “I can understand that you’re happy about that.” “You did a great job!” etc.), before following up with the discourse guideline. The facilitator’s questions are open and sometimes seem repetitive. We recommend that they are read directly from the list, and if possible, not changed too much. They might seem strange at first and many of you might have asked them differently, which could, of course, lead you to hesitate repeating the questions exactly the way that is recommended on the list. Their sense becomes clear once the questions have been asked in this way a number of times – similar to a new dance sequence that feels awkward the first few times and then becomes a fluid, gliding step in tune with the music. It takes some practice and routine to become familiar with the guidelines suggested here. Exceptions include questions that will broaden the scope: “Which of your strengths and abilities were you able to bring in that contributed to this success?” (this might seem like an odd question at first) – if the response is “toughness” and “perseverance”, for instance, one can probe further, either: “What do you mean by perseverance?” or “What other strengths and abilities came into play?”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 4: Assessing Success113

Discourse Guideline: Evaluating Successes – in Order to Implement Them Asking about achievements –– When have you recently felt good about yourself and your work? –– What positive experience have you recently had? –– What worked well for you? Give us an example. –– Tell us a recent success story. –– Use no more than three or four sentences. –– What does success mean to you? Asking about the part played –– How did you do that? –– What exactly did you do? –– What role did you play? –– What personal strengths and abilities were you able to contribute? –– How did you prepare? –– … How else? What else? Anything else? – What do you mean by …? Asking about how the experience can be applied in the future –– How could you replicate this success story? –– Which other situation that you occasionally encounter could benefit from this achievement? –– In what other areas could you use the aforementioned strengths and abilities? –– What advice, tips or learning experience could you share with us in case we find ourselves in a similar situation? –– … How else? What else? Anything else? – What do you mean by …? Asking about acknowledgement by yourself or others –– Who did you tell about your success? –– Who else could you have told about it? –– How could you have told the story differently so that they would appreciate your success? –– How did you reward yourself for it? –– Let’s suppose you had celebrated your success – how would you have done it? –– … How else? What else? Anything else? – What do you mean by …? Thank you for sharing your success story with us!

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

114

Team Consultation

When someone tells us something, we tend to become curious and ask questions, rarely thinking about the meaning behind our questions. Clearly structuring our questions, as in this guideline to “evaluating success”, helps us to hold back questions that come to mind spontaneously – not because they aren’t justified or interesting, but because they are unlikely to bring us closer to the issue. Aside from a clear structure and guidelines for asking the questions, the parties involved will require patience. Consider your questions as an invitation to think, search and consider, an exercise that is bound to take some time and perseverance while waiting for a response. The person being questioned may not be immediately convinced that they can find an answer to the question. The person asking the question must convey confidence that their counterpart will eventually come up with an answer (and that the person asking the question doesn’t have to step in and provide an answer – “Could it be that excellent preparation was responsible for your success?” “Could it be that your innate intelligence played a role?!”). It is likely that the person asking the question will be able to recreate the steps involved in creating success by allowing the speaker to talk about it in detail. If the person questioned is unable to come up with a response, they can be encouraged by using circular questioning or support measures: “What do you think your client would say about how you contributed to the success, if I asked him?” Or: “Let’s suppose you rewarded yourself: how could you have done that?” When using the guideline for the first time it helps to ask the questions in order – and if required, follow up with more probing questions. Both parties may feel that the process is repetitive. With regular practice, however, the questions become more familiar. As long as the questions are asked within the team setting, the members realize that it’s a practice session and shouldn’t feel any unnecessary anxiety. Both parties are bound to have positive experiences working with these guidelines, as long as they agree to adhere to them: the person asking the questions will gain new information and interesting details about an achievement, which may inspire them in their own work. In a best-case scenario, the person being questioned will benefit from new perspectives on their achievement and, contrary to initial expectation, might be both surprised and proud of any contributions. Feedback from individuals who were questioned according to the guidelines showed that they were happy about the curiosity and interest shown towards their achievements; this in turn made them feel appreciated and reaffirmed in the contribution they were making.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 4: Assessing Success115

Small groups of three to four participants can be formed for teams that have little experience in sharing success stories and might still be somewhat reserved about speaking freely about their contributions. A colleague shares her achievement in a few sentences. The other two follow up with questions taken directly from the guidelines: How did you manage that? Which one of your strengths came into play? Which other ones? What advice do you have for us in similar situations? How did you reward yourself? How else could you have rewarded yourself? Participants exchange roles after ten minutes and the next colleague shares her success story. Depending on the size of the group, this exercise takes about twenty or thirty minutes. After that, the entire team comes together. The facilitator can ask participants to share their observations and new insights, which are likely to be of interest to the rest and then bring this session to an end. This exercise could serve as an introduction to a team consultation or meeting. This exercise provides team members with another opportunity to familiarize themselves with an approach that can be meaningfully applied to their clients in the “real world”. With some practice, sharing success stories can be included in work with clients within the scope of social work, consulting/ counseling and therapy. Talking about achievements allows the person asking the questions to become more aware of strengths and encourages them to delve deeper into what lead to their achievements (“Recently, I found the courage to tell my supervisor what I thought, although I’m usually too afraid to do this!” “Great, what made you dare to do this?” – “What else helped you to summon the courage to speak up?”). In this respect, the team meeting serves multiple purposes: the members’ achievements are analyzed and evaluated as part of collegial consultation and quality assurance. In addition, the exercise provides further training for resource oriented dialoging with clients. Success Circle The facilitator asks a participant to report on a well-managed and successful situation from the previous week, in two or three sentences. Immediately following this, the team asks her a set number of exploratory questions (usually two or three) about the situation, based on the following questions: –– What does success mean to you? –– What was your contribution to the success of the situation? What else? –– What advice would you have for me if I were in a similar situation? Any other tips?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

116

Team Consultation

–– How did you reward yourself? How would you have rewarded yourself? –– Who did you share this with? Who else could you share this with? The “success circle” allows members to present successfully handled situations and their accomplishments to the team. This approach is especially indicated for teams that already have some experience with sharing success stories and skillful questioning – or who would simply like to try sharing their success stories at work with other members of the team. If some members of the team choose not to participate, they are not obligated to do so – as long as enough team members agree to the exercise. Beginning a team meeting with a round of success stories can develop into a good habit. No doubt, we are successful in our work, otherwise I assume we wouldn’t be working in the job. Apparently however, we find it easier to talk about our shortcomings, difficulties and mistakes. Many arguments can be used for deliberately focusing on our achievements since they are what we strive for and deserve to be acknowledged. Only when I recognize and appreciate when I have worked well, can I learn from it and succeed in repeating it. By sharing success stories among team members we can use our positive experience as a learning tool and learn to acknowledge each other. This approach is much more constructive to our work than constantly focusing on the difficulties and problems we are experiencing. Learning from Experience Another take on the success circle is illustrated in the following approach: each person recounts a successful experience in a few words. The others listen and afterwards comment on any lesson they are able to draw from the speaker’s experience. Here too, it is helpful if the facilitator sets the tone for giving feedback: “The lesson I draw from your report is …” Or: “I could draw the lesson of …from your account for myself.” The colleagues who are observing should focus on what could be useful and informative for them. Moreover, their feedback reveals other perspectives on the speakers’ success and brings factors leading to their success or contribution to the surface that weren’t evident before.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 5: Configuring, Playing and Action117

What Works A shorter and more direct variation on the theme of sharing success stories was developed by a participant in a workshop entitled “What works: pass it on!”: Each person thinks of something that lead to success and frames it in a short story beginning with the words: “What works: …” and ends after a few words with “… that works!” The next colleague follows in no particular order (or an order that is agreed upon in the team). One or two follow-up questions may be included. Each member takes several turns depending on the time available. In this way, not only individual achievements, both small and significant, can be shared in a short space of time, but also approaches, ideas and suggestions that have proved successful in one’s own work: one can expound on one’s good ideas and abilities (and in so doing, appreciate again one’s contribution to overall success) and, at the same time, inspire others in the team. Periodically, teams might want to start their meetings with a brief round of “What works” with everyone sharing at least one incident from the previous week.

Method 5: Configuring, Playing and Action Consulting usually takes place in the form of dialogue, but this doesn’t mean it can’t also be done differently. Conversation partners are often seated and do not have much opportunity to move around. Many teams enjoy getting up and stretching or simply moving around from time to time. Aside from offering some sort of playful stretching exercises during the break to raise energy levels, movement can also be introduced as part of the consulting sessions. In addition to the more traditional forms of role play, the method of sculpturing as used in the systemic approach has developed into a remarkable tool for enriching collegial consultation. Role Plays or Skits There is some ambivalence towards role plays: on the one hand role playing creates more anxiety than any other method in collegial consultation, supervision and further education. On the other hand, people are very well aware of the fun and effectiveness of this method (particular situations can be effectively relived and experimented with in a short space of time). In

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

118

Team Consultation

my opinion, the anxiety resulting from role playing situations stems from a fear of getting involved in unpredictable scenarios that are difficult to get out of (because one might feel obliged to play the role out to the end and that can take a long time). In addition, there is the fear of embarrassment because of not performing optimally and not being able to come up with the perfect solution. We would like to take the justifiable anxiety out of the situation and make this extremely useful method of collegial consulting accessible to everyone as far as possible, by introducing a few basic rules for role playing: –– They can be brief. Often two or three sentences spoken in no more than a minute are enough. –– A number of variations (five to eight) on the theme are played through within a brief time span. –– The goal is not to act out a perfect solution option but to play act as many variations as possible, each involving an idea that isn’t necessarily absolutely correct. –– Participants are allowed to opt out of the game at any time – without giving a reason: Nobody will be forced to play out the role to the end. –– Role plays may be designed with everyone’s enjoyment in mind and fun plays an integral part: Overstatement is welcome. Under the above conditions it’s much easier for many teams to build role plays into their repertoire for collegial consultation: in other words, no stage fright or fear of embarrassment. Some teams refer to such a role play as a “skit”: it is brief, uses caricatures and is (often enough) quite funny. Both the facilitator and the entire team assume important, supportive roles just as they would in most other approaches to team consultation. While the facilitator’s role is to structure and moderate the consultation, the team members’ task is to abide by the prescribed guidelines. A skit is indicated when clients have a particular situation in mind for which they need new ideas on how they might react. The same is true for future situations in which something is dreaded (“How can I react next week when my counterpart from the other department asks me to take the minutes during the support meeting once again and, knowing myself, I’ll probably not know how to say no?”), for events in the past (“Last week I didn’t know what to do when Mrs. Meinken suddenly started crying again.”) – and when it helps to be able to visualize possible ideas instead of just hearing them. Another advantage of introducing role plays or skits into the session is to loosen up the round by incorporating physical activity after people have been sitting for a long time.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 5: Configuring, Playing and Action119

The facilitator asks team members to join in and choose their roles quickly. Then she asks the client to briefly describe the situation and list the most important players, including some of their character traits (as far as is necessary: the point is not to imitate the actual people as closely as possible, but to capture what the client feels are the most important aspects). The client’s role is not filled for the time being. The facilitator asks her to repeat her question for this consultation. It’s a good idea to decide together with the client on a sentence with which to begin the role play. Based on the examples above, it might be: if the colleague in the support meeting says “Thomas, you’ll take the minutes again, won’t you? Thank you so much!”, or, in the example of the crying client, the opening line could be “I can’t go on”, before bursting into tears. The skits build on these initial prompts: One team member assumes the role of the client and the skit begins with the prompter – and the colleague acts out her version of a possible reaction. If desired, one can wait for a few more exchanges to take place – and then wrap up the role play. Without waiting for feedback, the facilitator asks another participant to act out another possible reaction. To break the ice in preparation for the role play, the facilitator can suggest bringing in “worst case scenarios” for contrast in two or three skits showing “how not to respond”. This can give the situation an additional humorous twist and encourage people to participate and contribute new ideas. In any case, the facilitator should gently persuade the group to act out a variety of different roles. As a rule, the client begins by observing. She might have her own ideas she would like to try out. She shouldn’t be pushed into joining the role play. It is alright if she simply observes and limits herself to a final comment. Once again: It is not about recreating the actual situation in detail or playacting a perfectly staged reaction. The goal is to enable participants to see, experience and imagine a variety of different approaches. The ideas presented are not meant to be particularly original or even realistic. Often, the options for action are quite banal and simply serve as reminders (“Of course! I could simply say that I don’t want to take the minutes again”, or: “Yes, I could just put my arms around her and not say anything.”). It is not unusual when we are in stressful and problematic situations to lose sight of familiar and uncomplicated solutions to problems – and for exactly that reason we tend to perceive the situation as problematical. We assume that the colleague knows how to do her work and is capable of dealing with difficult situations and withstanding the pressure involved. What she might be lacking are ideas for specific moments arising in a concrete situation – one reason for playacting different situations is to keep them in

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

120

Team Consultation

our awareness. The outcome of the action depends on the situation and the participants. It goes without saying that there is nothing left for the colleague to do but to improvise intuitively: it makes little sense to plan out a complex situation in detail with several people and to trust that it will actually proceed according to plan. We are all capable of reacting intuitively on the spur of the moment. That is something we can count on. Imitating Sculptures The use of sculptures is one of the most notable features of systemic consultation and therapy. Work with sculptures was developed by Virginia Satir, Peggy Papp, Frederick J. Duhl and others (a newer spin-off of this approach is the controversial method of “family constellations”). Basically, it involves creating “living statues”. The consultant might ask a family member to create a statue of their family to visualize the relationship between members. Family members, or in the case of a group gathering, participants are chosen to serve as “material”. The client positions her family according to the way she perceives it. She “forms” the sculpture by positioning the players in posture, body language and direction they are facing according to how she perceives them at the moment. Now she can view the image from all sides just like the other observers. The “statues” can be asked about their ideas, feelings and experiences as well as about what they would like to see changed. The client can experiment with repositioning and changing the initial sculpture. Sculpture work is unique in its intensity. By positioning individuals as living sculptures to portray particular situations and constellations, relationships and attitudes become personified. It’s possible for participants to “feel” as well as see the picture before them, experience intense feelings as they unfold and share impressions with the group afterwards. From a systemic-constructivist perspective there is also a certain danger involved: sometimes it’s believed that the family sculpture and its relationships are “real” and that the feelings expressed by the participants are those of the actual person. The emotions expressed by the stand-ins could be confused with what the real individuals truly think and feel. Participants can easily forget that they are dealing with a sculpture that was positioned by one particular person at a specific point in time according to their own inner picture and that other participants might have positioned an entirely different sculpture. Of course at any other point in time the same sculptor would have also created an entirely different picture and as a result evoked different impressions among those taking part and the observers.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 5: Configuring, Playing and Action121

Once, much to my surprise, I witnessed a colleague positioning a sculpture of his charges at an in-house facility and after asking them about their experience, was convinced that his real-life charges would respond in the same way if asked similar questions. The colleagues participating in the consultation also seemed to think that the charges were actually identical to how they were portrayed in the sculpture. This, I believe, misses the point. Perhaps their conviction, similar to the benefits some people draw from “family constellations”, offers them comfort and support because they are convinced that they will “find out” more about and be able to “come to terms” with their source family. However, in systemic team consultation the goal is not to find out about realities, but to generate new perspectives that will provide a variety of options for action. Work with sculptures can take on many different forms. Teams that work with this method may vary the form and order from time to time and sometimes a given process will depend on the facilitator’s style – as long as she continues to vary her style, it will be possible to learn about different forms of sculpture work. A basic pattern based on the following points might prove helpful: –– The facilitator asks the client to pose her question. –– After deciding on sculpturing as the preferred method (upon the facilitator’s suggestion or the client’s wish), she invites the client to expound briefly on the context of her question and encourages feedback. –– The facilitator asks the client who or what the sculpture depicts (aside from actual people, a sculpture can stand for abstract objects such as joy, illness, a specific problem or feelings) and encourages her to choose stand-ins from among the participants (or asks for participants from among the group). –– She “escorts” the client and as she sets up the sculpture (walks at her side and stands next to her) and encourages her to set up the sculpture how she wants at that moment, while paying attention to the details (“What is her body language saying? Is that okay for you like that? Change it if something else comes up. What do the arms look like? What is the angle of the head? In what direction should the sculpture be looking? What’s the mimicry saying? What is missing?”). The facilitator encourages the client to take her time and modify as necessary. –– Once the sculpture is complete, both the facilitator and the client walk around and inspect it from different angles (she may even climb onto a table with her to look at it from above). She can ask her what she notices when she studies the sculpture and if she would like to make adjustments.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

122

Team Consultation

–– The facilitator can ask other observers in the team what strikes them most, the impression they have and thoughts that cross their mind when they see this image. They too, can walk around and look at the sculpture from various angles. They might also find it interesting to see the whole thing from a distance or from on top of a table or window sill. –– The facilitator asks the individuals involved in the sculpture how they feel, what their impression is and what wishes and desires emerge. –– Returning to the client’s initial question, the facilitator asks: • what answer comes to mind when the client themself studies the statue; • in addition, what answers the colleagues come up with; • what suggestions for (minor) changes in the sculpture the stand-ins would be grateful for; • invites the participants to make minor adjustments; • invites the client to take the place of one of the stand-ins to see how it feels. –– A next step could be for the facilitator to ask another colleague to portray her view in a sculpture – and in this way provide an alternative perspective. –– The facilitator keeps track of time and makes sure that the team doesn’t get too deeply involved in both sculpturing and the consultation process. She will release the participants from their roles, thank them and –– allow the client the opportunity to give a final comment. At this point, the facilitator can emphasize that it is not about reflecting “reality” but rather a reflection (e.g. the momentary, personal perspective) of the person constructing the sculpture as well as the colleagues’ momentary, personal perspectives. By repeatedly emphasizing that other perspectives, perceptions, comments, descriptions and consequently images and feelings are just as plausible, she can ensure that the participants will not become restricted by the image but understand that the process is intended as inspiration. Roaming Circus Try separating a colleague’s consultation into different rooms. Especially when she describes her problem as multifaceted and many-leveled, could different aspects be dealt with in different rooms or floors: the entire group would move from room to room before taking on the next issue. A colleague on our team once introduced his report by informing us that his questions “actually contained three different levels”: the “difficult child” he was working with, the parents in their

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 6: The Reflecting Team123 parental role and the parents as a couple. The three levels “couldn’t actually be separated from one another”. The facilitator suggested separating them anyway and for clarity’s sake, wanted to discuss each aspect on a different floor. I’d like to mention that we didn’t have individual conference rooms on every floor at our disposal and had to huddle together in minimum space. Colleagues asked questions with reference to each aspect in a different room. Using a different approach, the team continued the consultation.

Changing locations activates the team and in so doing perhaps also stimulates thought processes. The idea behind this exercise is to illustrate that a cognitive change of perspective shifts more easily when the physical position is altered. Besides, one could have fun moving through the building together with other colleagues and be aware of curious glances from other teams and colleagues.

Method 6: The Reflecting Team The reflecting team is a method that developed from systemic family therapy and was first used particularly in this field. Its origins can be traced back in time (cf. for more detail Herwig-Lempp, 2002). Psychotherapy was originally an encounter between two individuals: the therapist and the patient. The idea of treating not only the affected person and their symptoms but including the entire family heralded the birth of family therapy. A further decisive development in psychotherapy was to invite a second therapist (for gender parity either male or female) to attend the session. Today, this approach can still be considered revolutionary in that it allowed colleagues to observe and experience each other’s work. Until this time, therapy had taken place behind closed doors in absolute privacy and could not be evaluated. The early stages in systemic work were marked by innovation and an eagerness to explore new methods and different settings. New ideas and methods were developed and often implemented straight away. Colleagues began sharing ideas and learning from each other while trainees were able to observe and learn from their mentors. One-way windows were installed in many offices so that the therapy session could be observed first hand. Soon therapists asked the observers to give feedback on what they had observed in the break prior to the final intervention. In some therapy teams, telephones were installed so that the observers could participate in an on-going session per telephone. They were now no longer observers but actually co-therapists.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

124

Team Consultation

Tom Andersen, a systemic therapist from Norway, together with his team, went one step further. The observers interrupted a therapy session and offered to report on what they had seen and contributed ideas: “If you find that idea of interest […] we suggest that you all, both the family and the doctor, remain in your seats in this room. Our equipment allows us to dim the light here in your room, and we will turn on the light in our room. So you can see us, and we can not see you anymore. We can also switch the sound so you will hear us, and we will not hear you” (Andersen, 1990, p. 27). Both the family and the therapist agreed to go along with the idea and the “reflecting team” was born: the observers discuss for several minutes what they saw and heard. They comment on the therapeutic process and develop their own ideas about how to proceed. The family and the therapist listen – and then comment (both lights and microphones are reversed again) on the feedback given by the observers. This perspective of a more detached audience behind the glass can be brought into the consultation process. Andersen and his group developed many ideas on how to use the reflective team. For instance, by acknowledging the family’s achievements at the beginning including those of its individual members, their efforts and successes, their ability to endure difficult situations with perseverance or their willingness to bring about change. Afterwards, individual observations are made (it is best to focus on what was, in fact, heard or seen not on what one assumed) from a mostly subjective point of view: “Each member of the reflecting team bears in mind all the time that there are many versions of the issues that have been discussed, and each member has his/her own version which is different from the other ones. This calls for being a bit uncertain when one speaks, ‘I am not sure …, maybe …, one could think of …’ etc.” (Andersen, 1990, p. 72 f.). This lack of certainty and conviction is also important in the phase of developing ideas and inspiration. For example, “I think the father should …” is formulated as “I wonder what would happen if the father were to …”. Furthermore, the reflective team tries hard to maintain dialogue rather than a series of monologues in an effort to build rapport. The advantages and novel aspect of reflective teams is that in addition to the perspectives of members of the therapy or consulting teams (the different clients and therapists), additional points of view from the outside add to the picture. Listening to the other team without having to immediately react creates a certain distance through which the situation can be reexperienced. New ideas come more easily when one is removed from a situation. Moreover, the observers are not obligated to react to everything they see or hear.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 6: The Reflecting Team125

The idea of a reflective team was adopted by many other teams and further developed, as evidenced by an overview of the work of Hargens and von Schlippe (1998), who brought together case studies from psychiatric facilities, schools, further education programs, consultation, therapy and supervision. Neufeldt (2003) shows how the reflecting team can benefit support processes within the scope of a youth services facility. No sophisticated therapeutic setting or technical equipment is required for this. All that is needed is a sufficiently large room where the consulting team and the reflecting team can sit apart from each other. These adjustments can also affect the number of members in the reflective team and other regulations and conditions. Reflective positions leave room for experimentation: “Reflective positions are less bound by structures and place more emphasis on ingenuity” (Hargens & von Schlippe, 1998, p. 19). One possible application for reflecting teams is found in collegial consultation. The Reflecting Team in Team Consultation The basic format of the method used by reflecting teams in team consultation is quite simple: having chosen the reflective team as a method, the group is divided into two sub-groups: the “consulting team” consisting of the client and those who interview her and the reflecting team, to which the rest of the team members belong. Both groups arrange their seats so that they are still able to see and hear each other. Alternatively, an inner and outer circle can be formed. The group whose turn it is forms the inner circle. The facilitator explains the process and timing as well as the most important rules: it is helpful if group members converse only among each other within their respective group. The observing team doesn’t intervene in the other team’s conversation. The reflecting team’s main task is to generate as many different perspectives as possible and to bring in a variety of ideas while the consulting team and especially the colleague seeking advice are free to choose what is important to them and what to comment on. The consulting team begins by asking the client about her concern. At this stage, the interviewers can only listen to the client’s story. As always in team consultation, they will enquire about concrete issues or questions. The interviewers can use the systemic solution-oriented approach (e.g. asking about how solutions were reached to date, exceptions, further resources, asking circular questions based on another’s point of view) and they can explore in more depth concrete descriptions and examples. It’s a good idea to ask one of the members of the consulting team to facilitate and keep an

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

126

Team Consultation

eye on the time. After about ten to fifteen minutes, he or she will end the interview and hand over to the reflecting team. The Process Method of the Reflecting Team –– Decision to use the reflecting team as a method –– Division into two groups: consulting team and reflecting team –– First round: the consulting team interviews the client –– Second round: the reflecting team discusses points within the team –– Third round: the consulting team interviews the client –– Final comments from the client Reflecting teams choose a facilitator who is tasked with monitoring team member’s assignments and making sure they stay within the time limit. She can suggest a defined structure to make orientation easier for team members and to encourage them to engage in dialogue: “I invite you to discuss the issue we have just heard. To start with, I would like to ask you to share your observations and comments. Please keep your advice and ideas to yourself for the moment and I will ask you for your input and recommendations later. As always, I would like to remind you that we want to develop as many different perspectives and points of view as possible.” The facilitator makes sure that a conversation ensues and that the members keep to the rules the group has agreed to. After another ten to fifteen minutes, she will close the session and hand it back to the consulting team. The consulting team will now ask the colleague seeking advice to comment on what she has heard and which topic she would like to come back to. For example, one question could be: “Which aspects of the conversation among members of the reflecting team would you like to keep in mind?” Also, the others on the team could be invited to share their impressions and reflections. After five to ten minutes this round would come to an end and the client could close the session with a final statement. It could be that an additional round is added to the third one – perhaps the client has rephrased the issue or she has another question, in which case the reflecting team comments once again and the client is given another chance to respond. Possible Rules for the Reflecting Team A verbal agreement on a few rules regarding the reflecting team can be useful. However, teams that are not very familiar with this method should

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 6: The Reflecting Team127

be reminded that the point is not to try to follow all rules simultaneously. Instead, decide together which rules you expect to follow and agree to pay particular attention to two or three of the following ideas in a consultation. These rules are merely suggestions: –– Listen carefully to the content of the discussions and the ideas expressed. Refer to what you heard and observed during the session when giving a commentary. –– Speak respectfully about the individuals you observe (also about those not present). Use language that acknowledges and values the person and avoids negative or derogatory descriptions –– Refer to the future instead of the past – to finding solutions instead of becoming mired in problems. –– Limit your comments to those of an observer: “I heard …; I observed …”; and emphasize the subjective nature of your observation (observation isn’t possible without mentioning its source: “I …”). –– As a member of the reflecting team, address only other team members. When speaking to all other participants, address them in the third person. Refrain from looking or pointing at people. –– Don’t participate in the consulting team’s discussions either verbally or via gestures or mimicry. Make the most of not having to be involved. –– Make sure you introduce new ideas and suggestions diplomatically (“Perhaps one could …”, “Maybe it would be an idea …”, “Possibly …”) and use the question form (“I ask myself what would happen if …”, “I wonder if it could also be seen in another way, that is …”). –– Make sure that, as a member of the reflecting team, you generate as many different points of view, comments and suggestions as possible. –– Have all participants take an active role in creating this diversity. Bring in opposites and contradictions: “Perhaps in contrast to …” –– Keep in mind that it’s not about “right or wrong” but about generating a variety of possible perspectives to achieve the broadest possible spectrum. –– Try to engage in conversation and dialogue with members of the reflecting team instead of resorting to monologue: in this way team members can inspire each other to come up with more commentary and creative ideas: “That reminds me …” “That gives me another idea …” If necessary, the reflecting team can consist of a single person – if no one else is available. This person can then “invent” other team members by asking herself, for example: “Assuming colleague X were sitting here with me in the reflecting team – what observations, ideas and suggestions would she contribute?” Of course it is more favorable if the reflecting team consists of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

128

Team Consultation

several members. It might be a good idea to assign tasks while observing the consulting team to provide a structure and serve as a guideline to keep track of the most important points. If one has a clearly defined task, it’s generally easier to listen and to actually remember what has been heard. For example one could set oneself the following observation tasks: –– What resources (strengths, abilities, achievements) can I observe among the participants? –– What critical issues strike me while listening – and what differences in the problem descriptions can I perceive? –– What exceptions to the problem are mentioned? –– What explanations are given? –– What solutions are offered? –– What problem-solving attempts can I recognize? Reflecting tasks can supplement the above: –– In what situations can I give which compliments? –– If I were in …’s place, what would I worry about? –– What would I be proud of in …’s situation? –– What would I ask myself if I were …? –– What suggestions/encouragement would I like to receive if I were …? –– How would significant others (relatives, friends, colleagues, clients) describe this? Of course, these lists aren’t exclusive. It’s quite possible to ask the client herself (“What do you think would be important for us as the reflecting team to be aware of, as we listen to you?”) and then to follow her advice, albeit not exclusively. Another approach is for the team to agree at the beginning, who will focus on what question in particular. Tasks can also be distributed among members. The facilitator of the reflecting team may find it useful to structure the discourse. For instance, the session could be structured as follows and the team members could be invited to comment in turn on the points mentioned below: –– Observations on the course of the conversation including content: descriptions, explanations, solutions and solution attempts, exceptions. –– Compliments to the client and members of the consulting team. –– Hypotheses on the issue or subject: possible causes, resources, future developments. –– Ideas, motivation, suggestions.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Final Statement129

As in so many other sections in this book, reading alone is not enough to understand how the exercises we’ve described here are implemented. Hence, we recommend experimenting with the methods a number of times so that you can assess both their usefulness and effectiveness.

Final Statement The colleague who raised the concern should always have the last word in a consultation. Having signaled the end of the consultation – either time is up, the task has been achieved or the issue solved – the facilitator asks the client to give a final statement, with the help of prompts such as: –– You have the last word … –– If you like, you may take the opportunity to say a few words in closing. –– You may wish to let us know how you plan to implement these ideas. I encourage keeping the final statement general and open, so as not to put the colleague under pressure to confirm that the team did a good job consulting her. I might ask: –– If you were to think back on the consultation session this evening before you go to bed – what might come to mind? –– Assuming you would want to remember something from the team consultation tomorrow, what would that be? I also refrain from asking: “Did you get anything out of this exercise?”, “Which one of these ideas will you implement?” Asking these questions is a matter of preference and also culture-specific depending on the team or the facilitator. The client may choose not to deliver a final statement and instead simply express her gratitude. Regardless of what is said in the final commentary, the subject is not addressed again in the team during this session. Sometimes the facilitator has to make sure that the subject doesn’t come up again (“I just remembered, that you could try doing the following …”). If this happens, the facilitator should make a point of intervening to put a clear stop to all further discourse on the subject. Some teams might pick up on the issue again during the coffee break while others are satisfied to put the subject to rest after the final statement. One last comment on the “success” of team consultation: if the client is satisfied with the input she received during the session and is happy with the results, then the mission has been accomplished. However, not every con-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

130

Team Consultation

sultation ends this way. Occasionally, a client may receive several answers to her initial questions but none of them prove satisfactory. Or he might realize that the issue he brought in is “actually” not the one he wanted and that he shared the “wrong” concern with the group. That happens and is part of the process. Furthermore, this is an issue that occasionally crops up in our work. In other words, clients don’t get exactly what they had hoped for (and what we would have liked to have provided but were not able to). It can be helpful not to expect to reach the goal all the time. On the other hand, perhaps it takes practice in this area to gradually learn which goals can be more realistically achieved via team consultation. “I’d like to take some time out here and make sure I’m doing everything right.” This request is justified. Team consultation, like other forms of consultation/counseling can’t guarantee that all requests will be fulfilled. It’s up to the individual to decide whether or not the consultation met with his expectations and not whether the session met high quality standards. A more realistic expectation, for example, would be to obtain “an overview of pros and cons regarding some of the options at my disposal”. Team consultation facilitates reaching this goal. Under no circumstances should one continue offering advice until the colleague sees a solution or gives up in frustration. It’s good to keep in mind that it’s not the end of the world if mistakes are made. It also makes clear that team consultation is not “absolutely necessary”: all team members are professionals and specialists, they are proficient at what they do – team consultation supplements their work and is not intended as a course in basic service provision. Anyone who feels they are unable to work without the support of supervision or team consultation or doesn’t trust others to do so, should ask him/herself (or the others) if they are suited for this line of work.

The Entire Team Consultation Session In general, several consultations within the team are conducted sequentially. In addition to those previously mentioned in the chapter on how to set up these sessions, here are a few further suggestions. The agenda, as well as the time required for discussing individual items, should be clarified in advance: first, the facilitator collects the matters that are introduced and writes them on a flipchart for everyone to see. She can ask the respective clients to indicate how much time they require or would like for the consultation. Then, together with the team, she will clarify if the time plan allows for individual issues or if contributions have to be limited.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Entire Team Consultation Session 131

Finally, members agree on an order. The facilitator will make sure that regular breaks are included in the planning – and possibly reserve the last five to ten minutes for a feedback round. How to deal with the inevitable limited time factor: we are used to setting time limits for all kinds of situations in advance, especially where scheduled appointments or clients are involved. Strangely enough however, we frequently hesitate to set a time limit in advance where collegial consultation is concerned. Here, we feel colleagues shouldn’t be under time pressure in order to grant them the latitude to reach a satisfactory conclusion. There are, however, several good reasons for setting a time limit in consultations, among them: –– To avoid getting bogged down in details team members are reminded that others in the group are seeking consultation. –– A time limit allows more than one issue to be dealt with. –– Members are more willing to participate and become involved if they know that there is an end in sight. –– An increased need to have a clearly structured and task-oriented approach – the clearer structure and limited time frame increases the probability that the task will be achieved (“I would like some ideas from you regarding …” instead of “I’d like to talk to you about my client X”). The facilitator has the self-confidence to assume this important role. The following features have been shown to provide effective orientation for facilitating teams: –– Speak loudly and clearly to set the pace and encourage a level of commitment. –– Use your hands to indicate structure. Point to the members from whom you expect a contribution. –– Be friendly and smile. Your colleagues will be more willing to participate if you create a pleasant atmosphere. –– Make requests instead of demands and clarify the purpose of your request (“Claudia would like support and advice from you. I ask all of you to help out.”) even if it seems obvious. –– Express your wish in terms of an “invitation” instead of a command (“I invite you to offer three more ideas”), and be patient. –– Thank your colleagues for their collaboration in general and for their individual contributions in particular. This encourages people to participate. –– Smile and use positive gestures – avoid putting on a poker face, from which your colleagues won’t be able to read how you are feeling. Show you are actively listening by nodding your head and smiling to encourage the speaker to continue.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

132

Team Consultation

–– Avoid judgment about quality of individual comments (participants could worry about making a “wrong” contribution which in turn could silence them all together). Instead, thank the colleague for his/her participation. These suggestions might sound somewhat unusual as the behavior recommended here may seem unfamiliar and unnatural. Initially, adapting to this new approach may feel awkward and perhaps even irritating – similar to the first few steps in a dance sequence. Germans are particularly averse to “artificial” friendliness. However, the idea here is not to pretend to be friendly but to actually put ourselves in a friendly mindset. After all, the same goes for learning a new dance step where one pretends to dance as if one could actually do it. Our feelings and our behavior are not determined by a linear-causal connection (“our feelings determine our behavior”), but rather in a circular mode – by modifying our behavior (by smiling and being particularly friendly) we can influence our feelings. Experiment with these suggestions – and then decide if they are useful to you. You might find that they serve you well in your interaction with clients.

How Does Team Consultation Work? Team consultation is by no means a panacea. It has proved successful in the forms introduced here for some teams, which doesn’t mean it has to be this way for teams in general. In instances where these methods have been successful and where they were (perhaps only partially) adopted by the team, one might ask: What makes it work? What is behind this model’s success? What principles are effective here (cf. also Wack, Dettlinger & Grothoff, 1998; Adriani, Schwalb & Wetz, 1998)? Diversity as Opposed to Uniformity Team consultation aims for diversity and multiplicity of perspectives, ideas and possibilities. The methods are geared toward finding more possibilities. This increases the number of identifiable and available options. The individual team member’s freedom to choose for him/herself on the basis of their self-determination is continually emphasized.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How Does Team Consultation Work? 133

Quantity Rather than Quality It helps to remember that the point is not necessarily to come up with brilliant ideas but to produce many different ones. The contributions offered within the team needn’t always be particularly useful or fitting. With some experience one begins to realize that even seemingly silly comments serve a purpose: they too help to broaden the scope. Only the client can judge the quality of an idea or inspiration in the end. Hypotheses Instead of Truth This is precisely the reason why it’s not about “truth”. The refusal to accept matters as truth (and consequently as “unavoidable”) clears the way for imagining the impossible, something that previously seemed unthinkable and therefore wasn’t considered. If I have a problem because I believe that satisfactory solutions are simply not possible, I won’t look for solutions (nor will I find them) until I give up the belief that the problem can’t be solved.

Structured Rather than Open It seems to me that the most important factor in team consultation, at least according to the currently accepted form of team culture, is structure. A team consultation session that is clearly structured with a time frame and agenda, for which the facilitator is responsible, enhances creativity in the group and increases the likelihood that members will actively participate. “Superficiality” vs. “Depth” One could call team consultation superficial if “superficial”, in this sense, means: being under time constraint and results-oriented rather than problem-oriented; focusing on effect rather than cause and adhering to the mandate instead of getting involved. This approach realizes that a satisfactory outcome or solution can’t be achieved every time.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

134

Team Consultation

Error-Friendly Instead of Perfectionist Team consultation doesn’t guarantee success. Not every session will succeed or bring satisfactory results. The same goes for the way in which the consultation is set up and conducted. Team consultation may include elements of playfulness, experimentation and be lightweight, which precludes perfectionism. The advantage is that work is done in a relaxed atmosphere. Error-friendly means that one can forgive (oneself and others) for mistakes or lack of success. Shorter Rather than Longer Having a structure provides the consultation with the “big picture” while keeping to the time schedule and enhancing effectiveness. Humor Instead of Unease Humor is an expression of being at ease, and each impacts on the other. It is easier to generate new ideas or try out new things in a relaxed atmosphere. As in the case of client-centered work (cf. Robinson, 1991), our sense of humor can be useful in collegial consultation, especially if the issues tend to be very serious or upsetting. The intention is not to downplay the seriousness of the situation or worse still, make fun of the issue. By allowing humor to lighten the situation, we improve our chances of a successful outcome. Hence, humor shows its value in encouraging fun, lightheartedness and humor. Work and Effort Team consultation is an integral part of the regular job and requires commitment, a willingness to “go the extra mile” where required and active participation. At times, this can be exhausting and demanding, which doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be fun. Both aspects can go hand in hand.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Limitations of Team Consultation135

The Limitations of Team Consultation Of course, team consultation is not a panacea for professionals who are unable to find a solution nor is it an all-round tool for use at different developmental stages. The actual model of team consultation as well as the individual approaches we introduce here are simply tools, the effectiveness of which only the person using them can determine, depending on the immediate situation and their indicated application. To achieve the best results, the user needs much practice in order to become thoroughly familiar with the different approaches. It goes without saying, that the user needs experience with the different methods before making an informed decision with regard to the circumstances in which they are most effectively implemented. It’s a good idea to have a range of tools to choose from and be able to adapt and improve existing tools. Systemic team consultation is not always the appropriate tool. For example, when a team member or the entire team is intent on finding out how something “really” works, on establishing the truth behind a case, on finding “a realistic description” of individuals or circumstances or determining the behavior and “underlying” cause of certain events. On the one hand, it would be presuming that this is actually possible – an assumption that a systemic perspective disagrees with. On the other hand, it would mean making a choice in some way between possible truths, which would limit the degree of personal freedom instead of creating more space and contradict the basic premise of this model. Also then, if one hoped to find a single or possibly even “the one right “solution on the basis of this model, one will meet with limitations since the basic approach aims to increase diversity rather than to limit it and to expand the scope instead of narrowing it: essentially this is the goal. If one decided on a single solution, regardless of how convinced one might be of its appropriateness, possible leeway would be limited accordingly. Of course, if we could claim that we had actually found the one right solution from an objective perspective, we could absolve ourselves of the responsibility of having “decided” in favor of one particular outcome. Then again, we could hardly speak of making a “decision”: rather, we would have been more likely simply to have “found” the solution because, seen from an objective standpoint, we wouldn’t have had a choice, merely because it should have been “the correct answer”. Heinz von Foerster hit the nail on the head: „Objectivity is the way a subject deceives itself by believing that observation can take pace in the absences of a subject. Claiming objectivity is the refusal to take responsibility—hence its attractiveness“ (cf. Glasersfeld, 1992, p. 3).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

136

Team Consultation

As long as I don’t adhere to an objective set of facts that “leave me no other choice” but to act in the way I do, I have to take responsibility for my decisions. However, my latitude increases the more I realize that I’m the one who chooses between the different options – and not “the truth”. The goal in team consultation is to make sure that responsibility remains with the colleague who is being counseled, which means that neither her supervisors nor her colleagues take on this responsibility: the decision is entirely hers. Whenever supervisors limit the available options or the team decides what’s going to happen, we are no longer dealing with collegial consultation but with collegial or team decision-making. It goes without saying that such decisions are necessary just as supervisors occasionally reject certain employee decisions in order to steer the subject in another direction. It is important to make a clear distinction between these aspects from the beginning: What degree of latitude is each employee granted with respect to decision-making and at what point do teams or supervisors have the right to assume the last word in the matter? Team consultation, after all, is not intended to replace supervision. Supervision is a form of reflection common in the psychosocial field and therefore, like team consultation, another tool for safeguarding quality assurance. Generally, an external supervisor visits the team at regular intervals to discuss current issues and concerns. From the outside, there appear to be similarities with collegial consultation. However, there are considerable differences: during team consultation the team works as a unit and relies on the means at their disposal and the members’ resources to develop new ideas and approaches to problem-solving. Bringing in an external supervisor means introducing a new entity into the team and offering a fresh perspective with a different store of experience and knowledge as well as another facilitation style. By definition, team consultation cannot provide this fresh external perspective. (However, the supervisor’s fresh, external perspective remains only as long as she doesn’t work with the team on a regular basis. It’s a good idea to agree from the start that she will be replaced after ten or at the most twenty sessions in order to maintain the effect.) Team consultation seems to be more cost-effective than supervision, by saving on the cost of the supervisor. On the other hand, collegial consultation is not as cost-effective as it may seem as soon as one begins including the employees’ hourly fees. Both team consultation and supervision have their price – but then again, quality has its price. Team consultation and supervision are important tools for reflection – albeit not the only ones. Regular participation in continuing education programs and professional symposiums, as well as a stock of current professional

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation137

literature (subscriptions to several key magazines and regular purchases of current publications could make up the standard inventory of an institution), and also brief or lengthier appraisals (e.g. asking for third party opinions from clients on how they assess the institution’s services and teamwork). These points are all forms of quality assurance that comprise a team’s or an institution’s core responsibility in addition to their regular work.

Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation It goes without saying that the models of collegial consultation introduced here are not the only conceivable forms of collegial consultation. There is a range of literature available that develops methodical approaches suitable to collegial reflection (aside from which we could discover many more proven albeit unpublished sources in practical application!). These range all the way from specific methods of collegial consultation in psychosocial fields to more creative techniques. Naturally the one right method or perfect model doesn’t exist. The approaches mentioned here are best considered as tools that may come in useful provided one has had some previous experience and skill in their use in order to predict the impact they are likely to have. I’d like to briefly outline a few suggestions. Instead of focusing exclusively on systemic approaches, I would like to include models from other schools of thought. The proposals I’d like to discuss are somewhat complex. A clear structure (often together with a strict time schedule) provides the framework. The framework constitutes a valuable support not only for the facilitator but for the team as a whole and the members are aware of the procedure. The structure’s transparency offers guidance and orientation and contributes to a sense of confidence of being on track and handling the consultation – possibly even successfully. The entire team is not always involved in the consultation. At times it is more in the hands of the facilitator and the colleague seeking advice (client). The other colleagues, however, are likely to benefit from observing the session by gaining new insights and ideas: as observers, colleagues can follow the question and answer sequences and concentrate more on the consultation process when it is conducted by the facilitator and they are not directly involved. Observing from a distance sheds a new light on similar “cases” that members might have. Some teams prefer more detailed and intricately structured models to the shorter versions that are sometimes perceived as being too superficial.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

138

Team Consultation

Other teams like to vary approaches to collegial consultation and feel confident enough to experiment with different methods and come up with their own approach. Collegial Consultation According to Heinrich Fallner and Hans-Martin Grässlin Fallner and Grässlin (1989) refer to their model of collegial consultation sequences as “a systematic approach to reflection of the work day” consisting of fifteen steps and six phases. The course of action is clearly structured by means of prescribed actions and tasks including who speaks when about what and when silence is called for. It is important to have a facilitator to guide the team through the structure and make sure everyone knows where they stand at any one time and what task is expected of whom. A significant strength is certainly the calmness and depth created by the time factor – according to this suggested method, a consultation lasts approximately ninety minutes. The alternating phases of silence and concentration create a more relaxed atmosphere. Phase I: Opening and Beginning (approx. 5 minutes)   1. The consultation begins with attributing roles: Who will offer a situation that the group can reflect upon (this is the “case contributor”) – and who is responsible for facilitating reflection/discussion? Phase II: Illustration and Orientation (approx. 15 minutes)   2. The case contributor briefly outlines the situation that he wishes to work on and explains what is particularly important to him in the collegial consultation. The others listen.   3. The reflection facilitator invites participants to ask questions: “I am not quite clear about …”, the case contributor answers these questions. Phase III: Observing and Expanding (approx. 20 minutes)   4. The participants remain silent and reflect on what has been said.   5. The reflection facilitator asks the participants for “no holds barred” (i.e. without inner censorship) brief associative ideas, thoughts, and keywords. The contributor listens.   6. The contributor highlights what caught his attention, what strikes him as a challenge and shares the associations he would prefer to avoid. The others listen (this might generate a brief discussion).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation139

Phase IV: Differentiating and Judging (approx. 30 minutes)   7. Now follows a brief period of silence and concentration.   8. The contributor gives a brief statement: what has been changed by the way the questions have been put, what has been undermined or consolidated. The others listen.   9. Participants give their statements that include judgment, hypotheses or ideas on how to solve the issue: “I see it this way …” At this point it might become evident that specified information is missing. This can be resolved straight away or provided later. 10. The contributor comments on the points that caught his attention. The participants listen (at this point a brief discussion may ensue). Phase V: Deciding and Translating (approx. 15 minutes) 11. This phase also begins with a few moments of silence and concentration. 12. The contributor starts with the following statements: “I intend to …”, “For me the outcome was …”. The participants listen. 13. The participants share their learning experiences: “From the example you set, I learned …,” “Today I’ll take … with me”, “For my day-to-day work I learned …” Phase VI: Wrapping up and Ending (approx. 5 minutes) 14. Final comment by the contributor: “What resonated with me: …”, “What was less helpful, what was more helpful …” 15. A brief feedback round on the previous session. Case Discussion and Collegial Consultation According to Lilo Schmitz In her book, “Lösungsorientierte Gesprächsführung” (Solution-oriented Facilitating, 2002), Lilo Schmitz introduces training building blocks for academic curricula, practical training and collegial consultation groups. She offers a range of exercises in her training workshops to familiarize participants with approaches such as reframing, complimenting (“honest praise”), results-oriented questions, scaled questions, the miracle question, tasks and experiments. In addition, she introduces a model for case discussion and collegial consultation (Schmitz, 2002, p. 110–115), in which she integrates an entire range of results-oriented methods. In this way she manages to exploit the methods that have proved useful in consultation with clients and carry them over into collegial consultation. At the same time, she has developed a real-time training curriculum for these methods instead of improvised role

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

140

Team Consultation

playing sequences and addresses authentic questions and issues involving real people. They, in turn, have the chance to see how these methods affect clients. The consultation is moderated by a colleague who gives a brief overview of the twelve steps involved in the approach. The consultation lasts approximately sixty minutes and is divided up into interview and feedback phases. The Interview Phase   1. A team member introduces an issue within a time frame of five to ten minutes. This model imposes a time limit in order to focus on casebased questions.   2. The facilitator enquires about the aim of the case discussion: What does the client want? Does she only want to talk or does she expect to receive a range of options for possible solutions? Or does she want something completely different?   3. The facilitator asks the miracle question: “So that we can get a better grasp on what you want from this case, try to imagine the following scenario (pause): “Next weekend (pause), while enjoying your day off (pause), a miracle occurs (pause). All the current anxiety you are experiencing dissipates (pause) and all is back in order again (pause) just like you always wanted it to be (pause), just perfect (pause). How would you notice upon waking up on Monday morning that a miracle had occurred? And what would your situation look like in a month’s time or later?” “And what else would have changed about the situation?”   4. The facilitator continues asking questions: “On a scale of one to ten, where ten stands for the miracle and the ideal case and zero stands for the worst day you’ve had since the case began (pause). Where on the scale from zero to ten would you rate the situation today? What rating would you be satisfied with?”   5. The facilitator continues to ask: “Who else (aside from yourself) helped to reach (x) instead of 0?” In these cases, as with the following ones, neither the facilitator nor the colleagues should offer “helpful” explanations or suggestions on how to answer. Instead, the client should be allowed enough time to come up with her own answers.   6. The moderator continues: “Which positive turn of events helped to change the situation from (x) to 0?”   7. The facilitator probes further: “What did you actually do to move the situation from (x) to 0?”   8. Again the facilitator asks: “What part did the client have in changing the situation from (x) to 0?”   9. At this point all participants are allowed to ask information-finding questions using a talking stone, a Native American tradition in which a stone

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation141

is passed from speaker to speaker. The person holding the stone may but is not obligated to ask a question. In the case of open questions or questions containing hidden advice, the facilitator asks the group to save these until later. After a maximum of 45 minutes (from the start of the session) the facilitator closes the session and leads into the Feedback Phase 10. The facilitator asks all members of the consultation group (herself included) to come up with at least one sincere compliment for the colleague who presented the case. Don’t worry about repetition! 11. The facilitator asks the members of the consultation group to come up with a variety of tips, prompts or advice that they can think of. This input is not discussed. The facilitator should also ask the client who has presented the case not to judge any advice received or to respond to it. Ideally, this will be done through a “results-oriented” framework: “Many of us have now generated tips and advice that we find useful. However, we assume that these aren’t necessarily useful for you and will therefore refrain from discussing them. Just listen and note down those elements you like or might want to think about later.” 12. The moderator asks the colleague for brief feedback (here too without judging the team’s suggestions) and thanks the entire group. A Model for Case Discussions According to Ralf Connemann and Barbara Kubesch Connemann and Kubesch introduce a model of case discussion for teacher teams and supervision sessions based on the model of reflecting teams (Connemann & Kubesch, 1991; Connemann, 1998), which could also be used for larger teams (up to 15 participants). It would, of course, help if the team is already familiar with reflecting teams. On the other hand, a case discussion in this form can be used to become acquainted with reflective teams before using it in work with clients The model is unusual because that part of the consultation takes place in small groups. This approach encourages active participation and enhances participant cohesion. Moreover, the (results-oriented, systemic) interview questions can be discussed in the group while all members are involved in the planning. Another bonus is the fact that it offers additional practice with the method. Naturally, a prerequisite is that the sessions are facilitated.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

142

Team Consultation

Plenum   1. Problem round: All interested participants present their case. One problem is selected for discussion.   2. The person seeking advice states his case and prepares the question format as precisely as possible. Small Groups   3. Two small sub-groups are formed to prepare the discussion with the person seeking advice. During the session the focus is on imaginary scenarios, ideas relevant to the case and “results-oriented” hypotheses. After a number of possible interview questions have been generated, each sub-group chooses an interviewer and two to three members for the reflecting team. The remaining participants play the part of observer. Plenum   4. The first interview takes place in the full group and is conducted by the interviewer in sub-group A.   5. The reflecting team of sub-group B comments on this discourse. Other participants continue listening.   6. The interviewer in sub-group B begins his interview with the person seeking advice to find out what effect the words he heard and said had on him. He proceeds to pose the same questions to group B.   7. The reflecting team of sub-group A comments on this discourse but can also refer to the previous interview.   8. Those outside observers (except for those in the sub-group) who were not involved in the process provide feedback on what they observed.   9. The Moderator invites the interviewer to a short feedback session. 10. The person seeking advice ends the consultation with closing reflections. Where interview questions referring to descriptions, explanations and hypothetical developments are concerned, Connemann and Kubesch suggest concentrating on the perspective of those involved in the issue as well as on the “classic” results-oriented miracle, scaling, exceptions and as-if questions. They note (as is to be expected) that teams for whom these questions are new, develop “increased creativity in generating interview questions” (Connemann & Kubesch, 1991, p. 132). Connemann (1998) informs us later that over time, as they gained more experience with the approach, questions became more succinct and the overall number of interview questions was reduced. Furthermore, the sec-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 7: Additional Models of Collegial Consultation143

ond interview phase is frequently eliminated as the reflecting team begins to focus more on non-verbal aspects, the use of metaphors and new ideas and is more prone to relying on imagination and sharing thoughts. In total, the previous 90-minute discussion session was conducted in half the time. Supervision Waltz by Andrea Ebbecke-Nohlen Ebbecke-Nohlen (1999) introduces the “supervision waltz” into collegial consultation, which is particularly useful if teams are small or if two colleagues meet in passing, with little time to spare. “The waltz is a method of short-term supervision. The time required ranges from five to ten minutes – about as long as a waltz melody takes. The supervision waltz is most effective when there is little time to resolve an issue and get results. It’s a form of radical simplification and merciless resource orientation. We completely forego questions pertaining to content” (Ebbecke-Nohlen, 1999, p. 263 f.). The entire structure of this short-term consultation consists of three questions or “dance steps”. Three Dance Steps toward New Ideas What is your question? What do you need to be able to answer your question? Do you have an intuitive hunch of what might solve the issue? Learning the waltz is no easy task and requires considerable practice. The first few times, the steps may be cumbersome and awkward, it’s important to keep count, be careful not to trip or step on one’s partner’s toes. The brief discourse is structured by these three questions. If required, further questions can be asked without digressing from the basic structure (“What do you mean by …?” “What else could be useful for you?” “How would you improvise on the spur of the moment if you could?” “What else does your intuition tell you?” “How could it be followed up?”). Resource orientation can be “merciless” in that the consultant trusts the client to generate her own ideas for solving an issue and the consultant’s role is to merely ask key questions (in the appropriate tone of voice) to elicit a response. This approach allows the consultant to resonate with the client’s response (and makes sure that she stays in the consultant role instead of thinking up ways of how to solve the issue).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

144

Team Consultation

Method 8: Self-Consultation “Come, there’s no use in crying like that!” said Alice to herself, rather sharply; “I advise you to leave off this minute!” She generally gave herself very good advice, (though she very seldom followed it), and sometimes she scolded herself so severely as to bring tears into her eyes; and once she remembered trying to box her own ears for having cheated herself in a game of croquet she was playing against herself, for this curious child was very fond of pretending to be two people. Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, 1994, p. 19

You might ask yourself how big the teams have to be in order for the consultation to be effective, a question I personally believe to be of little use. It would be of more help to rephrase the question: How can we design our collegial consultation in a way that allows us to implement the principles of team consultation most effectively? Small teams might worry about reaching their limits fairly quickly. The smallest team consists of at least two people and the smallest team of all consists of a single person. A number of employees in the field of social work consider themselves to be “lone wolves” or “one-man” and “one-woman” teams. What happens to the idea of collegial consultation in these cases? Or, to ask the question in a different way: Is it possible for me to act as my own counsel? Will I be able to develop diversity and increase options for possible action (in line with Heinz von Foerster’s “ethical imperative”), on my own? The question can obviously be answered in the affirmative, anything else would be denying the resources at our disposal. This is, after all, how we negotiate daily life (not only at work) when we respond spontaneously and intuitively time after time in our actions and reactions. A more appropriate question would inquire about what possibilities there are to self-consult in a structured and “collegial” way. According to official sources, “collegial” refers not only to a measure enacted by a council or committee but to “a friendly, helpful manner”. When an individual is collegial, he or she acts in a friendly and helpful way towards others. But why shouldn’t we treat ourselves well and think of ourselves as a colleague? That sounds somewhat like “pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps”. Perhaps systemic self-consultation isn’t indicated so much for the really “big” issues – especially if one has little experience in that area. On the other hand, it happens often enough that one is left alone to work out work-related issues regardless of whether or not a team is present to assist. So why not try self-consultation with the help of systemic methods to find out if it helps to broaden your perspective and options for action?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 8: Self-Consultation145

The advantage of self-consultation is that it can be done anywhere and at any time: on the bus, while shopping, during a boring meeting or a sleepless night. The disadvantage, on the other hand, is that you have to force yourself to proceed in a systematic and structured way. This may not be an easy task if one is momentarily at a loss about how to begin and hasn’t quite got the confidence in one’s own ability. Under such circumstances, collegial self-consultation is particularly difficult. In other words: Self-consultation is not as easy as it sounds! Learning from Myself I can summon my own strengths and abilities, my previous experiences and skills – especially at times when I feel I might not have any abilities at all. We assume, after all, on the basis of a systemic, results-oriented approach, that our clients have the necessary knowledge to reach satisfactory results as well as the behavioral options at their disposal, regardless of whether they are children, adolescents or adults. In this case, the issue is about whether we can access our psycho-social competence regardless of whether we are social workers, consultants, therapists, preschool teachers, psychologists, nurses or physicians. We might have difficulties with a certain problem or with formulating an appropriate question simply because we are at a loss for ideas. In this case we can ask ourselves: Assuming a client confronted me (during a consultation, in the hallway or in passing) and described his problem to me: Would I know how to handle the situation? Trust in your professional savvy to know that you wouldn’t run away in panic or suddenly lose your voice but would react in a well-reflected or intuitive way in the assumption that your response will prove useful. Don’t spend too much time thinking about the answer to this question. Trust in your first impulse: perhaps you would listen to the whole thing in peace and quiet, perhaps you would suggest to the client to seek help at an appropriate place, perhaps you would suggest a new appointment, perhaps you would pose some results-oriented questions. Perhaps you would give the client advice (what kind of advice?), or perhaps you would try to generate hypotheses together, ask about possibilities or ask how they could exacerbate the situation. Perhaps you would encourage the client to take a break in view of the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

146

Team Consultation

difficult dilemma they are in and reward themselves for having withstood all the pressure, as well as for all the energy they have put into their efforts – and so on … Whatever you come up with: try it out on yourself first. Trust in your professional experience and take a chance – in all likelihood you will be right on target! Mind Jogging or a “Lonely Cross-Country Run” Mind jogging or the process of collecting many different hypotheses, compliments, ideas for exacerbation or pieces of advice doesn’t necessarily require the help of one’s colleagues (even if it is easier if done with someone else most of the time). It’s quite possible to do the collecting yourself. All it takes is a piece of paper and a few minutes of your time. Choose a question pertaining to your everyday work and write it down spontaneously and decide if you want to collect hypotheses, advice and compliments based on it (if necessary, you can reformulate the question). Assign yourself the task of generating at least twenty answers within twenty minutes. You will be surprised at how many different answers you come up with as soon as you challenge yourself. Let what you wrote down settle for a few hours or even an entire day and then see if you can pick up at one point or another. These circumstances and answers could prompt a lonely run through the woods: –– Ten compliments, for both my client and myself regarding our last meeting. –– How could I deal with Mr. Turmer’s rudeness at our last group meeting the next time we meet (20 “first sentences”)? –– What will the Berg family’s situation look like a year from now (20 different scenarios in one to three key words)? –– How could I contribute to the group becoming even more restless than it already is? –– What explanations come to mind for Mr. Adler’s relapse? –– How can I react in view of my suspicion that criminal behavior is at work here? For questions involving decision-making (“Should I broach this subject?”), the mind jogging exercise can be modified and the person tasked with generating at least twenty claims for each of the options. Fold the paper in half and write one of the claims at the top of each half. Then write a claim on each side in alternating order. It helps to either set yourself a ten to fifteen minute time limit or aim to generate a simply impossible number of claims.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 8: Self-Consultation147

The point here is to fool yourself and actually exceed the number of claims that you normally come up with. The Imaginary Council I can create my own imaginary collegial consultation group by conjuring up former colleagues or role models or, for that matter, I can create entirely new (and presumably) ideal colleagues. These “imaginary colleagues” will then serve as my counsel and sounding board as I direct circular questions about and to them using the following questions: –– Who comes to mind when I imagine who would be sure to handle the situation brilliantly? And what would this person do in my place? –– Which one of my colleagues would I trust most to handle this situation successfully – and how would it go? –– What advice might my role model colleague give me? –– What tips might other colleagues give me? –– What would my colleagues notice about the situation that I’m probably not aware of? –– What other ideas might they be able to offer? –– What might my other colleagues do at this point? Individuals who are adept at asking circular questions could take this a step further: –– Assuming I were to ask colleague X how colleague Y would behave in this situation: What would her answer be? –– Assuming a colleague would describe this situation to me, what advice and/or recommendations would I give her? Asking Myself the Miracle Question Of course you can also ask yourself all kinds of results-oriented questions. (For example you could use lists of questions from books or from the exercises you received in former systemic training workshops, highlight a few of the questions and answer them for yourself later.) One of these questions, if skillfully formulated, can generate many more questions in its wake, this is the so-called miracle question: Imagine that while asleep tonight, a miracle occurs and a problem that you have been tormenting yourself with has suddenly been solved. Because you were sleeping, you weren’t aware that a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

148

Team Consultation

miracle had occurred. How will you know upon waking that the problem no longer exists? What are the first telltale signs? What other signs might you notice? Any others? (cf. Berg, 1994, p. 97 ff.). The point here is to ask the person to describe the “resolved situation” as precisely as possible: asking these questions opens up the field and makes room for more descriptive details until the solution is gradually revealed from the perspective of the person asking for guidance. The therapist’s main task is to lure out the information so that the client realizes that her “miracle is actually taking place” (Berg, 1994, p. 93). Following on from this one can find out what changes can be made without the help of a miracle and the steps required to bring it about. Assume for a moment that you have set yourself the task of writing a detailed report. You keep procrastinating and resist getting to work on it. Here, you could counsel yourself by generating as many detailed answers as possible to the question: “Imagine that a miracle would occur overnight where you see yourself getting to work on the report and completing it with ease. Because I was sleeping, I wouldn’t have been aware that the miracle occurred. How could I tell upon waking up the next morning that the miracle had actually occurred?” Ask yourself in as much detail as possible: How would you know what had happened upon waking, during breakfast, on the way to work? How would you actually begin writing the report? – Where would you be writing it? – And at what time would you actually start on it? – How would you organize your workspace? – How would you be sitting? – What would both your internal and external attitude be like as you get to work on the report? – When would you take a break? – How would you reward yourself upon finishing? Don’t forget to assume that the miracle will simply happen.   In a second step, you can consider which of the observations you made following the miracle could be implemented without the help of a miracle. For example, the place you choose to work, the time you begin to work, the way in which you arrange your workspace, the external or internal attitude you might experiment with. In short: You might also pretend that the miracle has already occurred based on the answers to the questions you have already asked yourself. Although you might not actually be waving a magic wand, it would prompt you to get to work on the report and even survive the process without suffering much harm.

The Mandate Carousel According to Arist von Schlippe Arist von Schlippe (1996; by von Schlippe & Schweitzer, 1996, p. 238 ff.) introduces the idea of a mandate carousel, a method of self-counseling or, in his words, self-supervision. This approach is particularly helpful when a myriad of open, hidden or possibly contradictory mandates threaten to hinder or even “paralyze” progress. Make sure you have enough time and find a quiet room. Conjure up all the people that you consider important to you and assign them a chair that

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Method 8: Self-Consultation149

you have marked with their name. You can choose a broad range of possible participants. Aside from the individuals involved in the actual situation, you can include “internal representatives” such as your strict grandmother or your loving father who may be important to you at this stage. Von Schlippe goes on to point out that other helpful individuals such as a partner who says: “Regardless of how you solve the situation, I still love you!”, as well as oneself and one’s own resources that have helped deal with problems in the past should be assigned a chair. Next, move from one chair to the next, taking on the perspective of each person represented in the position. Identify for a moment with the person by trying to view the problem from their perspective. End this “identification” exercise by asking the person to formulate a clear mandate for you: “Make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen again!” – “Help me defend myself!” – “Talk to X!” – “Stay calm.” You might want to add the mandate to the name card. Now that you have developed quite a complex network of tasks to fulfill, the idea is to structure the complexity in a way that allows you to take action. Find your own chair now and confront each “person” with your task. Think about the extent to which you can and, for that matter, are prepared to fulfill the mandate, want to reject or renegotiate it. Next, say what you feel: “I can’t accept this task in its present form but I can offer you this or that instead.” One can turn down a mandate provided one is aware of what that entails. Under such circumstances it can be negotiated. I find that with my own mandates, such an overview helps to sort out matters and to deal with situations. Sometimes one discovers that individual mandates need to be renegotiated or at least reconfirmed with respect to the expectations of the mandate and the clients’ perspectives. Feedback: Does Self-Counseling Really Work? Perhaps you have already experimented with one or the other approach to self-counseling. Take a few minutes – as you would do in a team – to reflect on the experience: How was that? How did I do that? How did it help me? What should I have done differently? Do I want to keep this in mind? There is no guarantee of success in self-counseling – just as there is no guarantee for the success of team consultation or our client counseling. On the other hand, the chances that we can help ourselves through self-counseling aren’t bad. After all, isn’t that what we generally do when we are confronted with questions or problems at work or in our personal lives? We are

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

150

Team Consultation

usually able to solve these problems without too much effort, which leads me to believe that counseling ourselves was helpful in finding a solution. In any case, there is no harm in experimenting with this approach. In this respect, the methods introduced here serve to expand our repertoire of possibilities of how to counsel ourselves and are not an entirely new approach. The advantage in broadening our range of options is that we can make it a point from time to time to try out the methods we use with clients on ourselves. We might even follow our own advice – if we bothered to ask ourselves.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Team Organization

Organizing a Team Meeting Team consultation is an organized and structured form of team meeting. In this chapter we will explore ways for teams to coordinate consultations and official meetings to optimize effective collaboration. Although you may already be familiar with some aspects mentioned, you may want to experiment with new options in your own teams. Structure provides a sensible framework and has proved useful in our work. The rules should be clear and team members thoroughly familiar with them: for example, the teams have a facilitator, a time frame, an agenda. They should commit to either mandatory or voluntary participation and decide if beverages and food are allowed during meetings. Ideally, members have agreed to the rules or, in the case of controversy, have at least reached a consensus. This includes deciding against fixed rules (“neither a facilitator nor an agenda”). This too constitutes a rule. Rules and structures are not right or wrong in themselves. Ideally, they can be considered as tools that can be adapted as needed or varied from time to time so that they don’t become inflexible and rigid. Some teams modify their organizational structure on a regular basis in order to remain flexible and create more space for other options. In other words, the duration, frequency as well as methodology of collegial consultation can be periodically varied. Perhaps some of the members would like to snack during the meeting while others are bothered by it. In this case, the rule could be changed every six months to appease all the members. Acknowledging different interests as well as flexibility in dealing with self-imposed rules can improve the working environment and contribute to team collaboration. Ultimately, the quality of teamwork is enhanced. In addition to team consultations, this chapter explores the nature of team meetings in both official and other settings.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

152

Team Organization

The Facilitator A key factor for the success of team consultation, particularly in team meetings, is structure. As a rule, the more structure, the more effective the meeting will be. Effectiveness refers to the successful outcome or the quality of results while efficiency refers to the cost-benefit ratio. Teams can be measured against both of these factors to determine ways to improve and can be viewed from several perspectives: the team members’, the sponsors’ or employers’. Meetings that are experienced as a waste of time are more problematic for employees who are directly involved than for employers or supervisors. An essential ingredient of a successful structure is a facilitator who can count on the support of pro-active and committed team members. Many, especially smaller teams, are content to hold meetings without the guidance of a facilitator. They might feel that working under the guidance of a facilitator amounts to a lack of confidence in the team: “There are only a few of us. We don’t need that.” Perhaps they fear inequality developing among members. Basically the following applies: all teams that are happy and successful with the way they collaborate shouldn’t change things. Simply said: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! A facilitator (team leader, moderator) is the person who has been granted the mandate by the team to coordinate the meeting for one or more sessions. Once the group agrees (perhaps to begin with on a trial basis) to work with a facilitator, the group delegates this task to a team member. The team assigns tasks to the facilitator that it previously accomplished on its own (potentially unaware of how exhausting this can be for a group as a whole): Setting the agenda (“Shall we discuss our next group meeting? It’s urgent.”), determining the speaking order (“I’d like to add something to that!”), winding up an agenda item (“We’ve been discussing this item for some time now …”), summarizing results (“… and we still haven’t reached a conclusion.”), writing the minutes and concluding the meeting (“We’ve gone twenty minutes over the time and I’m afraid I have to leave now.”). Considerable effort goes into continually renegotiating these issues to include everyone’s interests if they haven’t been agreed upon in advance. As a result, members are often not motivated to attend team meetings. The team chooses a facilitator to structure the meeting. This ensures that the role is not assumed for the purpose of personal aggrandizement or “power mongering”. Instead, the facilitator’s role is to serve the team effort. The team gives them permission to introduce rules (“We establish the order of speakers.” “No one will speak longer than three minutes.”), to suggest arrangements (“We will discuss the two drafts for the new flyer and then take a majority vote, okay?”), and to ensure that the rules are enforced (“Excuse

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Facilitator 153

me, but Anne and Mary asked to speak before you did.” “The allotted time is over and we need to wrap things up.”). The facilitator has the mandate and permission to act as the team’s representative in managing these assignments. These tasks are not always easy, a reason why many members are reluctant to volunteer. In some teams, the team leader or a supervisor agree to be in charge because they feel obligated to do so and other team members are only too happy to delegate the task. In contrast, assigning the task to a different member at each team meeting and giving each person a chance to participate has proven effective. A number of reasons support the approach of rotating facilitation responsibilities to allow or obligate each member to take on the task from time to time. –– Each member’s resources are utilized and, needless to say, any team member is capable of leading a meeting. –– Each member can bring in their ability and their individual style. –– Different facilitation styles surface and broaden the range of possible options for taking action (one can copy things from colleagues). –– Everyone gets a chance to learn and to develop additional skills. –– Each member learns first-hand about the tasks, possibilities and the difficulties involved in facilitation. –– Having had the experience, everyone begins to realize how much the facilitator depends on the active support of team members. –– Each member is given the opportunity to enhance their facilitation skills, (which are required in client consultation as well as in support conferences or meetings with colleagues from other facilities. –– The task (and perhaps what appears to be an additional responsibility) is equally distributed. Seen from a long-term perspective, all team members contribute their share in completing a task. There are other arguments for the system of rotating: basically every professional in the field, whether social worker, psychologist, preschool teacher, teacher or physician, regularly facilitates sessions (even if they are unaware of it) either in groups, one-to-one with colleagues or clients, or in support conferences. This means that they have had previous facilitation experience, which they can now use and enhance. Teams who have not worked with an appointed facilitator to date and are interested in trying it out might begin by having members volunteer for the task as a first step. Incidentally, quite a few colleagues are eager to take on the role of facilitator once they have overcome their inhibitions about admitting this openly to the group. They see it as a chance to practice and to gain experience by taking on new challenges.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

154

Team Organization

Some teams keep a list of how often who performs what tasks and make sure that all of them are performed at regular intervals by different members throughout the year. Other teams delegate responsibility in alphabetical order and still others are more lax as long as there are members who agree to facilitate, take the minutes and perform other necessary tasks. Regardless of whether tasks are distributed equally among team members, the important aspect is that the team is satisfied. The Team Meeting Process –– Opening the meeting – welcoming, delegating tasks (who facilitates, who takes the minutes, who keeps track of time) –– Deciding on an agenda, the order in which items are to be discussed, time frame (breaks, feedback sessions, allowing space) –– Conducting the meeting –– Break, perhaps some ice breaker games –– Continuation –– Summary of results, planning the next meeting –– Feedback

The Facilitator’s Responsibility The facilitator or moderator is responsible for the following tasks: –– Preparing the meeting: Setting the agenda, procuring information and background material, preparing the setting. –– Opening the meeting: The facilitator opens the meeting by welcoming all present, introducing herself as the facilitator and making sure that all peripheral tasks are assigned (minute taking, keeping track of time etc.). –– Setting the agenda: What items are to be discussed, what items were announced earlier and which ones are new? In what order should the items be discussed? How much time should be planned for what item? At what point should we plan a break? When will we wrap up the meeting? –– Discussing the previous minutes: Perhaps changes in the minutes need to be clarified or particular items require further information and decisions (as long as this isn’t a separate item). At this point, the group can be asked to give brief feedback: What is good about the feedback and what can be included in the future? –– Each item on the agenda: • Determining the tasks at the outset of the agenda (in agreement with the

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

The Facilitator’s Responsibility155

• • • • •

person who addressed it: “inform/consult/decide” – is the point here to inform each other, to consult or to decide something? If the information is intended as just that without further discussion, then one can interrupt any longer discourse on the subject. If a decision needs to be made without laying out the previous lengthy discussions, one can remind the group that they need to focus on the decision. If a member asked for consultation, then one can block any attempts to initiate a team decision. Reminding members to adhere to the time schedule (“We’ve allotted ten minutes to this item.”). Maintaining a speaker’s list. Watching the time: are speakers adhering to the time frame? How can one make sure that the group complies? Summarizing results (for the minutes) and, in the case of a team consultation, a closing statement given by the consulting colleague and a word of thanks for the contributions and commitment shown by the team. Ending the discussion on item one and making a clear transition to the next point (“We will end our discussion here and move on to the next item.”). In case someone should interject: (“Oh, wait a minute, I just thought of something else …”), the person should be asked very clearly and politely to withhold further comment.

Different Types of Concerns Arising in a Team Meeting The purpose underlying an item on the agenda can be clarified in advance: is the purpose to inform, to counsel or to make a decision? The person who brought up the concern is equally as important. Informing –– informing and informing oneself –– discussing, sharing opinions and positions –– further learning Counseling (→ team consultation) –– developing ideas –– practicing, experimenting –– supporting individual members’ decision-making process Decision making –– decisions made within the team –– delegating decisions to the responsible individuals

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

156

Team Organization

–– Ensuring that breaks are planned in and a reminder to reconvene on time (“We will take a 15-minute break and I ask everyone to return on time. After the break we’ll continue with item …”). Participants could also be encouraged to move around or play a game. –– Monitoring the team’s level of motivation and team progress: If things seem to be getting uncomfortable or there isn’t enough time, it may be necessary to redefine procedures: Is there a need to change the agenda or include an item? Do we need more break time? Should we reduce meeting time? –– Closing the meeting: What aspects of the meeting outcome do we want to take up? What items are left for the upcoming meeting (keep a record of topics)? Who will be responsible for facilitating, taking the minutes and keeping time at the next meeting? –– Feedback: What can we learn from the way the meeting was set up – from the facilitator’s perspective as well as that of the team members? Where were we successful? Where can we improve the next time? Closing the meeting, saying goodbye (“That was it for today. Thank you all for attending!”). Tasks aren’t automatically assigned. Discuss with team members what tasks should be the facilitator’s responsibility, where it makes no difference and what tasks can be assumed by team members. Ultimately, the facilitator is responsible for keeping track and delegating tasks. Discussing the tasks openly helps to clarify them and focuses the facilitator’s attention. The facilitator can depend on the team to accept her leadership role in adhering to the list of speakers and allotted speaking time and insisting on completing an item before moving on to the next. A good facilitator will always include the team in the decision-making process and not forge ahead on her own: Commitment is greater if one is involved in the decision-making process from the start.

Facilitating Is Hard Work – Some Tips Not everyone feels comfortable with facilitating at the beginning: the position involves responsibility within the team, one is expected to be on top of the situation and can’t lean back when the mood strikes. One stands in the spotlight and is under constant scrutiny by colleagues. This alone is enough to elicit feelings of anxiety. On the other hand, paid working hours are involved. From a professional perspective, one could be ambitious enough to do the best job possible for one’s own sake and at the same time consider it a learning

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Facilitating Is Hard Work – Some Tips157

experience (aside from personal benefit, it might even correspond with the interests of both the employer and the client). Whichever way you look at it, agreeing to facilitate the team is, by no means, an impossible task. There are any number of methods for simplifying it and creating a productive, relaxing and perhaps even enjoyable meeting. Furthermore, you’ll learn to trust in your own ability once you’ve dealt with it successfully. We are all capable of structuring and leading a meeting. Based on your background qualifications and skill, you can refer back to your resources, focus on having them at your fingertips – then open yourself up to a new learning experience. Exercise Think back to the last conversation you had. Did you (explicitly or implicitly) take the leading role at least part of the time? How did you do that? What methods (verbal or non-verbal) did you use? And where did you improvise? Put yourself back in the situation and try to describe the procedure in as much detail as possible. You Can Ask to Be Given the Mandate to Facilitate Make sure that the team agrees to your role as facilitator. If in doubt, it’s better to reconfirm: “Is it okay for you if I facilitate this meeting?” Having all members agree in advance to your leadership role gives you more confidence and legitimizes your position for the duration of the meeting. Be sure to remind the team members that while you are facilitating the meeting, you would still appreciate their active participation, cooperation and support. Politeness and Humor Is Part of the Game In your role as facilitator you tend to set the tone and influence the general mood in the team more than a regular team member would. Your approach can be to encourage and invite colleagues to contribute (instead of demanding input). You can acknowledge participants’ contribution (“Thank you very much for your support in reaching a quick decision.” “Thank you all for actively participating in Ramona’s team consultation although I realize this was not your preferred method of obtaining results.”). Make a conscious effort to bring in humor and try to maintain this element in the meeting culture.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

158

Team Organization

It might seem odd to you (and/or your colleagues) at the beginning to conduct a meeting in this manner. Some teams aren’t used to complimenting each other. Nor are they accustomed to laughing or having a good time. Experience shows that meetings are more effective and participants are more relaxed in a pleasant and relaxed setting, a circumstance that doesn’t always arise on its own, but needs to be developed and cultivated. You Can Delegate Tasks Taking the minutes: In some teams, the facilitator is also responsible for taking the minutes. This is a definite disadvantage. Minute taking should always be delegated to another team member and the task can be performed by a different member each time. Keeping time: Ask a team member to be responsible for keeping track of time and to give you a signal (also visible to the participants) one minute before the time is up. Since the facilitator is responsible for the entire process, it is easier to have someone else keep track of time (which doesn’t mean that the facilitator can’t keep an eye on the clock as well). At the same time, the clearly visible signal tells participants that the time is over, suggesting that the entire team is co-responsible for ending the session on time: the pressure to finish on time is shared among the team. Some teams use a timer that is reset each time a new item is taken up and rings two minutes before the time is over. You Can Include Team Members in Your Decisions The facilitator doesn’t have to make all the decisions regarding the meeting process nor on a particular item on the agenda, for that matter, – nor should she have to. Decisions about whether or not a certain method should be used in a team consultation or at what point there should be a break during the meeting are also not entirely up to the facilitator. She can ask the team for suggestions and decisions (“Are you okay with taking a vote on whether or not to have a break?”). Moreover, the facilitator is not obliged to take on tasks that arise during the team meeting and need to be addressed (“Who will draft a letter to the sponsor?” Who will call the facility and clarify that?” “Who will inform the department head?”). The facilitator’s job is merely to ask team members politely to perform the required tasks or to delegate them. If there are tasks remaining, the facilitator makes sure these are included in the minutes so

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Facilitating Is Hard Work – Some Tips159

that they can be revisited at the end. One can also ask the team for their opinion on how to arrive at a solution, what suggestions they have and how the problem might be solved. The team can be included in many other decisions: whether or not the meeting time should be extended, how much time is to be allotted to each item, if speakers are to be taken off the list (“Are you okay with ending the discussion after the next two speakers and moving on to the next item on the agenda?”). It takes a burden off the facilitator not having to make these decisions alone and possibly having to face resistance from the team. You Can Expose Rules and Structures The speaker’s list can be made public (“Now it’s Peter’s turn, followed by Alex, Julia and Jane.”). It’s easier to accept this list if it’s open for all to see and it’s clear that the facilitator is aware of her role (naturally one is more likely to overstep boundaries if one suspects that the rules are not being followed by others). You Can Keep out of Ongoing Discussions In your role as facilitator you can keep out of the actual discussion. Trust your teammates to take care of all necessities and also that missing items may, in fact, not be overly important. You have the important task of facilitating the process and setting the stage as best you can. On the other hand, you are free to participate in discussions. Make sure, however, that you sign your name to the list and abide by the rules that have been agreed upon. You Can Keep to a Central Guideline during a Meeting, Which You Can Refer Back to Periodically At the beginning one might feel overwhelmed by the complexity of the task, especially if one has little experience and yet want to try out something new. Don’t take on too much at once. Concentrate on a few aspects that you want to focus on in a concrete situation and that you want to experiment with. Think of a key idea, write it on an index card and keep it nearby to keep you on track. Below you will find suggestions for key ideas to use. However, feel free to invent your own.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

160

Team Organization

Central Guidelines for Maintaining Inner Composure While Facilitating –– I’ve been tasked by colleagues to do this job. –– I may expect the colleagues’ support: they’re partially responsible for the result. –– All participants have (at least) one point of common interest. –– I fulfill the task to the best of my ability – I am, however, allowed to make mistakes. –– I’ll use this situation to practice and learn something new. –– I’m open to the colleagues’ suggestions of how to improve. –– The less confident I feel, the more a clear structure can help me. –– I look forward to facilitating this meeting. You Can Delegate or Share the Role of Facilitator There is no need for you to facilitate the entire meeting. If you’d like to take over one round but not the entire two or three hour session, ask a colleague if she is willing to share the task with you. In addition, you can ask other participants to facilitate particular items – for instance, if you are more committed to another item on the agenda or if you would like to be counseled by the team yourself. If you feel unhappy with yourself or irritated by the team you can also ask someone else to take your place for the rest of the session. When Difficulties Arise You Can … –– ask to renegotiate your mandate: ask if participants still want you to facilitate and if so, ask their permission to structure the session. –– ask the team to assist and support you in addition to playing by the rules and to let you know how you can improve the facilitation process. This may seem like admitting to a weakness. However, in reality it often comes across as the opposite and frequently has a surprisingly positive effect. It is similar to admitting to a client that you simply don’t have the answer and then asking for their support. –– remain polite and maintain your sense of humor when faced with adversity, especially if you don’t feel up to it. For the sake of the team’s wellbeing, you might want to keep your own (legitimate) feelings in the background for the time being. Ultimately, this will result in a win-win situation.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Facilitating Is Hard Work – Some Tips161

–– fall back on prepared phrases. Think of situations you fear and worry about most and write down a possible reaction: “I’m just going to interrupt you now.” “Please support me in my role as facilitator.” “We’ve got to finish up this item otherwise I’ll feel like a failure.” “I feel a panic attack coming on because I don’t know how to go on.” “Who can help me … I’m having a momentary blackout.” You Can Have the Group Give You Feedback at the End of a Meeting Regardless of whether a feedback round was planned for the last ten minutes of the meeting, you are entitled to ask the participants for their feedback (“How do you feel we organized this meeting: what was good? And what could we improve in the future?” “Were you satisfied with the way I facilitated the meeting? How would you like to see it done next time?”). Then you can give the team feedback on how you experienced their support of the facilitator and the overall process. You Can Always Treat Yourself Well – and Keep Feeling Good about Yourself If you decide to take on the challenging role of facilitator then be sure to be good to yourself instead of turning overly serious. Acknowledge your achievements and don’t overrate mistakes that you may make. Take some time after the session you facilitated to reflect: –– What did I do well? –– Where am I satisfied with myself today? –– What are the other participants satisfied with? –– What aspect(s) did they praise? –– What part do I want to repeat next time? –– What difficult situations did I master? –– Who can I share this with? –– How can I reward myself? Acknowledge your courage and willingness to assume the task, as well as your perseverance. This is the best way to learn. Once one is able to acknowledge one’s own achievements, regardless of their significance, one is able to learn from mistakes and go on to ask: What can I do better next time?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

162

Team Organization

Exercise Mark (no more than) three points in the next chapter that you would like to try at the next session you facilitate. For each point list three ideas: how to implement the idea, the steps that need to be taken and how it’s going to be done.

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks The following suggestions are based on the ideas and experiences of many different teams. Not all suggestions are appropriate for every team. Exercise Please write down any suggestions with which you have experience that might occur to you while reading and that other teams could benefit from. The Ambience in the Room The way the room is set up affects the meetings that take place there. This may be given a lower priority than preparation and having a clear structure and keeping to the agenda. (The following exercise is not intended for teams that place little importance on the room’s ambience.) There are so many different aspects to consider, that it’s often difficult to keep them all in mind: ventilation, lighting, wall decorations, plants or other accessories, seating arrangements and different types of tables. Try experimenting with the types of tables and chairs in the room. You will be amazed at how the style of furniture can affect the nature of the meeting (e.g. light or heavy chairs, comfortable or more functional). Exercise Form two groups. The first group arranges the room in the usual style (what is “usual” and “possible” differs from group to group) in preparation for the next meeting. This group arranges the room in a way that is not suited to interaction and deliberately obstructs teamwork. Really make an effort to overlook aspects that could make work more pleasant. The second group is tasked with creating a work-conducive atmosphere by arranging the room in an inviting and pleasant way the following week. In a next step, discuss the differences you perceive. Decide as a group if you

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks163

would like to place (more) emphasis on the arrangement and atmosphere in the room in the future and who would like to be responsible for this task. Opening the Meeting It is unlikely that you would jump straight into the topic with a client without some preliminary small talk (“How did you find your way here?” etc.). The same is true for teams that are about to open a lengthy session requiring their full concentration: they need some time to warm up and feel comfortable with each other first. This is where a light, “mood finding” round plays an important role. Members have the chance to “tune in” to each other and focus in on each person. Each member has the chance to say something and to be heard. In the process, subjects may be touched upon that are not necessarily on the agenda but that concern all participants: “I keep thinking about our colleague Lilly, who had a stroke last week.” “I’m really pleased about our collaboration on the new proposal last weekend.” “The workload is getting heavier by the minute – and there’s no relief in sight.” The facilitator can introduce the round by inviting the members to say two or three sentences about how they are feeling at the moment and what particular issue is on their mind. There are other options for opening the meeting, of course. For instance, the facilitator can invite colleagues to talk about certain experiences or success strategies, in other words to share collegial resources with the group. Tell us: –– about the way you use your time when you leave work and have you managed to leave the day’s work at the office? –– about a success story from last week. –– a brief run down on a “good” client. How to Deal with Interruptions You can avoid interruptions such as phone calls, unscheduled client contact or colleagues from other departments stopping in to ask a question by: turning on your answering machine, putting up signs such as “Team meeting, please do not disturb. We will be back at your disposal at 4pm”. Another option is to reschedule the meetings for a more appropriate time. This may not always be possible. In this case, clear procedures on how to deal with interruptions can be laid down: when there’s a request, we interrupt the meeting, or the member in question leaves the room while the team consultation continues without

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

164

Team Organization

him. In any case, team members can agree that they will not be bothered by such interruptions. In other words, we don’t have to perceive this situation as an interruption and can instead consider it a normal part of our daily work. Preparing the Agenda Some teams compile agenda items in advance and sort them out later. Other groups have each member write the items they want to discuss at the next meeting on a card or a bulletin board in the team office a week before the meeting. Some items may also include the time that should be allotted for each one. In this way, the facilitator has an idea of how much time is involved and can decide in advance if she will have to postpone items. She can suggest a procedure at the beginning of the meeting and ask the team’s opinion. Other teams write the agenda and the time allotment for addressing items on the flipchart for all to follow. Changing Seats from Time to Time Often team members have a fixed place in a meeting that they are reluctant to change. Switching places occasionally, even during a team meeting, for instance, after a break or a consultation, could offer a change of pace. If the change seems too complicated for you (taking your coffee cup, writing utensils, items of clothing) with you, you might want to consider that when working in a team, regardless of whether it’s a consultation or an official meeting, it helps to be flexible in your thinking and to perceive situations from various angles. Often teams find this approach beneficial (after they have experimented with it), especially when flexibility in thinking goes hand in hand with movement. Instead of being “glued” to one’s chosen seat, participants can experience their colleagues and the setting from another perspective. A variation on the theme: normally we all sit in a circle with or without tables. It’s highly unlikely, however, that participants will remain seated in the same position for long. An option could be to suggest that people choose where they want to be in the room: they can either sit at the table or remain standing while participating in the meeting. If someone needs to move around, he can stand up and stretch. A surprising effect is that as soon as this behavior is condoned, it no longer bothers people (as long as the person’s intent is not to disrupt the meeting).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks165

Meeting Minutes Taking minutes is not an easy task and is probably a reason why people are reluctant to do it. Often it’s not clear what needs to be written down. Writing the minutes requires a number of independent decisions on the part of the minute taker. Furthermore, it involves additional after-hours work on a time-consuming project that one suspects (based on past experience) no one will take the time to read. This exercise is often futile. On the other hand, the purpose of minutes is to record important information and decisions – for those who were absent from the meeting, as well as to serve as a reminder of what was discussed for those who were present. In general, minutes outlining the decisions taken, including a list of “who does what” is adequate. On occasion, it may be helpful to record the course of discussion or the issues that were brought up. For a while, in our team consultation in family support, we just recorded how we dealt with issues on a methodical basis in order to have an overview and something to refer back to. The feedback results from a team meeting can also be noted as a reminder – for later reference. In many teams, members take turns taking the minutes. The advantage here is that participants can practice writing a very useful summary of a meeting. Moreover, the person taking the minutes has the “power” to formulate the items that are important to him. Other teams prefer to have the same person take the minutes each time, allowing her to develop a unique style that once discussed and accepted by the other members can be easily read. The member who agrees to take on this task can then be exempted from other responsibilities. Writing minutes so that they are clear and easily read is not an art, but it does take hands-on skills and can be learned. The minute taker can: –– clarify in advance how detailed the minutes are to be; –– ask the team, after the respective item has been discussed, to agree on the points that should be included in the minutes; –– write on the laptop as the meeting is taking place; –– decide how to formulate a summary as briefly and clearly as possible and what information can be left out; –– add some pep to the minutes by including pictures, cartoons, quotations etc., to stimulate curiosity and encourage participants to take the time to read the minutes; –– to complete the minutes well in advance of the next meeting and forward it to colleagues with the request to read through them in preparation for the next meeting;

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

166

Team Organization

–– ask colleagues at the beginning of the next meeting for feedback on the content, scope, design and readability of the minutes and what recommendations they have for improvement. A team that is interested in delivering effective minutes that require as little effort as possible in terms of both writing and reading will take the time as a team to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the existing style of minute taking. The Yellow Card Discuss the option of introducing the “yellow card” (the term is used to indicate “a first warning” during a soccer game) within the group. In the sixties and seventies (in the so-called West-German left scene), a yellow card referred to the infamous “point of order” and later meant “interruptions take precedence”. This is one way to influence the process indirectly on the meta-level. Not every interruption or unpleasant state of mind should dominate. However, a yellow card could signalize individual responsibility and autonomy: “I don’t wish to be counseled any further. I’ve had enough.” “I don’t feel like saying anything, even if that’s what all of you expect from me.” Or: “I think we should take a break at this point.” And further, “Could we open the window and get some air?” The possibility, in itself, of being able to flash the yellow card in order to set a boundary is often all it takes to feel protected and more confident. Initially we introduced the yellow card in our family support counseling team to take the pressure off shy or reticent clients (often children, adolescents but also adults) when they were reluctant to answer questions, end a conversation that was turning uncomfortable for them or as a signal to let us know that they had other needs. By presenting the yellow card together with an explanation, our message is that we acknowledge self-confidence or even resistance, or at least accept such behavior. Experience has shown that just by offering clients the option of flashing the card, they responded with more confidence and openness. Or, in other words: complaints (that are brought up early on) improve collaboration. This is also the main idea behind the “Complaints and Mediation Center for Adolescents and Their Parents” (LOTSE) in Halle, Germany that also uses the yellow card as a support tool in their work. The facilitator can decide to introduce the yellow card: prepare a yellow card for each team member and explain the rules (“Use it when you are dis-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks167

satisfied with something or have a request of the team or the facilitator. Then we’ll decide if the request can be granted.”). Ask if everyone has understood the rules and offer a small reward in the form of praise or some candy for the first three who actually use the card. You can experiment with using the yellow card and if it seems like it is being overused, you might want to consider modifying the meeting set up or get rid of the yellow card all together. Modifying Pace and Style The pace at which a team meeting is conducted, as well as the style in which it is conducted can differ: go through the items on the agenda rapidly or take time; is the facilitator strict and rigid (does she insist on following the rules at all times), or does she tend to be easy-going – there is no one golden rule. A good idea is to experiment with the pace and style, provided that one practices consciously: “The last time, we realized how fast we were when we got to the end of the meeting – perhaps we can take it a little slower.” Or: “Today I’d like to slip into the role of strict facilitator. I just wanted to let you know, so you won’t be surprised.” Developing Team Rules If, as a team, you have reached a decision on various ways to bring about change, it’s a good idea to keep track of the original rules as a reminder. The rules can be written down in the form of a list. An example of such a list of team rules, compiled by a team in a cooperative living facility for adolescents in the course of a year reads as follows: Team Rules in a Cooperative Living Facility   1. In preparation for a team meeting, team members write down topics on a slip of paper during the course of the week. The individual topics are then collected and placed in a folder.   2. Before team meetings are opened, the person in charge writes the topics on a flipchart or large sheet of paper and hangs them up on the wall where they can be seen by everyone. The minutes of the last meeting is checked for items that weren’t addressed and included on the chart.   3. At the beginning of the meeting, members are asked if there are any further issues. If so, they are added to the list on the flipchart.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

168

Team Organization

  4. Each participant rates the importance of the issue by giving it three, two or one point at the beginning of the meeting.   5. The topics are discussed in the order of their importance rating.   6. Speaking time for the individual subjects, as well as the number and length of the breaks, is predetermined.   7. A procedure and time schedule is agreed upon.   8. Minutes of the meeting are taken. The minute taker pays attention to time (using a timer). A different member takes the minutes at each meeting.   9. All participants agree to stick to the topic and not go off on long mono­ l­ogues (if members get off track or go over their allotted time, they are shown the yellow card). 10. General subjects are discussed at the beginning of the session (formal issues, appointments, information). The “to do” lists and the minutes from the last meeting are checked for tasks that have been completed. 11. Tasks to be accomplished, based on the discussions, are recorded on a “to-do” list by the minute taker. 12. Subjects that are discussed in the meeting are recorded in a team meeting file. 13. Items not discussed are rescheduled for the next meeting. 14. The team meeting begins at 9 or 11 am and ends at 1 pm. 15. The discussion will focus, on a bi-weekly basis, on one of the adolescents involved in the support program. Further Experiments The thirty-second-rule serves to structure and limit the length of the discussion. The rule is quite clear: Each participant can speak for a maximum of thirty seconds. It’s a good idea to use a stop watch as a means of measuring time. Everyone is familiar with the rules and is responsible for adhering to them, which also means that members can remind each other to keep to the rules at any time during the meeting. Discussions are limited to thirty seconds. If someone runs overtime, any member reserves the right to hold up the red card showing “Thirty seconds!” to bring the speaker to a close. If someone has more to say, he can request speaking time. In this way, everyone gets a chance to contribute, more opinions are brought in and the responsibility for structuring the session is not left to the facilitator alone. The “Yes, and”-rule states that in anticipation of a particularly heated discussion, each participant begins with the words “Yes and …” (instead of

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks169

the more familiar and spontaneous reaction of “Yes, but …”). The facilitator can gently remind participants of this stipulation when called for. This subtle difference doesn’t guarantee that the discussion will take on an entirely new form. It can, however, encourage participants to listen actively to the speaker and her line of argumentation and link individual responses to the original issue more effectively. Renegotiating the speaking order: The next speaker is not chosen from the list this time. Instead, the speaker who has the floor has the right to appoint the next speaker. The facilitator ensures that everyone agrees to this procedure and checks to see that the speaker ends in time and designates the next speaker during the discussion. As an alternative and further experiment, speakers can be drawn by lots. Whoever’s turn it is takes the floor. A written and oral discussion: Each participant is given an index card and a thick felt pen. In addition to the “normally verbal discussions”, opinions can be written on the cards and passed around or affixed to the wall. This makes interjections and (more or less) anonymous contributions possible. Movement and Flexibility: Team Games Let’s face it, we’re all adults and are, of course, quite capable of remaining in our seats over a longer period of time. Moving around and especially playing games during the meeting might seem childish and inappropriate in professional communication, although we are aware that moving around at regular intervals improves circulation and allows us to think more clearly. Exercise improves mental flexibility, especially if fun is involved. Some teams have the impression that games and exercise sequences improve their meetings, although they hesitated at first to suggest this approach. There are many books available with suggestions on how to get started with “ice-breaker games” for warming up; “energizers” and various other team games. You might even remember a good game that you played at your child’s last birthday party. Once a team has decided to experiment with team games either at the beginning of the meeting or during a break, members begin drawing upon their resources and enrich the entire session in the process. Most participants know some kind of quick, loosening-up exercise. Another person might know a relaxation, yoga or back exercise or a fantasy trip that they can guide the rest of the team through.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

170

Team Organization

Here again, you can kill two birds with one stone. While the team benefits from the colleague’s resources, she can use the team to hone her skills. This will help her to gain confidence before trying out a new game with a group of patients. She could ask team members to serve as guinea pigs and even receive some constructive feedback in return. The person who introduces the game is responsible for moderating it. Where required, she can also lay down the rules and determine when to end the game (especially if it is open-ended), thank her colleagues for their participation and return to the day’s agenda or hand over to the facilitator. Neither the team nor individual members are obligated to take part in the games. Participation is entirely voluntary. Those members who wish to opt out of the game can remain seated and observe. Quite possibly, they’ll be motivated to join the game in the next round. If you would like some suggestions for games, we can offer you the following options. For Sure! Participants circulate around the room while the facilitator calls out various questions: “Are you all feeling good?” “Do you feel like starting?” “Will you concentrate?” Each question is answered with the exclamation “For sure!” while throwing their arms in the air. In the process, people are likely to raise their voices while moving around the room and stimulate enthusiasm in the process. After the third question, the facilitator points to a colleague who proceeds to ask a question. After the response “For sure!”, she points to the next candidate and so on until everyone has had a turn. Wolf, Sheep and Shepherd The team splits up into groups of threes and the groups keep to themselves (it doesn’t matter if the groups get in each other’s way). Each group assigns its members the role of wolf, sheep and shepherd, respectively. The wolf tries to tag the sheep and the shepherd stands between them with his hands behind his back to protect the sheep. The sheep can run away. If the wolf succeeds in tagging the sheep, the roles are switched so that each person gets a chance to assume one of the roles. This is a short and very lively game that encourages learning new and useful strategies. The Atom Game Team members stand together in a circle in groups of twos (molecules), leaving some space between each other and hold hands (in case there is an uneven number of participants, groups of threes can be formed). Two team

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks171

members stand alone in the circle. One tries to catch the other (within and outside of the circle), the one being chased can dock on to one side of a pair and reach for the free hand. The partner on the other side must then let go (like an atom, he is bumped off) and becomes the person being chased. This too, is a very lively and easy game to play. A variation on the theme: the moment the “fugitive” docks on to another member, the roles are changed: the person who was previously the “hunter” becomes the fugitive and the new arrival is the new “hunter”. This version requires concentration and quick reactions. Counting to 21 This game can be played while seated and requires little movement: the team’s task is to count from one to twenty-one together. Each member may say only one number then another person continues counting until that member’s turn comes around again. Individuals seated next to each other are not permitted to count in sequence. Aside from the numbers being called out (in the correct order), members may not speak (no meta-communication “How are we going to do that”, or exchanging meaningful glances – this would make the game too simple). If two people call out a number at the same time, the game starts over. Haguh! The team is split in half. The two groups stand facing each other so that an alley is created between them. One person from each group stands at the top or at the end of the alley. These individuals now face each other as “opponents”. They bow to each other and say “Haguh!” in greeting. They approach each other, turn around the other and walk backwards, without losing eye contact, to the opposite end of the alley. Whoever laughs or even pulls a face is “captured” by the opposing team and has to change teams. The Knot Everyone stands in a circle and stretches their arms toward the middle. Closing their eyes, the members then walk toward the center. Each person blindly takes hold of another person’s hand (only one, otherwise there will be one left at the end). Next, everyone opens their eyes and together participants try, as far as possible, to undo the knot that has been created (without letting go of each others’ hands). Take your time and don’t give up too soon.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

172

Team Organization

Rearrangeable Team Admittedly, this suggestion is not suited for all teams (simply because it is too unusual) nor is this something that can be brought into the weekly or monthly team sessions. Some teams, however, have successfully experimented with deliberately rearranging themselves, in other words, doing something that is “not done” or that would mix up familiar patterns: While conducting a serious and task-oriented meeting, you could: –– address each other by entirely new names and write them on name tags, –– have all participants wear sunglasses, –– have all participants fold paper hats (“team hats”, see figure 9) to wear during the session, –– conduct the meeting while sitting or lying on the floor. The members of teams that “are sick of seeing each other” or that “trust/ understand each other blindly”, can conduct a session in total darkness. Deliberately changing the familiar pattern (provided everyone agrees to it) provides for a change of pace and fun in the team and breaks the routine. The advantage here is that individuals tend to react in entirely different ways to situations. This is especially true for teams that feel they know each other very well and believe they can intuit in advance how the other person will react (“again!”). This entertaining game approach serves to carefully jumble up familiar behavioral patterns.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Further Suggestions, Tips and Tricks173

Fold corners A and B toward the inside along the dotted line (1). Fold the upper layer of the bottom part twice toward the top as shown (2). Now it looks like this (3) Turn it around and fold the ends along the dotted lines A and B (4). Fold corners X and Y toward the center (5). Fold the lower flap twice toward the top and tuck mn behind PQ (6). Fold along the dotted line until A is between PQ (7). Insert your fingers in the opening (8) and open it wide enough for a and b to be lying side by side. Fold corners X and Y and tuck them behind a and b, respectively (9). Open the hat (10). Now you have your team hat (from Fisher, 1995). Figure 9: Instructions for folding a “team hat”

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

174

Team Organization

Team Decision-Making In addition to consulting, teams are constantly involved in different forms of decision-making. Just to get an idea about the diversity, we invite you to take a look at the following issues that teams must decide on: –– Which candidate should fill the position? –– Is there something we want to change in our team meetings and if so, what? –– Where shall we plan to go for our next staff outing? –– Should we change our business hours? –– In what way do we want to change our policy and service? –– Should we discharge patient X? –– How should we deal with patients breaking the rules? –– Should we recommend in-house care and financing for our adolescent client X. –– Should we have a closed meeting to reflect on the way we collaborate? –– When could this be organized? –– Should we end the session earlier today? The extent varies from team to team and also depends on how much room for decision is granted or demanded by the organization. Exercise Collect ten to fifteen different decisions – important and unimportant ones, major and minor, difficult and easy ones that you have made in the last weeks. Think back to how you proceeded: How we arrived at a mutually acceptable decision and under what circumstances. What did we do to make this a success? Occasionally, teams have difficulty making decisions. They struggle before finally making up their minds. When they do make a decision, they begin to question it and then change their minds altogether. Sometimes they aren’t even aware that they have just made a decision and find out later that not everyone agrees with it. Generally, these difficulties arise when interest are at odds and members are committed to their respective positions – and when those involved are not completely aware that they are involved in a decision-making process that requires a clear outcome. A typical example that is often found in teams and committees is trying to agree on appointments that are convenient for everyone: “We need to schedule new appointments!” Everyone

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Team Decision-Making175 reaches for their calendar and starts flipping the pages. One person suggests a time (“January 9th”). Someone else calls out: “I can’t make it then.” The next person suggests another time (“January 17th”). The response is: “I’m on vacation then”, or still another announces: “That’s a bad time for me” and so on. Often it takes a long time before a suitable time can be found. Meanwhile the team members are irritated because so much time has been wasted. Another example is the question: Should the patient be transferred to another ward? After a colleague has raised the question, participants launch into an animated discussion with arguments for and against. Those in favor seem to predominate. Finally an agreement is reached and the transfer to another ward seems to be the final decision. A few weeks later, the patient is still in her original ward. Management has decreed that there will be no transfer. Apparently, the team failed to clarify at the beginning of the meeting if in fact they were authorized to take the decision upon themselves.

Both the facilitator and the team as a whole are occasionally faced with challenges (or tribulations) such as these. Here, it can help for the group to think about ways to set up the decision-making process and how decisions should be arrived at in the end. A Model for Decision-Making Processes Decision-making processes are always more effective when participants are not only well informed about the issue and committed to their interests and convictions, but are also able to follow the process on a meta-level. In other words, they are able to observe themselves from a distance and react, if need be. This applies in particular to the facilitator who follows the process in a different way. However, for the sake of transparency and general acceptance, she will always take steps to include the team. From time to time she will interrupt the discussion and disclose the process structure by referring to the following questions:  1.  Determining if there is a need for a decision and not just a desire for information, an exchange of opinion or discussion. (“We need a fixed date.” “We need to decide if client X should be released.” “We want a new approach.”)  2.  Defining the decision-making framework: What exactly is to be decided? What is it about? What do we want to decide about? Why are we making this decision? Does this decision fall within the scope of our ability and area of competence? How much leeway do we have?  3.  Planning and agreeing on the process: How do we want to set up the decision-making process? What steps do we need to take? How much time will we spend on this? How much leeway should be granted for

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

176

Team Organization

gathering information, discussion, argumentation and agreement? How do we want to proceed in these matters? How can we include everyone? By when do we want a decision?  4.  Clarifying the nature of the decision in advance: How do we foresee making final decisions: via a consensus, vote, with or without veto power?  5.  Interim evaluation: Is the way we reach agreements and set up the course of action useful and is it realistic? Are we progressing according to our original plan? (This interim assessment will be repeated, depending on the need and scope of the process.)  6.  Ending the discussion at the scheduled time: The issues that require decisions are clearly summarized and presented to the team.  7.  Decisions based on the terms and consequences of decisions: Will all members be able to accept them, regardless of how the referendum turns out?  8.  Going through with the decision according to the accepted procedure, outcome and the written record?  9.  Clarifying the next steps: What follows the decision? What consequences are there? What checks are in place to ensure that the decision is being implemented and the goals met? When could the decision be revised (if this should become necessary)? 10.  Conclusion and thanks to all participants: The explicit conclusion (“Made it! Now we’re finished.”) as well as the thank you message (for example for the animated discussion, the interactive and constructive collaboration, the willingness to work together in reaching a result – actually, there are always reasons for expressing gratitude) are important and a means of acknowledging the good work, as well as a way to end the session and move on. A well-structured decision-making process is more effective, requires less effort, energy and time than one that is unstructured. The results are more sustainable because members are actively involved in the decision-making process and support each other. The more one anticipates any uncertainty or difficulty remaining after the decision, the more sense it makes to orient toward this model. In order to ensure that participants are agreeable to the way appointments are scheduled, the process might look like this: The facilitator introduces the agenda item “New dates for our team meeting” as follows: “We need new dates for our meetings. How shall we proceed? Do we want to schedule only those dates that everyone can make? – Or do we want to agree to the dates on which at least some of us can make it? Is there someone who must be present (‘Power of veto’)? Are there days of the week that don’t work at all? Okay, so I’ll read off the possible dates in order and whoever can commit, please raise your hand. Marcus will record

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Team Decision-Making177 the results and we’ll choose the date upon which most of us can attend. A date when Brigit can’t be there to facilitate is not possible.” If not enough dates are found, the team can consider tightening or loosening the rules and start another search to find the reasons for rejecting a date (“Private reasons such as birthdays or football games don’t count.”). Or one can reach a mutual decision and not fix any dates at all. In any case, the facilitator will clearly define the results (e.g. will present all the dates that were discussed again) and ask if all members are satisfied with the result (including the way in which it came about).

A Model for the Decision-Making Process   1.  Determining if there is a need to make decisions   2.  Defining the scope   3.  Planning the process   4.  Deciding on the kind of decision that is to be made  5. Interim evaluation   6.  Ending the discussion at the agreed time   7.  Deciding the terms of the decision   8.  Vote and determining results   9.  Clarifying further modus operandi 10.  Conclusion and thanks to all participants Different Types of Decisions –– Majority (vote) • via a majority or two-thirds majority • by the participants or members (“Absentee vote”) • veto option • open or closed votes –– Consensus or minimum consensus –– Delegation • to the supervisor • to one or more members designated by the team –– Using games (throwing dice, casting lots, coin toss) –– Mock consensus/Mock decision • An agreement is reached but some members don’t feel committed to the decision. • Some don’t specifically agree with the consensus (they simply refrain from offering an opinion). • There is agreement, but it is not clear what makes up the consensus (afterwards one can no longer remember what was decided).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

178

Team Organization

Decisions Can Be Made in Many Different Ways Often the way we reach decisions seems obvious because we are so used to deciding by majority. However, this approach doesn’t always work in all cases: We actually have a whole range of decision-making possibilities that we don’t necessarily need to be aware of. Difficulties often occur when we try to force a consensus so that we can make use of our (unspoken) veto power or after we have settled on a mock consensus. The following list is designed to describe what is actually possible and is part of the repertoire for one, and an extension of the range of possibilities, thereby enlarging the scope of available options. Consensus, Minimal Consensus or Compromise Consensus (from the Latin: agreement, accord) would be the optimal and desired result: everyone fully agrees with the result since it corresponds with individual interests! The wish is absolutely legitimate and it makes sense to take some time to try and find a consensus, which, in general, ends up being a minimal consensus (one finds the largest common denominator) or a compromise: an agreement based on joint concessions. As soon as an agreement is reached, the decision can be made by consensus. If this works out, it can be considered a good result; however, this process often takes inordinate amounts of effort. Majority Resolution (Referendum) We are thoroughly familiar with decisions made by majority vote: the majority may and should prevail. This corresponds with our modern understanding of democracy and is accepted by the minority members as well. There are a number of options: the majority required for making decisions can be “simple” (the majority of cast votes), “absolute” (over half of those eligible to vote/those present) or a two-thirds majority. In the case of very important decisions that affect the entire team, it can make sense to include the absentee votes (via absentee ballot or representation through another member) or to postpone the referendum until all are present. Furthermore we can differentiate between open and closed referenda. The closed referendum is preferred (as an exception) when voters feel inhibited. The majority rule with the power to veto is another possibility. In this case, members are not aware that they are applying it. Individuals have the explicit or implicit right to block decisions. For example: the colleague who is responsible for a certain client. Naturally, certain decisions regarding the client will not be made against her will; nor will the supervisor, who takes it

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Team Decision-Making179

upon himself to ignore decisions that were made in the team or construes them differently, be condoned. Some teams have a motto for such cases “the responsible person has the power of veto”. Delegation The option for one party to make a decision is less self-evident but certainly a viable option: the team doesn’t have to make a decision it feels coerced into or where they don’t have a say. Instead, they can delegate the task. Thus, the team can pass difficult decisions or those bound to have serious repercussions on to the supervisor. Presumably, this step can be backed up while clarifying the option for decision-making. An example here could be a lack of funds or an expended budget that make it impossible for members to offer their clients the necessary and professionally qualified support. Once this point has been reached, the decision (which is in effect, not one of free will) and with it the responsibility can be given back to the supervisor. The decision can also be delegated to one or more members of the team who are considered to be experts or competent authorities on the subject. In addition, it may not be necessary for the entire team to make a decision (for example, when a colleague has to decide how to proceed with her client, or two colleagues are tasked with preparing the staff outing and are allowed to choose a destination without checking back with the team). Decision-Making in Game Form Decisions can also be made by making a game out of the process. This is an option that I feel is underused. I am referring to types of toss-up games such as “rock-paper-scissors”, drawing lots or a coin toss. We could make decisions in this way more frequently (at least as long as the outcome isn’t life-threatening) and leave decision-making to luck and chance to a certain extent (in any case, we have preselected the variables upon which the choice can fall). When teams start thinking about the decisions that are made through toss-up games in the place of two team members, the dogged, single-mindedness is replaced by a more relaxed approach: it becomes evident that although many decisions need to be made, one is quite capable of living with different outcomes. The surprise effect helps to lighten up the situation. However, the prerequisite is that everyone agrees to making a decision in this way and then to accept the outcome. Mock Consensus/Mock Decision In contrast, a mock consensus falls more in the analytical category: from the outside or in retrospect a mock consensus or decision (it only seems like a

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

180

Team Organization

decision has been made) may seem that a decision has been made when in fact team members don’t commit to it and they don’t consider it binding. It can just as easily happen that the team makes a decision, but that they are only able to do so because part of the group doesn’t speak up for whatever reason, e.g. doesn’t support the decision: “We don’t have a chance anyway.” “If we are against the decision, we can expect disadvantages.” “I’m not interested in the issue.” Finally, a third form of the mock consensus is for everyone, or at least a majority, to agree although it’s not clear what exactly the decision consists of. This becomes evident in the following interpretation of the results. During the Decision-Making Process the Team Can … (in order to ensure transparency and participation for general acceptance of the decision) –– clarify if a decision is required – and if so, about what; –– agree on a modus operandi (through consensus, majority rule, mock consensus etc.) for discussing and later for making the decision; –– count votes whereby each member is granted three or five votes that they can distribute as they wish after the common tendencies and priorities have been determined; –– hold a practice election; –– grant a power of veto; –– assume supervisory functions: individual interests shouldn’t outweigh those of other members during discussions and decision-making; –– postpone the session to take time pressure off and offer time for reflection; –– agree to a limited time span for the decision’s validity. Reaching Decisions Aside from the critical referendum itself, teams have a variety of options at their disposal for facilitating the decision-making process so that the end result will be acceptable to all members and can be implemented. Generally, this is sustained by a transparent decision-making process that is clear to everyone and encourages free discussion and input from members on how to contribute to the process. This can take place prior to the process (“Before we start discussing content, why don’t we decide how to proceed and set up the voting process?”), or during the course of the discussion (“Why don’t we take a few minutes here and reflect on where we stand at the moment?”).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Team Decision-Making181

This clarifies whether a decision needs to be made at all and to agree on the topic that needs to be decided. It is possible that individuals will decide on a decision-making process on their own (“Wouldn’t it make sense to grant Andrea a veto right?” “Do we really have to discuss this as a team or can it be handed over to a work group?”). Taking time out during the process can also take the form of a practice referendum: One continues as if one has actually finished discussing and reached a decision. The result can be taken as a basis for further discussions (perhaps the decisions that are made in the end differ entirely from the ones that were initially discussed because the peripheral discussions take place while the majority remains silent. Another scenario might be that a consensus is suddenly reached after all). Instead of obtaining an overview by means of a show of hands only, one can use a variety of methods of “keeping score” of the choices that are called, beginning with writing them on a board. Perhaps one would prefer to identify priorities and weighting, in which case each member can be given three or four votes. The choices can then be made (e.g. by means of adhesive dots distributed according to the choices made). In this way priorities can be easily identified and in turn influence general opinion. Before making important decisions, the team can agree to allow some time for reflection. In most cases, there is no need to make decisions on the spot. Often we have more time than we think and this extra time allows us to feel more confident about the decisions we make. Another option is to let the decision hold for a limited time span and then see if it is possible to agree to one or more decisions simultaneously instead of an “either-or” solution over a longer period of time. This option is particularly indicated where a decision over controversial issues following an animated debate is required. In the process of designing decision-making processes it is, of course, important to keep in mind that one shouldn’t repair what doesn’t need repairing! Teams that are, on the whole, satisfied with the way decisions are made shouldn’t feel that they need to change things.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Team Development

Team development works on the assumption that we’re talking about a group of people who work together and consider themselves a team. In this respect, we could speak more appropriately in terms of “further team development”. Team development takes place when the members of a team (either alone, as members of a team or with outside support, i.e. with the assistance of a supervisor, a team developer, a moderator or organizational consultant) ask the following questions: –– How can we make better use of our resources? –– How can we improve the way we define and direct our goals? –– How can we improve the way we organize ourselves? –– How can we enrich our organizational approach? The many different aspects of team development all go back to the basic question: How can we improve teamwork? So, we have a team – and this team would now like to optimize the way its members work together. Each member of a team who thinks about ways to improve collaboration, (e.g. by reading books on the subject or through discussion with colleagues from other facilities), is already in the process of team development. The same goes for the colleague who asks “Could we try to make some changes in the way we run our team meetings?” during a meeting. This question may set the process of team development in motion.

How Can We Change the Way We Work Together? You and your team might be encouraged to make some changes in your teamwork after reading this book. You are probably the best judge of how to proceed from a resource-oriented standpoint. Furthermore, you are most

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How Can We Change the Way We Work Together?183

likely to know best what you can expect from your team and have a good idea of how you can implement change. Hence, you could skip this chapter and simply consider the following suggestion. Arrange a meeting to discuss the subject: “How can we introduce change into our teamwork and improve the way we work together?” Try out some of the team consultation approaches mentioned here – gather hypotheses, worst-case scenarios and good advice. Follow this exercise up with a discussion and decide as a group: –– which one of the proposals you want to implement first, –– who feels particularly committed and wants to ensure that the ideas are implemented on a trial basis and –– who will do an evaluation and benchmark success at fixed intervals. Unfortunately, this process is often not as simple as it may sound. I also encourage you not to give up too soon, but instead look for ideas and suggestions that come from team members. From a systemic perspective, these are almost always more useful than recommendations found in books. Of course, it is easier to stimulate and initiate team development if everyone in the team agrees to change: “We want to improve our collaborative work and we, as a team, are willing to contribute to this goal.” Should you prefer not to begin the process with collegial consultation as suggested and instead would like to try something else, you will find a number of tried-and-tested methods and approaches below. Quality Assurance: Discover How Good You Already Are Build on what is already there. Start by sharing thoughts on what you consider effective and useful in your teamwork and what shouldn’t be changed under any circumstances. Take your time to explore and don’t stop too soon. You can be sure that you will find an entire range of answers: “What is good about our teamwork?” “What else?” You can go into more depth in your search for underlying positive factors by being alert to aspects of your teamwork (within and outside of team meetings, while performing common tasks, during informal get-togethers and other forms of interaction within the team) which you feel are positive and you are comfortable with over the next few weeks, and make a point of recording them for future reference. Each member agrees to write down particular aspects they notice on an index card. Look carefully and you will be surprised at how much you already achieve as a team.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

184

Team Development

Even if it may seem unusual to start here (since you are just in the process of improving your collaboration): if you are able to acknowledge what you’re already capable of, you will be more motivated and have more fun trying out something new. In this respect, you aren’t much different from your clients. Furthermore, most of us prefer working with someone whose ability we admire and respect. This holds true for us personally, as well as for our team. In addition, quality assurance makes sure that things which are already effective aren’t unintentionally replaced. And you can build on your achievements. I would like to add three pieces of advice for results-oriented approaches (cf. Berg, 1994): –– If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! –– If you know what works, do more of it! –– Don’t repeat what doesn’t work: try something different! You can collect all the positive points that caught your eye after the meeting is over (and summarize them briefly at the beginning of the next session to set the stage on a positive note). The group may have different opinions about what they consider effective and what not. The aim at this point is not to achieve a consensus but to foster curiosity and interest and an exchange of different views expressed by members: How do my colleagues see it? Ask members to back up their views with concrete examples (“What do you mean by ‘we work well together’?”). Write down keywords on a flipchart and have members decide which points they agree with. Exercise Write down twenty keywords to describe what you like about your team. You can include major or minor aspects – but try to come up with at least twenty. Once you have shared viewpoints on your team’s resources and abilities, you can begin discussing what could be improved – and what new approaches you would like to try. Start slowly and begin with something simple where there is not much risk. Decide how many glitches you want to allow yourself before giving up. “How Were We?”: A Feedback Round at the End of the Meeting You can discuss whether or not you wish to introduce a round of feedback (after every session or just sometimes), beginning with the question “How

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How Can We Change the Way We Work Together?185

were we?” Allow five to ten minutes for this exercise (making sure there is enough time at the end of the meeting) and ask yourself: –– What did we do today that was good? What could we repeat? What was the facilitator particularly good at? How was the team able to contribute to the meeting’s success? –– What was less successful? Is there something about the facilitator – and the team members and their contributions that we are critical of? –– What recommendations and ideas will help us improve our meetings in the future? What could the facilitator improve? How could we as a team contribute more to the success of the meetings? You could ask these questions all at once and each person decides which one he/she wants to answer – or you start a new round for each question. You are the judge of how much criticism you can handle. The point is not to be ruthlessly “open” and “authentic” (with little effort you will be able to criticize endlessly, especially as we tend to be more adept at finding fault than at recognizing positive aspects). The key, however, is to find a middle way between praise and criticism that is useful and encourages improvement. Self-Understanding Engage in discussion – either freely or according to guidelines – about different definitions of what a team is and decide which one appeals to what member and why. Find the lowest common denominator for determining the actual state that defines your team that the entire team can agree on. Use a scale and find out the average value. Play with the various definitions and assessments and accept that each member has a different perspective – at the moment it’s not about finding any kind of consensus. You can pride yourself on thinking up many different concepts of “a good team” to present to your team. Afterwards try to develop the largest common denominator for the collective vision: “Can we agree on something that appeals to each one of us (and doesn’t seem too utopian)?” Look for Role Models Discuss your view of ideal teams – or perhaps each one of you has his own idea of a winning team (in this case, there is no need to share with the group

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

186

Team Development

exactly which team you’re thinking of): go ahead and describe it in detail and share your enthusiasm with your colleagues. Collect some characteristics of these teams and discuss them in the group. What makes them good teams? Write your findings on a large poster board and reflect in the group which of these points you already meet and which you’ll begin with to improve your own teamwork. Paradox: Making Matters Worse Together, think about ways to worsen your teamwork: “What would we have to do to render the working climate, the collaboration between members and above all the results of our teamwork worse?” “What would we have to do to lose all motivation to meet as a team?” This exercise can be done in a relatively clear structured way (as in the case of “mind jogging”) or by splitting up into smaller groups and competing for the best ideas. As is often the case, while the approach seems contradictory and doesn’t solve the problem or answer questions, it can nevertheless: –– diffuse an overly serious situation with humor and fun; –– call attention to factors that can lead to a worst-case scenario and ways to avoid it by discussing alternative approaches; –– inspire members to generate new ideas on how to improve the situation. Teams that enjoy playful experimentation may find it interesting to consciously conduct a team meeting in precisely the way that one would prefer not to, without discussing it in advance. Afterwards, members can share their observations. The Team Development Curve One way to broach the subject of strengths and weaknesses in the team is to introduce the “team development curve” (figure 10). The idea was inspired by the work of Vogt-Hillmann (2002, p. 130 – originally 1993), who designed a development curve for children. Hand out a copy of the chart illustrated in figure 10 to be completed with each individual’s evaluation. Compare evaluations and identify where the team, as a whole, is happy and where they are not; where assessments concur and where they differ. Take time not only to fill in the chart but also to compare and discuss the results (set yourself a time limit for discussion).

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How Can We Change the Way We Work Together?187

This exercise allows you to identify and acknowledge your strengths and abilities and provides a starting point for effecting change. Exercise Fill in your evaluation of the team’s current state of development on the chart. Different criteria can be used here: What’s the easiest place to start? Where would we like to see change most and where is it most indicated? Where do we see the greatest effectiveness? Where are we most likely to find a consensus? Think of the chart as a way to stimulate discussion (rather than an “objective” diagnostic instrument). As an alternative, you can also create your own criteria for a team development curve: as a team, have each member come up with three to five criteria for what they believe constitutes good teamwork. A member of the team compiles the information and hands out the evaluation sheets at the next meeting (make sure the items listed are formulated in a positive manner: what you would like and how you would like to see the team – rather than a negative description. Another feature of this chart is that the categories listed are not phrased as absolutes: no team is “always …” or “never …”, rather they are expressed as “often …”, “sometimes …” or “rarely …”). Self-Presentation: Promoting One’s Own Team An enjoyable exercise is for a team to come up with ideas for a short advertising spot that promotes one’s own services (residential living, counseling office, clinical and social services) to attract potential clients as well as new team members. You can begin by sharing your favorite advertising spots from television as a warming-up activity. Summarize what you feel is particularly catchy about the spots you chose (usually we find advertising appealing if it hits the nail on the head, captures the message in a nutshell, exaggerates, is humorous and has a surprise effect and finally, if it appeals to us and our senses in one way or another at various different levels). Then divide into sub-groups and task each one with creating a spot within fifteen minutes, after which it is presented to the entire team. Discuss different ideas and decide how much of it is useful to you in your “real-life” public relations and promotional work – you might even want to perform your sketch for colleagues at other facilities at a summer festival, a union’s meeting or a Christmas party.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

188

Team Development

(Team name)

Very much/ very often/ applies perfectly

Much/ often/ applies somewhat

Somewhat/ sometimes/ applies partially

I. Structure  The team … has clear tasks and goals. meets on a regular basis. has access to appropriate accommodations. plans and structures meetings together. has a clear line on responsibility. II. Team Culture  In team meetings, members … are prepared to assume responsibility. take turns facilitating. adhere to the meeting schedule. participate in the decision-making process. respect existing rules and agreements. are willing and able to deal with conflict. acknowledge colleagues’ concerns. engage in active listening. refrain from interrupting each other. are open to constructive criticism. share fun and laughter. bring in their strengths and abilities. can show weakness. respect each others’ self-determination and autonomy. motivate each other. support each other. share success stories. reward the team for its success (with meals, excursions etc.). enjoy working together. III. Collaboration in team meetings includes … contributing to team discussion. giving criticism in a positive way. reviewing targets on a regular basis. focusing on the subject. conformity on binding agreements. delegating tasks. sharing all important information. Date

Evaluated by 

Figure 10: Team development curve

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

A little/ rarely/ rarely applies

Conflict within the Team189

You are likely to enjoy this exercise for the pure fun of it at first and then realize that you are moving toward a discussion about the quality of the team: What are our strengths and what do we contribute? What joint skills and competencies do we bring to the team? What can we be a little bit proud of (if we let ourselves)? How can we change our public image? Team development is already underway when members discuss the value and folly of advertising – or for that matter, the legitimacy of it and if it is permissible to advertise oneself and one’s services within the scope of psycho-social work: “What perception of ourselves as a team do we have? And what do we think (individually and together) about how we present ourselves as a team and our work to the public and if this should be done in the first place?” Perhaps you realize that you and your work are not only represented in advertising, flyers or your facility’s public relations appearances but also each time a client, applicant for a position you offer or an uncle at a family get-together asks you: “What exactly do you do at your facility?” This question can be asked in many different ways – and depending on the way it’s answered, different effects and impressions can be elicited.

Conflict within the Team When a team realizes that there is conflict (between individuals or different parties), its momentum often grinds to a halt: fear sets in, productivity is thwarted and may even end in paralysis. Conflict within a team is a serious matter. Few teams are able to deal with it. Often outside help is brought in, in the form of a supervisor, a person who is not directly involved or a counselor, to help resolve the conflict. This paralysis is associated with a range of ideas about “conflict”, which could also be described as myths: –– “Conflict is somehow out of the ordinary and abnormal.” –– “Conflict is something particularly difficult to handle.” –– “Conflict must be resolved.” –– “Particular expertise is needed to resolve conflict.“ In this chapter we will explore how to “normalize” conflict – and assume that every team already has a variety of approaches to deal with it constructively. If we broaden the concept of conflict and call it a discrepancy between different types of interests, we can learn from the success we’ve had in dealing with conflict and use the experience to tackle more difficult and seemingly insolvable deadlock situations.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

190

Team Development

Conflict Is Normal “The contradiction is contradicted – the conflict remains undecided and may become chronic. However, this is not inevitable, since it can also simply be forgotten.” Fritz B. Simon, Patterns of War, 2004, p. 147

Conflict can be defined as a controversy, a contradiction or a dispute and comes from the Latin confligere/conflictus – meaning collision and its derivation, “conflictus” (collision, struggle). It describes what happens when different opinions and interests collide – it creates a contradiction that will cause dispute among those involved in one way or another. Glasl refers to the conflicting parties as “agents” and defines: “Social conflict is an interaction between agents (individuals, groups, organizations, etc.) where at least one agent experiences discord in thought/vision/perception and/or emotion and preference with the other agent(s)” (Glasl, 2011, p. 14 ff.). An individual (or group) behaves in a way that corresponds to the way he/she feels or what he/she wants and feels thwarted by someone else. The important factor here is that at least one of the two individuals experiences conflict. In other words, the person is unable to translate certain ideas or feelings into action the way he/she would like to because he/she feels prevented from doing so by the other individual’s actions and interests. Although Glasl’s description may sound somewhat abstract and complicated, conflict is absolutely normal (“is as unspectacular, normal and harmless as the common cold”, König & Haßelmann, 2004, p. 10). Conflict is a natural by-product of human interaction and is an integral part of life. It’s an indication that we are “alive and functioning”, that we are self-directed and autonomous. Each one of us experiences life in his own unique and very subjective way, and each one of us gives meaning to what we experience and do. Hence, all of us have different interests that we pursue. Since different individuals pursue different interests, it is inevitable that these interests conflict. We may attempt to limit the number of conflicts, but from a realistic perspective, however, we shouldn’t count on being very successful at it, nor can we be successful at it, for that matter. Each one of us is partial to our sense of self-directedness. It’s what our personal views, goals and interests are based on. We value it in ourselves and in our partners, children, friends and acquaintances and perhaps even in our colleagues. If we constantly shared the same interests there wouldn’t be much to set us apart. Things would become too predictable and we would lose interest in living and working together. Staying with the concept of teams for the moment, it becomes evident that conflict takes place on many different levels:

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team191

–– a conflict between two individuals (e.g. two colleagues are unable to agree on holiday plans, an employee feels unfairly treated by the department head); –– a conflict between an individual and a group (e.g. a team member at the facility treats adolescents in a way that is unacceptable to the other team members); –– a conflict within a group, when two different factions form (e.g. when some colleagues want to change opening hours but others don’t); –– a conflict between different groups (one team is annoyed with another at the same facility because it feels unfairly treated or disadvantaged); –– and finally, there are “intrapersonal conflicts” or conflicting interests that the individual themself is experiencing (e.g. on the one hand, I want to leave work and go home, on the other, I realize my colleague is in a difficult situation and I’d like to support her). Conflict is an expression of the different interests espoused by individuals and can be expressed at different levels: –– different goals and wishes, –– differences in the way events are evaluated and judged, –– differences in approach or use of resources, –– dependency on a particular role and differences in ability, –– personal insults via (unwitting) degradation or hurtfulness. When dealing with conflict on a day-to-day basis, we are often not aware that we actually have a conflict on our hands. Frequently, the conflict resolves itself without any conscious input on our part. Within a team, conflict could look like this: I volunteer to take the minutes – on the one hand, I don’t really want to do the job, on the other, I feel they need to be taken and that everyone should take a turn. This situation could turn into open conflict: While I could volunteer, I resent the fact that Francis hasn’t taken the minutes for some time and I don’t want to let him get away with it. We are confronted with many conflicting interests on a daily basis. For some of us, a conflict of interests begins with waking up in the morning and deciding whether or not to get up after the alarm rings or to snooze a little while longer, who gets to shower first, who takes the dog out and who will do the shopping later in the day etc. “Conflict”, in this sense, doesn’t refer exclusively to a collision of interests that are extremely difficult to resolve. In fact, the parties don’t even need to be aware that there is a conflict. The issues are simply resolved on their own to the satisfaction of all involved. However, we are still talking about conflict. Once we realize we have suc-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

192

Team Development

cessfully clarified these issues, we can use the approach as a pattern to clarify other conflict situations. Often we speak of a “difference of opinion” or “arguments” instead of a conflict: “we still have to work out an agreement” or, “we have a difference of opinion”, or – in the case of intra-personal conflict, we might say: “I’m not sure yet what to do”, or “I’m still somewhat ambivalent”. Conflict has a bad reputation. This happens because we normally first refer to a situation as a conflict situation when it surfaces and persists and becomes a burden, because we feel we are incapable of resolving the matter. Time seems to play a major role in recognizing a conflict situation: the sooner we have solved the problem, have overcome or suppressed it, the less we think of it as a conflict. We only “realize”, in the double sense of the word that we are dealing with conflict when it occurs repeatedly: conflict becomes “real” for us when we perceive it as “real” and allow it to become our reality. It probably makes sense to differentiate between: minor differences, different goal orientation, arguments, personal animosities, differences of opinion and other inner ambivalence on the one hand, that are relatively easy to resolve – and, on the other hand, conflict that is of a more serious nature and not as easily resolved can lead to prolonged stress. The risk involved in differentiating between minor and more serious conflict is that one tends to overlook one’s own resources that help in dealing with many day-to-day minor conflict situations: in more difficult cases, we tend to lose sight of the many different strategies we use to deal with more minor cases. To this end, I suggest defining conflict more broadly in order to keep options open and accessible. The major and minor, short-term and time-consuming conflicts that arise on a daily basis are resolved in many different ways with no guarantee of resolution. This is particularly true if resolving the conflict is understood in terms of a conscious, unambiguous and reflected form of decision in favor of one side or another; a willingness to make a compromise or a fair decision to which both parties agree (by the way: decisions are nothing more than the outcome of conflict and represent a solution that can be agreed upon in the end). We are often not aware of the scope of our existing range of options. In fact, it is much broader than we might initially think.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team193

Exercise Take a piece of paper and draw two separate columns. In the first column write down what comes spontaneously to mind in keywords: –– a conflict I had with another team member; –– a conflict I had with my team; –– a conflict I observed within our team; –– a conflict I had with regard to my job, “with myself ” or an “inner conflict”. Then take a few moments and write down how you dealt with the conflict in the right column: how the situation looks today and what you contributed to its current status. How is a conflict resolved? Here are a few deliberately randomly presented options on how we can handle conflict (and also actually do): –– we forget about it; –– we minimize it (by attributing minor importance or none at all); –– we focus our attention on something else; –– we evade it by avoiding situations where it might arise (we remain silent in decisive situations, avoid certain encounters and start to mentally resign or actually hand in our resignation); –– we repress it; –– we negotiate and make a decision; –– we finally reach a compromise; –– we fight and assert ourselves, we win the conflict or –– we lose, succumb to the circumstances and accept them or we use them as a basis for further conflict; –– we replace it by getting involved in other conflicts; –– we postpone a confrontation and hope it will disappear in time or can be resolved in some other way (“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it”); –– we bring in a mediator or moderator (e.g. a mediator or supervisor); –– we draw lots to make the decision; –– we deal with it intuitively; –– it just somehow disappears; –– we live with it until we eventually own it; –– at some point we can’t imagine living without it; –– it has evolved into an entirely new conflict; –– we manage to partially (re)solve it and, to some extent, satisfy the interests of those involved.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

194

Team Development

Initially, some of these suggestions might sound unacceptable: as soon as we give them some thought, we feel compelled to reflect on the situation, tackle the conflict and resolve it. On the other hand, we can say that this approach would hardly be possible for our many daily conflicts: we deal with too many conflicts of interest on a daily and hourly basis to be able to reflect on each one in depth and resolve it then and there. However, if we are aware of the wealth of options available to us for dealing with conflict then most likely we will be able to fall back on these resources when we are faced with difficult conflicts. The difficulty of conflicts stems from their insolubility: Conflict becomes difficult for us when it can’t be solved or seems insolvable to us even though we want to solve it. Once we become aware of a broader range of options at our disposal for dealing with conflict, the likelihood that one of those options is appropriate increases. In this respect, a number of factors argue for conflict being seen as something quite natural and commonplace and for which we have an entire range of options to choose from for dealing with it. If one can adopt this perspective it becomes evident that conflict is necessary for change to occur – and that change can only be achieved through conflict: the “new” meets the “old” and tries to replace it. In some cases, the old doesn’t resist strongly and is relatively easy to replace, in which case one isn’t actually aware of a conflict taking place because possibly it doesn’t even surface. However, taking a closer look (together with “a little bit of good will”), one can always detect the moment of conflict. Another important aspect can be seen from a systemic perspective. As in the case of a problem, a conflict does not really exist per se (you can’t touch it as you might some inanimate object or capture it in words): it only exists for the individuals experiencing it. A conflict doesn’t “really” exist, rather only as much as those involved experience it. The decisive factor is not objective evidence but the subjective impression held by the conflicting parties, regardless of whether they are representatives or observers. A conflict can be seen as a construct. Thus, one team member may feel that he’s experiencing conflict with another while the latter experiences the situation differently. The rest of the team, however, is well aware that there is a conflict. Another scenario could be (and this is quite possible) that each party responds with a different answer to the question of what “the conflict” consists of. We may assume that what we experience as conflict is perceived differently by each party and that it can change from one moment to the next (as expressed in words like “the situation is getting worse”, “it’s becoming more relaxed”, “I’ve never looked at it that way”, or “the conflict is on hold”). These considerations are important if a team is actively committed to

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team195

solving “its” conflict. A first step might be to find out where members see the conflict occurring before attempting to find a solution. Otherwise misunderstandings could arise that evolve into a feeling of discomfort within the team and ultimately lead to new conflict: a clash over the description of the conflict experienced. At this point, the number of conflicts experienced by each member would have already doubled! Conflict … –– is normal and a part of everyday life. It defines different people and is an expression of their self-determination and autonomy. This means that we have nothing to fear from conflict in itself even if it is unpleasant. Occasionally, we may even welcome conflict and understand it as evidence of our vitality. –– is a construct and doesn’t actually exist – it differs depending on perspective. This means that we can be curious about (or develop our curiosity in relation to) the different perspectives and different conflicts that parties experience and describe. –– changes constantly just like the types of questions or problems. The same is true for us human beings. This means we can always ask about the current status – while keeping in mind that asking about it in itself can change the conflict. –– can be resolved in a variety of ways: it can be endured, repressed, redefined, devalued, postponed, used for something, by refusing to assert one’s own position, refusing to accept compromises with which one can live and so on. –– offer all parties the chance to change. Actively Coming to Terms with Conflict We’ve dealt mainly with the definition of “conflict” up to now in this chapter. Not being directly affected allows us to perceive the situation from an objective distance. As soon as we are directly involved in a conflict (even as a third party) that is not so easily resolved, forgotten, or pushed to the side, the matter looks somewhat different: we are no longer as detached – the (helpful) distance is no longer there. We would (frequently but not necessarily always) like to see the conflict resolved quickly, a balancing and evening out of interests – either by the other party meeting us halfway, agreeing to our wishes or seeing the matter from our perspective – both parties working toward a mutually satisfactory solution. Conflict is perceived as stressful and detri-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

196

Team Development

mental to further development and fulfillment. Conflict and disagreement are open-ended and the outcome cannot be predicted. It’s not clear to what extent parties will allow the conflict to run its course, if and how they will resolve it, what changes will evolve and how long they will allow it to persist. All this also pertains to conflict within a team and is one of the reasons why conflict is perceived by teams as particularly stressful and threatening. Conflict saps the energy and stamina required for concentrating on the “actual” tasks. Conflict within teams can be illustrated as follows: –– Two colleagues don’t like each other and consistently “get on each other’s nerves”. –– A supervisor is dissatisfied with an employee or vice versa. The employee feels that her work is not appreciated or the supervisor suspects that the employee is resisting and being defensive. –– Members within the team take sides and follow a different agenda: Group A prefers a calm working atmosphere if possible, without too much excitement and change involved, and voices this opinion. Group B, on the other hand, would like to encourage innovation and getting involved. Group C doesn’t take sides either way, which in turn irritates the others. –– The team resists the leader who wants to introduce an accounting system for working hours and sees this as a vote-of-no-confidence. –– Some colleagues are always unpunctual (as perceived by the other team members), which leads to animosities and outright anger. Conflict is often one-sided. One colleague may feel irritated by another member’s continual lateness while the latter reacts surprised: “I don’t know what your problem is.” This reaction can exacerbate the conflict the colleague is experiencing and take on a new dimension: not only is her colleague unpunctual but he doesn’t care that it irritates her. Teams Who Are Willing to Deal with the Issue of Conflict in General Can … –– recall conflict scenarios and evaluate the way in which they dealt with it: • What resources have we drawn from to deal with these conflicts? • How can we learn from the experience for the future? –– replay the conflict under controlled conditions – the choice of conflict in itself can be a learning process. Finally, the team can interpret the results: What aspects were we satisfied with? What can we learn from the experience and how much of it can be applied in a real-life, worstcase scenario? What could we do differently?

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team197

–– think back to the conflicts that were resolved recently that may not even have been perceived as conflict. –– have each team member rate the above on a scale, to determine how successfully they feel the conflict was resolved. –– give examples of the conflicts that all members felt were solved successfully and explore the topic further: • How did we manage to deal with this conflict in a way that kept both parties satisfied despite disagreement? • What were the positive effects of the conflict? • What part did each member have from the others’ perspective in the successful outcome of the conflict? • What sort of abstract lessons can we draw that will be helpful to us in future conflicts and disagreements? –– explore the strategies and approaches that can be standardized for dealing with difficulties within the team. –– reflect on the approach you might choose when dealing with clients (between yourself and clients, with your charges in the in-house group, in disagreement with institutional facilities, couples or a family) with whom you are experiencing or trying to mediate a conflict. What kind of a checklist might we create on the basis of experience on how to deal with conflict within our team – so that we could refer back to it in case a serious challenge should occur? The Systemic Perspective in Dealing with Conflict Teams wishing to tackle the subject of conflict within the team, either between individuals or sub-groups, should designate a facilitator to lead the discussion. The facilitator can switch to a systemic perspective and can, with the team’s permission, let it inspire her to assume a methodical approach. Regarding Mandates The facilitator can keep in mind that not everyone has the same expectations regarding the facilitator and process of facilitation nor the same mandate. She can take the time to find out who has what expectations concerning the conflict discussion and what different individuals define as “conflict”.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

198

Team Development

Regarding Resources The facilitator can ask the team about similar conflicts that have been overcome in the past, what they found helpful in the process and what suggestions team members might currently have for dealing with the situation constructively. She can encourage team members to recall moments recently when the conflict may have been less acute. Regarding Context The facilitator can lead the discussion in the direction of situations in which the conflict occurs, under what circumstances it is experienced by whom as particularly critical – and for whom this is different under what kind of circumstances. When and for whom does the conflict not exist or is experienced as less stressful. Regarding the Outcome and the Future The facilitator can ask participants to think of possible solutions, how they can contribute to reaching a solution and what they expect from one another. She can invite the participants to discuss the best possible solutions, as well as the least possible input followed by the first steps toward a resolution. Regarding Multiple Opportunities for Action The facilitator can ensure that a large number of options for taking action are generated and not only a few: there is no discussion about what must be done. Instead the participants collect ideas as a group on what could be done and then continue with what could still be done. Regarding Colleagues’ Autonomy and Self-Determination The facilitator can ensure that the autonomy of conflict parties is maintained under all circumstances. She can do this by seeing herself more in the role of a counselor than that of a facilitator and checking to see that the participants understand her position (in contrast to committee meetings where decisions have to be made very quickly). She can spend time on the perspectives of each conflicting party and acknowledge the “good reasons” for their respective positions in the meantime giving them more room. Regarding Additional Perspectives The facilitator can remind participants that there are very different perspectives involved in this conflict: those of the persons concerned, the various external observers, perspectives from different points in time and the circumstances in which conflict is recognized. Furthermore, the question of whether

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team199

an advantage can be found to this conflict can constitute a new perspective (What is positive about the current situation? What advantage do we – or some of us stand to gain – if this conflict is left unresolved?). Regarding Colleagues’ Willingness to Collaborate The facilitator can assume that all participants are interested in resolving the conflict and are willing to cooperate. In case she feels this is lacking, she can delve further into the subject to see what she can do to encourage commitment. Regarding the Way Colleagues Are Valued The facilitator can compliment participants on their efforts to recognize conflict, to put a name to it, to resolve it, to avoid letting it get out of hand and also for their commitment to finding a solution. It’s not enough to take for granted that participants will join in the effort of resolving the conflict. Instead, she can make a point of acknowledging and underlining their efforts and input. Overall, it is her responsibility to structure the process and create an atmosphere that will enhance and ultimately enable the successful (partial) resolution of the conflict. In addition: –– The facilitator should allow enough time and avoid time pressure: she is not responsible for an all-around satisfactory outcome. Her responsibility is to create conducive conditions and prepare the ground for reaching a solution. –– She will agree with the team to allot a fixed amount of time to the discussion on conflict. When the time is over, the issue is postponed to a later date. –– The facilitator can encourage participants to discuss opportunities for compromise and to imagine best-case scenarios. –– She can request that the parties repeat each of the opposing positions to make sure they have understood. –– She can forego the question of who is at fault and reorient the participants toward the future: “What is our goal? What do we want to achieve?” –– No one should feel obligated to facilitate a consultation dealing with conflict if he/she doesn’t feel up to it. These general guidelines are relevant for the facilitator or moderator in particular. Methods of collegial consultation are introduced below, that can be applied to team conflict by those who wish to deal pro-actively with discord within the team.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

200

Team Development

Mission to Clarify the Conflict Proceeding from the premise that conflict is basically a construct and that each person involved will describe the conflict in a different manner, we can use this exercise as a starting point. The facilitator distributes cards and asks team members to write down their view of the conflict situation in no more than two sentences. On the reverse side each member writes what advice is needed with regard to the conflict or the problem within the team. When everyone has filled out a card, the conflict description is read out loud and is not commented on. Up to two inquiries are permitted from the group. After this first round, everyone reads out what guidance is needed and decides which mandate will be accepted, i.e. whose question and request for advice/ counseling will be taken up. This process takes a few minutes to discuss, after which a decision should be taken. The decision doesn’t necessarily require a vote and perhaps the team will agree to let others make a decision. Conceivably, two mandates could be accepted and then decided in which order they will be addressed. Examples for the cards A: “I wish B would stop treating me like a beginner.” B: “A should stop reacting in such an overly sensitive manner. There is absolutely no reason for it.” C: “I would really like A and B to finally settle their dispute. Could we clarify the situation?” D: “I would like to have my peace and quiet and get back to the topic.”

It’s important not to insist on a single conflict description but to let different descriptions (together with different conflicts) stand side by side. The decision for or against one or the other of the descriptions is not a question of right or wrong but one of pragmatism: We’ve got to begin with one description regardless of which one it is. This doesn’t mean that the others are less important simply because their case will be taken up later. Miracle Question The miracle question can be applied to this situation as well, particularly if the team is already familiar with it and use it in their counseling sessions with clients. The facilitator asks the team for permission to dedicate ten to twenty minutes to the miracle question and its follow-up. The basic question could be: “What if tonight a miracle occurs while we’re asleep and the conflict we are currently dealing with is no longer there. Since we were sleeping, we

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team201

weren’t aware of the miracle taking place. How will we know upon walking in here tomorrow morning that the conflict has been put to rest?” (The wording “conflict has been put to rest” leaves more room for different possibilities than saying “the conflict has been resolved.”) The facilitator will request descriptions from different members and delve deeper into the details. The purpose here is to encourage discussion among members so that each person adds a description. She can invite participants to join the discussion by asking circular questions: “Sabina, what do you think, what Marianne might mean when she says, ‘the atmosphere is relaxed’: What would make her notice that?” In the middle of conflict, it can be that each of the parties involved will be very clear on how it sees a solution and let the miracle happen to the other side. This is allowed and there is no need for the facilitator to step in or feel pressured. She can explore different perspectives in a friendly manner and thank the parties for their descriptions before she invites them to describe the implicit changes: “Once the others act friendly towards you again and welcome you back in the group: how will you react, what will you do differently – and how will we recognize the change in you after the miracle has occurred?” Like other approaches, this method is not appropriate in all situations. The conflict might be too intense and the parties not prepared to work with the miracle question (acceptance of the miracle question is a prerequisite, especially in cases when the conflicting parties, like actual clients are involved in the decision-making process). On the other hand, worrying about the inappropriateness of the tool shouldn’t keep one from using it. Similar to work with clients, the best way to learn about the different possibilities and limitations of methods is practical application and gaining practice and experience on how they can be implemented. Back to the Future “Look far ahead to the point from which you can look back” is a quote from Milton Erickson that Bernhard Trenkle occasionally refers to: the combined knowledge of the experience, knowledge and wisdom from the future with the experience of having successfully overcome the difficult situation at issue, puts one in the position of being able to give oneself tips and advice. This exercise takes the form of a role play in which the entire team participates. Experience has shown that changing the room or seating order during the role play is helpful and serves to visibly and tangibly mark the leap

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

202

Team Development

forward in time. As a support measure, the facilitator can draw a calendar page on the flipchart indicating the date. She begins with the words: “We will now assume that we are sitting here today in a year’s time at exactly this point (the leap forward in time occurs at this moment) and we have meanwhile successfully resolved the conflict that took place at that time. In our team meeting today we’ll try to reconstruct this process.” The facilitator asks the participants to put themselves in this situation and to assume the corresponding roles. During the course of the exercise, she asks the following questions (and follow-up questions) in sequence and tries to elicit detailed and explanatory answers to her questions: –– “What does the situation look like today: the conflict has been resolved or at least partially resolved: how do we recognize and experience the latter?” The goal is to be given positive descriptions of a solution, which they don’t necessarily have to agree to. The facilitator will let the different perspectives stand side by side but will ask in more detail: “What makes you recognize that? What makes you notice that? What do you mean by being ‘relaxed’?” –– “How did these changes come about? What made them possible?” Colleagues can answer with the words “I have no idea”, “If I only knew …” or “it just happened by itself ”. These answers shouldn’t keep the facilitator from asking: “Yes, but assuming one of us contributed something to the situation – what do you think that would be? What else? Who else might have contributed something?” In this case too, as so often, the outcome depends on the skill of the person asking the question. The key is to convey patience, kindness and interest when asking questions so that the team members are encouraged to answer and feel that that their answers are acknowledged as their subjective point of view. –– “How was it a year ago when we first began? What do you remember the first steps toward change, clarification and resolution as being? What do you remember about the first successful attempts to change things?” The facilitator can be persistent with her follow-up questions albeit in a patient and hopeful tone, while eagerly anticipating the different responses that are likely to follow. The goal is not to agree as a team on particular answers but to collect different ideas. After the discussion has come to an end, the facilitator thanks the group for the retrospective and in-depth reflection while the participants return to the original room or seating order. This is followed by a feedback round to hear ideas and suggestions for the next steps that can be implemented. At

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

Conflict within the Team203

this point, however, one shouldn’t forge ahead. The issue can be picked up again at the next team meeting. The “Other” Team Another way of creating distance and encouraging a change of perspective is to agree on playacting a scene about another team involved in a different conflict: What have we heard about the situation? What different aspects about the individual team members have we found out about? What ideas inspire us when we, as outsiders who are not involved, hear about this conflict? What recommendations would we give the team? As with the “back from the future” exercise, the entire team begins a role play. Here too, it’s helpful to clearly indicate a switch in roles by changing rooms or seating order. The facilitator is responsible for keeping the role play on track and, if need be, reminding participants in a polite way to keep to their role by asking them to restate their comments. (If a colleague says: “Perhaps we should …”, she could rephrase the sentence to: “You mean: We could advise this team to simply …”) The different perspectives are easily confused and can be corrected with a little humor. The trick in this exercise is that we artificially create new and dissociated perspectives (that of another team set somewhere in the future). Sometimes it is possible to generate new ideas and stimuli just by imagining a new perspective even though we’re talking about the “old team” in the present time. Reflecting Team The method of reflecting teams is ideal for groups experiencing conflict where not all members are involved in the same way. The members who are more directly involved discuss the conflict with the support of a colleague acting as facilitator. The facilitator asks a few follow-up questions and then, after a set time, interrupts the session and hands it over to the reflecting team. The reflecting team is made up of those members less directly involved and who might have discussed the criteria they want to focus on in advance: –– demonstrable willingness to resolve the conflict, –– descriptions and explanations of respective positions, –– previous attempts at solving the conflict, –– additional suggestions of how the conflict could be solved.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

204

Team Development

After receiving feedback from the team, the facilitator asks them for their comments, giving priority to phrases such as: “What was new to you about what you just heard?” “What in particular struck a cord with you?” “What else could be helpful in dealing with the situation in the future?” It is particularly important that: –– the conflicting parties agree to be observed by a reflecting team who will comment on the process. In other words, the reflecting team has been given a “mandate” by them; –– particularly at the beginning, members of the reflecting team refer exclusively to what they hear or heard and not what they think about the case (as members of the team they never really got involved in the conflict, unlike in their interactions with colleagues, and are still considered participants by the conflicting parties); –– the members of the reflecting team ensure that the situation is well balanced with regard to their own observations and comments, as well as the overall image created by the group; –– the members of the reflecting team don’t suggest ideas on how to resolve the conflict too quickly (especially unsolicited advice): in conflict situations this is even less appropriate than in client counseling. Reflecting teams are particularly indicated for teams who already have some experience with the method and are active in collegial consultation and work with clients. Teams That Wish to Deal with Internal Conflict along the Lines of Collegial Consultation Can … –– designate a facilitator, set clear time frames and contextual structures to work by: How much time will we spend on the issue today? According to what method should we proceed? –– ensure that the focus is on the mandates within the context of the conflict situation and pay particular attention to the questions (and the intent of the person who asks them). –– discuss earlier situations that were both similar and dissimilar and how they were dealt with (be careful not to bring up the old mistakes!) through the questions: What can we learn from our past experience? If nothing comes to mind straightaway we can ask: Presuming we could learn something from the experience, what would that be? –– join forces and look for resources and advantages inherent in the conflict: What’s the “silver lining”? –– use simple methods: generate hypotheses (What are the reasons under-

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

How Can I Initiate Change within My Team?205

lying the conflict and why did it arise at precisely this time?), suggestions (How could each member help to improve the situation?), compliments (How has each member ensured that the conflict hasn’t escalated yet?), ideas to exacerbate the situation (What can we do to make the situation worse?). –– use more sophisticated measures such as “clarifying the mandate in the case of conflict”, “the miracle question”, “back from the future”, “the ‘other’ team” or the “reflecting team”. –– practice patience and allow for time: the more urgent and distant a resolution seems simply because it’s not foreseeable, the sooner one will be able to accept that a “quick fix” is not possible. –– discuss the question: “Assuming we had to live with this conflict indefinitely – what rules and agreements can we commit to, to render the conflict bearable?” –– call in an external facilitator, mediator (from the same facility, an affiliated facility or management) or request a supervisor to attend at different intervals or periodically. A team can practice dealing with conflict within the group. A good place to start practicing is with minor or even ridiculous conflict situations: “Stop – we might have a very minor conflict here: Shall we practice with it?”

How Can I Initiate Change within My Team? Of course, it becomes more difficult if only a few individuals are interested in change. In this case, they have no mandate apart from their own, which means that their colleagues will not always be grateful for suggestions for change and, on the contrary, may even resist them. –– Don’t give up too soon: Change is only possible when one believes it’s possible. Someone must be willing to bring about change. –– Give yourself time and be patient (I know what I’m talking about – there are teams that barely move or at a snail’s pace at best. Inertia, the desire not to touch what’s been tried and tested, and risk-avoidance, “no new experiments” is very strong). –– Collect all the positive information about what you believe is already running smoothly. –– Ask others what they would like to see changed and what ideas they have for improvement.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

206

Team Development

–– Take notice of small changes and improvements that you have achieved and that motivate others and you will see that progress isn’t as slow as you originally thought. –– Give your colleagues the benefit of doubt and assume on principle if not conviction that they are willing to cooperate: colleagues always want to work together constructively. If, however, I feel that I do occasionally encounter resistance, I imagine it simply as a matter of not having understood where and how they want to cooperate (cf. de Shazer, 1984, 1989). –– Initiate a discussion about quality assurance: What are we good at and where can we be satisfied with our work? It is easier not only for us and our colleagues but also our clients to begin with our strengths. –– Invite colleagues to make small changes. Suggest simple, non-committal experiments like a single change in the arrangement of the team meeting (agenda or facilitator or a time limit for individual items or in the minutes) and suggest a time frame followed by an evaluation (What effect did it have? Do we want to keep it that way?). Since you are making an offer you will be able to accept a rejection (but make sure you recognize when your offer is accepted or if you start having success on a regular basis with your suggestions for change). –– Refer to your suggestions for change as “experiments” (you might also want to suddenly introduce team facilitation into the group. This too, can be regarded as an experiment): experiments can be repeated but can also disappear completely after the first try, or prematurely discontinued. In any case, it’s more likely that colleagues will agree to an experiment than to a long-term commitment to change. –– Find a group with which to practice collegial consultation. Ask interested colleagues, including those from affiliated facilities, if they are interested in meeting for two hours, twice a month, for a team consultation. In these meetings you might be able to try out approaches that your team seems to resist on the one hand, and on the other, they can provide you with inspiration and ideas on how to deal with your own team. –– Speak of invitations to your colleagues rather than making demands. –– Think about which strategies and approaches you have developed in the course of your work with clients that inspire you to try something new: Try to use these strategies in dealing with your colleagues (it’s not about seeing colleagues as clients, rather using those tools that have proven effective in other areas). –– Presumably you have even better ideas …

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Systemic Reassurances for the Team

Ute Fernis and Ludger Kühling (2004) developed the intriguing idea of “systemic reassurance” or a set of guidelines to help deal with failure or setbacks in work with clients. In addition, they offer their approach to participants of training workshops. I would like to borrow from this concept and introduce it here as “systemic reassurance for the team” – just in case you or your team have decided to initiate measures for change that haven’t quite worked out as anticipated. You might want to choose from the reassurance options to fall back on later if required: Why can’t we reassure ourselves when we fail to accomplish something? (Of course not every reassurance is appropriate for everyone in every situation just as it would make little sense to try to keep all reassurances in mind all at one time.) Exercise You can collect your own “reassurances” within your team. Initiate a mind jogging session with your team regarding the subject: How can we restore our confidence when we don’t achieve our goal or haven’t been as successful as we had hoped to be? Write the answers on cards and pin them on the bulletin board or wall in your team room.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

208

Systemic Reassurances for the Team

Systemic Team Reassurance – Tips for Dealing with Failure in Teamwork and Development –– Congratulating: You have explored your unique approach, showing both individual initiative and self-confidence instead of slavishly following prescribed guidelines. –– A self-sufficient team finds individual solutions – and things don’t always work out the way one would want them to! –– As a team, think about what went well and what you would do again: something you were really good at. –– Simply try again. –– Give yourself a break from time to time. –– Generate at least 17 hypotheses as to why it didn’t work. –– Reward yourself for trying in the first place. –– Go out for lunch together. –– Generate hypotheses about how things could have turned out worse. –– Great! You gave it a try. Just have another go. –– Think about what you did to avoid making matters even worse. –– You may be as patient with yourselves as you are with your clients. –– Be good to yourselves. It’s far more helpful than feeling angry, bitter or chastising yourselves. –– Teamwork is hard work. And hard work doesn’t necessarily bring the desired results. –– “Being open to mistakes” means staying optimistic despite mistakes.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■Acknowledgements

Many of the ideas introduced in this book are not mine. Although I have been instrumental in the development of this model of team consultation in key areas, many more people have contributed valuable input. The following individuals, in particular, from the Social Education and Family Assistance Facility in Böblingen, Germany, have been involved in the development of the basic idea: Brigitte Geske, Annette Glück, Uwe Hülle, Ludger Kühling, Cornelia Münch, Iska Müller, Norbert Rudnik, Anneliese Salzer, Annette Schneider, Heike Trelle (formerly Stock) and Elisabeth Schweyer. In the following years these ideas and models were developed further in continuing education training seminars that I conducted together with Ute Fernis (formerly Große-Freese) and Ludger Kühling. I express my gratitude to both of them for their valuable contribution. Frequently, participants in training seminars and supervision sessions brought in good ideas or came up with entirely new approaches. Naturally, we often turned to ideas and proposals suggested by colleagues, however, it would be impossible for me to list all individual input we received along the way. Thanks to a sabbatical semester granted to me by my colleagues in the Department of Social Work, Media and Culture and the University of Applied Sciences in Merseburg, Germany, I was able to compile my ideas and research in this book. Furthermore, I would like to thank Lilo Büchner and my son Kasimir Lempp for their careful proofreading; Sandra Englisch and Günter Presting for their editing expertise that contributed significantly to the realization of this book; and all other individuals who, each in their own way, supported the development of this model of team consultation by their willingness to verify its effectiveness in practical application. I express my sincere gratitude to all of you who helped in making this book a reality. I welcome further comments, feedback and suggestions for further application.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

210

Acknowledgements

Contact: Prof. Johannes Herwig-Lempp, University of Applied Science Merseburg, Faculty of Social Work.Media.Culture. Geusaer Str. 88, 06217 Merseburg, Germany E-Mail: [email protected], Internet: www.herwig-lempp.de

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■References

Adriani, Brigitte, Schwalb, Ulrich, Wetz, Rainer (1989). Hurra, ein Problem! Kreative Lösungen im Team (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden. Ashby, W. Ross (1958). Introduction to Cybernetics (3rd impr.). London. Andersen, Tom (Ed.) (1990). The Reflecting Team. Dialogues and Dialogues about Dialogues. Dortmund. Bateson, Gregory (2002). Mind and Nature. A Necessary Unit. Cresskill, NJ. Bender, Susanne (2002). Teamentwicklung. Der effektive Weg zum »Wir«. München. Berg, Insoo (1994). Family-Based Services. A Solution-focused Approach. New York, NY. Bosselmann, Rainer (1993). Lob der kollegialen Unterstützungsgruppe. Familiendynamik, 18, 82–85. Brinkmann, Ralf D. (2002). Intervision. Ein Trainings- und Methodenbuch für die kollegiale Beratung. Heidelberg. Bulliger, Hermann, Nowak, Jürgen (1998). Soziale Netzwerkarbeit. Freiburg. Carroll, Lewis (1994). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. London. Connemann, Ralf (1998). Das Reflektierende Team in der Aus- und Fortbildung von Beratungslehrkräften. In Jürgen Hargens, Arist von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Das Spiel der Ideen. Reflektierendes Team und systemische Praxis (S. 109–122). Dortmund. Connemann, Ralf, Kubesch, Barbara (1991). Das Reflektierende Team als Fallbesprechungsmodell in Lehrergruppen. Zeitschrift für systemische Therapie, 9, 128–136. Deutscher Verein für öffentliche und private Fürsorge (2002). Empfehlungen zur Teamarbeit und Teamentwicklung in der sozialen Arbeit. Frankfurt a. M. Ebbecke-Nohlen, Andrea (1999). Perspektivenwechsel in der Supervision. Der Supervisionswalzer. Zeitschrift für systemische Therapie, 17, 258–267. Epstein, Eugene K., Kellenbenz-Epstein, Margit, Wiesner, Manfred (1998). Vom Reflektierenden Team zum Reflektiven Prozeß: Reflexive Kooperation in einer Kinderund Jugendpsychiatrie. In Jürgen Hargens, Arist von Schlippe (Hrsg.), Das Spiel der Ideen. Reflektierendes Team und systemische Praxis (S. 31–52). Dortmund. Fallner, Heinrich, Grässlin, Martin (1989). Kollegiale Beratung. Einführung in die Systematik partnerschaftlicher Reflexionsverfahren. Ursel. Fernis, Ute, Kühling, Ludger (2004). Systemische Tröstungen. Kontext, 35, 165–170. Fisher, John (1995). The Magic of Lewis Carroll. Harmondsworth. Foerster, Heinz von (1999). Sicht und Einsicht. Versuche zu einer operativen Erkenntnistheorie. Heidelberg. Francis, Dave, Young, Don (1992). Improving Work Groups: A Practical Manual for Team Building (revised). San Diego, CA.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

212

References

Franz, Hans-Werner, Kopp, Ralf (2003). Kollegiale Fallberatung. State of the art und organisationale Praxis. Köln. Franzen, Jonathan (2001). The Corrections. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Glasersfeld, Ernst von (1992). Declaration of the American Society for Cybernetics. In C. V. Negiota (Ed.), Cybernetics and Applied Systems (pp. 1–5). New York, NY. Glasl, Friedrich (2011). Konfliktmanagement (10. Aufl.). Bern. Guterson, David (2000). East of the Mountains. London. Hargens, Jürgen, von Schlippe, Arist (Hrsg.) (1998). Das Spiel der Ideen. Reflektierendes Team und systemische Praxis. Dortmund. Haug, Christoph V. (2009). Erfolgreich im Team (4. Aufl.). München. Haug-Benin, Rolf-Dieter (1998). Ein Fall nicht nur für zwei. Kollegiale Beratung. hibatransfer III/1998 (heidelberger institut Beruf und Arbeit). Hendriksen, Jeroen (2011). Intervision. Kollegiale Beratung in Sozialer Arbeit und Schule (3. Aufl.). Weinheim. Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (1987). Soziale Systeme existieren. Stimmt’s? Stimmt nicht! DELFIN, IX 5, 5–10. Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (2000a). Aus Erfolgen lernen: Ein Instrument der Selbstevaluation. Sechs Argumente und ein Leitfaden zum Sprechen über Erfolge. Systhema, 14, 185–195. English version: Let’s Talk About Success! http://www.herwig-lempp.de/ wp-content/uploads/2009/12/0202successJHL.pdf Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (2000b). »Schön, dass wir darüber gesprochen haben!« Erfolge in der Sozialen Arbeit. Supervision, 3, 48–51. Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (2001). Die Form der guten Frage. Kontext, 32, 33–55. Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (2002). Maschinen, Menschen, Möglichkeiten – eine kleine Ideengeschichte des systemischen Arbeitens. Kontext, 33, 190–212. Herwig-Lempp, Johannes (2009). Ressourcen im Umfeld: Die VIP-Karte. In Brigitta Michel-Schwartze (Hrsg.), Methodenbuch Soziale Arbeit. Basiswissen für die Praxis (2. Aufl., S. 207–226). Wiesbaden. Holtz, Karl-Ludwig, Thiel, Dieter (1996). LoB – Lösungsorientierte Beratung und Supervision in pädagogischen Handlungsfeldern. In Jörg Schlee, Wolfgang Mutzek (Hrsg.), Kollegiale Supervision: Modelle zur Selbsthilfe für LehrerInnen. Heidelberg, S. 168–190. Katzenbach, Jon R., Smith, Douglas K. (1993). Teams. Der Schlüssel zur Hochleistungsorganisation. Wien. König, Rainer, Haßelmann, Uwe (2004). Konflikte managen am Arbeitsplatz. Göttingen. Korzybski, Alfred (2005). Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (5th ed.). Lancaster, PA u. New York, NY. Kriz, Willy Christian, Nöbauer, Brigitta (2008). Teamkompetenz. Konzepte, Trainingsmethoden, Praxis (4. Aufl.). Göttingen. Kühl, Wolfgang (2007). Intervision: billig, aber auch gut? Kollegiale Beratung in der Sozialen Arbeit. Sozialmagazin, 32, 38–47 Lippmann, Eric (2009). Intervision (2. Aufl.). Berlin u. a. Malik, Fredmund (1999). Der Mythos vom Team. Psychologie heute, 8, 32–39. Möbius, Thomas, Klawe, Willy (Hrsg.) (2003). AIB – Ambulante Intensive Betreuung. Weinheim. Natho, Frank (2005). Die Lösung liegt im Team. Handbuch zur Arbeit mit der Skalierungsscheibe. Dessau.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

References213 Neufeldt, Ingemarie (2003). Hilfeplan und Betroffenenbeteiligung – Die Methode des Reflektierenden Teams in der Teamberatung. Jugendhilfe, 1 (49), 4–12. Pfeifer-Schaupp, Ulrich (Hrsg.) (2002). Systemische Praxis. Freiburg. Reiter, Ludwig, Brunner, Ewald J., Reiter-Theil, Stella (Hrsg.) (1997). Von der Familientherapie zur systemischen Perspektive (2., überarb. Aufl.). Berlin. Ritscher, Wolf (2013). Systemische Modelle für die Soziale Arbeit. Ein integratives Lehrbuch für Theorie und Praxis (3. Aufl.). Heidelberg. Robinson, Vera M. (1991). Humor and the Health Professions: The Therapeutic Use of Humor in Health Care. Thorefare, NJ. Schlippe, Arist von (1996). Das Auftragskarussell. In Hans Schindler (Hrsg.), Unheimliches Heim. Von der Familie ins Heim und zurück?!? (S. 135–142). Dortmund. Schlee, Jörg (2012). Kollegiale Beratung und Supervision für pädagogische Berufe (3. Aufl.). Stuttgart. Schlippe, Arist von, Schweitzer, Jochen (2009). Lehrbuch der systemischen Therapie und Beratung (4. Aufl.). Göttingen. Schmitz, Lilo (2002). Lösungsorientierte Gesprächsführung. Brühl. Schulz von Thun, Friedemann (2006). Praxisberatung in Gruppen (6. Aufl.). Weinheim. Schwing, Rainer, Fryszer, Andreas (2012). Systemisches Handwerk (5. Aufl.). Göttingen. Selvini, Matteo, Selvini Palazzoli, Mara (1992). Team-Konsultation: ein unentbehrliches Instrument für den Wissensfortschritt. Über Förderung und Pflege der kreativen Möglichkeiten von Teamarbeit In Jochen Schweitzer, Arnold Retzer, Hans Rudi Fischer (Hrsg.) (1992), Systemische Praxis und Postmoderne (S. 164–190). Frankfurt a. M. Shazer, Steve de (1984). The Death of Resistance. Family Process, 23, 11–17. Shazer, Steve de (1989). Resistance Revisited. Contemporary Family Therapy, 11 (4), 227–233. Shazer, Steve de, Berg, Insoo Kim (1993). Making Numbers Talk: Language in Therapy. In Steven Friedman (Ed.), The New Language of Change. Constructive Collaboration in psychotherapy (pp. 5–24). New York, NY. Simmen, René, Buss, Gabriele, Hassler, Astrid, Immoos, Stephan (2010). Systemorientierte Sozialpädagogik (3. Aufl.). Bern. Simon, Fritz B. (2004). Patterns of War. Systemic Aspects of Deadly Conflicts. Heidelberg. Simon, Fritz B. (2005). Unterschiede, die Unterschiede machen (4. Aufl.). Berlin. Speed, Bebe (1992). Ein Kopf ist besser als zwei (oder mehr). Über die Vorteile des allein arbeitenden Therapeuten. In Jochen Schweitzer, Arnold Retzer, Hans Rudi Fischer (Hrsg.) (1992), Systemische Praxis und Postmoderne (S. 191–202). Frankfurt a. M. Stahmer, Ingrid (1996). Teamarbeit. In Dieter Kreft, Ingrid Mielenz (1996), Wörterbuch Soziale Arbeit (4. Aufl., S. 460–462). Weinheim. Steier, Fred, Smith, Kenwyn (1985). Organizations and Second Order Cybernetics (unpublished paper). Tietze, Kim O. (2012). Kollegiale Beratung. Problemlösungen gemeinsam entwickeln. Miteinander reden: Praxis (5. Aufl.). Reinbek. Wack, Otto Georg, Dettlinger, Georg, Grothoff, Hildegard (1998). Kreativ sein kann jeder (2. Aufl.). Hamburg. Vogt-Hillmann, Manfred (2002). Ressourcen- und Kompetenzsterne in der Diagnostik von Kindern und Jugendlichen. In Manfred Vogt-Hillmann, Wolfgang Burr (Hrsg.), Lösungen im Jugendstil (S. 123–149). Dortmund.

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

■■ List of Key Words

A about me 67 advertising 187, 189 agenda 24, 32, 46, 56, 130, 133, 151 f., 154, 156, 158, 160, 162 ff., 167 ambience in the room 23, 162 appropriate questions 76 f. asking 46, 48, 58, 66 f., 74, 113 f., 125, 129, 140, 147, 201 attention mix 72 B back from the future 51, 203, 205 back to the future 201 basic premise of systemic work 39, 58 C case study discussion 139, 141 case study discussion according to Connemann and Kubesch 141 case study discussion according to Schmitz 139 central guidelines for facilitating 160 changing seats 164 changing teamwork 31 f. circular questioning 38, 47, 49, 104, 114 circular questions 12, 51, 69, 125, 147, 201 collegial consultation according to Fallner and Grässlin 138 complaints 166 compliments 71, 78, 85, 128, 146, 205 configuring, playing and action 117 conflict within the team 189, 196 f. consulting 29, 125, 127 f. criticism and doubt 86 crossfire questioning 68

D dealing with interruptions 163 decision-making 19, 29, 32, 136, 146, 156, 175, 178 f. decision-making as a team 10, 136, 174 developing own team rules 167 developing questions 73, 102 developing question types 73 development-based teamwork 31 different levels of teamwork 28, 32 discourse guideline 112 evaluating success 112 E ethical imperative 40, 144 evaluating results 57 evaluating success 112, 114 F facilitator 10, 62 ff., 68, 71, 74, 76, 79, 81, 98, 112, 118, 121, 152, 154, 156 f., 160, 163, 166, 185, 197 ff., 204 facilitator’s responsibility 154, 156 feedback 33, 41, 52, 71, 76, 83, 105, 112, 114, 116, 119, 121, 123, 140 ff., 149, 154, 156, 161, 165, 170, 204 feedback round 71, 131, 139, 161, 184, 202 final statement 63, 126, 129 finding an approach 77 focusing 47, 52, 56, 64, 72, 116 forms of decision-making 174 further experiments 168 further suggestions, tips and tricks 162

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

List of Key Words215 G generating hypotheses 81, 102, 204, 208 good advice 82, 84, 86, 183 I If I were you … 76, 86 imaginary council 147 informing 28 ff., 155 Informing 32 instead of 11, 34 f., 49 f., 52, 64, 75, 79, 95, 118, 127, 131, 133 ff., 137, 139, 143, 157, 161, 164, 168, 181, 192, 208 interpretations 59, 81 interrogation 69 issues, concerns 13, 56, 136 L learning from experience 116 learning from myself 145 leftover questions and problems 109 limitations of team consultation 135 lonely cross-country run 146 M making things worse 84 mandate carousel 148 mandate for conflict clarification 96 f. mind jogging 78 ff., 146, 186, 207 minutes 23, 33, 62, 81, 118 f., 154, 158, 165 ff., 191 miracle question 48, 139 f., 147, 200 f., 205 model 13 f., 54 ff., 63, 77, 79, 132, 135, 137, 141, 147, 175 ff., 209 model of case discussions according to Ralf Connemann and Barbara Kubesch 141 modifying pace and style 167 movement 117, 164, 169, 171 O observation tasks 71 f., 128 looking for what’s new 71 opening questions 65 f., 69 opening the meeting 154, 163 organizational teamwork 30, 32 organizing team meeting 151 orienting toward role models 185 other models 137 ff.

P perspective chairs 72 presenting concerns 109 problems 109, 111, 119, 149 f. process of a reflecting team 126 process of a team consultation 47, 62, 124, 137 process of a team meeting 152 ff., 158, 167 process of decision-making 155, 175, 177, 180 f., 201 process structure in team consultation 57, 152 pros and cons 130 Q quality assurance 111, 115, 136, 183 f., 206 R rating scale 107 f. rearrangeable team 172 reciprocal information 104 reflecting team 46, 54, 123 ff., 141, 203 roaming circus 122 role play 46, 117 ff., 203 routine reports 108 rules for the reflecting team 126 S sculpturing 46 f., 117, 120 ff. self-consultation 144 self-presentation 187 self-understanding 185 skit 117 ff. speaking order 152, 169 speculating 70 story 64 f., 67 f., 71 ff., 85, 106, 110, 113, 115 structured short reports 106 success circle 115 f. supervision 12, 69, 84, 117, 130, 136, 141, 209 supervision waltz 143 systemic methods 45 f., 144 systemic perspective 7, 45 f., 48, 50, 52 f. in conflict situations 194, 197 in team consultation 56 systemic reassurances for the team 207

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608

216

List of Key Words

systemic theory 41, 43 systemic tools 37 T talking about myself in the third person 67 task-oriented teamwork 28, 131, 172 team consultation 9 ff., 13 f., 56 ff., 62 f., 65, 74 f., 77, 79, 84, 105, 109, 115, 118, 121, 125, 129 f., 132 ff., 144, 149, 151, 155, 157 f., 163, 165, 183, 206, 209 team consulting 32 team development 13, 31 f., 182 f., 189 team development curve 186 f. team games 169 team hat 172 f.

team meeting 10 f., 13 f., 26, 30, 35, 115 f., 151 f., 158, 164 f., 167 f., 174, 182 f., 186, 202 f., 206 team organization 30, 32 f. the other team 124 f. the team and the systemic approach 53 thirty-second-rule 168 tips for the facilitator 156 W what works 117 written and oral discussion 169 Y yellow card 166, 168

© 2013, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783525491607 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647491608