Implications For Facili-Training and Action Learning Coaching

Restricted Proprietary Information 1 Pre-Publication Draft
Developing High Performance Teamwork:
Implications for Facili-Training and Action Learning Coaching
Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D.
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Freedman is a consulting organizational psychologist and organization development and change
scholar-practitioner. He is a Partner in the Freedman, Leonard, & Marquardt consultancy and Board
Member in the World Institute for Action Learning. He has extensive domestic experience throughout
North America and international consulting experience in Sweden, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania,
Zimbabwe, Singapore, and Germany. He specializes in facilitating complex transformational change,
executive coaching, management training and development, and organizational continuity. He has been an
active member of NTL since 1969 and is a visiting professor and advisor at the Carey Business School,
Johns Hopkins University in the new MBA in OD program. He is a Fellow of Divisions 13 (Consulting
Psychology) and 52 (International Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. He received
the 1994 Perry R. Rohrer Award for excellence in International Consulting and the 2007 Harry and
Miriam Levinson Award for Outstanding Contributions to Organizational Consulting Psychology, both
from Division 13 (Society of Consulting Psychology), American Psychological Association and received
the Most Distinguished Article Award for 1998 (now named for Elliot Jaques) for his article, “Pathways
and Crossroads to Institutional Leadership” in Consulting Psychology Journal (v. 50, n. 3, pp 131-151).
He is a Past-President of the Society of Psychologists in Management (SPIM). Dr. Freedman’s two latest
books are Consulting Psychology: Selected articles of Harry Levinson, co-edited with Ken Bradt, (2008)
and Action Learning for Developing Leaders and Organizations, co-authored with Mike Marquardt, Skip
Leonard, and Cori Hill (2009). Both were published by the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

------------------------------------------------------

Developing High Performance Teamwork:
Core Competencies in Facilitating Four Critical Team Processes
Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D.
Summary and Overview. Learning coaches, OD&C consultants, and line managers
must have justified confidence in proposing “effective” action learning, team building or
team development to their client systems’ leaders. In this article, I propose a heuristic
model to enable learning coaches, OD&C consultants, and line managers to engage in
dialogs that may lead to a common, agreed-upon sets of alternative hypotheses to explain
team dynamics and intervention methodologies to enhance team performance.
University-based researchers can generate case studies of successful and unsuccessful
initiatives. These can be analyzed to test the validity of the hypotheses and the
effectiveness of the methodologies, perhaps using case meta-analysis (e.g., Bullock,
1986; Bullock & Tubbs, 1987). This will help us to replace unsubstantiated faith or
beliefs with valid, reliable and replicable research data. I will also describe a number of
indicators of suboptimal team performance and differentiate between “groups” and high
performing teams” (HPTs). I will describe the four process dimensions and their key
elements. I will present an overview of a number of alternative conceptual models of
phases of group development. Then I will describe how I apply this model differentially
– when I train OD consultants in contrast with actually consulting with real teams. I will

also describe complementary methods of applying this model – verbally and with the aid
of instrumentation.
Action Learning and Facili-Training. It is not unusual, I think, for similar practices to
evolve from disparate origins. This seems to have been the case with action learning and
what I call facili-training. The former is increasingly well known to consultants and
consumers of consultants’ services; the latter is, admittedly, obscure. Action learning
explicitly integrates efforts to develop the skills of potential organizational leaders with
timely, critical organizational change initiatives (Dotlich & Noel, 1998; Gasparski &
Botham, 1998; Marquardt, 1999; and Rothwell, 1999). Simultaneously, action learning
demonstrates the value of focusing on learning at three levels: individual, team, and
organizational.
Facili-training is my attempt to formalize a strategy that I and other OD
consultants (Hornstein & MacKenzie, January 1984) have employed for at least thirty
years (Freedman, 1996). The origins of this approach for me stem from my masters
degree thesis research when I discovered that the effects of human relations training
failed to sustain themselves when participants tried to apply what they had learned in a
residential “cultural island” to their real-life, back-home work situations (Freedman,
1963). My appreciation for attending to multiple process levels, simultaneously, was a
natural consequence of many years of education, training, didactic psychoanalysis,
supervision, and experience in eclectic individual, marital, and group psychotherapy and
in facilitating sensitivity training or T-Groups and OD&C practice since 1961. I began to

formulate this approach in 1967 when I first participated in the NTL Institute’s
Consultation Skills workshop. This led to my participation in redesigning, staffing, and
deaning that workshop since 1972. Also starting in 1972, I constructed a skeleton for the
approach in the course of 35-years of training assignments with a major labor union’s
organizers and OD&C consultations with a number of the union’s regional, state, local,
and member associations. I refined the facili-training approach during eight intensive
years of consulting with and training nuclear power plant management teams and control
room and floor operator teams to identify and deal with unprecedented issues that
inevitably emerged in that highly regulated environment. I formalized the approach
during a two and one-half year engagement with a large electric and gas utility company
that was attempting to transform itself from a command-control technocratic bureaucracy
to a highly participative, team-oriented organization. Over the past 35 years, I have
tested the credibility and effectiveness of my evolving formulations against the critical
judgement of colleagues and participants in many of my training programs for OD&C
practitioners and ALT coaches in the US, Sweden, Lithuania, and Russia and in the
courses I have taught in various graduate school programs.
Facili-training and action learning team coaching (ALTC) utilize some similar
methods and serve very compatible purposes. That is, both utilize the action research
method as its core technology and attempt to transfer their technologies to and, thus,
empower organizational leaders and members. This transfer of knowledge and skills to
line managers enables both OD&C practitioners and ALT coaches to work themselves
out of a job. Both emphasize a project orientation and contribute to the creation and
growth of learning organizations.

Personally, I am delighted that action learning is enjoying such popularity. It
should. It seems to make the kinds of contributions to organizational effectiveness that I
believe consultants should make. Action learning is elegant in its simplicity. It has a
compelling, direct and easily comprehended message. It is a powerful, effective, and
useful strategy that may well revolutionize many team building and team development
practices that have been fundamental elements of OD&C since it was named in 1959.
My only reservation about action learning revolves around its rather loose
treatment of group dynamics and processes. It is my contention that, to learn and become
optimally effective, organizational leaders must understand and become proficient in the
proper application of personal, interpersonal, group, task completion, goal achievement,
and intergroup or boundary management skills. There is a considerable body of theory,
research, and experience in each of these areas. There is also considerable evidence that,
while there are many common issues, multifunctional teams -- such as those that are
typically employed in action learning -- are confronted by significant issues that are not
usually present in intact work teams (Colantuno & Schnidman, 1988; Freedman, 1995b).
These issues have to be dealt with methods that are not necessary in intact work teams.
The question about which I am concerned is: To what extent should ALT coaches
balance their efforts to enable learners to learn through their own experiences with
conceptual and instructional interventions that convey to learners what has already been
learned about group dynamics over the last 50 years or so. I believe that a
comprehensive understanding of how ALT coaches – including OD&C practitioners,
trainer-educators, group facilitators, and line managers -- can optimize the development
of high performing teams (HPTs) and enhance the practice of action learning. I hope to

demonstrate that aspects of facili-training can add to ALT coaches’ repertoires of
interventions and add precision to the ALTC strategy.
My starting point is acknowledging and trying to eliminate several areas of
confusion. “Team building” and “team development” are terms that have found their
way from the jargon of OD&C ptactitiones to their client systems’ leaders and,
ultimately, to the professional, technical, trade, and business media. Unfortunately, there
are no commonly accepted operational definitions for these terms. So, the terms have
come to mean whatever a speaker wants them to mean. Yet, there seems to be
widespread faith in the untested belief that virtually any effort to build or develop teams
will produce HPTs and, in turn, induce an undefined end state referred to as
organizational effectiveness.
This faith may be too optimistic. A missing element is a comprehensive, shared
set of definitions of the key concepts, “team building,” “HP teamwork,” and
“organizational effectiveness.” The ambiguity makes it difficult to measure sub-optimal
team performance, determine when and what kinds of team building or development is
needed, measure a team’s progress as it strives to achieve HPT status, and, thus, enable
collections of individuals to develop into HPTs. The possibilities for confusion and
disagreement over definitions and methodologies are endless.
Further, team-focused interventions should be, but are usually not, substantively
different when applied to permanent, intact work units in contrast with temporary,
multifunctional, global, or multidisciplinary teams. The major differences derive from
the rather different purposes that the two types of groupings are intended to serve.
Permanent intact groups usually focus on evolutionary improvement of existing

operations and deal with identifying and solving problems, planning, and executing plans
to eliminate or prevent obstacles and impediments. However, temporary multifunctional
teams -- such as teams composed of different kinds and types of specialized consultants,
ERP design-implementation teams, merger/acquisition integration teams and ALTs --
usually focus on enterprise-wide issues and produce creative, radically innovative
proposals for complex systemic change initiatives. Further, interventions for the former
types of teams generally take place under steady-state conditions while interventions for
the latter often occur under urgent, crisis-oriented conditions. Unfortunately, most team-
focused interventions evolved out of experience with the former and are indiscriminately
applied to the latter (Freedman, 1995c). ALT coaches, OD&C practitioners, and line
managers must be attentive to such differences and learn to become sufficiently flexible
and adaptable to deal with both classes of teams and variable environmental conditions.
Part I: How to Recognize Sub-Optimal Team Performance – Indicators
When there are indications that an established intact work unit’s performance falls
below an acceptable level of effectiveness, team development interventions should be
considered. This is also true for action learning teams. Performance could be selected as
a focal issue by determining what is and is not “acceptable” by comparing current
performance against some standards or set of criteria. There are at least two valid
research designs that may be employed (Cook & Campbell, 1979). A self-as-own-control
design where the baseline is established by assessing the team’s current performance and

reassess it after an intervening variable has been introduced, say six to twelve months
later. Alternatively, an experimental team’s performance is compared with that of a
control team for the same time period. This design may be irrelevant when dissimilar
teams are compared – e.g., comparing a “team” of customer service representatives with
a management team or comparing a well-established, mature team with a new team in
start-up mode.
Multiple criteria are preferable to a single criterion in evaluating a team’s
performance – just as when evaluating an individual contributor. A relevant, measurable
set of criteria may include some combination of the following possibilities:
• Increased or decreased requests for goods or services by a team’s internal or
external customers; sales; or revenues.
• Increased or decreased team profitability or added value.
• Declines or increases in team productivity or output.
• Increased or decreased number of grievances or complaints by team members.
• Persistent, unresolved interpersonal or inter-group conflicts or hostility. Or,
occasional conflicts, differences, or misunderstandings that are quickly identified,
addressed, and managed.
• Action planning. Team members’ clarity or confusion about decisions about
specific actions to be taken; actions are or are not carried out as expected.
Start/completion dates are clear and understood by all involved parties or
timelines are unclear and various team members have different expectations about
deadlines. Team members either agree or disagree about who is responsible for
what.

• Team complacency, listlessness, and apathy; lack of energy, interest or
involvement (members keep a low profile). Or, enthusiastic activity, energetic
curiosity, interest, and commitment.
• Little or no risk-taking, initiative, creativity, or innovation by team members;
routine or traditional actions are used to solve unprecedented (discontinuous)
problems. Or, the team is engaged in proactive exploration, experimentation,
risk-taking, and creativity or innovativeness.
• High or low levels of participation by team members in meetings; little or active
involvement of the team’s significant stakeholders; little or high commitment to
support decisions by team members who must carry them out, etc.
• High or low levels of conformity and dependency upon -- or fear of and/or anger
toward – team leaders and sponsors.
• Team members’ cynicism or optimism about the significance or effectiveness of
planned organizational changes among team members and their team’s significant
stakeholders.
• Complaints or complements from the team’s customers about the team’s
responsiveness to their needs or preferences about quality and the timely delivery
of the team’s goods and/or service.
• Team members’ malicious or verbatim compliance to instructions, rules,
regulations, policies, or procedures. Or, creative interpretations resulting in
effective performance.
• Increasing or decreasing team member complaints about each other; members
accept or avoid personal responsibility.

• Increased or decreased team costs.
• Slipped or satisfied team work schedules.
• Duplication and unnecessary member and team activities or elimination or
reduction of duplication of member and team effort and unnecessary activities.
• Increased or decreased waste or environmental contamination.
• Complaints from community leaders or laudatory comments about the team’s
good corporate citizenship.
Part II: “Groups” -- Collections of Individuals
Many line managers believe that building a team is complete once the members'
names are placed in the appropriate boxes on an organizational chart. Further, sponsors,
leaders, and members of “teams” have different understandings of the nature or benefits
of HP teamwork and how to achieve it. Initially, people who are formed into most work
groups are just aggregations or collections of individuals who tend to do what they have
always done as individual contributors, but now do it in a group context. Typically, they
neither do nor know what they must do as a team to create and maintain HP teamwork.
This is true both for permanent intact work units at all organizational levels and for
temporary multifunctional task forces, committees, liaison teams, and action learning

teams. Therefore, it is critical for all involved parties to understand the differentiating
characteristics of a collection of individuals and a HPT.
Organizational Ghosts. One significant differentiating characteristic between a
group and an HPT is the presence and influence of organizational ghosts. Consider a
group composed of members who are assigned to a multifunctional team of some sort.
Group members are likely to feel more committed and loyal to their respective back-
home subsystems (their stakeholders) than to their designated “team.” This may be due
to their beliefs (or hopes) that their organizational futures will be within their back-home
subsystems rather than in their temporary groups. Therefore, they think they should -- or
may believe they are expected to -- represent what they presume are the interests of their
respective subsystems even as their group works to achieve its own goals (Colantuono &
Schnidman, 1988).
The members’ perceptions of their various back-home subsystems’ needs,
preferences, and expectations are the ghosts that are typically expressed through the
group members’ interpersonal behavior – i.e., the subsystems’ unofficial representatives
or unauthorized agents. This is a covert phenomenon and, therefore, is vulnerable to
many misunderstandings. Members who see themselves as agents or representatives may
but usually do not fully or accurately know what their subsystems’ leaders expect of them
or what is or is not in their subsystems’ immediate or future best interests.
As illustrated by the direction and thickness of the arrows in Figure 1, sometimes
agents exert more influence on their ghost subsystems than is exerted on them. To satisfy

their own subsystems’ interests, group members may find it easier to pair with and
influence some other members than the entire group. The covert dynamics of
organizational ghosts inevitably haunt the activities of the group. Ghosts are often the
projections or attributions of the group member-agents. So, group members really haunt
themselves with their own hopes, fears, and fantasies. They also subject themselves to
internal role conflict as their loyalty and commitment wavers between their home base
subsystems and their multi-functional group or between the interests of their stakeholder
subsystem and those of their larger organization. A predictable result is that the group’s
potential effectiveness is sub-optimized.
(INSERT “Figure 1. A Collection of Individuals” HERE)
Personal Ghosts. Individual group members also haunt themselves with the
personal issues they bring with them into multifunctional or multidisciplinary groups. As
some pundit once said, “Wherever you go, there you are.” Every group member has to
deal with the group task in the context of his or her:
• Sense of identity (e.g., multiple memberships in various referent or
constituency populations related to such dimensions as gender, race, age,
nationality, religion, sexual orientation, education, occupation or profession,
physical characteristics, marital status, and life style)
• Personal aspirations (personal, professional, or organizational)

• Anxieties or fears and the defense mechanisms they use to protect
themselves
• Habitual work practices and patterns
• Sense of urgency or complacency
• Unresolved issues (e.g., with authority figures)
• Mental models about how people and things should be
• Perspectives (cultural, hierarchical position, occupational, and location)
• Time orientation (e.g., oriented to the past, present, or future; short, mid,
or long range)
• Information, knowledge, and skill-sets
Group members’ behavior is influenced by these factors. The nature and degree
of influence is generally covert. The degree to which these factors are surfaced and
studied is a major variable that, nevertheless, influences the group’s development and
performance. This kind of diversity can lead to creativity, innovations, and quality
results. On the other hand, if unrecognized and mismanaged, it can result in considerable
disagreement, tension, and conflict.
Pluralistic ignorance. Team members often act as if they were the only persons
who act on behalf of their ghostly stakeholders and/or constituent populations (e.g., union
members, women, or older employees). Perhaps they naively believe that other team
members do not have similar hidden agendas. They do not acknowledge, specify, or
discuss their respective ghosts. Consequently, it is awkward for them to consider how to
publicly acknowledge, discuss, legitimize, and manage the conflicting interests of their

respective ghosts. More likely, team members implicitly understand that a political
dynamic is at work. Each member probably suspects that every other team member is
trying to protect the interests and optimize the benefits for their respective back-home
subsystems and/or constituencies (or limit their losses) – often by undercutting the
interests of other members’ ghosts. Therefore, while some members get totally immersed
in the group’s goals and tasks and subordinate their back-home subsystems or
constituencies’ interests, others withhold their investment and commitment. They may
appear to cooperate while undermining their colleagues’ stratagems. In other words,
politically-oriented team members compete in a non-distributive zero-sum game.
The process remains covert because member-agents assume that public disclosure
and discussion would adversely affect their ability to safeguard or advance the interests
of their organizational ghosts. Each member assumes that if the team's decisions or
actions favor one constituency or subsystem, the others would be disadvantaged. They
assume that, to be effective, their blocking strategies must be covert. So, agents collude
with each other. Since they do not trust their team to satisfy all of their respective ghosts’
vested interests, they must prevent all other team members from satisfying their ghosts’
interests. This is a lose-lose strategy for managing perfectly legitimate differences.
To become an HPT, whatever organizational ghosts have been avoided or kept
hidden must be made explicit. The legitimately conflicting interests of the various
constituent populations or stakeholder groups must be publicly acknowledged. This
would make it possible for team members to accept the larger, systemic perspective and
deal with the reality that the interests of some involved subsystems must be subordinated,
sacrificed or deferred in the interest of the larger system’s survival and growth. So, team

members must specify, discuss, and decide which constituent subsystems will gain a
permanent or temporary advantage and which will have to make a sacrifice.
Of course, another element often obscures the issue still further. That is, team
member-agents make these trade-off decisions on their own, without contact or direction
from the leaders of the subsystems or constituencies that they believe they represent.
They are not formally authorized to act as agents. They usually do not know their
subsystem leaders’ goals or objectives, values, beliefs, strategies, and plans. They are
self-authorized ambassadors without portfolios. They do not fully or accurately
understand the true interests of their subsystems or constituencies.
To transcend the real and imagined pressure to remain politicized, unauthorized
individuals operating in a group that is trying to develop into an HPT, the represented
subsystems and constituencies and their agents must tolerate a series of temporary,
shifting set of gains and sacrifices. This is usually essential for the larger organization to
survive and flourish. That is, each subsystem and constituency and their informal agents
must accept the inescapable reality that they are interdependent parts of the whole. They
must accept the concept that win-lose competition and destructive conflict between the
parts results in serious sub-optimal performance – if not failure -- of the larger whole.
They must believe the each part becomes vulnerable and may not survive if the whole is
weakened. So, their goals and strategies must contribute to the larger system’s mission.
That is, the parts must accept their interdependence with each other and their essential
dependence on the larger whole (Colantuno & Schnidman, 1988; Freedman, 1997).

Part III: What is a "High Performing Team?"
The HPT is exciting for team leaders and members (Vaill, 1982, McGregor,
1985). However, leaders and members of other subsystems – internal suppliers or
customers of the HPT -- often see them as a bunch of unpredictable "mavericks." This
often creates difficulties in intersubsystem relationships. For example, HPTs often
become the target of informal pressure to induce them and their members to conform to
conventional cultural norms. If successful, HPT would become predictable and safe for
the other subsystems. Unfortunately, if they do conform and became non-threatening,
HPTs are likely to sacrifice the very qualities that make them high performing. Action
learning teams may avoid such pressure since they are temporary entities, composed of
members from many different subsystems and organizational levels, and deal with broad,
total system issues rather than transactions between just two or three interdependent
subsystems. Because they typically operate in an atmosphere of considerable urgency, it
is vital that action learning teams to quickly evolve from collections of individuals to
HPTs. HPTs – both permanent intact work units and temporary multifunctional or
multidisciplinary entities -- typically exhibit the following qualities, characteristics and
attributes:
• Leaders are content experts in the team's core technologies and work methods.
• Leaders set the pace and lead by example.
• Leaders often share in the basic work of the team.
• Members create, are aware of, and support their HP traditions and history.

• Members discover potentialities in their technologies and in themselves that were
not previously recognized.
• Members invent equipment, methods, procedures, and techniques to enhance their
team’s effectiveness.
• Members constantly assess and renew themselves, their work relationships, and
their technologies as a natural part of their way of operating.
• HPTs exhibit a "rhythm" in operating which members feel and which is evident to
outsiders; once achieved, HPTs work at optimal effectiveness.
• Members tinker and experiment a lot; members believe there is "one best way" to
operate an HPT only for short periods of time.
• Members shift roles around among various mental and manual activities.
• Members pay a great deal of attention to making their work environment "just
right" to support their essential work activities.
• Members develop a private, verbal and non-verbal language to effectively
communicate with each other about the team's operation, members' behaviors, and
work issues.
• Members get very upset when the team is not operating up to their expectations;
observers may feel HPT members "take things too seriously".
• There may be a "rule book" about how to do what the HPT does but, in practice,
there are many variations and frequent deviations.
• Hours worked, intensity of effort, and break times are governed by members'
concerns for balancing their team's with their personal needs.

• Outsiders may be very confused by the HPT’s operating style: observers may
think it is "on" when members know it is "off"; at other times, the HPT looks "off"
when it is "on."
• Technology is an extension of the members and the HPT (like the musician's
instrument or the athlete's equipment); it is not "alien."
[INSERT “Figure 2. A High Performing Team” HERE]
Even teams that operate in highly regulated work environments can function as
HPTs. Regulations merely define the boundaries within which a team's work must be
accomplished. No matter how comprehensive or rigid these regulations may be, a certain
amount of "wiggle room" for innovation can always be created by innovative HPTs
(Colantuno & Schnidman, 1988).
Differentiating Characteristics. People who are not aware of the differences
between collections of individuals and HPTs cannot fully understand why HPTs
consistently out-perform groups. Without knowing there is an alternative, sponsors,
leaders, and members of ordinary intact work groups usually assume they have no choice
but to continue to operate in familiar, traditional ways.
If, on the other hand, they believe that HP teamwork is an achievable option,
leaders and members can make an informed choice whether or not try to transform their
groups. However, knowing how to effect such a transformation is a higher order of

complexity than simply understanding the differences. Knowing the alternatives and
differences is an appropriate starting place.
I have found that Table 1 (below) can be used as the basis of effective educational
interventions. It displays problematic characteristics of multifunctional or
multidisciplinary groups that are easily recognized by sponsors, leaders, and members of
groups that could become HPTs. (This table can be modified for permanent intact work
units. The focus of the intergroup dynamics would shift to supplier and customer
subsystems.) The table also displays the desirable HPT characteristics that the typical
audience can imagine as achievable. Once I present this information, it is relatively easy
to engage involved parties in a discussion of what it would take for them to transform
their collections of individuals and into HPTs.
Table 1. Differentiating Characteristics of Collections of Individuals and HPTs
Collection of Individuals High Performing Teams

Team members' responsibilities for managing Members negotiate explicit agreements with their
transactions with their respective stakeholder and respective constituents that specify what the
constituents are vague (open to variable stakeholder subsystems and constituents expect of
interpretations of different members). their representatives and what the representative-
members can realistically expect from their
stakeholders or constituents.
Team members feel variable levels of commitment Team members are highly committed to their team,
to the team, its mission, and other team members. to contribute to achieving its mission, and to help
other team members to grow and develop.

Team members exert informal social pressure on Prevailing organizational norms are made explicit
each other to conform to covert, unchallenged and challenged and tested to determine whether

prevailing organizational norms. they add to or detract from the team's effectiveness.
Indirect political (win-lose) tactics are commonly Attempts to influence others are transparent,
employed between perceived adversaries. straightforward, and characterized by integrity.

Differences of opinion are frequently dealt with Differences are dealt with assertively by loyal
through direct and indirect forms of coercion opponents in a joint problem-solving process.
aimed at undermining adversaries' positions.

Team members' loyalty and commitment to their Team members acknowledge their commitments to
respective stakeholders or constituents is assumed their respective stakeholders and constituents and
but ignored (a public secret or pluralistic agree to explicitly discuss role conflicts as they
ignorance). emerge -- and how to manage these conflicts.

Team members may take it upon themselves to As issues emerge that may adversely affect their
advocate what they believe are the "best interests" stakeholders’ or constituents’ interests, team
or preferences of their stakeholder or constituents members abstain until they caucus with their
-- without asking or being asked. respective stakeholders or constituents.

Team members tell some members of their Team members explicitly discuss among
stakeholder or constituent subsystems about the themselves what each will say to the leaders of
team's goals, issues, and strategies -- without their respective stakeholder or constituent
informing the team or the subsystems’ leaders. subsystems and agree to provide feedback to their
teams with their stakeholders’ or constituents'
leaders’ reactions and responses.

Participation among team members is highly Processes are agreed to, in advance, for accessing
variable -- the group accepts the fact that some less active team members’ concerns, information,
members prefer to be very active while others ideas, opinions, preferences, and priorities.
prefer to be very passive.
Part IV: Developing HP Teamwork -- Sponsorship

HPTs require highly visible, firm, unwavering, and continuous support from
powerful sponsorship. Sponsors of the effort to create, deploy, and sustain HPTs must be
influential members of the organization’s highest executive management team. They,
and the HPT leaders, must fully understand, accept, and support:
• The need for HPT leaders and members to develop competence in each of the four
essential team process dimensions.
• The complex, often time-consuming process of acquiring proficiency in and
learning to apply these competencies.
• The need to support the anticipated developmental costs and to test the validity of
the hypothesis that the value of expected benefits will exceed the costs.
In determining whether or not HPTs are needed, sponsors should consider two
questions. First, to what extent are you concerned that the team or teams in question will
produce results characterized by quality, accuracy, and precision? Second, to what extent
are you concerned with involved parties’ commitment to and support for the
implementation of consequential decisions? As illustrated below (Table 2), if the
sponsors are concerned with neither issue, the work to be done should be included as part
of routine operations, deferred, or delegated to new employees as a developmental
exercise. If sponsors are concerned with quality, accuracy and precision but not with
engendering commitment and support, the work should be delegated to appropriate,
qualified techsperts. If quality, accuracy, and precision are not needed but commitment
and support are, sponsors should create and charter temporary teams composed of
representatives of all significant stakeholders and constituents. If they are concerned

with both dimensions, sponsors should create and charter teams composed techsperts and
representatives of involved subsystems.
INSERT “Table 1. Why High Performance Teams?” HERE
As HPTs are created and deployed, their mode of operating will create
disruptions, ambiguity, and/or confusion in their transactions with the more traditional
subsystems with which the HPTs are interdependent. Subsystem leaders will attempt to
protect their traditional organizational culture, territories, control, power, prerogatives,
and people from the perceived threats created by introducing HPTs. Action learning
teams are likely to be perceived as greater threats to the total system’s status quo than
intact work units and lesser threats to subsystems whose operations are less central to the
focus of the action learning team. The most frequent initial tactic employed by anxious
subsystem leaders (to reduce their anxiety) is to influence the organization's executive
management to eliminate the source of the threat. Most frequently, they complain about
such screen issues as:
• The developmental time required. (“We don’t want to pay you to build a
methodology for us; we’d rather buy one, off-the-shelf” or "It will take too long.")
• The required developmental costs. ("We should use this money for more urgent
purposes" or "You’re burning budgets that should be going into our profit centers
and that impacts our quarterly results and, ultimately, reduce our bonuses.")

• The "bottom-line value" of the HPT effort ("What are we really trying to fix with
these HPTs? Nothing important is broken!").
HPT sponsors must be clear about the basis of their persistent support in the face
of these powerful and generally honest expressions of concern and skepticism.
Resistance always emerge – often with considerable intensity -- whenever an
organization tries to transform itself. This is particularly true if an organization initiates
radical, unprecedented changes to exploit significant improvement opportunities in the
absence of a visible, credible threat that the organization's survival is in doubt unless the
radical changes are made (the “burning platform” theory).
A thorough front-end analysis and discussion of the anticipated disadvantages or
costs and advantages or benefits of an HPT initiative can be very useful. All executive
management team members must agree that the effort is essential, either as a corrective
or a preventive measure. Their residual doubts, concerns, and reservations must be
surfaced and addressed. Without the assurance of active executive sponsorship and
support, the organization is best advised to defer an HPT initiative. This is particularly
important when the deployment of action learning teams is being considered.
Once a critical mass of executive management is convinced that an HPT initiative
has value, the education-analysis-discussion process should be repeated with subsystem
leaders whose intact work groups are candidates for the HPT initiative. Pulling effective
people out of their subsystems to assign them to action learning teams, even temporarily,
may become an issue. Subsystem leaders’ doubts, concerns, and reservations must be
taken very, very seriously. Senior management should collect these issues and give rapid

feedback on their intentions: they will either act on these issues immediately, defer
action, or explain why no action will be taken. Recognized executive management
sponsors must play a highly visible, very active role during these second- and third-wave
processes. This is a reiterative process that should not be taken lightly.
My advice? Don't pull the pin if you are not ready to throw the grenade!
Part V: The Four Process Dimensions of High Performance Teamwork:
Most often, leaders and members of groups who aspire to develop and maintain
HPTs must learn about the nature and the appropriate utilization of each of the four
process dimensions of HP teamwork. These are: (1) personal dynamics and interpersonal
relationships; (2) group dynamics; (3) task accomplishment and goal achievement; and
(4) boundary management and inter-group relationships. The major component elements
of each process dimension are listed and illustrated below.
Process Dimension 1. Personal Dynamics and Interpersonal Relationships.
Communications and participation. This dynamic activity encompasses
encoding, transmitting, and decoding both objective and subjective information; effective
communications serve such purposes as influencing others (Cohen & Bradford, 1990;
Hanson, 1973; Katz & Kahn, 1978). It requires skills in: (a) self-disclosing (Jourard,
1971; Jung, et al, 1972); (b) active listening (Burley-Allen, 1982; Jung, et al, 1972;

Shepard, 1961); (c) giving, receiving, and using feedback (Jung, et al, 1972; Katz &
Kahn, 1978, 427-473; Luft, 1969, 1971); (d) taking ownership for one’s perceptions,
thoughts, and feelings (Weir & Weir, 1978).
Interpersonal style preferences. This involves skills to: (a) recognize one’s own
personal style preferences for processing information and communicating; (b) recognize
others' preferences for processing information and relating to others; and (c) vary style
with appropriate flexibility and adaptability to deal effectively with people whose
preferences are markedly different. (See: Byrum, 1986; Costa & Widiger, 1994; Hanson,
1973; Kroeger & Thuesen, 1992; Myers, 1980; Schutz, 1994.)
Conflict management and utilization. This calls for skills in: (a) recognizing
the sources of interpersonal differences; (b) understanding one’s own preferred mode for
managing conflicts – its strengths and weaknesses; (c) applying a range of effective
modes of managing conflicts; and (d) using good judgment to determine which modes
best match different situations and conditions. (See: Bramson, 1981; Brown, 1983;
Harrison, 1963; Johnson, 1992; Rahim, 1983; Rothman, 1997; Thomas & Kilmann,
1974; Thomas & Kilmann, 1978; Walton, 1982.)
Assertiveness and influence. This involves skills in: (a) understanding one’s
habitual responses to situations in which one’s point of view is either not heard or is
opposed by others; (b) recognizing differences in the effects of aggressive, passive, and
assertive styles of dealing with these situations; and (c) employing the assertive style as
necessary. (See: Alberti & Emmons, 1986; Burley-Allen, 1995; Dyer, 1996; Smith,
1975; Zander, 1982, 148-158.)

Risk-taking. This requires skills in: (a) recognizing one’s personal preference for
dealing with the world through either a conservative and experimental orientation; (b)
recognizing the consequences of both orientations in terms of creativity and innovation;
and (c) creating conditions under which the experimental orientation is appropriate. (See:
Calvert, 1993; Guntern, 1998; Harrison, 1972; Matson & Bruins, 1997; MacCrimmon
with Stanbury & Wehrung, 1990; Shapira, 1994.)
Role clarification and role renegotiation. This requires skills in: (a)
understanding how expectations of others develop; (b) understanding why and how
expectations of others that, initially, are mutually understood and accepted deteriorate
over time; (c) confronting discrepancies between expected and perceived performance of
others; and (d) renegotiating role relationships as they evolve and change over time.
(See: Harrison, 1972; Jaques, 1989; Katz & Kahn, 1978, 185-221; Keller, 1875;
Nicholas, 1990, 171-194; Sherwood & Glidewell, 1973; Wolfe & Snoek, 1964.)
[INSET “Figure 3. Process Dimension 1:
Personal Dynamics and Interpersonal Relationships” HERE]
Process Dimension 2. Group Dynamics.
Defining the team: its mission, structure, boundaries, prerogatives and
obligations. Particularly for action learning teams, leaders and members must have
clarity for several pertinent questions. For example: Who has the authority to set

direction and define the team’s goals? To what extent are these goals aligned with the
larger organization’s strategic goals or business plan? For what results is the team
accountable? Who is the “customer” or “end-user” of these results? What do these
customers expect from the team? (See the Boundary Management dimension, below.)
To whom is the team accountable? To what extent is the team manager controlled or
self-directed? To what extent does the team have the authority to determine how it will
organize itself and select the means to achieve its goals? That is, who (management or
the team) will have authority for what? Is this intended to be a temporary task force or
project team? Or, is this supposed to be a permanent intact work team? If the former:
What expectations do subsystem leaders have for their informal representatives? How
are representative team members supposed to exchange information with their own
permanent subsystems? What is the substantive content of the team’s work and how does
that shape the team values and practices? To what specific, mandated regulations,
standards, or procedures must this team conform – if any? To what extent do prevailing
organizational rules, regulations, policies, procedures, or practices enhance or obstruct
effective teamwork? Who sponsors this team? Who supports this team by providing the
resources this team needs to perform its responsibilities? Are these resources
predetermined and finite or sufficiently expandable to enable the team to deal with
unexpected complications or difficulties? Will the team’s size expand or shrink over
time to accommodate changes in demand for its results? How will such changes in
composition be handled? Will both individual team members and the team be recognized
and rewarded for high performance? Will individuals be enabled -- by training,
coaching, or consultation – to perform effectively as team members? (See: Blanchard,

Carlos & Randolph, 1996; Freedman, 1996a, 2000a; Hackman, 1990; Marquardt, 1999;
Nicholas, 1990, 139-170; Osburn, Moran, Musselwhite & Zenger, 1990; Zander, 1982
[109-118], 1985.)
Developmental phases: From groups to HPTs. This calls for skills in: (a)
recognizing the distinctive issues that must be resolved at each phase of a team’s
evolution; (b) recognizing indications that specific developmental issues must be
addressed at different stages of development; and (c) confronting and addressing these
issues. (This is discussed in greater detail, below.)
Team decision-making procedures. This requires skills in: (a) understanding
the implications of each of a range of procedures that groups can use to make decisions of
any sort – extending from low to high levels of involvement and participation; (b) using
each procedure appropriately and effectively; and (c) using good judgment to match
specific procedures with various situations and conditions. (See: Delbecq, Van de Ven &
Gustafson, 1975; Drucker, 1986; Freedman, 1989a; Glidewell, 1970; Greenwald, 1973;
Hammond, Keeney & Raiffa, 1999; Hanson, 1973, 1981; Janis & Mann, 1977;
Janis,1989; Russo & Schoemaker, 1990; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Zander, 1982, 12-29.)
Identifying and utilizing team members' resources. This involves skills in: (a)
recognizing that the most senior, verbal, or influential team members are not always the
most knowledgeable or skillful; and (b) using methods that enable all members to
contribute to team goals. (See: Freedman, 1989b; Hall & O'Leary, circa 1963; Hanson,
1973, 1981; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Sherwood & Hoylman, 1978.)

Management and utilization of conflict. This requires skills in: (a) recognizing
when exploration of the basis of differences among team members may yield creative
alternatives or innovations rather than merely satisfy narrow individual interests; and (b)
applying processes and procedures to facilitate that exploration. (See: Hanson, 1973;
Harrison & Kouzes, 1980; Johnson, B. 1992; Katz & Kahn, 1978, 611-651; Nicholas,
1990, 216-234; Rahim, 1983; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Thomas & Kilmann, 1974; Thomas
& Kilmann, 1978; Walton, 1995.)
Leadership and leadership functions. This involves skills in: (a) understanding
the nature and purposes served by a range of both task and maintenance leadership
functions; (b) performing each function appropriately and effectively; (c) applying good
judgment as to when and how each function is effectively performed; and (d) enabling
team members to accept the notion that the proper person to perform a function is the
person who first recognizes the need. (See: Bales & Strodbeck, 1951; Bass, 1998; Bennis
& Nanus, 1985; Bennis, 1998; Blanchard, Zigarmi & Zigarmi, 1985; Freedman, 1998;
Hanson, 1973, 1981; Katz & Kahn, 1978, 525-576; Kotter, 1999; Kouzes & Posner,
1995; Lawler, 1988; Nanus, 1992; Nicholas, 1990, 195-215; Reddy, 1994, 27-41; Schein,
1988a, 1988b; Tichy, 1991.)
Process analysis. This relies on skills in: (a) explicitly reviewing what the team
does effectively and what needs to be improved; (b) identifying and modifying team
atmosphere and norms (Hanson, 1973, 1981; Schein, 1988a, 1988b); and, (c) facilitating
the continuous improvement in team effectiveness. (See: Freedman, 1995a, 1997;
Hackman, 1990; Hanson, 1973, 1981; Hanson & Lubin, 1985; Schein, 1988a, 1988b.)

[INSERT “Figure 4. Process Dimension 2: Group Dynamics” HERE]
Process Dimension 3. Task Accomplishment and Goal Achievement.
Stakeholder analysis. This calls for skills in: (a) identifying those stakeholder
groups and constituent populations who believe they have legitimate interests in the
team’s activities -- including the team's sponsors, suppliers, customers (and their end-
users), senior management, and the managers of subsystems from which members of
multifunctional or multidisciplinary team originate; (b) determining the concerns, needs,
preferences and priorities of these groups or populations; and (c) negotiating mutually
acceptable agreements that will govern future transactions. (See: Dick, 1997; Jayaram,
1976; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Wright, Geroy and Nasierowski, 1994.)
Identifying issues. This requires skills in: (a) recognizing the variety of
predictable or unexpected, nascent or emergent problems-to- solve, opportunities-to-
exploit or to capitalize upon, and dilemmas-to-manage by which the team is likely to be
confronted; and (b) continuously and actively scanning internal and external
environments to identify and specify the team’s emerging or surfacing issues. (See:
Freedman, 1994, 1996b; Schein, 1988a, 1988b.)
Establishing criteria-based priorities. This requires skills in: (a) identifying
relevant criteria; (b) applying mutually acceptable criteria to the team’s issues utilizing
high involvement methods; (c) assuring that team members and the team’s significant

stakeholders and constituents accept the resulting high priority issues; and (d) assuring
that the team’s high priorities are congruent with the larger subsystem and organizational
mission, business plan, goals, strategies, and philosophy. (See: Freedman, 1990.)
Setting goals or objectives. Focusing on each high priority issues, this calls for
skills in: (a) defining an alternative or "desired state" for each issue that assures that the
goal is specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound; (b) assuring that team
members, senior management, and other stakeholders or constituents accept these goals;
and (c) assuring that these goals are aligned with the mission, business plan, goals,
strategies, and philosophy of the team’s larger subsystem and organization. In this
category, we also include (d) setting goals for team development and individual member
growth. (See: Bennis, 1964; Collins, 1999; Jung, Howard, Emory, & Pino, 1972; Mager,
1972; Mali, 1972; Ordione, 1979; Raia, 1974; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Schindler-Rainman
& Lippitt, 1972.)
Decision-making or choosing. This involves skills in using participative, team
methods to: (a) identify two or more clear alternatives; (b) make sure that the alternatives
represent a real choice rather than a dilemma (Johnson, 1992); (c) apply participative
methods or processes to identify the potential advantages and disadvantages of each set
of alternatives (Janis & Mann, 1977; Janis, 1989); (d) make difficult choices; and (e)
recognize the need to monitor and scan relevant internal and external environments for
future occurrence of any of the disadvantages (Freedman, 1997, 1989b).
Problem analysis and problem solving. This requires skills in using highly
participative team methods when applying such tools as force field analysis and root-

cause analysis in: (a) determining why it is important to achieve the desired state; (b)
determining why it is difficult to achieve the desired state; and (c) identifying and
selecting the critical and sufficient driving and restraining forces that must be addressed
in order to realize or achieve the desired state. (See: Adams, 1974; Davis, 1973; de
Bono, 1973, 1999, 2000; Fobes, 1996; Frieze, Bar-Tal & Carroll, 1979; Hall, 1995;
Higgins, 1994; Jung, Howard, Emory, & Pino, 1972; Kaufman, 1976; Lewin, 1947;
Nadler & Hibino, 1990; Osborn, 1963; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Spencer, 1989; VanGundy,
1995; Varela, 1971; Watzlawick, 1988.)
Action planning. This involves skills in using highly participative team methods
in: (a) identifying the specific action steps necessary to complete each implementation
plan; (b) specifying individuals who will assume responsibility for executing each step;
(c) establishing a schedule for the completion of each step and for the overall plan; (d)
identifying and assuring the accessibility of all requisite resources for implementing each
step and for the overall plan; (e) developing a budget to support the plan and schedule,
including a contingency line item to cover unexpected activities; and (f) if necessary,
designing, staffing, and resourcing a temporary, parallel organization to lead and/or
monitor the execution of the plan. (See: Jung, Howard, Emory, & Pino, 1972; Schein,
1988a, 1988b.)
Implementation. As implementation plans are executed, skills in actively
involving all relevant stakeholders are required for: (a) monitoring or scanning the
internal and external environments to assure the early identification of unanticipated,
nascent or emerging issues, side effects, and other complications; (b) analyzing and

planning to deal with these issues – paying particular attention to the possibility that
emerging issues may require the reconsideration of the goals, strategies, and related
implementation plans; and (c) making mid-course adjustments. (See: Freedman, 1997,
2000; Nicholas, 1990.)
Evaluation. Using multi-source, multi-method approaches (preferably by
dispassionate third parties who are not directly involved in the team or with the team’s
managers), this involves skills in: (a) assessing progress as well as intended and
unintended results and side-effects (Schindler-Rainman & Lippitt, 1972; Schein, 1988a,
1988b); (b) measuring consequences (Kirkpatrick, 1994; Bernthal, 1995); (c) conducting
celebrations and wakes; and (d) documenting and archiving "lessons learned" for future
dissemination (Schein, 1993a, 1993b; Senge, 1990; Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith &
Kleiner, 1994).
[INSET “Figure 5. Process Dimension 3:
Task Accomplishment and Goal Achievement” HERE]
Process Dimension 4. Boundary Management and Inter-Group Relationships.
This calls for skills in:
(a) Defining the team’s boundaries by determining who is "in" the team and who is
external (or "out") – based on specific criteria or standards for membership;

(b) Identifying significant stakeholder groups (suppliers, customers, senior management,
etc. which are parts of the team’s value, delivery, or supply chains or business
process) and constituent populations (people whose primary sense of identity is based
in some demographic, status, or occupational groupings that is relevant to the team’s
purposes or the composition of the team’s membership).
(c) Proactive assessment of customers' concerns, demands, expectations, priorities, and
preferences in order to analyze their value constellations and identify issues that,
when properly addressed, may improve the team’s effectiveness.
(d) Proactive collaboration (strategic partnerships) with suppliers to ensure they
understand, accept, and respond appropriately to the team's concerns, needs,
preferences, and priorities.
(e) Reconciling the mutually exclusive claims of diverse but relevant, significant
stakeholder groups and constituent populations. This may require considerable
negotiations involving trade-offs and compromises.
(f) Receiving and accepting deliverables from suppliers. Assuring that the suppliers’
end-products or services satisfy the team’s expectations, preferences, and
requirements.
(g) Delivering outputs to customers. Assuring that the team’s products or services satisfy
its customers’ expectations, preferences, and requirements.
(h) Soliciting, obtaining, and using feedback from customers and any relevant
stakeholder groups and constituent populations to determine their satisfaction with the
team’s performance.

Effectiveness in boundary management also requires considerable integrity, character and
the mastery of a unique and varied skill-set. This includes:
• Proactive scanning or scouting the environment for early indications of trends or
events that may impact the organization and its subsystems (Holder & McKinney,
1993; Zander, 1982, 68-84).
• Tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty, composure during crisis conditions
(Drucker, 1980).
• Maze-brightness (Freedman, 1998).
• Managing and utilizing intersubsystem and organization-environment dynamics and
conflict (see Brown, 1983; Johnson, 1992; Rahim, 1986; Rice, 1969, 1976; Zander,
1982, 85-108).
• Appreciation and utilization of organizational politics (Block, 1988; Harvey, 1989;
Pfeffer, 1992; Schein, 1988a, 1988b; Zander, 1982, 159-167).
• Thick skins and tolerance for frustration.
• Humility.
• Assertiveness.
• Endurance, persistence.
• Integrity.
• Curiosity -- an intense interest in understanding different organizational and societal
cultures.
• Capacity to influence others without having positional authority over them (Cohen &
Bradford, 1990; Hanson, 1973).

[INSERT “Figure 6. Process Dimension IV:
Boundary Management and Inter-Group Relationships” HERE]
The Team Development Process
Teams evolve as their members and leaders develop proficiency in the appropriate and
timely application of the elements of all four process dimensions to their work. This
proficiency may develop spontaneously among team members or as a function of the
guidance provided by skilled learning coaches, OD consultants, or line managers. There
are at least 16 reasonably well-articulated theoretical or hypothetical models that describe
the stages or phases through which groups evolve and develop from an aggregate or
collection of individuals into a high-performing team (see below).
Without delving too deeply into the definitions of each stage or phase it is
evident, by inspection, that there is considerable consistency in the specification of
developmental behavior by a wide range of observer-researchers. Further, the span of
time over which these theories or hypotheses were developed – i.e., from 1951 to 1989 –
suggests that we are dealing with a reasonably reliable phenomena. However, the
meanings the authors attribute to the observed behavior varies.
There are at least four purposes served by these models:
1. To enable learning coaches or facilitators to monitor teams’ progress and
plan interventions to enable teams to progress to the next phase.

2. To provide a common concept and language that facilitates team
members’ communication about their team’s development.
3. To enable team members to visualize and set goals for their team’s
evolution. (This is best done only when they achieve the third
developmental phase.)
4. To enable team members to develop team strategies and steps each
member can take to contribute to achieving those team developmental
goals.
As team members and their leaders experience substantive developmental
progress and learn how to contribute to and enhance that development, their relationships
to one another and to their team changes. For example, they may learn it is safe to rely
upon one another in the service of their team’s development and in performing their
collective responsibilities (i.e., their tasks, activities, and functions). On other words,
they develop a sense of realistic trust in one another; trust in combination with a sense of
achievement of meaningful results (in terms of both performance and team development)
evokes members’ commitment and loyalty to their team. (See: Dyer, 1987; Zander, 1982,
1985.)
AUTHOR(S): PHASES OR STAGES:

Bales & Orientation Evaluation Control
Strodb
eck
(1951)
Bennis & Shepard Dependence - Power Relations Interdependence - Personal Relations

(1956)
Dependence- Counter- Resolution Enchantment Disenchant- Consensual
Submission dependence ment Validation

Bradford & Membership Subgrouping Confrontation Differentiatio Shared
Cohen (1984) n Responsibility

Charrier (1973) Polite Why We’re Bid for Power Constructive Esprit
Here
Cooke & Widdis Polite Purpose Power Positive Proficient
(1988)
Drexler, Sibbert Creating Stages Sustaining Stages
& Forrester
(1988)
Orienta- Trust Goal Decision Implementa- High Renewal
tion Building Clarifica- Making tion Performance
tion
Gibb, Drexler, Knowing "Why Am Understanding Being Clear About Discovering "How?"
I Here?" "Who Are You?" "What Shall We

Weisbord
Do?"
(unknown)
Fisher (1970) Orientation Conflict Emergence Reinforcement
Jones (1974) Task: Orientation Organization Data Flow Problem Solving
Interpersonal: Dependence Conflict Cohesion Interdependence
Lacoursiere Orientation Dissatisfaction Resolution Production
(1980)
Mann (1967) Nurturance Control Sexuality Competence
Moosbruker Orientation To Group Conflict Over Control Group Formation & Differentiation &
And Task Among Members & Solidarity Productivity

(1989)
With The Leader
Napier & The Beginning Movement toward Compromise and Reassessment: Resolution and
Confrontation Harmony Union of Recycling

Gershenfeld
Emotional and
(1973) Task Components

Nielson (1984) Dependence Similarity vs. Support vs. Panic Concern vs. Independence vs.
Dissimilarity Isolation Withdrawal

Obert (1979) Membership Subgrouping Confrontation Individual Collaboration
Differentiatio
n
Schutz (1958) Inclusion Control Openness

Tuckman (1965); Forming Storming Norming Performing Adjourning
Tuckman &
Jensen
(1977)
Part VI: Using the Four Process Dimensions
When consulting with a group that aspires to become an HPT, I initially focus the
attention of the leader and members on the elements of the third dimension – Task
Accomplishment and Goal Achievement -- and, especially in the latter phases of the
team's work on any given issue, on the elements of the fourth dimension – Boundary
Management. The group’s developmental efforts revolve around both how effectively it
performs its current work responsibilities while also enhancing the gratification team
members derive from their relationships with one another. Thus, most team members
readily understand and accept the third and fourth process dimensions as these are most
obviously relevant, practical, and useful. This tends to enhance my credibility.
They also come to see that their team’s development and task accomplishment
efforts become increasingly effective, aligned with and contributing to achieving their
team's mission, goals, strategy, and responsibilities (and to their larger organization’s
mission and business plan). Further, they increasingly see that their participation in their
team’s work helps them to realize their own individual and collective potential. Thus,
team membership becomes increasingly valuable to them. So, as they run into personal,
interpersonal and group issues that clearly impede or obstruct their progress, they become

increasingly open to and appreciative of interventions that focus on elements of the first
and second dimensions – that is, Personal Dynamics and Interpersonal Relations and
Group Dynamics.
Front-End Loaded Training. Many HRM trainers and OD consultants think of
team building as an up-front, preparatory training program. They recommend an initial
focus on the first and second dimensions while ignoring much of the third dimension and
just about all of the fourth dimension. Typically, they offer a two-to-three-day training
session for all team members, often in an off-site retreat setting. They claim this is
relevant either to accelerate start-ups for new teams or when existing teams run into
difficulties.
Trainers generally use pre-packaged, off-the-shelf simulations, skill development
exercises, and/or case studies as the vehicles for displaying everything that they believe
that any team may ever need to know about personal, interpersonal, and group dynamics.
However, it is also typical that little time or attention is devoted to allowing team
members to practice and develop proficiencies in applying those demonstrated concepts,
methods, and skills. In large part this omission is due to the impossibility of determining
which of many possibilities will prove to be relevant for any given team. So, trainers try
to give them everything they know. Therefore, trainers pack the schedule with as many
events as possible. Thus, the focus is on rapid exposure to a series of potentially relevant
experiences to illuminate the widest possible range of issues and dynamics.
Unfortunately, the most likely results produced by this strategy are entertaining or
interesting experiences for team members. Upon reflection, when they return to their

back-home settings, participating team members come to realize that such activities were
idealistic (or “academic”) rather than practical. Alternatively, when the time comes for
the team to apply what they may have learned, a lot of time will have passed and team
leaders and members will no longer remember what to do or how to do it.
When and as needed Facili-Training. Team members most appreciate the
relevance of the first and second dimensions’ elements when they encounter difficulties
in working on their third and fourth dimension tasks, activities, and functions. It is at
these moments that team members become "ready to learn." They become motivated to
master obviously relevant first and second dimension skills when they realize that their
ineffective use of themselves as individuals and/or their inattention to their teams’ group
dynamics are neutralizing or negating their otherwise effective task-oriented, goal-
achievement activities. They also learn that they must add to – not replace -- their
existing repertoire by becoming sufficiently proficient in applying these new skills to
real team issues. They become increasingly enthusiastic about acquiring additional
competencies when they see their value in helping them to realize their potential,
accomplish their tasks, and achieve their goals.
When facili-trainers and learning coaches avoid the temptation to display
everything they think they know all at once, they also protect team members from getting
overloaded with excessive, tangential, and artificial training experiences. Instead, they
can provide effective "just-in-time" and "just enough" skill development experiences.
Thus, team members incrementally acquire those essential competencies that they
recognize will enable them to develop as a team.

[INSERT “Figure 7. Summary: Developing High Performance Teamwork by
Acquiring Competence in Four Process Dimensions” HERE]
When I train HR trainers, facilitators and OD or other consultants, I start with the
first process dimension and work my way through to the fourth. However, I repetitively
advise them that, when they facilitate the development of intact work teams, the
appropriate sequence is to start with the third process dimension and to be prepared to
deal with whatever parts of the fourth process dimension may become relevant for a
specific team. I believe this admonition is also relevant – but probably not necessary --
for competent learning coaches and action learning teams.
The “Just-In-Time” principle. I advise participants in my training programs to
let their client teams determine when and how they should intervene. That is, I tell them
to hold back on intervening around first and second process dimensions until team
members or leaders run into the consequences of those kinds of unmanaged issues.
Facilitators should wait for first and second dimension issues to emerge and to become
manifestly evident to team leaders and members as dilemmas that are disrupting the team
and impairing team performance. For example, the need to learn how to manage and
utilize conflict may not become evident until the team members see how their work is
being disrupted or obstructed when two or more members, each advocating equally
legitimate but opposing priorities, engage in dysfunctional, personal attacks on one
another. These emergent issues are undeniable signals to the team of the need for

attending to these first and second process dimension elements – not just for the facili-
trainer (or learning coach) who, after all, has been waiting for this kind of evidence to
emerge. It is desirable for the team to ask for their facili-trainer’s (or learning coach’s)
assistance; this allows the team to manage their consultants rather than the reverse).
The “Just Enough” principle: I also advise my facili-trainers-in-training to use
the least intrusive interventions, providing only that amount of guidance or skill
development experience necessary to enable their client team members to deal effectively
with the specific process issue by which they are confronted. I remind them that, in
addition to their beneficial contributions, “interventions” are interruptions that require
team members and leaders to stop whatever they are doing in order to learn new concepts
or gain proficiency with new methods and how to apply them. The longer it takes for
members and leaders to acquire sufficient proficiency to help them do their work, the
more impatient and frustrated they become. (They often see interventions as non-
productive down time, regardless of their usefulness.) Their impatience interferes with
making progress in their work, their personal and team learning, and their trusting
relationships with facilitators – especially if they are working within an “ambitious”
schedule or under crisis conditions. It is most functional for facilitators to provide just
enough assistance to enable some of the team’s members to get a new perspective or to
learn a new process to increase their effectiveness in dealing with their issues than to
extend the intervention until everyone is completely ready to continue.
By intervening and getting out quickly, facili-trainers and learning coaches make
minimally disruptive interventions, allow team leaders and members to quickly apply

what they have learned. Brief interventions also enable facilitators to assess the team’s
cultural norms – specifically, whether it is customary or acceptable for team members to
coach and help each other to acquire proficiency. If team members run into difficulties in
applying their newly acquired concepts or methods and are not effective in helping each
other to deal with these difficulties, facili-trainers can coach and shape team members’ or
leaders’ behavior or clarify why a specific concept or method is or is not appropriate.
Part VII: Methods for Applying the Model
In addition to lecture-discussion approaches, there are a number of alternative
ways through which individuals and teams can learn about group and organizational
dynamics and change. For example, the Harvard case method, the MIT-Pigors incident
process method, roleplaying or sociodrama, or unstructured human interaction laboratory
training (Benne, 1961, 631-636). This sample of educational or training methods actually
represent a continuum along which we can see a transition from the instructor-as-leader
who is in control of what is learned (the content), when, and how learning takes place (the
process) to learners who are in control of their own learning.
Both action learning and facili-training generate many opportunities for team
members to choose what, when, and how they learn. When process issues emerge within
a team, both learning coaches and facili-trainers intervene in order to focus participants’
attention on particular individual, interpersonal, or team learning and enhance their skills
in self-evaluation (Jenkins, 1961, 756-764). Both are experiential in style and select their

interventions by comparing their observations of what is going on in the team with their
own theories and conceptual mental models (Bennis & Shepard, 1961, 743-756). Both
wait until team members generate a considerable amount of information that
incontrovertibly illuminate their team’s process issues. However, there are differences.
Learning coaches are more likely than OD consultants or facili-trainers to ask
questions that stimulate team member-learners to examine and understand their teams’
dynamics. This is very challenging for people like myself. In a learning coach training
program conducted by Michael Marquardt, instead of telling or explaining, I had to
reformulate my theory-based observations into succinct, open-ended questions that
enabled learners to focus in on their own unrecognized issues by themselves. I found this
to be a difficult task at times because I occasionally like to show off my process
expertise. But I was immensely gratified when learners used my -- and especially
Marquardt’s -- questions to explore, understand, and deal with their own process issues
by themselves – without my process expert input.
The downside risk is that learners may not learn some important lessons in group
dynamics and processes.
However, facili-trainers are likely to be more active. They take the initiative to
clarify murky issues more quickly. They are more directive in utilizing resources such as
flip-charts to list and keep track of multiple issues that threaten to overwhelm a team or to
suggest the team use a tool like force-field analysis before leaping into an action planning
process. And, they are more likely to deliver brief lecturettes or theoretical inputs that
provide participants with conceptual “handles” to better understand their own processes
and to illuminate the options available to them to manage their process issues (Semrad &

Arsenian, 1961, 737-743), alternatives that participants may not otherwise recognize or
generate on their own.
Facili-trainers are also use a variety of brief questionnaires (three to five items) to
enable team member-participants to focus on how they are handling various team
dynamics and processes and to keep track of changes in their own self evaluations over
time. Thus, they learn to study their own team issues and to take personal responsibility
for planning and taking corrective and preventive action.
The downside risk is that facili-trainers may act too quickly and inadvertently
preempt participants, denying them opportunities to learn how well they can learn by
themselves -- with less direction from their consultants.
Which is the best approach? My answer is, “Yes!” Through my reading and
participation in Marquardt’s learning coach training, I learned a great deal about process
consulting -- which I thought I knew better than I did. I am now assimilating the action
learning approach. But I will not throw out my facili-training methodology. I shall,
instead, synthesize.
Perhaps my humbling experience proves the validity of something I have been
telling participants in my OD consultant training programs for decades: “Experience is
the test that is followed by the lesson.”
Conclusion

It seems to me that what I refer to as facili-training has much in common with
action learning and the functions of the learning coach. The major difference may be the
extent to which in situ training and education is used in intervening. That is, as a facili-
trainer I train or educate almost every time I intervene; so in a sense I am directing my
client teams. I give them learnings to apply directly to the work that is directly in front of
them. As a learning coach, I rarely if ever train or educate. Rather, through the use of
carefully constructed questions, I guide or nudge team members, incrementally, toward
enhanced effectiveness. They generate or create and apply virtually all of their own
learnings. At this juncture, I believe that these two approaches are complementary.
Perhaps, with more experience as a learning coach, I will change my opinion.
I also believe that learning coaches can enhance their effectiveness in developing
HP action learning teams by borrowing my facili-training approach to managing the four
process dimensions.

References
Adams, J. L. (1974). Conceptual blockbusting: A guide to better ideas. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Alberti, R. E. & Emmons, M. L. (1995). Your perfect right: A guide to assertive living,
Volume 1. San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact Publishers.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders, fourth edition. Washington, DC: Author.
Bales, R. F. & Strodbeck, F. O. (1951). Phases in group problem solving. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 485-495.
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational
impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Benne, K. D. (1961). Case methods in the training of administrators. In, Bennis, W. G.,
Benne, K. D. & Chin, R., editors. The planning of change: Readings in the
applied behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 631-636.
Bennis, W. and Shepard, H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Relations,
9, 415-437.
Bennis, W. and Shepard, H. (1961). Group observation. In, Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D.
& Chin, R., editors. The planning of change: Readings in the applied behavioral
sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 743-756.
Bennis, W. G. (1964). Goals and meta-goals of laboratory training. In W.G. Bennis, E.H.
Schein, D.E. Berlew & F.I. Steele, editors (1964). Interpersonal dynamics:

Essays and readings on human relations. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, 692-
698.
Bennis, W. G. (1989). On becoming a leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bennis, W. & Nanus (1985). Leaders: The strategies of taking charge. New York:
HarperCollins.
Bernthal, P. R. (1995). Evaluation That Goes the Distance. Training & Development,
September, 41-45.
Blanchard, K. H., Zigarmi, D. & Zigarmi, P. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute
Manager: Increasing Effectiveness through Situational Leadership. New York:
William Morrow & Co.
Blanchard, K. H., Carlos, J. P. & Randolph, A. (1996). Empowerment takes more than a
minute. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Block, P. (1988). The empowered manager: Positive political skills at work. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bradford, D. L. & Cohen, A. R. (1984). Managing for excellence. New York: Wiley &
Sons.
Bramson, R. M. (1981). Coping with difficult people. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press-
Doubleday.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Bullock, R. J. (1986). A meta-analysis method for OD case studies. Group and
Organizational Studies, 11(1), 33-48.
Bullock, R. J. & Tubbs, M. (1987). The case meta-analysis method for OD. Research in
Organizational Change and Development, 1, 171-228.

Burley-Allen, M. (1982). Listening: The forgotten skill. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Burley-Allen, M. (1995). Managing Assertively: How to Improve Your People Skills.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Byrum, B. (1986). A primer on social styles. The 1986 Annual: Developing Human
Resources, La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Calvert, G. (1993). Highwire management : Risk-taking tactics for leaders, innovators,
and trailblazers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Charrier, G. O. (1973). Cog’s ladder: A model of group development. In J.W. Pfeiffer &
J. E. Jones (Eds.), The 1974 annual handbook for group facilitators. San Diego,
CA: University Associates.
Cohen, A. R. & Bradford, D. L. (1990). Influence without authority. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Colantuono, S. L. & Schnidman, A. A. (1988). E pluribus unim: Building
multifunctional work teams. In, Reddy, W. B. & Jamison, K., editors. Team
Building: Blueprints for Productivity and Satisfaction. Copublished by: NTL
Institute (Alexandria, VA) and University Associates (San Diego, CA), 187-191.
Collins, J. (1999).Turning Goals into Results: The Power of Catalytic Mechanisms.
Harvard Business Review, July-August, 70-82.
Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis
issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Cooke, P. & Widdis, W. (1988). Guidelines for interventions in groups. Unpublished
manuscript. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Costa, P. T. & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality. Washington: American Psychological Association.

Davis, G. A. (1973). Psychology of problem solving: Theory and practice. New York:
Basic Books.
de Bono, E. (1973). Lateral thinking: Creativity step by step. New York: Harper & Row.
de Bono, E. (1999). Six thinking hats. Little, Brown & Company.
de Bono, E. (2000). New thinking for the new millennium. Montreal, Quebec, Canada:
New Millennium Entertainment.
Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group techniques for
program planning: A guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Dick, B. (1997) Stakeholder analysis [On line]. Available at
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/stake.html
Dotlich, D. L. & Noel, J. L. (1998). Action learning: How the world’s top companies are
re-creating their leaders and themselves. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Drexler, A. B., Sibbert, D. & Forrester, R. H. (1988). The team performance model. In
Reddy, W. B., editor (1988). Team building: Blueprints for productivity and
satisfaction. Alexandria, VA: NTL Institute.
Drucker, P. F. (1980). Managing in turbulent times. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1986). Managing for results: Economic tasks & risk-taking decisions.
New York: Harper Information.
Dyer, W. W. (1991). Pulling your own strings: Dynamic techniques for dealing with
other people & living life as you choose. New York: HarperTrade.
Dyer, W. G. (1987). Team Building: Issues and Alternatives, Second Edition. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fobes, R. (1996). Creative Problem Solving: A Way to Forecast and Create a Better
Future. The Futurist, January-February, 19-22.
Freedman, A. M. (1963). Changes in perceptions of on-the-job problems following
laboratory training: II. Boston, MA: Unpublished Masters Thesis, College of
Business Administration, Boston University.
Freedman, A. M. (1989a). Participative management: Is it an "ON" or "OFF" light
switch? Or, is it a variable rheostat? Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1989b). Utilizing human resources in team decision-making. Chicago:
Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1990). "Good judgment": Applying prioritized decision-making
criteria. Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1994). What is an issue? Problems-to-solve, opportunities-to-exploit,
and dilemmas-to-manage. Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1995a). Process analysis: What productive purpose is served?
Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1995b). Multiple consultants: The tower of Babel phenomenon.
Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1995c). The consultant's sense of urgency: Steady-state versus front-
line combat OD. The 1995 Annual: Developing Human Resources. La Jolla, CA:
Pfeiffer & Co.
Freedman, A. M. (1996a). Enabling empowered teams: A participative approach to
team-oriented problem-solving and decision-making, 3rd edition. Chicago:
Quantum Associates.

Freedman, A. M. (1996b). Exercise: Lists of problems-to-solve, dilemmas-to-manage and
opportunities-to-exploit. In Freedman, 1996a.
Freedman, A. M. (1997). Process analysis: Data organization and establishing
priorities. Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Freedman, A. M. (1998). Pathways and crossroads to institutional leadership. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(3), 131-151.
Freedman, A. M. (1999). What enables and obstructs the development of high
performance teamwork? 18 testable hypotheses. OD Practitioner, 31(4), 48-57.
Freedman, A. M. (2000a). Multigroup representation: Representative teams or teams of
representatives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 52(1),
63-81.
Freedman, A. M. (2000b), Stages and phases of group (team) development: A summary
of models. Chicago: Quantum Associates.
Frieze, I. H., Bar-Tel, D. & Carroll, J. S., editors (1979). New approaches to social
problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gasparski, W. W. & Botham, D. (1998). Action learning. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Publishers.
Gibb J., Drexler A. & Weisbord M. A model of group development. (source unknown).
Glidewell, J. C. (1970). Choice points: Essays on the emotional problems of living with
people. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Greenwald, H. (1973). Direct decision therapy. EDITS Publishers.
Guntern, G., Editor (1998). Risk-taking and creative leadership: Contributions to the 7th
International Zermatt Symposium on Creativity in Economics, Arts and Science.
London, UK: Shepheard-Walwyn Publishers.

Hackman, R. J., editor (1990). Groups that work (and those that don’t). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hall, D. (1995). Jump start your brain. New York: Warner Books.
Hall, J. & O'Leary, V. (circa 1963). The utilization of group resources in decision-
making. Unpublished Manuscript.
Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. J. & Raffia, (1999). Smart decisions: A practical guide to
making better decisions. Boston: Harvard Business School Publications.
Hanson, P. G. (1973). What to look for in groups. 1973 Annual Handbook for Group
Facilitators. La Jolla, CA: University Associates, .
Hanson, P. G. & Lubin, B. (1973). Group rating scale. Richmond, TX: Hanlu.
Hanson, P. G. (1973). Individual and Group Effectiveness Training: A Handbook for
Trainers. Washington, DC: Department of Medicine and Surgery, Veterans
Administration.
Hanson, P. G. (1981). Learning through groups: A trainer’s basic guide. San Diego:
University Associates.
Higgins, J. M. (1994). 101 creative problem solving techniques. Winter Park, FL: New
Management Publishing.
Harrison, R. (1963). Defenses and the need to know. Human Relations Training News,
6(4), 1-3.
Harrison, R. (1972). Role negotiation: A tough-minded approach to team development.
In W. W. Burke & H. A. Hornstein (eds.), The social technology of organization
development. La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Harrison, R. (1972). Developing autonomy, initiative, and risk taking through a
laboratory design. European Training, 2, 100-116.

Harrison, R. & Kouzes, J. M. (1980). The power potential of organization development.
Training and Development Journal, April, 43-47.
Harvey, J. B. (1989). Some thoughts about organizational backstabbing: Or, how come
every time I get stabbed in the back my fingerprints are on the knife? The
Academy of Management Executive, 111(4), 271-277.
Holder, R. J. & McKinney, R. N. (1993). Scouting: A Process for Dealing with the
Frontiers of an Uncertain World. OD Practitioner, Fall, 20-25.
Hornstein, H. A., & MacKenzie, F. T. (January 1984). Consultraining: Merging
management education with organization development. Training and
Development Journal, 52-56.
Jaques, E. (1989). Requisite organization: The CEO’s guide to creative structure and
leadership. USA: Cason Hall, 59-78.
Janis, I. L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A psychological analysis of conflict,
choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press.
Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis
management. New York: The Free Press.
Jayaram, G. K. (1976).Open systems planning. In: W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne, R. Chin &
K.E. Corey (1976). The planning of change, 3d edition. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 275-283.
Jenkins, D. H. (1961). Group self-evaluation. In, Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D. & Chin,
R., editors. The planning of change: Readings in the applied behavioral sciences.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 756-764.
Johnson, B. (1992). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable
problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Jones, J. E. (1974). Group development: A graphic analysis. In J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E.
Jones (Eds.), A handbook of structured experiences for human relations training
(Vol. II, Rev.). San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Self-disclosure: An experimental analysis of the transparent self.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Jung, C., Howard, R., Emory, R. & Pino, R. (1972). Interpersonal communications:
Leader’s manual. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Katz, D. & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations, 2nd edition. New
York: Wiley & Sons.
Kaufman, R. (1976). Identifying and solving problems: A system approach. La Jolla, CA:
University Associates.
Keller, R. T. (1975). Role conflict and ambiguity: Correlates with job satisfaction and
values. Personnel Psychology, 28, 57-64.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1994, pp. 21-26.
Kotter, J. P. (1999). What leaders really do. Boston: Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Kouzes, J. M. & Posner, B. Z. (1995). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting
extraordinary things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kroeger, O. & Thuesen, J. M. (1992). Type talk at work: How the 16 personality types
determine your success on the job. New York: Delacourte Press.
Lacoursiere, Roy B. (1980). The life cycle of groups: Group developmental stages. New
York: Human Sciences press.

Lawler, III, E. E. (1988). High involvement management: Participative strategies for
improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1947). Quasi-stationary social equilibria and the problem of permanent
change. In The Planning of Change. Bennis et. al. (eds.) Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1961.
Luft, J. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
Luft, J. (1971). Group processes: An introduction to group dynamics, 2nd edition. Palo
Alto, CA: National Press Books.
MacCrimmon, K. R. with Stanbury, W. T. & Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Taking risks: The
management of uncertainty. New York: The Free Press.
Mager, R. F. (1972). Goal analysis. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Mali, P. (1972). Managing by objectives: An operating guide to faster and more
profitable results. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Mann, R.D. (1967). The development of the member-trainer relationship in self-analytic
groups. Human Relations, 19, 85-115.
Marquardt, M. J. (1999). Action learning in action: Transforming problems and people
for world-class organizational learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Matson, J. V. & Bruins, A. (1997). Innovate or die: A personal perspective on the art of
innovation. Ashland, WI: Paradigm Press.
McGregor (1985). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moosbruker, J. (1989). Stages of group development. NTL Connections. Volume 6,
Number 1, August.
Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts Differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Nadler, G. & Hibino, S. (1990). Breakthrough thinking: Why we must change the way we
solve problems, and the seven principles to achieve this. Rocklin CA: Prima
Publishing.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for
your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Napier, R. W. & Gershenfeld, M. K. (1973). Groups: Theory and experience. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Nicholas, J. M. (1990). Managing business & engineering projects: Concepts &
implementation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nielson, E. (1984). Inducing shared responsibility through empowerment: A strategy and
its prospects. Symposium on the Functioning of Executive Power.
Obert, S. L. (1979). The development of task groups. Case-Western Reserve University,
Cleveland: Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
Ordione, G. S. (1979). MBO II: A system of managerial leadership for the 80s. Belmont,
CA: Fearon Pitman Publishers.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (3rd ed.) New York: Scribner and Sons.
Osburn, J. D., Moran, L., Musselwhite, E. & Zenger, J. H. (1990). Self-directed work
teams: The new American Challenge. Homewood IL: Business One Irwin.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories, experimental edition.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1985). Managing conflict in organizations. New York: Praeger.
Raia, A. P. (1974). Managing by objectives. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

Reddy, W. B. (1994). Intervention skills: Process consultation for small groups and
teams. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.
W. Brendon Reddy (1996). Group level team assessment: A 10-step sequence to a
committed team. San Diego: Pfeiffer & Company.
Reddy, W. B. & Jamison, K., editors (1988). Team Building: Blueprints for Productivity
and Satisfaction. Copublished by: NTL Institute (Alexandria, VA) and University
Associates (San Diego, CA), 45-61.
Rice, A. K. (1969). The inter-group exercise. Human Relations, 1969, 22(6), 565-584.
Rice, A. K. (1976). Individual, Group and Intergroup Processes. In Task and
organization, E.R. Miller, editor. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving identity-based conflict. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rothwell, W. J. (1999). The action learning guidebook: A real-time strategy for
problem-solving, training design, and employee development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Russo, J. E. & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1990). Decision traps: Ten barriers to brilliant
decision-making and how to overcome them. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Schein, E. H. (1993a). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the
green room. Sloan Management Review, 34, 85-92.
Schein, E. H. (1993b). On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, Winter, 40-51.
Schein, E. H. (1988a). Process Consultation: Lessons for Managers and Consultants.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schein, E. H. (1988b). Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development, Vol.
I, 2nd edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schindler-Rainman, E. & Lippitt, R. (1972). Team training for community change:
Concepts, goals, strategies and skills. Riverside, CA: University of California
Extension.
Schutz, W. (1994). The human element: Productivity, self-esteem and the bottom line.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Semrad, E. V. & Arsenian, J. (1961). The use of group processes in teaching group
dynamics. In, Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D. & Chin, R., editors. The planning of
change: Readings in the applied behavioral sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 737-743.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning
organization. New York: Bantam Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Smith, B. J. & Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth
discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization.
New York: Currency Doubleday.
Shapira, Z. (1994). Risk taking: A managerial perspective. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Shepard, H. A. (1961). The t-group as training in observant participation. In: W.G.
Bennis, K.D. Benne & R. Chin. The planning of change, volume I. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 637-643.
Sherwood, J. J. & Glidewell, J. C. (1973). Planned renegotiation: A norm-setting OD
intervention. The 1973 Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators. John E. Jones
& J. William Pfeiffer (Eds.) La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Sherwood, J. J. & Hoylman, F. (1978). Utilizing human resources: Individual versus
group approaches to problem-solving and decision-making. In, Pfeiffer, J. W. &

Jones, J. E., editors. The 1978 Annual Handbook For Group Facilitators. La
Jolla, CA: University Associates, 1978.
Smith, M. (1975). When I say no, I feel guilty. New York: Bantam Books.
Thomas, K. W. & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument.
New York: XICOM, Tuxedo.
Spencer, L. J. (1989). Winning through participation: Meeting the challenge of
corporate change with the technology of participation. Dubuque, IO:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
Thomas, K. W. & Kilmann, R. H. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring
conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 42, 1139-1145.
Tichy, N. M. & Eli B. Cohen, E. B. (1991). The leadership engine: How winning
companies build leaders at every level. New York: HarperTrade.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological
Bulletin, 63, 384-399.
Tuckman, B. W. & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development
revisited. Group & Organizational Studies, 2(4), 419-427.
Vaill, P. B. (1982). The purposing of high-performing systems.” Organizational
Dynamics, Autumn, 23-39.
VanGundy, A. (1995). Brain boosters for business advantage. San Diego: Pfeiffer &
Company.
Varela, J. A. (1971). Psychological solutions to social problems: An introduction to
social technology. New York: Academic Press.
Walton, R. E. (1982). How to choose between strategies of conflict and collaboration. In
Reading book for human relations training. Arlington, VA: NTL Institute.

Walton, R. E. (1995). Managing conflict: Interpersonal dialog and third-party roles.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Watzlawick, P. (1988). Ultra-solutions: Or how to fail most successfully. New York: W.
W. Norton & Company.
Weir, J. & Weir, J. (1978). The self-differentiation laboratory. Arlington, VA: NTL
Institute.
Wright, P. C., Geroy, G. D. and Nasierowski, W. (1994). Determining key principal
relationships within participatory needs analyses: A quantitative advantage for
OD practitioners. Organization Development Journal, 12(4), Winter.
Wolfe, D. M. & Snoek, J. D. (1964). A study of tensions and adjustment under role
conflict. In Bennis, W.G., Schein, E. H., Berlew, D. E. & Steele, F. I., editors
(1964). Interpersonal Dynamics: Essays and Readings on Human Interaction.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press, pp. 431-439.
Zander, A. (1982). Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zander, A. (1985). The purposes of groups and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Implications For Facili-Training and Action Learning Coaching

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Implications For Facili-Training and Action Learning Coaching

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Restricted Proprietary Information 1 Pre-Publication Draft

Developing High Performance Teamwork:

Implications for Facili-Training and Action Learning Coaching

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D.

Zimbabwe, Singapore, and Germany. He specializes in facilitating complex transformational change,

Psychology) and 52 (International Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. He received

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

Developing High Performance Teamwork:

Core Competencies in Facilitating Four Critical Team Processes

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D.

team dynamics and intervention methodologies to enhance team performance.

University-based researchers can generate case studies of successful and unsuccessful

effectiveness of the methodologies, perhaps using case meta-analysis (e.g., Bullock,

elements. I will present an overview of a number of alternative conceptual models of

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

Facili-training is my attempt to formalize a strategy that I and other OD

residential “cultural island” to their real-life, back-home work situations (Freedman,

1963). My appreciation for attending to multiple process levels, simultaneously, was a

natural consequence of many years of education, training, didactic psychoanalysis,

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

Consultation Skills workshop. This led to my participation in redesigning, staffing, and

inevitably emerged in that highly regulated environment. I formalized the approach

that was attempting to transform itself from a command-control technocratic bureaucracy

to a highly participative, team-oriented organization. Over the past 35 years, I have

judgement of colleagues and participants in many of my training programs for OD&C

courses I have taught in various graduate school programs.

growth of learning organizations.

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

Personally, I am delighted that action learning is enjoying such popularity. It

should. It seems to make the kinds of contributions to organizational effectiveness that I

compelling, direct and easily comprehended message. It is a powerful, effective, and

proper application of personal, interpersonal, group, task completion, goal achievement,

and intergroup or boundary management skills. There is a considerable body of theory,

comprehensive understanding of how ALT coaches – including OD&C practitioners,

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

demonstrate that aspects of facili-training can add to ALT coaches’ repertoires of

interventions and add precision to the ALTC strategy.

My starting point is acknowledging and trying to eliminate several areas of

This faith may be too optimistic. A missing element is a comprehensive, shared

“organizational effectiveness.” The ambiguity makes it difficult to measure sub-optimal

disagreement over definitions and methodologies are endless.

multifunctional, global, or multidisciplinary teams. The major differences derive from

Permanent intact groups usually focus on evolutionary improvement of existing

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

to eliminate or prevent obstacles and impediments. However, temporary multifunctional

ERP design-implementation teams, merger/acquisition integration teams and ALTs --

usually focus on enterprise-wide issues and produce creative, radically innovative

Part I: How to Recognize Sub-Optimal Team Performance – Indicators

below an acceptable level of effectiveness, team development interventions should be

a focal issue by determining what is and is not “acceptable” by comparing current

Arthur M. Freedman, MBA, Ph.D. January 25, 1999 Quantum Associates

later. Alternatively, an experimental team’s performance is compared with that of a

a management team or comparing a well-established, mature team with a new team in

Multiple criteria are preferable to a single criterion in evaluating a team’s

performance – just as when evaluating an individual contributor. A relevant, measurable

set of criteria may include some combination of the following possibilities:

• Increased or decreased requests for goods or services by a team’s internal or

external customers; sales; or revenues.

• Increased or decreased team profitability or added value.

• Declines or increases in team productivity or output.

• Increased or decreased number of grievances or complaints by team members.