Take Three

The use of “Stories” has long been seen as a viable method of Communicating with People holding different views. Stories can engage People beyond their EGO needs, and beyond their present focus. They also allow you to get your point across in a non-threatening manner, because while your audience might relate to the theme and the message, more than likely they will not relate to any negative aspects of your tale.
Stories are also an effective method of Communicating Organizational or Company Histories, and form a critical part of Organizational Learning.
Unfortunately, in the “Click and Go” era, telling Stories has become a bit of a lost art. It’s also sometimes very hard to get People together long enough to be able to tell a decent Story!
Yet every Person has a wealth of Stories just waiting to be told!
Stories also serve another purpose – they force you to organize your thoughts in such a way that your Communication is invariably simpler, more “human”, more appealing, and your message all that much more the stronger for the easy way it is delivered.
In other words, Stories wrap information or data in “appetite appeal”.
Every Story should have a start, a middle, and an end, and you need to understand the one simple, clear message that you are trying to Communicate.
Make it simple, literal, and appealing, and you will find that the power of the Story will work for you as a Peacemaker.
Additionally, providing analogous or metaphorical Stories allows you to tackle very tough subjects in a way that might otherwise be difficult. Issues that might spark instant reaction can be approached “softly”, allowing the participants time to absorb the message, and not feel threatened by it.
One other thing.
People “hear” Stories differently to the way they “hear” formal Communications such as letters, notes, memos, emails, and such. The “picture” side of the Mind is engaged in listening to a Story, involving all three levels of the Mind – unconscious, subconscious, and conscious.
In a sense you are getting the information in via the “back door”, rather than confronting the Listener “in their face”.
Making Peace is all about finding ways to help People reach their true potential, to learn and prosper, to live full and rich Lives.
Try a Story or two the next time you have to make a point, and see what a difference it makes to the way you Communicate.


The Death of Group

It is almost impossible in this day and age for anyone to achieve anything without becoming involved in a Team or Group, and the Stress that is usually generated by the Behaviour that develops because of the Group Dynamic.
For this reason, you as the Peacemaker need to understand how Groups work, and in the context of what follows, look at the word “Organization” as being any collective vested interest of any size that is trying to achieve a specific objective by the use of People and Systems, working in Teams or Groups of more than two People.
In any Organization, achieving the “bottom-line” (or vested interest objective) is the motive force, financial control (or budget) is the accelerator, and teams of People (Groups) are the wheels on which the Organization runs. And because Organizations don’t do things, People do, it stands to reason that an Organization’s success very much depends on how well its People do the things they do. An understanding of the Psychology of Group Dynamics then becomes the critical essence of successful Team Building.
Group dynamics is the term was first used by Lewin (around 1943) to refer to the psychological and social forces arising from the interaction of People in Groups like families, committees, athletic teams and work-place organizations, based on his observations made at a Navy Shipyard during the Second World War.
He observed that the cultural imperatives inherent in any stable Group often changed when the mix of Personalities was different, or if the Group was allowed to form its own “sub-culture” sometimes in direct contrast with that of the Organization which was providing them with their infrastructure.
Significant subsequent work has been done by Brown, Cartwright, Dimock, Luft, and Shaw, leading to a positive understanding of Group phenomena to the point where we can now actively use Group Dynamics to modify or regulate individual Behaviour, and magnify potential performance. We can also predict with a high degree of confidence the actual output of most Groups, and their possible cultural stratification.
The basic property of any Group is its level of cohesiveness, or the degree to which members are attracted to it. When cohesiveness is high, members are motivated to participate in the Group's activities and to help the Group attain its goals and objectives, by either melding their own personal objectives into the Group’s activities, or sublimating their personal agendas in favour of that of the Group.
Highly cohesive Groups give their members a sense of security and identity and a feeling of personal worth (self-esteem). Over time, Groups develop social norms for the Behaviour, attitudes, and values of their members. Groups exert social pressures by rewarding conformity to these norms, and rejecting deviance from the norms.
The greater the cohesion, the greater is the pressure applied to its members by the Group to conform. However, the uniformity resulting from these pressures has both desirable and detrimental effects.
It can facilitate social interaction and the attainment of Group goals, but at the same time may foster a Group mentality that limits creativity, Communication, and Attitude formation.
Well established Groups have an internal structure that provides stability for interaction among members, who tend to enact particular roles, perform specific functions, Communicate more often with certain other members, and to form subgroups and cliques.
Most Groups have a status structure, or pecking order. In simple terms, some members have more prestige than others and exert more influence on the Life of the Group. These differences are almost totally related to the Personality Type and mix of the members of the Group. If you remember, it is most likely that the Director Style will tend to dominate, with the Socialiser exerting strong influence on the social structure. The Relator Style will be the natural “Peacemaker”, always seeing all sides of any argument, while the Thinkers amongst us will be a little withdrawn, almost unapproachable, uncomfortable with any rampant dynamics exhibited by the Group.
The productivity of problem-solving Groups is often impaired by this structure, since it tends to inhibit contributions by low-status members. It can be hard for Thinkers and Realtors to get a word in at the appropriate time, while often the Directors and Socialisers will be offended with the literal, detail orientated, seeming slow manner many of the decision processes may emulate. It all comes down to our ability to Communicate with the other Team or Group members, and their ability and willingness to Communicate with us.
A Group is a social infrastructure that entirely depends on its ability to Communicate (and therefore relate), in order to achieve its specific objective, and all the attitudes and Behaviours that may be observed of the Group, will stem from their success of otherwise of how they Communicate with one and other, and create their relationships.
A Group totally depends on the relational frame that is formed within the Group, and the consensual bridges that allow direct. specific, and literal Communication between members of the Group.
Look at the Communication Rules we discussed earlier, and imagine how each Personality Style is likely to impact on any Team or Group that you are a part of.
We discussed that the Director Personality is Rational - High Involvement, and “lives” in the top right hand quadrant of the Grid :
1. In the Communication, is the thinking, presentation, and attitude compatible with the importance of the action?
2. Does it somehow take into account the risk of wrong choice (or action)?
3. Does it provide enough food for thought
4. Are the points made in the Communication logical and cogent?
5. Are the specifics, benefits or reasons-why real and important?

The Socialiser Personality is Emotional - High Involvement, and “lives” opposite the Director, in the right hand side of the grid.
1. Is the Communication compatible with the importance of the action?
2. Does it somehow take into account the risk of wrong choice (or action)?
3. Does it provide enough stimulation of the imagination, fantasies, and daydreams?
4. Does the Communication engender the right feelings?
5. Does it express the right personality values?
6. Does it play on the right sense (of the five senses) in the right way?

The Thinker Personality is Logical - Low Involvement, and sits in the bottom left hand quadrant :
1. Does the Communication provide the energy that the personality will not provide?
2. Does it make one point inescapably clear?
3. Does the Communication demonstrate or prove its one point irresistibly, and irrefutably?

The Relator Personality is Emotional - Low Involvement, and sits opposite the Thinker in the right hand side of the grid :
1. Does the Communication provide the energy that the personality will not provide?
2. Does the Communication convey inescapably one personality?
3. Does the Communication work in, or on, the right sense, in the right way?

Each Personality “lives” constantly in a different Emotional State, depending on the level of their involvement, and how Rational or Emotional they are. Emotions are the signals by which we let other People know how we are feeling about something, and what our intentions might well be. Subliminally, it is how a particular Personality Style reacts to these signals that often influences Group Behaviour.
One of the other difficulties is that Directors and Socialisers tend to be highly individualistic in both motivation, and intent. They both like to change and control their environment, and they both like to be seen as the point of focus for any attention. This can create difficulty for Group Leaders, particularly if they are selected for their popularity and not their skill set.
They can sometimes slip into “performing” for the Group, rather than “acting” for it.
Acts of leadership are those that strengthen the Group and contribute to effective Group performance. Although they may be performed by any member of the Group, they are often restricted to the one person who is designated as the official leader (or assumes the role through strength of character). This designation can be subtle and covert, in the case where there is an “officially” appointed Leader, who is not the actual “Leader” that the Group responds to. This happens often when the Leader is a Thinker or Relator, as the Directors and Socialisers will constantly try to make their point, either subtly or forcibly, depending on the perceived circumstances.
A democratic leader encourages participation in decision-making, fosters Group cohesiveness, and facilitates social interaction. On the other hand, autocratically led Groups are often efficient, but this type of leadership style tends to breed hostility or apathy among the members, reducing the overall Group performance. It is not unusual for autocratic-led Groups to fragment into smaller sub-Groups, often hotbeds of constantly fermenting discontent, and extraordinary high Stress levels.
For any Group to work, at any level, you must have an Honest, Open and Transparent process. Every individual must believe that they have the same access, opportunities, respect, relationship, and possibilities as every other member. Even when skill-specific roles are being enacted, the individual must believe that their contribution is valued, and at least equal to any other contribution by any other member, even though it might be different.
There are six critical elements that differentiate successful Groups, and they are exactly the same elements that you must have at the core of any successful Change Management Process.
1. There must be a specific belief in the objectives of the Group.
2. There must be ownership of the process by every member of the Group.
3. There must be multidirectional real-time Communication between all the members of the Group.
4. There must be vested authority and responsibility in the members of the Group.
5. There must be perceivable benefits for all concerned, and
6. The Group’s strategy must deliver on the promise.

There is one additional and important element in Group performance – and that is the activities of the Group must be recognized and rewarded by the host Organization, in a manner that allows the individual Group members to see the real impact of their contribution on the Organization’s success or progress. If this “relational” frame between the Organization and the Group is not built and supported, ultimately, any Team or Group will fail in its endeavours.
If you remember, the model of Attitude formation shows that your subjective knowledge (beliefs) about an Object determines your Attitude toward it. And we pointed out that because this is so, it is crucial that any Attitude be “challenged” until you established exactly what the facts really are. We saw that the variables in Attitude change are Personality traits, credibility of the source of different opinions or information countering existing Attitudes, and Group membership.
There is no doubt that Group membership can form and shape individual compliance, and moderate Behaviour. However, this tends to be a double-edged sword, because unless the Group get it right, the individual can be left handing in an Attitudinal abyss, completely unsure of their moral direction. Not only is this State Stressful, it can be deadly!
The Gaia Principle of the Universal Linking Theory suggests that “Every individual person’s Behaviour impacts on, and in turn, is impacted on by, every other person’s Behaviour”. In simplistic terms, this means that any Group that is formed, or will be created, will only ever be as successful as the least committed member of that Group.
This Principle can be applied in two distinctly different ways.
#1 - The Organization sets individually determined objectives for each Group, taking the composition of the Group into account, or
#2 - The least capable Group is used as the standard setter, creating a synergistic drive for excellence within the other Groups.
The size of a Group also has important consequences for its successful functioning. Larger Groups have more resources and can accomplish more than smaller ones. But as size increases, a smaller proportion of the Group's members take part in Group discussion and decision-making. Interaction becomes more impersonal, satisfaction declines, Group cohesiveness is reduced, and the Group tends to become divided into factions. Stress is the inevitable result of these processes.
The optimal number of members depends upon the Group's objectives, but for most problem-solving Groups and committees extensive research has shown that it is generally regarded as being either five or seven. This is an important discovery if you are involved in a Board or Community Groups, who tend to have large numbers.
Organizations tend to force-evolve Groups-within-Groups, all with their own created (or assumed) set of norms. The greater the number of individually identified Groups, the greater is the degree of Organisational control required. The further a Group gets from the focus of the Corporate Culture, the more deviant the norms of the Group can become.
Because Groups are able to exert disproportionate pressure on the individual to conform to the Group’s assumed norms, it is possible for a Group to covertly subvert the Organization’s goals. This Group "shut-out" can be subliminal, unconscious, and virtually undetectable at some levels of an Organization. This effect can be minimised by the inculcation of the Corporate Culture at every level of the Organization, and by the provision of clear Organisational objectives expressed in human-dynamic terms rather than in financial (or numerical) ones.
An American Airline became famous (and profitable!) by boiling down their multi-volume Operations Manual into a single thought – “Make our Customers happy, no matter what” – and posting it on every employee’s desk.
In essence, you take the Organizational objective and marry it with the individual self-interest of every Group member - in such a way that their self-image (ego) provides the fuel for your achievement – success – but expressed in the terms of the individual.
There are nine critical elements in Team Building (or the management of Groups) that we have been able to identify after years of research and study, and they can be described in relative order of importance.
1. The designation (or appointment) of an Organisational disciple as the Group leader. This is critical, as the Organization’s objectives must be reflected in the Leadership of any Team or Group for it to be able to succeed.
2. Specific, attainable, quantifiable and accountable objectives for each Group. These Group objectives must be developed with (and within) the Group, and accepted unilaterally.
3. Each individual within each Group must understand and accept their role, and its contribution to the overall objective of the Group.
4. Positive review of the Group objectives and progress, at planned, regular intervals, from the Group's perspective.
5. This review must also relate the Group’s progress to the Organization’s progress.
6. Consistency and clarity in Communication of the Organization’s Principles with each Group.
7. A rigid feedback protocol, with two-way responsibility between the Organization and the Group.
8. A strong, positive, understandable Corporate culture, which can be absorbed and reflected by every individual within the Organization (and therefore within any Group).
9. Organization recognition of the Group's contribution, and Communication of this recognition to other Groups

Teams that you form as “working parties” to run down the various issues that will come out of any Strategic process must implement and reflect these nine critical aspects of Team (or Group) Building.
The sure test for a successful Organization is the degree of perceived Culture exhibited by the weakest member of the weakest Group.
The management of Groups (teams) is simplified by the application of the well-recognised and tested concept of C3 - Command, Control, and Communication.
If you recall - The Command (C1) hypothesis stipulates that :
- "In any Organization there is a visible hierarchical structure to which the individual can easily relate".
- “It is the Prime Responsibility of every member of this hierarchical structure to either lead, follow, or get out of the way”.
- “This structure will be such that, in the event of any uncertainty, command can pass from one level of the Organization to the next with a minimum loss of control”.

This Communication derived Command (C1) dictate serves five purposes :
1. It provides an anchoring point for the individual, a frame of reference for discipline and authority.
2. It leaves no doubt as to the expected role of management.
3. It gives an individual a clear picture of their potential career -path within the Organization.
4. It provides a literal frame of reference for the position of the various Groups and Teams within the Organization in respect to one another.
5. It provides for the logical, calm progression of management through the Organization.

The Control (C2) imperative states that :
- “At every level of an Organization, there shall be sufficient structure to maximise efficiency, prevent chaos, disorder, and disharmony in work, while promoting the orderly and concise flow of information and smooth change of command from one level to another”.

The Communication (C3) dictate demands :
- "An accurate, clear, simple, and understandable exchange of information (ideas) at every structural level, irrespective of the capability or circumstances of the sender or the receiver".

And the crux of the issue - a successful Communication (exchange of ideas) is said to have taken place only when the receiver can demonstrate (via Feedback) that they can implement the required work to complete the object of Communication.
Successful Communication evolves within an Organization when each individual understands that what it is that needs to be achieved (action) is more important than what it is they want to say.
The contemporary Communication Model is integrated and continuous, and the Communication “Loop” is considered “Dynamic”, and its success is evaluated only by the Quality of the Feedback. This is a critical issue with Groups – if you do not have the proper Feedback mechanisms in place, the Group will quickly loose its “place” in the overall scheme of things, leading to great Stress both within and without of the Group.
In the proper administration of Self Managed Teams (a special type of Group structure) there are a number of critical aspects you need to be aware of to minimize Stress, but maximise performance.
Firstly, SMT’s invariable fail unless they are truly Self-Managed!
Secondly, SMT’s must have access to every resource they perceive they need within and without of the Organization.
Thirdly, in the management of SMT’s, your control must be seen to be Motivational, not Organisational.
Fourthly, the reporting system you establish must be a genuine, bi-directional highway of information, and ideas exchange.
And last but not least, the recommendations and solutions offered by SMT’s must be objectively evaluated against previously agreed criteria, and you must be seen to be implementing this aspect of your Social contract.
In simplistic terms, your Organization will function optimally when your Groups are Communicating optimally. A true test of this “State” is a critical examination of the Communication practices exercised by the Groups.
It is this understanding of the Psychology of Group Dynamics which when applied at the lowest Group level, will promote the modification of the Group’s Behaviour to best deliver your Organizational objectives.
If the lowest common denominator is functioning at peak performance, then every other Group will match the expectation created by their example.
It is up to the Peacemaker to decide how you will use the power of Group Dynamics, but understand that it is a significant tool in the process of Making Peace!