Benefits of not having a Vision
Submitted by jon on Mon, 2004-12-06 02:02.
Group facilitation methods: Avoidance of Making Decisions, Disagreements
Identification
Level of process:
InterventionIntent or purpose:
To deal the following kinds of issues:
- A highly politicized and fairly polarized (yet congenial) group
- A recognized lack of collaboration and partnership
- Votes are split along predictable lines
- Common ground that seems to get built keeps shifting.
Used as component of:
Any workshop where the group is stuck on a step of the process
Types of Participants:
anyOptimal amount of time needed:
3 min to 2 hoursHowto
Usual or Expected Outcomes:
Able to move an agreement about the processLevel of participation:
highType of Facilitator-Client Relationship:
A great deal of trust is needed.Level of Difficulty to Facilitate:
Facilitation skills requiredSetting and Materials:
NoneResources Needed:
nonePre-Work Required:
noneProcedures:
Have group members address the following:
i. What are the benefits of *not* having a vision statement?
ii. *Who* benefits from not having a vision statement?
iii How does the organization benefit with/without?
iv. Are there fears associated with creating a vision statement?
v. What keeps them together despite this long-standing difficulty in collaboration?
Follow-Up Required:
continue with the processBackground
Developer:
UnknownDerived from:
Paula M. Diller on the GRP-FACL Listserve suggested thisEpistemological Framework:
unknownHistory of Development:
unknown
References:
Paula M. Diller
pmariad@SPRYNET.COM
License Model:
Free (or unattributable)Website:
http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf
