"We want to educate students so that they become larger, more open, more independent human beings, able to function effectively in a world of rapid social and moral change. We believe that a person struggles toward these goals through a process of integrating his thoughts, his concerns and his actions. Our teaching will be directed toward the development of this perspective, this sense of an integrating self." (Borton, Reach, Touch and Teach, p. 66, 1970)
This was the spirit of a group of teachers in the mid-1960s - the spirit, or soil, in which the seed of the 'What Model' was planted and grew.
"We wanted to build a curriculum which would explore the concern for identity by concentrating on the students' own sense of disparity between what they thought about in school, what they were concerned about in their own lives, and the way they acted" (p. 66). In essence, the What? So what? Now what? model was created as a 'process' to help young people navigate every day concerns. The 'Curriculum of Concerns' these teachers built was the overall structure, the What Model was one of the tools within the structure. Terry Borton is the author of, Reach, Touch and Teach: Student Concerns and Process Education, published in 1970. Borton, at the time, was an English teacher in the Philadelphia schools during the desegregation era in the United States. After his first year of teaching English (1964), he was inspired to, "talk over an extended period of time with students about things they thought were important" (p. 23). The following summer (1965), Borton and a handful of teachers, "got the chance to run an experimental summer school [Friends' Summer Workshop]...to make an unfettered attempt at finding out how to meet students where they were and show them where they could go" (p. 23). The curriculum they envisioned was designed to explore the diverse social aspect of human life and self-identity. The same area of focus we still have today as 'social' educators and team builders. I could go on with rich examples from the book about these incredible teachers and how they learned to meet their students where they were, a well-known group facilitation strategy still important today, but I'll leave that up to you if you're interested in getting the book. Let's jump to how the What Model came to be. Through a variety of classroom activities like role plays, art and poetry, the students in the Summer Workshops were taught useful things about personal development and human relationships. They were also taught about the many ways of responding to different situations that were common in their lives (again, practicing in the classroom). But, the teachers thought, "unless our curriculum explicitly made the transition from literary metaphor to process, we [doubted] many students would make it [out in the world] by themselves" (p. 75).
According to behaviorist theory, "[c]hanges in behavior are seen as a function of the stimulus and the way the response is reinforced. Reinforcement of a particular response is usually accomplished by rewarding its occurrence" (p. 77). In behaviorist practice, this process, more often than not, required at least two participants. Someone would be providing the stimulus and another person the response (e.g., teacher and student). Then, if a different response was desired the stimulus provider would make a change in the stimulus in the hopes of a different response.
The teachers surmised, the process (or tool) they would teach to their students would initially involve sensing information or stimuli - noticing something important to them. Then, transforming this information by giving it personal meaning and value. Finally, acting on this meaning and value after, "rehearsing possible actions and picking one to put into the world as an overt response" (p. 78). "The person using these processes," the teachers believed, will not be "governed solely by the nature of the stimulus and/or reinforcement of the response but is also influenced by feedback on how successful [s]he is achieving [her]his own goals" (p. 79).
Here is the crux of this historical exploration. The What Model was initially developed as a personal growth tool (process). Something young people (the teachers' students) could apply out in the world to help them in the pursuit of their goals - to help them act upon their real life concerns. Within this Model, awareness and feedback were vital. Borton writes, "awareness of the difference between his [sic] response, its actual effect, and the intended effect, forms feedback which can be used to modify behavior" (p. 79). Implicitly, the awareness and feedback were the responsibility of the individual working through the process. However, there are a number of examples in the book where feedback is offered by teachers and students alike over role play exercises and students sharing personal experiences they were going through at the time.
'What?' for Sensing out the difference between response, actual effect, and intended effect [remember, based on a personal goal]; 'So What?' for Transforming that information into immediate relevant patterns of meaning [awareness and feedback - did that meet the goal or not]; 'Now What?' for deciding on how to Act on the best alternative and reapply it in other situations [when doing something different to meet a goal is required]" (p. 88).
For those of you familiar with the What Model, you have probably had the realization that its initial intent rings pretty true to how it's still being used today and how else it's used today. Eighteen years after Reach, Touch and Teach was published, the What Model was included in the book, Islands of Healing: A Guide to Adventure Based Counseling, by Schoel, Prouty & Radcliffe. With a reference to Borton, the Model is shared as a "Debriefing sequence" for adventure-based experiential group work. After an adventurous experience, a group can use the What? So What? Now What? sequence to comfortably think about what happened during the experience and eventually get to the "nub of the experience" and use the insights for future interactions or change.
Since, Islands of Healing, the What Model continues to make its way into the reflection and processing experiences of many different groups. It has also been combined with other Models to emphasize (and even simplify) the pathways in complex psychological theories (e.g., Ladder of Inference). The good news (still) is, What? So What? and Now What? Model is a useful tool (an information processing model) in any team builders repertoire. And, to know it was designed to help people meet the goals they aspired to, keeps us on track to use it for the same ends.
Keep doing the good work out there!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
2 Comments
I'm not completely sure why, but I connect well with and remember things better in threes. I think it started with collecting objects/props in threes - as activity equipment and juggling tools.
This model (repurposed a bit) comes from the book, Teaching Online: A Practical Guide (3rd ed.) by Susan Ko and Steve Rossen (I'm interested in teaching online - especially, learning how to create continuing education online courses for adventure educators). In one of the initial chapters the authors tell us that when teaching online you must continuously review your course design and content, reflect on the effectiveness of the design and content (Is it doing what you want it to do?), and revise the design and content if it's not working for you or your students. I realized right away that this is a nice processing model as well. In my simple world I see processing as a noun - it is a time when the facilitator and participants get together to create a space for talking about recent events. During these spaces we use 'verbs' to consider the impacts of the events: Review - participants simply state what they remember about the current event. I like to ask, "If we were watching a video of the last activity tell me what you would see and hear." Or, "What do you remember seeing and hearing during the last activity?" (Trying to leave out opinion at this stage.) (Note: Roger Greenaway uses the term "reviewing" as the noun for bringing participants together to talk. Check out his comprehensive Reviewing Website on the topic.) Then we can.... Reflect - Here we think and talk about the meaning of what was seen or heard (in most cases, talking about 'events' that are connected to the outcomes programmed for the group). Topics can be participant generated or facilitator generated depending on the kind of program you are working:
Revise - After reflecting we can think and talk about how we might want to change - add behaviors that are missing and try to reduce/eliminate behaviors that are not useful:
This basic approach is not completely novel - it's another version of a large body of work on processing. It's fairly synonymous with the, What? So What? Now What? approach (future OTB blog post). These 3-Rs might be, to some, a clearer way to approach a processing session. What other "simple" models have you used for processing? Please leave us a Comment below.
And More
The original intent of Ko & Rossen is to use the 3-Rs an an evaluation tool for online courses. This applies just as well to evaluating a team building program. Use this model after a program to process with co-facilitators or personally if you just finished a solo lead. It's a 'process' of data collection that can inform your practice and help you learn and grow. As always, we'd love to know what you think. Leave us a Comment.
All the best,
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
(This is a 'migration' post - it was first shared at FUNdoing.com. We're moving theory posts from FUNdoing to OnTeamBuilding as a way of organizing content.)
What are your foundational principles of practice (POP)?
In other words, what do you believe to be true when it comes to developing and leading/facilitating adventure-based programs? And, the other question worth exploring (at another time perhaps) is where these beliefs come from? For me, my POPs seem to be revealed, more often than not, when they meet up with other's POPs (I like to call these interactions, POP Parties!!). Where there is diversity there is the opportunity for wonderful dialogue, as we know to be true in this field of Adventure Education (and we know, unfortunately, the opposite is also true). Here's an example of a one of the good POP parties from my past. Organizing my vault of hard-copy treasures from workshops past, I found a handout from a Ph.D. (higher ed faculty member) in the field of recreation who lead a workshop at a state-level Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance conference a while back. The Ph.D. provided a handout of thoughts for us to remember and reflect upon from the presentation. I will take an educated guess that this handout included some of this person's POPs. (I remember the workshop to be full of passionate dialogue - good stuff.) This could be the first in a series of Agree or Disagree posts (if this theme catches on.) I would like to present some of the information provided in the handout and whether I (or my POP) agree with the Ph.D. or if I disagree, and my POP in juxtaposition. Handout: Initiative exercises and activities offer a series of clearly defined problems or tasks to a group that must be solved before an acceptable solution to the challenge may be reached. [Note: This is the first line on the handout.] I Disagree: For me, this statement is too limiting. Using words like, "clearly defined problems," "must be solved," and "acceptable solution" limit my programming opportunities for the opposite. Handout: The problem-oriented approach to learning can be useful in developing each individual's awareness of decision-making, leadership, and obligations and strengths of each member within the group. I Agree: And, useful for developing a lot more pro-social behaviors. I especially like the use of the phrase, "obligation and strengths of each member within the group." I believe, through practice and theory, that the use of adventure education is for social development - I teach my student that we work within the 'social' curriculum realm of education (as opposed to an 'academic' curriculum). Handout: [When programing and facilitating initiatives] select a problem that is suited to the age and physical ability of the group. An older group is easily stunned off by a childish situation, and [an]other group may be quickly frustrated by problems that require physical or mental development beyond their capacities. I Agree: In educational terms this is considered proper scaffolding. We work up from where the students (or participants) are, adding new knowledge and experiences to what they already understand and have done in the past. I like the point included about "physical ability of the group." I've noticed over time (I include myself in this observation) that age-related programming is easier to do up front based on our experiences, but there is little consideration of the physical abilities of the participants - often because we do not have (i.e., did not collect) information about this area until we start working with a group. Being prepared to adjust an activity is a valuable skill for a facilitator to develop. Handout: Situations may arise when a participant will break a ground rule of the challenge. The penalty for such an infraction can be either a time penalty or starting over. Be strict in administering the rules of the problem. If the group suspects that you don't care about following the rules, the problem will resolve into horseplay and become functionally meaningless. I Disagree: If I stick to this practice (safety concerns withstanding) as a hard-and-fast rule in my programming I eliminate the opportunity to learn from "functional meaninglessness." When an outside force is constantly holding a group accountable for their actions, how does the group learn about taking responsibility for themselves - we miss the opportunity to talk about such things. If 'following rules' is an objective the group is with you to practice, then by all means, be the moderator. Stay flexible to other learning opportunities. Handout: As an instructor [facilitator], you [are] obligated, during the problem-solving process, to be silent. I Disagree: [I get the most pushback on this part of my POP.] I believe that there are important learnings to recognize "during" a group process that might be better reflected upon in the moment than after the moment has past. Of course, overdoing this (stepping in) can be counter-productive, so we choose these moments carefully. On a related note, after reading more into John Dewey's work with experiential education, I have come to agree that the facilitator is part of the group (arguably a small part) with experiences that can help the group at strategic points (again, not overdoing this) during their experiences. My reasoning for this part of my POP is about the doors/tools of opportunity. Pointing out that there are, or giving permission to explore, other doors/tools of possibly will help a group to learn about choices when they are "stuck" believing there are none, or very few. In time we hope the group understands they might not be limited to only the doors/tools they can see and feel free to explore (look for) more options. How about you? Are you agreeing or disagreeing here? What is your POP? I hope my point is evident. (But just in case.) It can be good to explore, from time-to-time, your principles of practice. This makes us reflective practitioners - important to meaningful education. Attend or start a POP party. Share your thoughts (you can do it here in the comments area below). Agree, disagree, ponder, question. This dialogue helps us all focus in on what's important to us as educators and how we approach our programming and our groups. And, spend a little time considering where your beliefs come from - like our groups, are we stuck using a tool that might not be the best for the job? Or, are tools other people are using better suited? Who doesn't like a party?! Chris Cavert, Ed. D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
The Team Wall
The Team Wall 'element' is among the oldest challenges in the history of Ropes/Challenge Courses. Dig back into the early days of Outward Bound in the United States, you'll find the Team Wall as part of the team building that took place before going 'out' on trips. Other historical records show the 'Wall' was repurposed into a team challenge from military obstacle courses of old. Today, Team Walls still stand among a wide range of opinion - "Why are we still using the Wall? What purpose does it have on a course? Is it worth it?"
Is the Wall a low element or a high element? What learning/lessons can we enhance by using the element? Are these learnings worth the risk (perceived and actual)? Should we belay the element or not? Does the element bring a team together or actually separate them? These and other questions about the Wall are commonplace. Where do you stand?
One Educator's (Practitioners) Opinion
I (Chris Cavert) started my career (PA Trained) using the 12-foot Team Wall with no belay. Proper training for spotting was always important - especially watching out for the 'windshield wiper' falls at the sides. What I learned was:
When I became a course manager I learned more about 'best practices' (who remembers the 'Red' booklet?). It came to my attention that there was a limit to where a participant should be above the ground (was this their head, torso, feet - wasn't clear as I recall, and I remember 42 inches??) - basically, if the torso went above the hands of the shortest spotter, the climber should have a harness on and a belay system attached. However, at the time, the Team Wall was the exception.
Then, Ropes/Challenge Course builders began to mitigate the risk - they started building Team Walls with belay systems (shown in the picture above). I saw Walls that were belayed from the ground and some belayed from the top through a GriGri hanging off the belay cable - a facilitator took out the slack in the rope and let the GriGri do the rest.
I liked (still do) the idea of the belay, but I wondered, as I saw these belayed Walls being used, did it change the activity - was it now 'too safe' as the argument about adventure education becoming too safe blossomed. And, looking back, I never witnessed a major 'fall' at this element only major bruises and scrapes getting over the top. Was (is) the element worth it?
Around the time of the new operational dualism - belay or not to belay (that is the questions), which still exists at the time of this writing, I stopped programming the Team Wall. I found many other ways to build team success. However, I still, on occasion, work for course manages who program the Team Wall for clients. If I am contracted to run the Wall, here's how I manage it (cleared by the course manager):
Where do you position yourself around the Team Wall? What are your learning outcomes if you use the Wall? What does the Team Wall do for you that other elements cannot?
Leave us a Comment so we can learn and grow together. Be well... Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
Dear Chris,
I do love questions! (Thanks for asking Aman.) I'm ready to dive in. Using the resources I have on hand, the books on my shelf (referencing some support), here's what I understand (and follow when programming) when it comes to ice-breakers, de-inhibitizers, and energizers.
The earliest source I have related to adventure-based programming is the Project Adventure book, Islands of Healing: A Guide to Adventure-Based Counseling (1988), by Schoel, Peouty & Radcliffe. When Project Adventure started training educators (late 1970s early 80s) on the use of adventure-based activities they promoted the following categories, suggesting activities be done from these categories (in a progression) in this order:
As we can see, ice breakers and de-inhibitizers are on the list - energizers did not get a listing at that time. We can also see ice breakers and de-inhibitizers were done at the onset of a program/progression - done to bring the group together in a 'comfortable' (comfort zone) way and progress into simple challenges (e.g., being silly) and risks (e.g., talking to others) so they could eventually step out of their comfort zones in order to learn and grow. So, lets break down Aman's question. (The other categories we can explore in another post.) Ice Breakers From Islands of Healing, "[t]he objective of Ice Breakers/Acquaintance Activities [I position Name Games here as getting acquainted], is to provide opportunities for group members to get to know each other and begin feeling comfortable with each other through activities, Initiatives and games that are primarily fun, non-threatening and group-based." [Note: There are different kinds of ice breakers - e.g., initiatives - lead in an 'ice breaker' way.] The key aspects in this objective, for me, are 'primarily fun' and 'non-threatening.' Mark Collard, in his book, Serious Fun tells us, "To truly 'break the ice' and, critically, create a platform upon which your group will thrive, an experience must reflect most, but hopefully all, of the following five criteria. It must be:
The Handshakes Memory Game is an Ice Breaker that can meet all five criteria. The handshakes are fun and often silly (using handshakes that are not embarrassing). Most people are okay with (touching) handshakes because of acceptable norms, so they are non-threatening. There is a lot of interaction when going back through the handshakes (and players are learning some names). The directions and demonstrations are quick and easy. And, most players can remember all of their handshake buddies in the end contributing to the overall feeling of success and comradery in the group. Jennifer Stanfield also warns us about ice breakers. She states, "[m]any people have negative connotations with team building and ice breakers because they have been put in situations where choice and control were taken away. They were put on the spot too early [speaking in front of the whole group for example], embarrassed, asked to share intimate information, act silly, or perform in front of a group before they were comfortable doing so" (Tips & Tools for the Art of Experiential Group Facilitation, 2nd ed, 2016). This warning tells us to consider the 'ice breakers' you plan to lead through the participants eyes - leaning to the side of super-safe at first, then progress from there. Make your best guess - if it doesn't work out, rebound with another activity to reengage your group. With time you'll get better at these choices as you see how thinks play out. My (Chris') general rules for ice breakers: Little to no contact (Handshakes is my limit), participants are moving and mixing around talking with each other in pairs or small groups - usually sharing names, and people have a choice as to how much they share with others if they even choose to talk at all (they can mingle around, listen in and be a part of the group in this way). De-Inhibitizer Back in Islands of Healing, de-inhibitizers, "provide a setting wherein group participants are able to take some risks as well as make improvement in commitment and a willingness to appear [silly] in front of others." In Cowstails & Cobras II, Rohnke explains, "[d]e-inhibitizers get the group to let go, do something out of the ordinary, and act silly." One example of a de-inhibitizer is Dog Shake (Silver Bullets, Rohnke, 1st edition). Participants are asked to position themselves on all fours, and literally, shake their entire bodies (especially the face) like a dog shaking off water - we've all seen a dog do this, now it's time for us to try (I think this can also be an energizer). Just something silly (if it's done at the right time, not right away). Another example is Barn Yard (found in The Cooperative Sport & Games Book, by Terry Orlick, 1978). Every person is given (whispered) the name of a barnyard animal - about four or five animals are used. Then, everyone scatters out into the playing area. On GO! (eyes closed or open), participants make the sound (and movement if desired) of their given animals in order to find, and group with, the other animals that are like them. And why would we challenge our participants to do these things? So they challenge themselves. To 'let go,' to be 'silly' and know it's okay to take some risks in order to grow together as a group. The idea that, 'we're all in this together, no matter what' is an objective of the de-inhibitizer. De-inhibitizer, as an activity category, is not seen in any of the newer publications that I have. In the most recent activity book (on my shelf) from Project Adventure (The Hundredth Monkey by Nate Folan, 2012), the activities are not even categorized by type (ice breakers, de-inhibitizers and so on), they fall into 'Learning Themes' like Playing to Play, Building Trust, Relationships and Community, Self-Awareness and Self-Management and other Social Emotional Learning themes. The trend I'm seeing in activity books is focused on finding and sequencing activities that meet the needs and objectives of the group in a way that participants feel comfortable moving from the known to the unknow - learning and growing through the process. (It's now about, I theorize, subjective interpretation - more below - and the particular delivery of an activity that determines where it fits into a progression/program.) My general rules for de-inhibitizers (if I even do anything on purpose to be 'silly'): I sense my group will have fun with what I've going to do (try), very short in duration with a clear choice of opting out, and we talk (at least a little) about the idea of how we 'look' in front of others - what is our self-talk, where does it come from, and how does it serve us (or not serve us). Subjectivity 'Fun' ( an ice breaker) and 'silly' (a de-inhibitizer) are very subjective. Something fun for you might seem very silly to someone else. Something silly could be downright embarrassing. This is where easing into your program, getting a sense of the group and testing out their interactions together helps you to choose activities 'right' for the moment. In other words, you need a good number of activities to choose from (in your plan) as you move forward - being able to 'switch things up' when needed. Soap Box There are A LOT of people (facilitators, educators, trainers) who have contributed lists of activities on the internet as a way to provide resources for team builders (and as a way to guide people to their online presence). Many of these lists, in my opinion, misrepresent the types of activities shared. Especially the 'ice breaker' lists. The activities go way beyond what I would lead as an ice breaker (under my general rules). For example, I've seen, on more than one list, Helium Stick listed as an ice breaker. I have yet to see this one led by anyone I know in a way that is purposefully fun, getting to know names or keeping people in their comfort zones. (If you don't know Helium Stick, you can find examples on the web.) The subjectivity lies, I'll assume, in the way people have been taught and understand programming and sequencing activities. I've shared what I, and others, believe about ice breakers and de-inhibitizers. It's now up to you to define what they mean to you. Energizers Which leads us to the final consideration from Aman. Let's count, 1, 2, 3......15, 16, 17 books are piled around me right now. Most of them are activity books from various people (Rohnke, Butler, Folan & Cain). I could not find a reference to the activity category, 'energizer' in any of them. There are all sorts of links to these activities however, on the web. They are defined (very literally) as activities used to energize participants or groups. Pretty straight forward. HERE's a pretty good list of energizers (from SchoolWeb) - most of them follow my 'general rules' (below). If you do a quick scan of the activities on this list (just reading the sorter descriptions), you'll see that some could be considered ice breakers and others de-inhibitizers (basing on my general rules). Some could even be turned into the other activity categories listed above (e.g., Communication or Problem-Solving Activities). Using energizers for such a purpose (commonly known as 'Brain Breaks' in educational settings), is about moving the blood around the body, back into all the fingers and toes - shaking things out a bit. For me it's even about 'clearing out' what just took place, so we are ready to move on to the next task. My general rules for energizers: Participants will be moving most, if not all, of their body parts, simple instructions, fairly short in duration (again, using these transitions from one team building task to another), they can be done individually or in small groups and they don't require any processing upon completion. And, if the energizer has the potential to be embarrassing (e.g., Barn Yard), moving people out of their comfort zones, use these when you believe your group is ready to de-inhibitize. It is easy to see the grey between these three categories of activities. we all have our own narratives based on our experiences. Stay mindful and step back if needed. Use care, be caring and take care of your groups. Warm Ups Wait! But what about Warm Ups? We'll save this one, and others, for another time..... WOW! I had so much fun digging through my books I lost track of the word count! I hope this long road of information gave you some clarity or some comparative data or maybe even some disagreement. Considering your team building activity sequencing and programming, my best hope is that you are meeting the needs of your participants, pulling them into the experience and the learning (staying within the growth mindset) and not pushing them away (into a closed mindset). Other thoughts to consider? Please leave us a Comment so we can talk about it. Be well and keep us posted!! Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
I recently received an email from a team builder that I think is worth sharing with you (permission was given to share). I've worked at, with and for a lot of different programs over the years and this topic surfaces with everyone - what do we 'call' what we're doing?
Here's the email: Hi Chris,
Have you ever lived this concern or heard someone else voice it? Have you asked anyone for their answer to this concern? I have heard this response more than once: "We don't call it 'team building' any more, because the term has fallen out of favor with a lot of people, so we call our program......(pick any other related descriptor for what we do, it's been tried)."
Team Building I'd like to start with the term, team building. I've tried 'selling' other terms (e.g., community building, group development, and adventure learning to name a few), but let's face it - team building sums up what we do. It's a term people know. And, many of these people have had great team building experiences. So, I'm sticking with it. I've been on a mission over the years to bring 'team building' back into a positive light. One way I'm doing this is to educate people (my students, clients and program participants) about the different kinds of 'team' programs that are possible. (Myself and others believe the term, 'team building' has fallen out of favor because some entities call any sort of team or group program, team building - and, in reality, no team building occurs.) In a past OTB blog post, A Typology of Team Interaction, I advance the work of others about the difference between Team Bonding, Team Building and Team Development programs. If we are better able to fit one of these specific programs to our group's needs, the outcomes can be more aligned with participant expectations. And then of course, we must provide 'bonding,' 'building' and 'development' experiences that make an impact so people know why they gave up their time for your program. (If the 'why' isn't answered, it's likely people will walk away with a low-impact experience.)
Ropes or Challenge Course (The Noun)
Let's move to the "what are we calling it" trend (the noun). Today, two of the most (dare I say) generic names for the 'facilities-based adventure education' (Prouty, Adventure Education: Theory and Applications) tools we work with are a, 'Challenge Course' and a 'Ropes Course' (a lot of the course signage you see, like in the picture above, will say, Ropes Course based on traditional language used in the field). These courses can be lows only, highs only or a combination of both. I have chosen to go with the 'challenge course' label, based on my alignment with The Association for Challenge Course Technology and the use of the term in their current ANSI/ACCT 03-2019 Challenge Course and Canopy/Zip Line Tours Standards. If you align with PRCA, the Professional Ropes Course Association, then you might be a 'Ropes Course' person. The name (the noun) for the tool, in my opinion, is not as important as what (the verb) the tool can do for an individual, a team or a group. Naming What We're Doing (The Verb) Reading (into) R.s email, there is:
Let's flip these perspectives, and start with the marketing - getting people interested in your program. I am in the Seth Godin camp (author of, This is Marketing). Here is some content from the book that can give us Godin's initial perspective: Marketing is the act of making change happen...You haven't made an impact until you've changed someone. [We certainly can agree we are after this outcome in our 'building' and 'development' programs.] Effective marketing now relies on empathy and service...[it] is the generous act of helping someone solve a problem. Their problem. It's a chance to serve. Marketing...involves creating honest stories - stories that resonate and spread. Marketers offer solutions, opportunities for humans to solve their problems and move forward. Godin's 'new' marketing is about building trust by providing products/services that solve problems (not by first creating a product and then trying to sell it - as in traditional marketing practices). We know, as challenge/ropes course practitioners we are in the business of helping solve problems - helping others learn and grown (in the growth types of programs). The questions is, do we have the skills and abilities to first uncover the 'problems' and then actually help 'solve' them. These questions can be answered by the organization and the team builder. Where does the organization fit in? This could be a very long answer, but let's summarize with some considerations. First-and-foremost, who 'is' the organization and who ultimately makes the decisions? Who are the stakeholders? Do these stakeholders adhere to (recognize, even know about) the Standards within the challenge/ropes course industry? For example, are these stakeholders considering: B.1.2. The organization shall represent itself, and market its products and services, accurately to the public, and B.1.4. The organization and its staff shall operate within the bounds of their organizational and individual competencies. (ANSI/ACCT 03-2019 Standards) Organizations want to thrive and keep the doors open, this is a given. Economic stability is important. Are the stakeholders making decisions based on economics or common practices in the field (that guide us towards offering exceptional programs that will not fall out of favor with participants). Is the organization, 'operating within their competencies?' I'm for running exceptional programs within my competencies so every group I work with will spread the word that team building can be an amazing life-changing experience. Finally, there is the team builder designing and running the programs. Back to the ANSI/ACCT Standards: C.1.2. Staff shall operate within the limits of their technical and interpersonal/program management skill level, and C.2.1.3. Staff shall conduct activities according to the organization's guiding policies, procedures and practices. (Just two Standards examples.) The way I see it, whatever you are going to call your program, it is (very) important to have people (staff) who can 'solve the problem(s)' the client is bringing so trust can be forged (and return business and positive word of mouth can grow). If a client is interested in having some adventurous team bonding fun, are there competent staff to design and deliver such a program? (How do you know?) If a client wants to find out some of the blind spots in her organization, are there staff who can design and deliver an experience (team building) that will bring out and test functional (or dysfunctional) group behaviors and be able to process some transfer of learning to the organization's growth or next action steps? (How do you know you have the staff?) If a client wants to practice the behaviors that lead to being more productive (team development), are there staff that can do this? (How do you know?) For me, when 'naming' a service (or product), it comes down to what the staff (the ones in front of the clients) can deliver - can promise and deliver. It took me a while to solidify my own platform - what I can promise and deliver. I train team builders. Are you, and/or your staff, team builders? Yes. What skills and abilities do you and/or your staff bring in confidently to a team building program? Awesome! What can you and/or your staff do a little bit better on when it comes to planning, leading and processing a team building program? Let me tell you how we can work together to increase your skills and abilities in these areas. I have to know my limits (skills and abilities) so I can, "offer solutions, opportunities for [my clients] to solve there problems and move forward." This is what brings people back to us, keeps the doors open, and gives team building a better reputation. Name it and then deliver what you promise!! R., maybe not as "few" words as you were after, but I hope there are some things that can help you move forward. I have yet to find anyone with 'the' answer to this query, we've got to keep doing the good work no matter what we (at times, have to) call it.
We'd love to read your thinking on this one - leave us a Comment.
Be well!! Keep me posted. Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Would you like a (super) quick email notification when new OTB content (blog post or podcast episode) is available? Fill out the form below and we'll let you know.
*[A version of this article, 'Educators on the Course' was published in the ACCT newsletter a few years ago. I wanted to add it here at OTB to keep it alive.]
Do you consider yourself a team builder? Okay, how about this, are you an educator? The answer will depend on factors like our clients’ objectives, program phylosophy, and/or one’s personal approach to team building (see, A Typology of Team Interactions). Specifically, when it comes to a personal approach, I have worked with two different types of team bulders over the last 20 years – the recreational and the educational. Please understand as you read on, neither type is better than the other. One’s approach will depend on the purpose and intended outcome(s) of a particular program.
When we are programming for recreational team building (we can be recreational team builders), there is no time spent reflecting on a group's (or client's) behaviors, interactions, and learnings from their programmed activities. For example, we provide adventures for groups (and individuals) like climbing programs, adventure races, and adventure park events without any planned reflection. In contrast, an educational team builder (facilitator) will spend time with his/her groups looking back on their adventures - reflecting and processing. Ultimately (and hopefully), helping them discover useful behaviors that are transferable to other areas of their lives. Historically, educational team builders, using ground-level games, initiatives, and high course elements, consider themselves to be 'facilitators' (mostly used as a generic term for someone helping a group move through learning expereinces). But this is only part of the educational picture. As educational team builders it is important to know that being a facilitator is only one of three possibile educational roles we can assume in connection with group learning. Most of us have come to understand that in the field of experiential education (as team builders, we find ourselves grounded in this field), facilitation is an integral part of its success and effectiveness. It is part of the experiential philosophy. Through adventurous activities, a purposeful facilitator can guide groups towards, and encourage exploration of, interpersonal and intrapersonal change.[1] Christine Hogan supports this perspective by noting that, “[f]acilitation is concerned with encouraging open dialogue among individuals with different perspectives so that diverse assumptions and options may be explored.”[2] Facilitators use “real time” experiences (those that just occurred) for such explorations. Put another way, experiential facilitators (i.e., team builders) provide social experiences, in the form of adventurous activities, to help bring to the surface the ways in which individuals interact with each other. These interactions are then reflected upon and discussed (processed), in order to determine if any changes need to be (or want to be) implemented. As educational team builders we facilitate “social education,” being different from, but closely related to “academic education.” Karl Rohnke and Steve Butler tell us that we get to teach “the basics of communication, cooperation and trust in a milieu of FUN.”[3] Again, facilitation is only one aspect of a typology of educational roles we can choose as a team builder. Once these roles are understood we can see that we move through a balance (or maybe in imbalance) of being an instructor, a teacher, or a facilitator depending on the demands of the educational experience. Here are some of the ways educational roles present themselves during a team building program: The Instructor: As an instructor, the team builder will be telling the group what needs to be done. For example:
There are some things within a team building program we do not want our participants experientially figuring out (e.g. How to belay). In most cases, the instructor is needed to set safe parameters for the group. The Teacher: The teacher provides direction and possibilities to explore without giving solutions. There are times when pointing a way can lead to great discovery. It's the nudge early on that can help produce take-aways for other 'facilitated' experiences. For example, a teach might say things like:
These little nudges might be all a group needs to move from where they are to a different perspective, to an answer, or at least to figure out what they were talking about isn't going to work. Often times, the teacher comes out when there is a time concern. The need (pressure) to 'get going' outweighs other aspects of the program. This is not good or bad, it's a choice. How this choice influences outcomes is the question. The Facilitator: Many of us understand this role as the educator who will "ask" and not "tell" - always asking questions or making statements, letting the group figure out the task on their own (or not). Some common facilitation strategies include:
When we take on, or move into, the role of facilitator, we also take the time to reflect or process the task once it is completed (or at other times during the group's experience). How did your planning go? Did you come up with a plan that everyone agreed to? How do you know? Did anyone find they had to change the plan? Why? What were some of the challenges you encountered during the task? What were some of the ways you solved these challenges? How did you work as a team? Together? Independently? What feelings arose during the task? Frustration? Excitement? How did these feeling affect your expereince? Were you successful? What learnings will be important for you to remember? What advise would you give the next group assigned this task? When we stay in the educational roles of the instructor and teacher, we are still educating, but we might not consider taking any time to reflect upon or process the task - we are providing information we hope will turn into knowledge and then learning for the group (some may know this 'hope' as The Mountain Speaks for Itself). For many different reasons, these educators might simply move on to what comes next in the plan, whatever that might be. However, could we as the educator, who instructed the group through a task, take some time to talk about it? Yes, of course. This is moving into the role of facilitator. Could a teacher do the same thing? Of course. So, an educator’s role is not cut and dry (unfortunately many educators think it is). Roles can change in relation to the context of the educational experience and the intended outcomes. But wait! What about a “leader?” The one “up in front” or “in charge” is often seen as a leader. Are they not educators? A number of publications in the adventure education field refer to the experiential educator as a leader.[4] As one example, Rohnke and Butler, in their book, Quicksilver tell us the “leader” facilitates the process and “the leader/facilitator doesn’t provide all the answers to the group; primarily the participants learn from each other." So, there are some who consider the one(s) responsible for/to the group to be the leader(s). However, this can be misleading. Peter Senge, writing during a wave of change around leadership, believed that the “new…leaders are designers, stewards, and teachers…they are responsible for learning.[5] Since we can easily say that all educators are responsible for learning then the leader is surely an educator. However, if you were to dig into the plethora of leadership books[6] available to us there is one key difference in the position of the leader – he/she is a part of the group being lead. The leader is part of the goals and objectives of the group, shares in success and rewards of the group’s accomplishments. Is, in fact, affected by his/her own leadership. So, yes, a leader is an educator, but will also choose between the roles of instructor, teacher, and facilitor while leading those willing to follow. As team builders and reflective practitioners [7] in the field, it is important to know how we can “educate” in relation to the context of an educational situation. We can instruct, we can teach, or we can facilitate. From a traditional experiential mindset we often take on the role of the facilitator. We provide our clients with educative experiences in order for them to learn from these experiences and each other. But are we always, or should we always be, facilitating? We must consider situations that call for other educational roles. Just like programming appropriate activities for particular objectives and projected outcomes, we, as team builders, can also choose the appropriate educational role to go along with an activity depending on the needs of our clients and the context of the experience. Since these educator roles came into focus for me, I have been more purposeful about them when programming participant expereinces. I don't believe, at this point, there is a 'balance' of the three - each one being used equally. Every program (context) will be unique. What I'm looking at is how I might be able to use the roles in different expereinces and, am I over-using a role, or am I not moving into a particualr role enough. Here's one example of this thinking: The Harness Demo. If you work with high challenge courses, you've been here. Typically, I would gathered my group, give everyone a harness and helment, then talk them through the steps while they responded with what I asked them to do (or not). I would help those who needed it and we would keep going. This is straight up an Instructor role. Here's what I've been doing now. I am wearing what my participants will be wearing - a sit harness and helmet in correct orientation. Each participant stands behind a harness helmet pile (I redirect poeple, if needed, to a more appropriate size pile). Then, I say, "Please put on your harness and helmet. It should look the way I am wearing mine. Most importantly, the waist belt should be above your hip bones. Ready go." This type of Harness Demo, to me, includes all three educator roles. The Instructor tells everyone where the waist belt needs to be. The Teacher is providing the end result. The Facilitator is letting them figure out the steps to the result. And, I've put the group into another 'team building' activity they can work through. When someone comes up to me and says, "Am I ready?" I can say, "Yes or No." If it's a, "No," this person can assess, identify a problem (with help from others), solve it (with help, or not) and check in again. When it's a, "Yes," I like to then observe what they decide to do - help others or not (for example). All great opportunities to talk about. Does this student-centered approach take longer than the Instructor-lead approach? In my experience, it takes about the same amount of time, but I have given them more of a group and personal learning experience. It doesn't take long to consider educator roles when programming. If we take the time, what else is possible? Footnotes 1]For a look at some of the philosophical foundations of adventure-based programming, see Miles & Priest’s (1999)Adventure Programmingand Nadler & Luckner’s (1992)Processing the adventure experience: Theory and practice. Another great foundational text, if you can find a copy, is Adventure Education(1990) by Miles & Priest, Venture Publishing. ISBN: 0-910251-39-8. 2]The quote is found on p. 10 of Hogan’s book, Understanding facilitation: Theory & principles. Even though Hogan’s book does not deal specifically with adventure facilitation, she provides a concise perspective on the historical roots of facilitation and where it is utilized. 3]Rohnke, K. & Butler, S. (1995). Quicksilver: Adventure games, initiative problems, trust activities and a guide to effective leadership. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt. This book is one of our adventure-based favorites. It includes a plethora of great activities supported by noteworthy theoretical content (academically speaking). 4]Specifically Rohnke & Butler’s book in Note 3 above and Priest & Gass’ “Effective leadership in adventure programming.” 5]Senge, P. M. (1990), The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency. The quote is found on page 340. 6]Some of the more prevalent authors on leadership include John C. Maxwell, Kouzes & Posner, Stephen Covey, Ken Blanchard, and Linda Lambert. And, if you take the journey, don’t forget to look at James Burns’ seminal work “Leadership.” 7] Schon, D. A. (1983). The refelctive practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
What have you experienced with these educator roles? Leave us a Comment below to start a conversation.
Keep doing good work! Chris Cavert. Ed.D. 
As an adventure educator and team builder, I am now a dedicated fan of, High 5 Adventure - The Podcast (I access through iTunes). A super-huge THANK YOU to High 5 (and Phil Brown) for putting the energy into this.
Recently, I listened to the episode: Tinker Talk - Facilitation Tips We Now Disagree With. It inspired me to think about expectations. The practitioners in the Tinker Talk episode talked about things they learned in their career that they don't necessarily believe are the only possible option any longer. For example, one of them talked about 'Artificial Source Goals.' These are the goals given or spoken to you, as the scheduled program facilitator, by the 'person-in-charge' wanting you to accomplish (often times in the absence of this said person). The goals are not coming directly from the group. When you start working with them, you find out these 'artificial' goals are not realistic. The group needs other skill development work before focusing on the goals you have in your hand. If the expectation is to meet the 'given' goals, how do you move ahead? Early on in my team building days, I would push through and try to pull out learning from my groups to meet the expected goals. Sometimes it was possible, other times not. But I was doing what was expected. Now, based on more time with groups, I do my best to work with the them where they are - often simply asking them how they want to spend their time in this learning context. Sometimes we can work with 'expected' outcomes, other times we work towards other ends. If other ends become evident, we travel this path. After the program, I inform the 'person-in-charge' what outcomes were accomplished and any of the connections they had to meeting the goals this person had in mind. Or, if there was no connection, I inform this person what the group did take away. (What happens after this conversation I'll save for another post.) My confidence to work with a group where they are comes from years of experience and being able to build trust with my groups (and the organizations I work for and with) in order to ask them what they need. Focusing on expectations (given to, or created by you), is related to the 'Ascending Reticular Activating System' - ARAS (a little summary of ARAS HERE). In a nutshell, what you think about, you focus on. (Some of you might recognize this as confirmation bias.) If we limit what we are looking for, we may miss something important. In the movie Zero Effect, Daryl Zero (Bill Pullman) says, "If you are looking for something in particular, you are likely not to find anything. However, if you're looking for anything, you're likely to find something." As team builders, how do expectations shape our programming, facilitating and processing? How about a simple check in before we dive into any of these aspects of engaging with our groups:
Expectations are neither good nor bad, they are simply another tool at your disposal. And, like any other tool you have, it's how you use it that counts. The Final Question: Expectations and Un-Expectations - how does this polarity or, dichotomy or, continuum relate to your practice? Love to hear from you. Share in the Comments!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
FUNdoing.com (Activity resources for Team Builders) TeamBuilderPowerUps (An online school for Team Builders) YoungTeamBuilders (The voices of young Team Builders) 
I am so excited to share (with permission, for sure) this recent email I received from Chad Littlefield. Chad and Will Wise are co-founders of "WE!" Their mission is to create conversations that matter (and they do this with people all over the world). I highly encourage you to sign up for their periodic emails. They always inspire me to think about the all-important idea of connection before content. (And, for signing up with them you get "50 FREE ways to amplify connection, belonging and trust - GO HERE for more information.)
Thanks for sharing Chad!! 4 Questions Under 4 Words Each to Spark Engagement Recently, I (this is Chad speaking now) gave an interactive keynote in Cartagena, Colombia for the Global Youth Entrepreneurship Summit. This amazing group from 35+ countries helped me re-learned a lesson I had forgotten: The simplest questions are often the most powerful questions.
Here are 4 of my favorite questions which are all under 4 words.
What struck you? This question is perhaps my favorite “debrief” question as it is totally flexible. And it allows both “thinkers” and “feelers” to answer the question after a meeting, experience, presentation, conference, etc. You can customize it easily by adding a few words to the end: what struck you about … your interview? That conversation? This idea? Etc. How might we? Famously used in design thinking circles, this question can also be very useful to open up an idea-generating dialogue. One where possibility is at the forefront of doubts and negativity floats to the back. What else? One of my mentors who is an extremely skilled counseling psychologist gave me this question. It’s so open and offers a quick way to peel a layer off the onion so to speak. It can be used at the end of nearly every point in a conversation...although you probably wouldn’t want to do that. What brings you joy? Each one of these questions could have an article of their own as there is so much to unpack. But I want to share a story that came from what is currently my partner Will Wise’s favorite question: What brings you joy?
After sharing this specific question in a LinkedIn post on the power of simple questions, a reader and communication expert, Claire Laughlin, responded with this story:
I was recently co-facilitating a session with some colleagues who I hadn't worked with before. I suggested starting our workshop with the "what brings you joy?" question. My co-facilitators were reluctant. They thought it might be too hard or too personal of a question for some to answer. So I walked over to the CEO who had hired us, and said, "Would you mind? What is one thing that brought you joy today?" He looked surprised and told a very touching story about watching his daughter walk confidently into school. Then he looked at me and said, "thank you for asking me that. It feels so good to talk about it." Needless to say, my colleagues were convinced, and we started the workshop with the "joy" question.
Questions are like keys that unlock the lifetime of un-Googleable experiences we walk around with each day. Asking powerful questions opens a window into these life experiences, commonalities, differences, and possible contributions or collaborations that we each carry in our minds.
I did not spark this engagement. Questions did. A well crafted question does all the work for you. All that said...what else? With gratitude, Chad Littlefield Weand.Me
As Chad has shown us, it doesn't take a lot to start an amazing conversation - all you have to do is ask a powerful question. We'd love to her from you - leave a Comment below.
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
FUNdoing.com (Activity resources for Team Builders) TeamBuilderPowerUps (An online school for Team Builders) YoungTeamBuilders (The voices of young Team Builders) 
We've all been there - working with groups that include participants that resist engagement and even disrupt the group's experience. Recently I revisited a comment left by a dedicated team builder:
I would appreciate information on dealing with resistant group members, especially those who really don't have much motivation to work together. For example, they are a member of a high school's freshman class that is really diverse and are rarely asked to work together outside their preferred peer groups; yet, they are brought to us to magically achieve cooperation, empathy, appreciation for differences, etc. in a 3 hour teambuilding program.
Okay, hand up if you have been (or are) in these shoes. There are many layers to this topic, more than we can cover here. But, we can get the conversation started. I have worked with groups that included resistant participants, on-and-off, for over 20 years (I don't think I've worked with an entire group of resistant participants - that would be crazy!). And, there is no magic fix (that I know of). But there are some 'hacks' I use to help me focus and offer the best possible programs. Here are my top points to consider - information I share during all of my facilitator training programs about engagement. If we can engage our players, we might be able to lessen the resistance:
Have a Useful Mindset - "Dealing with..." is a very common phrase used by educators when they are challenged by their students. My early work with underserved youth taught me that if I showed up to work with a negative mindset, it only made it worse - they knew!!
Instead of 'dealing' with them, 'work' with them. 'BE' with them. Show up with love and kindness in your heart and it will pay off. (Okay, can you do this all the time? Probably not. But if you give it your best as much as you can, your group will see it and engage accordingly.) Share the Bottom Line - Here's the 'bottom line' I share when I'm sensing disconnection (most of the time I don't need to share the BL): "I have a feeling some of you really don't want to be here. I can empathize with this. I too have to go and be places I don't want to be. But we have a choice. We can decide to get involved, have some fun and maybe even learn something from this short time we have together, or we can choose to keep dwelling on the thought that we don't want to be here. It's up to you. If you decide stay in that place, you have every right to do so, but please, do not force your choice on anyone else in the group and keep your disappointment to yourself. Don't ruin the fun for others who are making a different choice. If you can agree to this, please give me a thumbs up. If you can't agree right now, let's spend a little time discussing this situation. Maybe there is something you can agree to. I can promise this. I will do my best to make things fun and interesting, but it's up to you to jump on that ride and help me out. You never know what can happen." (And then, of course, you have to do your best to deliver. Based on your experience, what has been fun and interesting for your groups in the past?) (There is a larger conversation that can be opened here related to 'challenge-by-choice' - how you frame cbc will influence your bottom line. Challenge-by-Choice will certainly be another post some time soon.) Be Fair and Consistent - After sharing the bottom line, and developing other norms/agreements with your group (norms are very helpful when it comes to engagement), it is up to you to help your group stick to these norms/agreements. Don't ignore broken agreements. If you do, more will be broken and resistance will grow. I share this: "One of my roles today is to create a place for us to feel comfortable sharing our voices and creating a place where you feel you can takes some risks with the support of the group. If I see and hear things that prevent me from creating this space, I will stop all the action and we'll talk about what's happening. My hope is that we can create this space together and ask for what we need so we know how to help one another through the challenges ahead." Don't let things slide, or they will keep on sliding. Give them the Why - Admit it, you like to know why you are being asked to do something. (And, really, who likes the answer, "Because I told you to do it." Right!) Give your group the why. Tell them why they are working with you. Tell them the goals for the program. Help them understand why they are all standing around "in this field" with you. They might not all buy into the why, but at least they'll know. Better yet, when you can, have them tell you why they are with you (in this field) and what goals they would like to accomplish since this is where they are in that moment in time. Now, of course, the adults who send you the students have their whys too, and they would like the students to come out better at the end. And, what is better? And, what is possible? (See, Share the Possibilities below.) Giving a why can get some on board and at least the rest will not be wondering any more. Facilitate to the 20% - You know that 'Easy' button from Staples? Well, that's not this! I believe, if you're team building, it's not suppose to be easy - if it's easy, why are they there? Building is not easy. Think about it. If it's easy, are you building or simply staying the same? My starting block is to facilitate to the 20%. Yes, this is a very low percentage. I always hope for higher, but I know I can get to 20%. This percentage comes from the Pareto Principle (or the Law of the Vital Few). I'm taking some creative liberties here, but how I figure this is 20 percent of my group will be able to take in about 80 percent of the intended outcomes I've planned for the program - some will be able to walk away with new insights about themselves and their group. As I facilitate team building activities, I'm observing, looking for those who are engaged. I ask them questions about what's happening - what are they getting from it all. You know the ones! Once I can get them talking (as the saying goes, 'those who talk more first, talk more'), others will see it's okay to share their voice, the environment is kind and supportive (because you have been creating this environment). Engagement goes up because you are encouraging the group to talk and not taking up all the 'air' for yourself. Start off encouraging the few in hopes that the many will join in! Be a champion for their voices. Trust the Process - I can't tell you how many of my mentors would tell me to, "Trust the process" - I didn't know what that the heck that meant. They never really told me. Well, in their infinite wisdom, they knew I would get it eventually. It's about the steps of team building (or adventure education) activities. It's about one activity at a time. And then building towards some learning with each activity. What learning? Of course, that depends on the program objectives and the group. It's like this:
This process (and the organic variants) is what gives ownership of the experience to the group and increases engagement. It's their experience, not someone else telling them what it is they are experiencing. Yes, if we frontload an experience by say, "We're going to be looking at leadership behaviors during this activity," one might think you're setting up the experience and it's no longer theirs. For me, it is still theirs because you end up talking about leadership from their present experience, how they lead and what it was like to lead. You are not telling them how to be leaders, you are focusing in on a topic of discussion from their perspective. Know and Share the Possibilities - Finally (this probably should have been first - so, consider this an overarching point), it is very important to be honest about what you can actually accomplish with a group in a given amount of time (as stated above, "...in a 3 hour program"). If you force programming into unachievable outcomes you increase the risk of disengagement - they might not be at all ready to go where you want them (or, those who sent them to you, want them). There are many reasons for taking on lofty goals and programs. For the most part, I know I want to help. I want to try and meet the needs of a client. But what is the cost (pun intended). If you meet with resistance, disengagement and disruptive behaviors, will you even reach any sort of positive outcome? Maybe? Maybe not? Be honest with your clients, let them know what outcomes you believe are achievable in the time provided. Go for the small wins that build into big changes. I like the rubber band analogy. Push the rubber band half way open, there is room to move in or out. Push the rubber band to it's limits there is stressful resistance - you never know when the next push will break the band.
This was a lot to take in. Considerations. Things that, I believe, break down some resistance in my group members. I do my best to be authentic with my groups, be with them, empathize with them, share our human likenesses. I think this helps pull us together.
Let's keep this topic rolling in the Comments. How do you work with resistance in groups? Be well my friend! Keep showing up for them. It's good work - if you can get it!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
FUNdoing.com (Activity resources for Team Builders) TeamBuilderPowerUps (An online school for Team Builders) YoungTeamBuilders (The voices of young Team Builders) |
OnTeamBuilding is a forum for like-minded people to share their ideas and experiences related to team building. FREE Team Building
Activity Resources Don't want to miss new OTB content - Blog or Podcast Episodes?
Fill out the form below to receive a short email about content updates. 
OTB FacilitatorDr. Chris Cavert is an educator, author and trainer. His passion is helping team builders learn and grow. Archives
January 2022
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly