FACILITATING GROUP DYNAMICS AND

WORKING THROUGH CONFLICT

There will be times when you need to pause from the activities you had planned, in order to work
through group dynamic issues that arise. This is an important learning moment for everyone and you
should not feel that you have gotten off track.
Issues or concerns that need to be addressed when they come up include:

Challenging experiences (personal and professional)

Reflections on learning
How to deal with situations you may be unsure about
Participant observations or concerns
Participant conflict and possible strategies for management
Personal conflict. There may be misunderstandings or conflict between facilitators. It is very
important that the time be taken to address such matters. Unresolved issues can have a negative
impact on the program environment.
There are many theories out there on how groups work. The following theory describes five stages to
group development. It also shows how conflict comes up and why it is important part of how groups
function.
The stages are:
1.

Forming

2.

Storming

3.

Norming

4.

Performing

5.

Adjourning

We have found that this is a helpful way to think about the role that the facilitators need to play in
setting up a healthy dynamic and in anticipating and working with conflict.
Although it is presented as though the group will progress from one stage to the other sequentially, this
is rarely our experience. Just like with the spiral model of popular education (see Section 3: The Popular
Education Spiral), the process will organically skip back and forth between stages. The important thing to
keep in mind is that no matter where your group is in the process, it is a normal process. Your group is
giving you cues and energy to work with.

The Five Stages of Conflict Resolution

1. Forming
In this initial stage, when the group first comes together, there is often a lot of reliance on the
facilitator. The groups will look to you for guidance and direction and will have a lot of questions.
At this stage you should make a Group Agreement. For an example, refer to Creating a
Group Agreement in Appendix 3.

Uphold these agreements yourself and dont be afraid to hold the groups to the agreements.
Dont be surprised if you feel like you are being tested in some way. Its not personal; the groups
are checking out where you stand.
Ideas for how to draw out groups who appear not to be engaged:
Keep a special eye out for groups who are easily discouraged.
With groups who are quiet, respect their need for distance from the conversation but assess
whether they are activity listening, completely disengaged or resistant.
Make use of naturally occurring remarks to address any issues.
If no remarks come up, talk one-on-one with groups who appear not to be engaged to see what
their experience of the group is. Maybe they like to listen more than talk, have a lot on their minds
or express themselves in ways that you are not used to. You may need to alter your style to make
sure you are not excluding them.
Give lots of positive reinforcement. For example, when the groups try a new activity in groups
group that they were previously nervous about, like playing a new sport, sharing in the group, show
your support. Also, when a groups makes a responsible decision let her know that you noticed and
are proud of her
Work one-on-one with groups who have difficulty applying themselves and who arent responding
to positive reinforcement.
Provide a box that the groups can put their anonymous questions in. You can take time during a
session to hand out papers to all groups and ask them to put a paper in the box even if they have
nothing to say, to get the ball rolling. Take time each meeting to read and discuss the questions.
Make it clear that these are questions that are relevant to everyone. As an organizer you might
want to take a look at the questions before the meeting, so you can find answers to anything you
are unsure of.
Try to avoid abstract or complicated language. This can be alienating and make groups feel
unsure of how to take part in the conversation.

2. Storming
Storming refers to the time in the life of a group when conflicts begin to emerge. This is a natural
part of being in a group and you should not panic! Use the conflict as a way to productively
discuss and work through differences and as a way to get valuable feedback about the needs of
the group.
As the group gets to know each other, members may attempt to establish themselves as leaders
or cliques may form and there may be power struggles. Recognize that challenges to the Group
Agreement are probably not malicious; the groups are testing boundaries and asserting their
individuality something that happens in all groups.
Do what you can to acknowledge the unique talents of each person and give every groups an
opportunity to shine. Make time for the emotional issues that will emerge and resolve any
conflicts that emerge. Dont be worried if this takes you off course from what you had planned in
a workshop; there is a lot of invaluable learning in these moments.
Although you may feel more connected to certain individuals, cliques or opinions in the group,
do your best to not take sides or play favourites to ensure that the space is as safe as possible
for everyone.
Ideas for reducing tensions amongst cliques:

 Change the physical position of the groups to each other. For example, by sitting in between them
or by involving the groups in physical games such as musical chairs and dances that encourage all
the groups to have fun together.
Split groups into pairs for some activities to break up the cliques, even if the groups are not
happy with this.
Use activities to focus the group on a common cause.
3. Norming
At this stage in the process, the group starts to get in the habit of working together according
the Group Agreement. Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted. People have found a
good rhythm of working together and can have fun together even if they disagree on certain
issues. At this stage, the facilitator plays a maintenance role and needs to make room to
encourage the groups to take on leadership within the group.
4. Performing
In these moments the group will have a lot of autonomy and can accomplish a lot without the
guidance of the facilitator. Dont try to hang on to the leadership role. You are also a valued
member of the team and can support the emerging leadership from behind by actively
participating, encouraging, and offering suggestions when it is requested.
Disagreements still occur, but they can now be resolved within the team positively. Necessary
changes can be imagined and implemented by the group itself.

5. Adjourning
Adjourning is when the group is breaking up. This can occur many times in an ongoing group as
members come in and go out. With each change in membership, the group reforms itself, so it is
good to have a defined process to mark beginnings and endings.
The group can be a sort of home for the groups. As the facilitator, it is important to recognize
and be sensitive to people's vulnerabilities at this stage, particularly if members of the group
have been closely bonded and feel a sense of insecurity or threat from changes.
Having closure after each activity helps the groups to feel contained and also helps to mentally
retain the positive aspects of each activity. For example, the group members might take turns
speaking about what they learned from the activity and what they felt was the most memorable
moment. The facilitator might sum up the positive group interactions, comments, and
contributions that they witnessed in order to help the group members better assimilate the
experience.

i Adapted from Bruce Tuckman, Developmental sequence in small

groups, Psychological Bulletin 63 (1965), pp. 384399.

Single-loop and double-loop learning

For Argyris and Schn (1978: 2) learning involves the detection and correction of error. Where something
goes wrong, it is suggested, an initial port of call for many people is to look for another strategy that will
address and work within the governing variables. In other words, given or chosen goals, values, plans and
rules are operationalized rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Schn (1974), this is single-loop
learning. An alternative response is to question to governing variables themselves, to subject them to
critical scrutiny. This they describe as double-loop learning. Such learning may then lead to an alteration in
the governing variables and, thus, a shift in the way in which strategies and consequences are framed. Thus,
when they came to explore the nature of organizational learning. This is how Argyris and Schn (1978: 2-3)
described the process in the context of organizational learning:
When the error detected and corrected permits the organization to carry on its present policies or achieve
its presents objectives, then that error-and-correction process is single-loop learning. Single-loop learning
is like a thermostat that learns when it is too hot or too cold and turns the heat on or off. The thermostat
can perform this task because it can receive information (the temperature of the room) and take corrective
action. Double-looplearning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the
modification of an organizations underlying norms, policies and objectives.
Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent,
strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on techniques and making techniques more efficient
(Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Any reflection is directed toward making the strategy more effective. Doubleloop learning, in contrast, involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie
actual goals and strategies (op. cit.). In many respects the distinction at work here is the one used
by Aristotle, when exploringtechnical andpractical thought. The former involves following routines and
some sort of preset plan and is both less risky for the individual and the organization, and affords greater
control. The latter is more creative and reflexive, and involves consideration notions of the good. Reflection
here is more fundamental: the basic assumptions behind ideas or policies are confronted hypotheses are
publicly tested processes are disconfirmable not self-seeking (Argyris 1982: 103-4).
The focus of much of Chris Argyris intervention research has been to explore how organizations may
increase their capacity for double-loop learning. He argues that double-loop learning is necessary if
practitioners and organizations are to make informed decisions in rapidly changing and often uncertain
contexts (Argyris 1974; 1982; 1990). As Edmondson and Moingeon (1999:160) put it:
The underlying theory, supported by years of empirical research, is that the reasoning processes employed
by individuals in organizations inhibit the exchange of relevant information in ways that make double-loop
learning difficult and all but impossible in situations in which much is at stake. This creates a dilemma as
these are the very organizational situations in which double-loop learning is most needed.
The next step that Argyris and Schn take is to set up two models that describe features of theories-in-use
that either inhibit or enhance double-loop learning. The belief is that all people utilize a common theory-inuse in problematic situations. This they describe as Model I and it can be said to inhibit double-loop

learning. Model II is where the governing values associated with theories-in-use enhance double-loop
learning.

Model I and Model II

Argyris has claimed that just about all the participants in his studies operated from theories-in-use or
values consistent with Model I (Argyris et al. 1985: 89). It involves making inferences about another
persons behaviour without checking whether they are valid and advocating ones own views abstractly
without explaining or illustrating ones reasoning (Edmondson and Moingeon 1999:161). The theories-inuse are shaped by an implicit disposition to winning (and to avoid embarrassment). The primary action
strategy looks to the unilateral control of the environment and task plus the unilateral protection of self and
others. As such Model I leads to often deeply entrenched defensive routines (Argyris 1990; 1993) and
these can operate at individual, group and organizational levels. Exposing actions, thoughts and feelings
can make people vulnerable to the reaction of others. However, the assertion that Model I is predominantly
defensive has a further consequence:
Acting defensively can be viewed as moving away from something, usually some truth about ourselves. If
our actions are driven by moving away from something then our actions are controlled and defined by
whatever it is we are moving away from, not by us and what we would like to be moving towards. Therefore
our potential for growth and learning is seriously impaired. If my behaviour is driven by my not wanting to
be seen as incompetent, this may lead me to hide things from myself and others, in order to avoid feelings
of incompetence. For example, if my behaviour is driven by wanting to be competent, honest evaluation of
my behaviour by myself and others would be welcome and useful. (Anderson 1997)
It is only by interrogating and changing the governing values, the argument goes, is it possible to produce
new action strategies that can address changing circumstances.
Chris Argyris looks to move people from a Model I to a Model II orientation and practice one that fosters
double-loop learning. He suggests that most people, when asked, will espouse Model II. As Anderson (1997)
has commented, Argyris offers no reason why most people espouse Model II. In addition, we need to note
that the vast bulk of research around the models has been undertaken by Argyris or his associates.
Exhibit 1: Model I theory-in-use characteristics

The governing Values of Model I are: