The Life Cycle Of A Training Group
A group when a training ends is not the same group it was at the start. A number of researchers have generated parallel descriptions of the life cycle of a group. In the book Transforming Communication (Bolstad and Hamblett, 1998, p 192) I summarise the model used by William C. Schutz. Let’s take an NLP Practitioner course as an example, and review his Inclusion-Control-Intimacy model.
Inclusion
At the start of an NLP Practitioner course, people are motivated towards (or away from) being included in the group. They may make a lot of statements about what a good group is like, or even about how good this group is. But they don’t tend to refer specifically to any particular people they
like or dislike, or any particular issues they agree on or disagree on. This Inclusion phase of group life (called in some models “Norming”) generates matching behaviour, as people attempt to build rapport. To the untrained eye, this may sometimes make the group look cohesive (well connected).
But activities that require high level risk taking (such as dramatic verbal or non-verbal self disclosure) are not likely to be well received. This means that some tasks the group attempts will go slower at this stage, because rapport isn’t deep enough. Opportunities to match behaviour, to meet people superficially, and to establish the
groundrules of the group (see below) are likely to be appreciated.
Control
About a third of the way through the course (and it really doesn’t matter how long the course is; the group will time this change to suit) it will become clear that the Inclusion phase is over. Having assured themselves that they belong (or having left) many people are now paying more attention to how much influence they have, and whether they can get their needs respected in the group. In this Control phase (or as it is sometimes called,
“Storming”), the trainer may find that participants are disagreeing with her/him, and that participants are disagreeing with each other (for example about who has more say). Matching has given way to mismatching. Some trainers are tempted to react to such conflicts with a fear that the group is
“breaking up” (because they are still not sure about the level of inclusion). In fact, some groups do not effectively resolve control phase conflicts. But activities which increase people’s active
participation, enabling feedback and renegotiation of ground rules, will usually be highly successful.
Intimacy
By two thirds of the way through the training, a successful group reaches the Intimacy phase (sometimes called “Performing” because it is the phase of group life when progress with the task is easiest). Trusting that their needs will be respected, group members are now more able to express their differing feelings, needs and objectives. In doing so they face the risks of both closeness and rejection.
Group members may decide that they prefer to work with some people and not with others. They may decide that some parts of the course are “not for them” and other parts are awesome. They may become deeply bonded to specific individuals, whom they now meet without the carefully
presented personal image they used in the Inclusion phase. Several Practitioners we have trained made links at this time which blossomed into lifelong friendships or marriages.
Closure
The final phase of group life is sometimes called
“Transforming”. It is the time of closure. Schutz notes that groups rapidly wind their way back through the previous phases. Conflicts may suddenly re-emerge on the last day, and people may make incongruent and unrealistic plans to
“meet again every week forever”, as they re-experience the need for inclusion.
Inclusion = Rapport + Contract
For this chapter, the point of knowing the life cycle of a group is to design Beginning experiences which meet the needs of the Inclusion phase, rather than Control or Intimacy. The tasks of the Inclusion phase are twofold: to create Rapport, and to create Contract. It’s as if the participants who walk into your course at the start are asking two core questions:
1) Who is Here? This question is about whether I’ll like people and whether they’ll like me.
When this question is answered, participants have a feeling of connection to others in the group, of Rapport.
2) How will we Act? This question is about what behaviours are acceptable for me, and what behaviours I can expect from others.
When this question is answered,
participants have a feeling of commitment or Contract.
If a trainer doesn’t provide an explicit method for answering these two questions early on in their training program, participants will take time and energy away from the task to cope. They will interrupt to ask what the rules are, introduce themselves to other group members while the trainer is talking, or give up and withdraw. The time the trainer “saves” by launching directly into the task will be like the time saved by starting a car in fourth gear. At its worst, the class may stall. If you allotted fifty minutes of your first hour to these two questions, there are some very simple processes you could use to help people find the answers they need.
The above order (Who?, then How?) is normally the best order to work through these warmups, because people’s need for Rapport is more powerful than their need for Contract (See A.
Maslow, 1962, on the prioritising of acceptance before esteem and self-actualisation). Following are specific examples of tasks to answer these questions (For more, see Bolstad and Hamblett, 1998, p 8-12):
“Who Is Here?”
1 Introducing a friend: People are asked to get into pairs (perhaps on the basis of finding someone of a similar height, or by turning to the person beside them), and take four minutes to learn each others' names and reasons for coming to the seminar. They then return to sitting in a circle, and (in no particular order) introduce their partners to the group. The partner may correct or add information as they are introduced.
2 Cushion toss: In this activity, someone begins by tossing a small cushion to someone else in the group, calling out that person's name as they do so (at first people will choose to toss to those whose names they recall. Later they can try for those they are less certain of. After everyone has had 2-3 turns, most of the names will be known). The person catching the cushion says, 'Thank you . . .', supplying the name of the person who threw it to them, and then calls out the name of the person they are throwing it to.
3 Map of The Country: People are invited to stand on an imaginary map of your country, placing themselves either where they come from, or somewhere in the country they feel most connected to. (This requires a large floor space. Distort geography as appropriate, eg. putting other countries nearby if needed.) Each person then talks about where they are standing and why.
“How will we Act?”
Creating A Written List of Guidelines:
A) Explain the concept of guidelines about how a group is, rather than about what is learned. Point out that every group has such guidelines, but that if they are not discussed then people have to guess them, test them out etc. Suggest that the guidelines you are about to show are ones you’ve found to work successfully in this sort of seminar. Present and briefly explain the guidelines that are important to you. For example, we tend to list: 1.
Start and finish at arranged times
2. Do the exercises as described and to the best of your ability
3. Keep personal information confidential 4. It’s okay to check when you’re not certain 5. Respect others’ model of the world 6. Fun
B) Ask people to get into triads and check that they understand what you meant by these guidelines, and to check if anyone in their triad has any similar guidelines they’d like to add. Give them a few minutes, or until the conversation dies down (whichever is first). This invitation to generate new ideas gives you important information about the expectations of group members. Some trainers
wonder if the process isn’t creating problems. We consider it to be testing that we have the agreement to proceed.
C) Check briefly with each triad that they are Okay with the guidelines. If a triad has something to add, put it on a separate list. You’ll want to check that such new ideas are okay for you yourself to go with, and then ask all the triads to turn quickly to each other again and check that they have agreement about the new proposals too. If disagreement about a proposed guideline isn’t reached within the time you have allotted for this exercise, have that guideline left off the list for now, to be reviewed later.
D) Either write the list of agreed-on-guidelines on a wall chart that stays up in the room, or have it typed and handed out to all participants. If conflicts arise later in the seminar, these can now be easily raised in the group by framing them with “I just want to check how we’re going with our agreed on guidelines.”
Preframing Win-win Teaching
An important comment about this Contract setting process is that it preframes the seminar as a win-win process. You are stating your needs, and inviting others to make sure their needs get heard.
As this is the Inclusion phase of the course, you are less likely to get much mismatching response, but you have modelled the process of brainstorming and checking for agreement. The skills of maintaining this win-win process are taught in depth in our book Transforming Communication (Bolstad and Hamblett, 1998) and include:
♦ identifying when someone else has an unmet need or a concern, and pacing that verbally
♦ identifying when you have an unmet need or a concern and stating that in “I message”
(metamodelled) form
♦ shifting between these two perspectives to clarify any conflict situation
♦ brainstorming, selecting and actioning solutions which meet both your needs and participants needs
Creating Rapport Directly
In using NLP one-to-one, I build rapport by matching behaviour. William Condon has meticulously studied videotapes of conversations, confirming that the matching or copying of behaviour is a natural part of successful relationships. He found that in a successful conversation, movements such as a smile or a head nod are involuntarily matched by the other person within 1/15 of a second. Within minutes of beginning the conversation, the volume, pitch and speech rate (number of sounds per minute) of the peoples voices match each other. This is correlated
with a synchronising of the type and rate of breathing. Even general body posture is adjusted over the conversation so that the people appear to match or mirror each other (Condon 1982, p 53-76). As a person adjusts their facial expression and other nonverbal behaviour to match others’ they actually use the same pattern of brain activation that the other person is using. The same direct route to creating rapport can be applied in a group in three ways.
♦
Matching individual behaviours. For example, when we do one of the activities such as“Introducing a Friend” (above) one of us as trainers will match the body position of each person as they are introduced. In discussion after, it is clear that participants are totally unaware of this process, as their attention is taken up by the content of the exercise.
♦
Asking the group to do some activity together, and doing it with them. This creates a powerful group rapport-building experience. In many cultures (such as New Zealand Maori culture), any group activity begins with synchronised activity such as prayer and singing. In our longer trainings, we begin the day with a group visualisation process. However, any simple activity (such as opening the manual at a certain page) can be utilised as an opportunity to match behaviour. In Tony Robbins’ trainings, for example, the group members are repeatedly asked to stand in a similar position and shout affirmations with the group leader.♦
Identifying people who already have rapport in this group, and matching them. If you are teaching in a group that has been together with another trainer, using that trainer’s mannerisms, voice tonality and stage anchors will tend to transfer their rapport (or lack of it) to you. Even when a group has not been together before, actions by some people will result in matching behaviour by others. Finding who is a “rapport leader” in a group is as simple as watching to see whose movements are followed by a ripple effect through the group. These people may not be the most co-operative students, and they may not be official “leaders”. However,unconsciously, others tend to match them and follow their suggestions. Teachers in the school system often notice such people when they are mismatching the teacher; their action is followed by several of the others in the class, making them seem like a “ringleader” for some semi-conscious “resistance”. Once you find a rapport leader, matching their behaviour, values and language will enable you to get rapport with the group of people who have been unconsciously following their lead.