Antagonism

One of the worst things you can face when working to build up a team or deliver group training is to have antagonists in the room.

You know the sort - we all have issues with other people and their styles and methods, but these people have got used to making it personal with each other, and that dominates all their interactions from then on.

What do you do? As a manager? As a trainer or consultant?

There are various answers that have been suggested in the past: ignoring the problem so as not to give it reinforcement; mediating between the parties to achieve a compromise; knocking their heads together; locking them in a room until they agree to agree on something; separating the parties.

The time comes when some or all of these are not available to you. How many managers get to choose who can be on their team (few) How many trainers can pick and choose their attendees (fewer?) What do you do then?

Picture the scene...

Gary keeps pointing out that he and his colleagues wouldn't need to be on the course at all if Helen and her team did their job "properly". Helen retorts that Gary causes the real problems by failing to "stick to the rules".

Now, suppose you're a course participant, from Gary's team, and you can see both sides of the argument. Do you wade in, point out that both Gary and Helen have valid points, ask each to acknowledge the other's point of view, suggest they learn to be more tolerant of each other and use less emotive language?

Even if that was crossing your mind for a moment, as soon as Gary turns around at you and your fellow team members for moral support, you know you'll have to side with him. You have to work with him tomorrow once this course is over. Sorry Helen.

And of course the same on Helen's team.

Now put yourself in the Facilitator's shoes. You've effectively got the House of Commons in your training room! Two sub-groups form in the room, mentally lined up behind the two antagonists. You might as well draw those tramlines across the floor, sword-and-arm-length apart.

If you're a trainer and the manager, or your client, has not warned you about this, be prepared anyway as it's quite common when meeting or training with two sub-teams that have to work alongside each other.

The key to breaking the pattern is transparency. Conflict is when it gets personal, and as I've said many times before: conflict never arises from what the person actually did. It arises from the reason we assume they had for doing it, which almost always is to personally insult us!

How, then do we increase transparency and so reduce this projection? Here are some brief keys, but I think I'd better expand on them in later posts:

1. Kill it before it starts - open the workshop with an open discussion on acceptable group behaviours then draw it to the group's attention if antagonism surfaces. You can do this with your opwn team int eh workplace - facilitate an agreed list of acceptable behaviour then get in on the wall so eveyrone can wave at it whenever necessary.
2. Make a topic out of it - cover intra and inter group conflict within the session, symptoms and the long-term effects, ask the group for examples (Well, Gary and Helen often...) and how as a whole group it can be prevented
3. Arrange for it to come out "naturally" by getting the group to brainstorm the 3 Ws for their workplace. This one is especially good if you've not been tipped off as it will only come up if it's a problem. You don't want to be doing (2) above to astonished looks from a really friendly team!
4. Face-off with Feedback. 360 tools, particularly ones that use non-emotive metaphors to provide a baggage free vocabulary for delivering feedback.

That's a start. Try one and let me know what happens.

All the best,

Dave Bull MBA CTA ATT MInstLM (!!New!!)
Team Coaching Network Ltd
http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com