Group-Member Capabilities

Four capabilities organize group-member decisions and actions. They are also critical to effective facilitation (Garmston, 2008).

A capability names what a person is able to do. It is different from capacity, which refers to how much one can hold. Capabilities are the metacognitive maps and models that individuals use to guide behavioral choices: when to use, how to use or not use specific skills (Dilts, 1994).

Capabilities organize and direct the application and effectiveness of knowledge and skills. With these capabilities, self-authoring individuals can then choose how to listen, how to speak and how to pay attention to others in the group.

The four group-member capabilities are (Garmston & Wellman, 2009):

1. To know one’s intentions and choose congruent behaviors

2. To set aside unproductive patterns of listening, responding and inquiring

3. To know when to self-assert and when to integrate

4. To know and support the group’s purposes, topics, processes, and development

1. To Know One’s Intentions and Choose Congruent Behaviors

Clarity of intention in the moment and over time drives attention, which in turn drives action, the what and how of a group member’s meeting participation. Clarity of intention precedes and influences the other three capabilities. It is the source of impulse control, patience, strategic listening and strategic speaking.

This capability is the foundation of flexible and effective behavior. If for example, a person’s intention is to positively influence the thinking of others, various behaviors can be used congruently with this intention. In some circumstances, a skillful paraphrase conveys an attempt to understand and open the door for reciprocal understanding. In other circumstances,

an inquiry into the thinking of another speaker might be more influential. In other cases, direct advocacy may be more persuasive. Intention supports achievement of clear outcomes for tasks, processes and group development.

2. To Set Aside Unproductive Patterns of Listening, Responding and Inquiring

For each meeting participant, there are two audiences. One is external, made up of the other group members. The other is internal, made up of feelings, pictures, and self-talk going on inside each individual. Group members need to continually decide which audience to serve. Three common patterns of listening, responding and inquiring must be set-aside to support this decision and allow fuller, more non-judgmental participation:

a) Autobiographical listening, responding and inquiring: “Me, too!”

b) Inquisitive/curiosity listening, responding and inquiring: “Tell me more!”

c) Solution listening, responding and inquiring: “I know what to do!”

The autobiographical frame leads to several problems in group work. The first is the filtering process that goes on when individuals try to hear another person’s story through the lenses of their own experience. While this can be a source of empathy, it can also lead them to distorting and miscommunicating. This type of listening, responding and inquiring is a major source of wasted time in meetings. It leads to endless storytelling in which everyone around the table tells a version

of the tale or shares a related anecdote. This is cocktail party conversation, not productive meeting talk. For example, each member of the eighth grade team does not need to relate a discipline horror story. The team needs to explore and develop a collective understanding of students and their needs and develop appropriate response patterns that elicit desired behaviors.

The inquisitive frame is sometimes triggered by the autobiographical. People inquire to see how others’ stories compare to their own. Pure curiosity also motivates inquisitive listening, responding and inquiring. A critical question at this juncture is, “How much detail do we need to move this item?” This is an example of what we call a “naïve question.” Such questions can be asked by any group member. The purpose is to focus attention on critical matters and avoid unnecessary specificity.

The solution frame is deeply embedded in the psyche of educators. Status, rewards, and identity are all tied up in being a good problem solver. The press of time in schools pushes people toward action and away from reflection. The downside of this pattern is that groups and group members can become trapped in situations and action plans before they have time to fully understand each other’s perspectives and the perspectives of groups and individuals outside the meeting.

The solution frame also stifles the generation of new possibilities. It gets in the way of developing alternative ways of framing issues and problems and it pushes groups toward acting before defining clear outcomes.

3. To Know When to Self-Assert and When to Integrate

Each group member holds a responsibility to self and a responsibility to the group. These responsibilities trigger critical choice points structured by the first and fourth capabilities. Self-assertion and integration are conscious choices only when group members have personal clarity about their own intentions and knowledge of and a willingness to support the group’s outcomes and methods.

Self-assertion does not always mean self-focus. It can mean asserting oneself into the flow of group interactions to refocus the group on a topic or on a process. It can mean inquiring about the connection between someone’s comment and the purpose of the meeting when the conversation strays off of the topic. It can also mean speaking up and advocating for topics and processes.

When individual group members integrate, they align their energy with the content and processes of the meeting. During dialogue, they suspend judgments and counterarguments in an attempt to understand viewpoints that are different from their own. During discussions, they follow the flow of logic and reasoning as it emerges. In this way, solutions that are satisfying to the group as a whole are more likely to emerge.

Consensus decision-making is the ultimate test of this group-member capability. This process requires that participants know when and how to self-assert and when and how to integrate both during and after the decision-making process.

4. To Know and Support the Group’s Purposes, Topics, Processes, and Development

All ongoing groups need to balance three simultaneous agendas. The first is task focus. This is the ultimate expression of the group’s purpose. The second agenda is process skills development. Without continued attention to expanding repertoire and developing skills, the group can stagnate, not expanding its capacity for handling more complex work in the future. The third agenda is group development. All groups exist on a continuum from novice to expert performance. Experience alone is an insufficient teacher. Many long-standing groups operate at a novice level of performance.

This capability calls on all group members to be familiar with the three agendas- task, processes and group development-- and to be conscious of the ways that each is supported through the group's work together. High performing groups are high learning groups. By supporting the group's purposes, topics, processes, and development, individual group members make a commitment to this shared learning and to personal learning.