EXTRACT MODELING BENEFITS

It is easy (and fun) for me to demonstrate the impact of modeling to the large groups with which I sometimes work.

When working with small groups, we usually try to provide handouts and other materials to our participants as we need them.

At some point, the group comes upon what appears to be a blank yellow sheet in the right side pocket. By that point, our methods are familiar. Every­one in the room expects that I am about ask that they pull the yellow sheet out, look at it, and then listen to me for a few moments as I amplify the concept described on the sheet. Then, they anticipate, I will ask them to discuss in their small groups some aspect of their work life that is stimulated by their consid­eration of the concept.

With the familiarity of that procedure in mind, I do, indeed, ask that they pull the yellow sheet from their folders, but then I diverge slightly (but signifi­cantly) from the accustomed ritual.

I typically say something like this:

“Before we talk about the substance of this next sheet, I would like you to notice something about the sheet of paper itself.” Then, as I continue to speak and having drawn the attention of everyone in the room, I move the sheet to my face and say, “It has a citrus aroma.” With that, I take a deep sniff of the page. Then, I listen to hear the flutter of hundreds of other yellow sheets as they move “noseward.”

Next, I ask the group to look at the sheet and there, in a small font and printed in the center of the page, they see the word “Modeling.”

Typically, there is a roar of laughter.

It is extremely important that facilitators of conflict (and other forms of inter­action) understand the power of modeling. Any characteristic of their emotional state and much of their behavior are likely to “rub off” on those they intend to assist.

Of course, that simple reality can be used to great advantage. (I sometimes mention to my Facilitation Skills program participants that prior to their sessions I put on music. I explain that if they find that music comforting in some small way all the better but that I put it on to increase my own comfort. I have no way to know in advance their tastes in music, but I certainly know mine, and I under­stand the power of modeling.)

If, through modeling, I can contribute to an increase in the comfort of those I hope to assist, it is likely to increase the likelihood of the success of the inter­action. The same would be true of their sense of optimism, their faith in the positive motivation of all involved, their sense of commitment to the process, and their curiosity. Even such seemingly modest aspects of the interaction as punctuality can be altered in a positive direction through modeling.

So, at the simplest level, it might be tempting to suggest to facilitators they should do whatever they can to become aware of the impact of their own behavior so that they can model those aspects that they believe will contribute to the success of the interactions they are facilitating.

In my experience, such an approach would, indeed, be tempting, but it can lead to serious problems. There is a potentially serious downside to mod­eling, and, in my observation, it is often ignored. When we model certain productive behaviors, we do it in the hope that the frequency of such behav­iors will increase (in those we hope to assist). Often, however, despite our best intent as facilitators, those we are assisting display these very behaviors less frequently.

I call this the “division of labor” problem.

Division of labor was the great strength of Henry Ford’s first assembly line for the manufacture of automobiles. He understood that his workers were likely to have certain strengths and limitations in their response to each aspect of the process of assembling these machines. He correctly reasoned that by having each person “specialize” in the aspect of construction that tapped his or her (probably “his” at the time) greatest strength, there would be enormous bene­fits of efficiency.

Such division of labor is a fine way to increase efficiency (at certain costs that we will not explore here) but it is completely inappropriate to the sorts of skill development we hope to achieve with high-quality facilitation.

Suppose that I, as facilitator, occasionally fractionate an aspect of the larger issue in discussion in the hope that those with whom I am working will start to do the same. That is, I fractionate, in the hope that through modeling their behavior will be modified in this useful direction.

Instead, I may find that I am viewed by those in conflict as the “specialist” in fractionating, and rather than doing it more frequently, those in conflict may tend to do it less. In effect, they may come to understand that it is somehow my role to do the fractionating.

Of course, the very same thing can happen with any behavior that I might wish to model.

As a result, I suggest to those interested in developing conflict facilitation skills that they carefully observe the results of their attempts to model pro­ductive conflict behavior. If they find that the modeling has been successful, all the better. But, if not, I encourage them to make the issue explicit. By using the fractionating example that I mentioned earlier, I would encourage facilita­tors to say (their version of), “Did you notice how I tried to break the issue you were discussing into smaller pieces? Well, that might be a useful tech­nique, and I would ask that you give it a try with the issue that just came to our attention.”

Absent that sort of explicit request, it is likely that the most effective conflict participant will be the facilitator, and quite obviously, that will not have the last­ing benefit we would hope to provide.