Call in the Experts?

Author: Beatrice Briggs
Published in Communities Magazine Issue #148

Q. Our group is very divided. We need to make major decisions regarding finances, organizational structures, and policies, at a time when interpersonal tensions have reached a boiling point. Certain individuals and factions seem to be locked in power struggles, and at this point we are almost completely paralyzed by internal conflict.

Now we have one more source of conflict: some members want to bring in outside facilitators to help us work through our problems, and others say that we should rely on our own resources and skills, and not spend money on outside “experts” who will come and then leave (possibly stirring up more trouble in the process). Without full group agreement, we won’t be able to bring in outside help. What do you suggest?

Laird Schaub responds:

This story is a cautionary tale about how problems can compound (with interest!) when not dealt with as they occur. In my experience, the first strand to pull on in unknotting this tangled skein is the one relating to unresolved interpersonal tensions. Until and unless you can make progress there, it will infect all other conversations, and render brittle and non-resilient any agreements you can forge around finances, organizational structure, policies, and power dynamics (all of which are plenty interesting topics unto themselves).

For the purposes of getting traction on the interpersonal tensions, it may make sense to work it in the context of one of your other issues (one that showcases the damaged relationships), so that your efforts are rooted in something you need to address anyway (rather than just tackling interpersonal tension in theory). For the purposes of this response, let’s say the issue you decide to work is pet policy.

Then, I’d make a commitment to the group that you will not make any binding agreements about dogs until you’ve first handled the interpersonal tensions to everyone’s satisfaction. Then you can use the ideas and concerns that surfaced in the unpacking to springboard into a constructive dialog about rogue hamsters. Successfully dealing with the tensions first should give you an energetic bounce with which to make progress on how cats and birds can coexist in trees outside the common house.

To be fair, it’s much harder to successfully tackle interpersonal tensions when they’ve been festering for some time and there’s no clear group agreement about: a) whether members are expected to make an attempt to deal with such troubles; or b) how to go about it. The good news is that it can be done. The bad news is that few of us have the skills to guide a group through it, which brings me to the delicate issue of whether or not to bring in outside help.

As a process consultant, I am hardly neutral on this question. I always think I’ll be able to make a positive contribution when working with a group in trouble, and I think there are any number of occasions where a group can get stuck in a dynamic and there is no internal member with sufficient skill or neutrality to shepherd the group through it. While it’s also true that outside help is not always needed (or effective), it’s important to have options. Sadly, many times groups cannot agree to bring in help because some members have no sense of how much difference it can make, and are unwilling to take a chance to find out. As bad as it gets, some people have grown so inured to poor dynamics that they have no expectations of it ever getting better (so why spend time and money on a fool’s errand to raise the dead?).

For what it’s worth, one of the most important and helpful decisions my 36-year-old community, Sandhill Farm, ever made was to start asking in outside help on a regular basis. Though we weren’t smart enough to start doing that until we were about 20 years old—we were slow learners—it made a huge difference, and now we do it one or more times a year.

With care, you should be able to find someone who can help with both agendas: get you out of the swamp you’re in right now; and teach you the skills needed to get yourselves out the next time.

Beatrice Briggs responds:

Until the members get in touch with what brought them together in the first place, it will be hard to move on.

Assuming that there is a real desire to get beyond the paralysis, I suggest an appreciative inquiry approach. The process focuses on strengths and what the group wants more of, not the current problems. For example, a typical exercise to start the work involves group members interviewing each other about a time when they were really happy to be a member of the community. What was happening? Who was there? What made that moment or period so memorable? What was their personal role? And (without being too modest), what skills from that experience do they bring to the community now? The process moves on from there, building on this foundation. (For more on this powerful approach to positive change, consult Google or Amazon for books and other resources.)

This situation cries out for skillful, external facilitation. First of all, the entire group needs to be engaged in the process—which means that no one is left to facilitate. Secondly, as Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” The group got itself into this mess. I frankly doubt that it will be able to extract itself without some outside help. Perhaps those most opposed to bringing in an outsider could be asked to select a person they would trust. In any case, I would not try to address any of the operational and policy issues until there are some clear signs that the group wants to stay together and is ready to move past the current impasse.

Tree Bressen responds:

This is a really hard situation, and i feel like i would need more context to offer useful advice. That said, here are some thoughts.

The idea that we don’t need outside help was common among ’70s-era communities. One might observe that most of those communities no longer exist. I’m not saying this is the sole reason of course, but it probably didn’t help. Getting outside support when you need it is an investment in the well-being and future of your community. The happiest and healthiest communities i’ve observed have gotten lots of process training and support from both external and internal sources, setting a high standard for good meetings and nourishing strong friendships with each other outside the meetings too.

I lived for years at a co-op where the general process skill level was higher than most places, and we still brought in an outside facilitator about once a year either for training or to help us work through an issue. It’s not just about skills, it’s about being in a role that’s neutral. I had professional-level skills, but i could only use them when: (a) i felt neutral and not charged on the issue at hand; (b) i had a decent relationship with the key people involved in the issue; and (c) other people trusted that both (a) and (b) were the case.

Part of the egalitarian culture in the secular communities movement is that outside experts typically get way more cache than a community’s own members do (and the farther away they live the better, of course). As a traveling facilitator, i know this and use it to advantage in helping the communities i work with. For example, a group might be willing to try a nonverbal exercise with me that they would resist doing under the guidance of a member. I am transparent about this power and at the end of my work often encourage communities to give their own facilitators some of the support and openness to trying new things that they were willing to give me.

However, what i’ve said so far here is preaching to the choir, and the people you are disputing with will not necessarily be swayed by any of these points. I’m guessing you need to push harder, on one or more of the following fronts:

1. Switch the dynamic. Ask them to convince you as to why outside help is not needed. Ask for solid examples addressing questions such as:
a. Which member(s) do they imagine facilitating this process?
b. What form do they think it might take?
c. What will they do to help people they disagree with feel safe?
d. What past issues of this magnitude has the group successfully resolved without outside assistance? How was that accomplished?

If they have good answers to these, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate your stance that outside support is required.

2. Include people who are distrustful of outside facilitation on the team interviewing potential candidates. Invite them to explicitly raise their concerns during interviews with both facilitators and references (past clients).

3. Give them a chance to have it their way, within limits. Set reasonable criteria for how and when the issues will be resolved internally, and agree in advance that if those benchmarks are not met then outside help will be hired. For example the group could agree to have three meetings on the big, tough issues, and at that point if half or more of the members want outside facilitation then it goes ahead.

4. Address their concerns as directly as possible. What are they scared of? What does “stirring up more trouble“ really mean? (Does it mean they want certain issues or conflicts to be off-limits, and if so, does the rest of the community agree?) Is there a way to ameliorate whatever the specific concern is? Would requesting that an outside consultant include an emphasis on internal empowerment for future situations address part of it? Is barter an option to help reduce fees? If not, which budget item are they worried might get cut in order to pay for a facilitator, and if that item is a priority for others too then can the group agree to avoid that cut? What does using an outside facilitator signify to them (does it make them feel like the community has somehow failed)?

5. Tell them your legitimate concerns and request a response. “I’ve noticed in past meetings that this set of people often doesn’t listen to each other well. I don’t trust that we can handle this on our own.” “I’m worried this might be an attempt to keep on avoiding the interpersonal conflict between Dakota and Cary, which i think we need to deal with to move forward.” “I’m scared that a few people will blow up, others will shut down, and then we’ll be even worse off than we are now.” “I’m concerned that this might be an effort to hold power and avoid accountability.” Name the core of your concern, whether it is personal or on behalf of the community’s well-being or both, as kindly and as directly as you can. Stand up for yourself. This is particularly effective if done by multiple people who normally don’t make waves.

6. Consider whether there are any middle-ground solutions. For example, inviting in a circle of friends to witness the meeting. Knowing you are being watched tends to put people on better behavior, which may address some of the need for outside facilitation, and doing this is free. What are other creative ideas?