Developing and supporting creative problem solving

Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies

Elspeth McFadzean Associate Faculty, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames, UK

Keywords Facilitators , Competences, Meetings, Creativity

Introduction

In small-group problem solving, the dominant research tradition has been to More and more organisation s are identify variables that will encourage social using teams to solve problems, interaction between participants and plan for the future and improve products, processe s and services . optimise team productivity (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985; Bottger and Yetton, 1987; One method of enhancin g group effectivenes s is to use a Bettenhausen, 1991; Barnard, 1999; Keller, facilitator . Facilitators , however, 2001; Connolly et al., 1990; Sparrowe et al., need to be trained in order to 2001; Diehl and Stroebe, 1987; Jehn and accomplis h their role effectively . Mannix, 2001). For example, research has This can only be achieved successfull y if trainers are aware been undertaken on training (Basadur et al., of the competencie s and skills 1982; Ganster et al., 1991; Wheeler and needed to undertake the Valacich, 1996; Bottger and Yetton, 1987), facilitatio n process. Explores the creativity (Amabile, 1996, 1998; Bouchard, facilitatio n process and presents both the general and specific 1972; Garfield et al., 1997; McFadzean, 1996), competencie s that are essentia l group support systems (Dennis and Valacich, for facilitation . General 1993; Gallupe et al., 1991, 1988; Dennis, 1996), competencie s are those that are vital no matter what type of group team roles (Belbin, 1981, 1993; Stumpf et al., is meeting. Specific 1979; Kozar and Zigurs, 1992), group size competencies , on the other hand, (Bouchard et al., 1974; Bray et al., 1978; Fern, are those that are distinctiv e to 1982; Gallupe et al., 1992; Hare, 1981) and so the level of group development . on. Another variable that has an impact on Groups that are highly experience d and well-develope d group productivity and effectiveness is will require the facilitato r to have facilitation (Hirokawa and Gouran, 1989; more sophisticate d skills than Wheeler and Valacich, 1996; Keltner, 1989; groups that are less-developed . Offner et al., 1996; Anson et al., 1995). A facilitator is essentially a neutral person who supports the group throughout the problem solving (or opportunity finding) process (Schwarz, 1994; Berry, 1993). According to Wheeler and Valacich (1996, p. 431), ``A facilitator devotes his or her full mental resources to constructively aiding the group’s decision process while the group members focus on the content of the decision.’’ In order to aid the team’s processes, however, facilitators must develop certain skills (Berry, 1993; Nelson and McFadzean, 1998). The aim of this paper is to generate a list of these skills. Moreover, the paper suggests that facilitator competencies Management Decision Abstract

40/6 [2002 ] 537±551

# MCB UP Limited [ISSN 0025-1747] [DOI 10.1108/0025174021043393 6]

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

are related to the level of group development and the different stages of the facilitation process (see part 1 of this series). Consequently, the list of facilitator competencies has been divided into two categories. The first category, general competencies, presents a list of skills that can be used by a wide range of facilitators. The second category, specific skills, however, presents a list of competencies that are specific to facilitators who support groups that are at a certain level of development. For example, facilitators need to develop competencies that can be tailored to groups that are purely attentive to the task. Different competencies, on the other hand, would be needed to facilitate groups that are attentive to relationships and emotions (McFadzean, 1998a). The next section of this paper presents a brief outline on the process of facilitation. From this, a list of general competencies has been devised. Next, five levels of group development are described together with a list of facilitator competencies that are specific for each level. Finally, some implications for managers are presented.

The process of facilitation According to McFadzean and Nelson (1998), the process of facilitation consists of three stages, namely pre-session planning, running the group session and producing a postsession report. The planning stage is arguably the most important stage in the process (Ackermann, 1996). This is because ``without sufficient careful pre-planning with the client, the chances of overall success will be greatly diminished’’ (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998, p. 8). Pre-session planning consists of the following: contracting with the client, diagnosing and understanding the problem, identifying the behaviours that may enhance or diminish group interaction, developing the meeting structure and process and organising the appropriate resources needed for the meeting (Schwarz, 1994;

[ 537 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

McFadzean and Nelson, 1998). According to Schwarz (1994, p. 46), contracting with the client is very important. He writes: Contracting has several related purposes. First and most obvious, contracting ensures that the facilitator and group understand and are committed to the conditions that will govern their working relationship. This involves clarifying expectations that each party has for the other. The expectations include the objectives and boundaries of the facilitation, the ground rules the group will use, issues of confidentiality, the roles of the facilitators and group members, how decisions are made and when the facilitation will end. Ineffective contracting invariably results in problems later in the facilitation process (Schwarz, 1994, original author’s emphasis).

Schwarz (1994, p. 46) also believes that contracting is essential because it ``provides the group members and facilitator with an opportunity to observe how each other works’’. In addition, it also helps each party choose whether they want to work with one another. Moreover, contracting is important because the facilitator gets the opportunity to talk to the appropriate members of staff regarding the problems and the solutions that they have tried and those that have failed. This information exchange can help to develop empathy and trust between the facilitator and the group members (Schwarz, 1994; McFadzean, 1999a). During the contracting stage, the facilitator must discuss and develop the meeting structure and process with the client group. According to McFadzean et al. (1999) it is essential to develop process congruence. If a member of the group does not want to participate using a particular technique then the process will be less effective. Indeed, it may be totally ineffective and a waste of valuable time. Thus, it is always important to discuss, develop and agree the meeting agenda and process with the participants. In addition, facilitators need to identify behaviours that may influence the group’s effectiveness. Schwarz (1994) suggests that there are three categories of behaviour ± functional, dysfunctional and counteractive. Functional behaviour maintains or enhances group behaviour. According to Nunamaker et al. (1991, p. 45), ``Certain aspects of the meeting process improve outcomes (process gains) while others impair outcomes (process losses) relative to the efforts of the same individuals working by themselves or those of groups that do not experience them’’. The productivity of the team therefore depends on the balance between group process losses and process gains. Thus, a group that can enhance its process gains and reduce its

[ 538 ]

process losses will be more effective than a group that does not actively change its dysfunctional behaviour. Process gains include more precise communication, learning, synergy, creativity, objective evaluation and so on (Schwarz, 1994; Nunamaker et al., 1991, Frey, 1995). Process losses can include information overload, socialising, free-riding, co-ordination problems, personnel problems and so on (Nunamaker et al., 1991; Licker, 1997; Diehl and Stroebe, 1987). Dysfunctional behaviour therefore reduces group effectiveness by enhancing the group’s process losses. For example, free riding is a common problem in groups. Albanese and Van Fleet (1985, p. 244) describe a free rider as ``a member of a group who obtains benefits from group membership but does not bear a proportional share of the costs of providing the benefits’’. In other words, an individual within the group fails to make an effort to help achieve the task. Counteractive behaviours enhance group effectiveness by reducing or negating dysfunctional behaviour. These behaviours encourage the group to get back on course. After pre-session planning has been completed, the facilitator’s next job is to support the actual meeting. The facilitator’s role is to ensure that the group’s behaviour and processes are as effective as possible. This is achieved by undertaking interventions. Deciding when or even whether to intervene can be quite difficult. Schwarz (1994, p. 89-90) suggests that: The facilitator intervenes when a member of the group acts inconsistently with a ground rule that the group has agreed to follow or when the facilitator identifies some element of the group’s process, structure or organizational context that hinders its effectiveness. However, following this approach could lead the facilitator to intervene every minute, if only because following ground rules consistently requires much practice by groups. For groups that have average to poor effectiveness, almost every member’s comments may be dysfunctional in some way. Theoretically, the facilitator could intervene every time a member spoke, which obviously would prevent the group from ever accomplishing its task. In deciding whether to intervene, the facilitator must balance the group’s need to get the job done with its need to learn how to work more effectively as a group.

McFadzean (1998a) therefore suggests that the interventions will be dependent on the level of group development. For example, level 1 groups ± the least developed ± are only attentive to the task (McFadzean, 1998a). Thus, the interventions should also be only related to the task because the group will not

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

be interested in learning about higher levels of work. A second level group is attentive to the meeting structure as well as the task. The facilitator, therefore, should make interventions regarding both the task and the meeting structure. A third level group is attentive to the task, the meeting structure and the roles and responsibilities that each member undertakes within the group. Thus, the facilitator must intervene when dysfunctional behaviour endangers the fulfilment of these particular tasks. The more developed groups are able to reach the fourth and fifth levels. A fourth level group is attentive to the task, the meeting structure, roles and responsibilities and the team’s dynamics and relationships. The interventions that the facilitator must make therefore should also be at that level. Perhaps the most difficult group to facilitate is the top-level group ± level 5. In addition to the previous tasks, the group is also attentive to the thoughts, feelings and emotions of all the participants. The members are geared toward the success of the group as a whole as well as each of the separate participants. Moreover, a level 5 group has empowerment and high levels of trust. This is important because it encourages the participants to talk about contentious issues openly and honestly. In addition, it allows group members to utilise paradigm breaking creative problem solving techniques (see part 1 of this series for a more detailed discussion on creative problem solving techniques). These techniques can encourage participants to produce highly creative ideas but can prove to be uncomfortable for less developed groups (McFadzean, 1998b, 1999b). Facilitation, therefore, differs with each level of group. This is summarised in Figure 1.

Figure 1 The attention steps for facilitators

According to McFadzean and Nelson (1998), the facilitator should always review the session after the meeting has been completed. In addition, the facilitator should also produce a post-session report which should include the following (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998): A summary of the meeting stating the objectives, goals, comments, ideas and discussions. The output from the session. This will depend on the objective(s) agreed with the client during the planning session. It may include possible alternative solutions to a problem, problem issues, plans for implementation, new objectives or a list of ideas. In general, however, the report should present the decisions that were made and how these should be implemented (or the next step(s) forward). The people involved in the meeting and who will be responsible for, and involved in, the implementation or the next step(s). In order to facilitate meetings effectively, facilitators must have developed the appropriate skills and knowledge. The remainder of this paper will present the competencies that facilitators need to acquire in order to develop themselves and to be able to undertake the facilitation process effectively. These competencies have been divided into two categories, namely general competencies and specific competencies. General competencies are skills that need to be acquired by facilitators no matter what type or level of group is being supported. For example, a facilitator must develop a partnership with his or her client immaterial of the level or type of group that he or she may facilitate. Likewise, the facilitator will also always have to obtain an understanding of the client’s problem and co-design a meeting process that will meet the client’s needs. These general competencies are discussed in the next section. Specific competencies, on the other hand, relate directly to the level of the group (McFadzean, 1998a). A facilitator must also learn to develop his or her skills in the same manner as group participants. For example, an inexperienced facilitator should never facilitate high level groups. This could lead to resentment and even anger or abuse and will destroy any levels of trust already built up within the group.

General competencies There has been a vast amount written on the general qualities needed for effective

[ 539 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

facilitation (Nelson and McFadzean, 1998; VanGundy, 1992; Berry, 1993; Hunter et al., 1995). For example, VanGundy (1992) suggests the following skills for general facilitation: self-knowledge, patience, task understanding, the ability to co-ordinate thinking processes, well-developed verbal skills, human relations skills, awareness of non-verbal communications and high-level communication skills. A facilitator can use these skills to gather information regarding the task. He or she may not be an expert in the area but he or she will know where to obtain relevant information. Moreover, the facilitator must be able to co-ordinate the group and be able to manage the participants’ diverse thinking styles. He or she must also be able to keep the group on track and make sure that they do not deviate from their assigned goals. Perhaps the two most important skills are that of human relations and communications. According to VanGundy (1992, p. 38): People judged to be effective discussion leaders make more positive socioemotional comments than less effective leaders. Facilitators should help participants feel at ease. When group members perceive the facilitator as sensitive to their needs, interpersonal trust and a team spirit are more likely.

Hunter et al. (1995) and Nelson and McFadzean (1998) have also developed a list of facilitator competencies. Hunter et al. suggest that a facilitator’s most important asset is his or her awareness. This includes listening, looking and sensing. Likewise, Nelson and McFadzean also stress the importance of communication. This includes skills such as active listening, clarifying, questioning, summarising, observing and giving feedback. A second area of importance is that of understanding the task or problem area and planning and developing a process that will help to fulfil a group’s goals. Schwarz (1994), VanGundy (1992) and Nelson and McFadzean (1998) all agree that these are important skills. Planning a group session can involve a number of processes (McFadzean and Nelson, 1998; Schwarz, 1994). For example, the facilitator needs to develop an understanding of the problem as well as the organisation’s culture and environment. In addition, he or she must co-design the meeting process with the client group or problem champion in order to meet the needs of the team. Moreover, the facilitator must arrange a room for the meeting to take place as well as the

[ 540 ]

appropriate equipment such as an overhead projector, pens, paper, flip charts etc. Facilitators must also have the ability to develop and manage group dynamics. According to Romig (1996), team members must improve their co-ordination and be able to co-operate with one another effectively. Briggs and Nunamaker (1996) suggest that co-operation between participants can be improved if goal congruence is established. This can be achieved during pre-session planning when the facilitator is able to ask the client group about their individual goals and how they can be synthesised into one goal for the entire group. A collective goal will encourage the group to work together and to pull in the same direction. Co-ordination and co-operation can help the group members to fulfil more complex and ambitious goals. Romig (1996, p. 63) suggests that co-ordination ``requires excellent team goal setting, work planning, team decision making, and conflict management’’. Conflict usually occurs when an individual (or faction) within the group attempts to satisfy his or her own personal goals and does not agree with the information being posited. In this situation, however, an effective group member will attempt to improve relations with the other party in an attempt to develop a compromise or a winwin solution. A competitive group member, on the other hand, only sees this type of situation where one person wins and the other person loses (Schwarz, 1994). Relationships, trust and communication can break down in this type of situation unless the facilitator steps in to attempt to rectify the situation. Conflict should never be avoided because it is a natural part of group life. Effective groups learn to use conflict in a positive manner. According to Schwarz (1994), when conflict is managed effectively, team members learn to work better together, it helps to improve their ability to accomplish their goals and it contributes to their personal growth. Nelson and McFadzean (1998) discuss group dynamics under the heading of human process competencies. These include establishing trust, managing and resolving conflict, and managing internal group relations. The last element can be fulfilled by treating people as equals, recognising and respecting the differences in the participants, addressing people’s fears, and positively confronting difficult issues. Effective problem solving and decision making are important elements in any group process (VanGundy, 1988; Couger, 1995).

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

Nelson and McFadzean (1998) suggest that facilitators must have an understanding of problem-solving theories, methodologies and techniques. McFadzean (1998b, 1999b), VanGundy (1988) and De Bono (1992) all advocate the use of creativity to solve problems. In fact, Romig (1996, p. 70) claims that creativity techniques can help participants to develop ``significantly better solutions to problems’’. McFadzean (1996), Garfield et al. (1997), Bouchard (1972) and Garfield et al. (in press) have found that some creative problem-solving techniques can encourage more innovative thinking than others. However, caution should be used since paradigm breaking techniques should only be utilised by experienced and welldeveloped groups (McFadzean, 1996, 1999b). Creative problem solving, however, is a useful method of challenging assumptions, redefining goals and viewing situations from different perspectives. In other words, it is a way of challenging the group to produce new and fresh information. Katzenbach and Smith (1993, p. 124) suggest this is important because: New information causes a potential team to redefine and enrich its understanding of the performance challenge, thereby helping the team shape a common purpose, set clearer goals, and improve on its common approach . . . Potential teams err when they assume that all information needed exists in the collective experience and knowledge of the members.

There has been a lot of literature written on the development of teams (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman and Jensen, 1977; Belbin, 1981; Gladstein, 1984; Hackman and Morris, 1975; Gersick, 1988; McFadzean, 1999a). Like team members, facilitators must also develop, learn new skills and maintain a base of knowledge. New methods, tools and techniques are constantly being produced. The facilitator needs to be aware of these so that, if the opportunity arises, they can make useful additions to any group session. Schwarz (2000) suggests, however, that engaging in professional growth is not strictly a competence but is a plan of intent or a method of developing new skills. On the other hand, Evers et al. (1998) argue that one important competency is to manage self. They suggest that managing self is ``the ability to take responsibility for one’s own performance, including the awareness, development, and application of one’s own skills and competencies’’ (Evers et al., 1998, p. 53). This can be achieved by ``gaining knowledge from everyday experiences’’ and ``keeping up-to-date on developments in the field’’ (Evers et al., 1998, p. 58). Consequently, facilitators need to enhance their learning

skills as much as their facilitation skills so that they can continue to develop throughout their professional careers. There are therefore five main areas of general competencies for facilitators. These are planning, group dynamics, the problemsolving and decision making process, communication, and personal growth and development. The competencies for each of these areas are summarised below:

Competencies in planning 1 Develop working partnerships with clients: identify client needs; clarify mutual commitment; promote the value and use of facilitation; design facilitation services cooperatively. 2 Use time and space to support group processes: arrange space to meet the purpose of the meeting; plan and monitor effective use of time; know when to move the group on in the process and when to give them more time; manage presentation and problem solving materials effectively, e.g. overhead projectors, flip charts etc.; plan and manage the use of computer equipment such as group decision support tools, integrated software packages and keypad-based systems. 3 Understand the client’s problem and develop a process to meet the client’s needs: understand the problem and the business’ politics, climate and environment; gather information and understand the perspectives of the client group; discuss and choose the appropriate meeting participants with the problem champion; design a customised process and ensure a quality product; develop an agenda and problem-solving structure stating potential tools and techniques to be utilised; develop ground rules and core values and beliefs.

Competencies in group dynamics 1 Honour and recognise diversity ensuring inclusiveness: encourage positive regard for the experience and perception of all participants; create a climate of safety and trust; bring forth the diversity of the group;

[ 541 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

2

3

4

5

6

[ 542 ]

know the impact of culture; observe and manage any discomfort, conflict or dissatisfaction within the group; manage the relationships between the participants; treat people as equals; recognise and respect diversity. Facilitate group conflict: recognise conflict; provide a safe environment for conflict to surface; manage disruptive group behaviour; mediate conflict; encourage the development of win-win situations; manage the relationships between competing factions; address people’s fears; positively confront difficult issues. Demonstrate behaviours that support team values and processes: encourage positive ideas, suggestions and criticisms when appropriate; acknowledge significant moments and good ideas; ensure no judgement occurs until the appropriate time; manage negative or destructive opinions or suggestions; encourage learning within the group. Facilitate group self-awareness: keep the group moving; recognise tangents and redirect the task; listen, question, clarify and summarise to elicit the sense of the group; assist the group in reflection on its experience; be specific when undertaking an intervention; undertake rapid and good quality decisions; recognise and understand verbal and non-verbal communication; maintain and encourage active listening within the group; intervene in the group process only when necessary; encourage the group to maintain its focus and ensure that they undertake procedures that will fulfil their goals. Encourage trust and neutrality: honour the wisdom of the group; encourage trust in the group and the experience of the participants; set aside personal opinions; maintain an objective, non-defensive, non-judgemental stance; be empathetic and respectful toward the group members; Encourage optimism and enthusiasm:

demonstrate flexibility; establish expectations; congratulate and praise people on their effective and positive behaviours; be friendly and tactful; establish a sincere and sensitive environment; display a sense of humour.

Competencies in the problem-solving and decision-making processes 1 Evoke group creativity, blending all learning and thinking styles: be aware of individual learning/ thinking styles; communicate with all styles; draw out participants of all styles; encourage creative thinking; accept all ideas; elicit the appropriate information from the group participants. 2 Employ multi-sensory processes: assess group sensory needs and abilities; select from a wide range of sensory approaches; use approaches that best fit needs and abilities of the group; awaken group energy. 3 Guide the group with clear methods and processes: establish clear context; apply a variety of participatory processes; manage small and large group processes; know consequences of misuse of group methods; intervene in the group process, as necessary. 4 Guide the group to consensus and desired outcomes: know a variety of approaches to meet group objectives; adapt processes to changing situations; assess and communicate group progress; assist with task completion; 5 Ask in-depth questions of the group participants: uncover the profound insights of the group; elicit root issues.

Competencies in communication 1 Assess/evaluate client satisfaction: evaluate participant behaviour; assess client satisfaction of process and output; evaluate facilitation process; communicate feedback to the group and the problem champion.

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies

2

Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

3

Demonstrate effective interpersonal communication skills: demonstrate effective verbal communication skills; demonstrate rapport with participants; practice active listening; demonstrate ability to observe and provide feedback to participants; recognise non-verbal cues; exhibit good presentation skills. Teach the client team the appropriate skills, tools and techniques for effective meetings.

Competencies in personal growth and development 1

2

3

4 5

Maintain a base of knowledge: develop knowledge in management, organisational systems and development, group development, psychology, problem solving, creativity and training. understand the different problemsolving theories, methodologies and techniques; understand dynamics of change; understand learning theory; Contrast facilitation methods: know a range of processes; distinguish process from task and content. Maintain professional standings: engage in ongoing study; practice reflection and learning; participate in a facilitation network or organisation. Approach situations with self-confidence and an affirmative manner. Be aware of professional boundaries ± know what can or cannot be done.

Specific competencies Facilitator processes and interventions are dependent on the level of group development (McFadzean, 1998a). For instance, facilitators may only support task-specific processes for less-developed groups where the participants display inexpert and immature social skills and interactions. On the other hand, the facilitator may support more sophisticated group processes for mature and experienced groups. As well as supporting task and structural processes, for example, he or she may also support the group participants’ behaviour pertaining to team roles, responsibilities, skills, relationship and emotional issues. Consequently, facilitator competencies must also be related to the level of group development.

Level 1: attention to the task This is the lowest level and least developed group. In this case, the team directs all its attention on completing the task. This may occur when the problem or situation is wellstructured and requires little discussion and analysis. In addition, teams who need to complete tasks quickly tend to be level 1 groups. This is especially the case in an emergency situation (McFadzean, 1998a). These teams are unlikely to need facilitation since there should be little discussion. However, if circumstances dictate, a facilitator can prove useful. In such conditions, the facilitator must respect the goal of the group; that is, undertaking the task effectively and quickly. Consequently, the facilitator should direct his or her presession planning, meeting support and interventions, and post-session output towards task-related issues. During presession planning, for example, the facilitator needs to develop goal congruence between the group members so that they will all have the same aim during the session (McFadzean, 1999b; Briggs and Nunamaker, 1996). Level 1 groups are not interested in learning about relationships or emotional issues. Although the group can work well together, these groups tend to be short term (McFadzean, 1998a). Thus, their cohesion is limited to undertaking the task rather than developing trust and openness. In addition, these groups tend to solve problems that require little creativity (McFadzean, 1998b; 1999b). Consequently, during the session, the facilitator need only intervene when the members act in such a manner that will put task completion at risk. For example, when the group goes off track or undertakes dysfunctional socialisation, then it is the job of the facilitator to encourage the group to focus back on its goals. Communication between the facilitator and the participants should therefore be task-related. Moreover, since a minimum of creativity is required for this type of group, paradigm preserving problem-solving procedures should be utilised (McFadzean, 1998b; 1999b). These have the added bonus of being relatively simple to use and do not require cohesive, high-level groups to participate (McFadzean, 1998b). Novice or inexperienced facilitators will find level 1 groups easier to facilitate since they should require less intervention and training (McFadzean, 1998a). Thus, the facilitator will generally require knowledge of task-specific issues. The competencies for facilitators supporting level 1 groups are therefore as follows:

[ 543 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

Planning ± understand the client’s problem and ensure goal congruence between group participants; gather taskrelated information from clients. Group dynamics ± focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task and goals. Problem-solving and decision-making processes ± apply paradigm preserving techniques. Communication ± communicate taskrelated information. Personal growth and development ± develop knowledge on task-related issues.

Level 2: attention to the meeting process Groups that need to undertake tasks that require a planned structure will move up to level 2. Here, the team requires a session outline in order to ensure that the different aspects of the task are completed. Consequently, level 2 groups require an agenda, a timetable and a summary of the procedures to be undertaken during the session. For example, the session may commence at 9 a.m. with an exploration of the current problem situation. The procedures that may be agreed upon for this item may include five-minute presentations by senior managers followed by a discussion period, which will last a further 30 minutes. The facilitator is therefore required to undertake a number of tasks during the facilitation process. First, he or she must codesign the agenda, the timetable and the meeting plan with the appropriate people. During the planning stage, the facilitator must ensure both goal and process congruence. If process congruence is not reached then the output of the session can be severely diminished (McFadzean et al., 1999). The meeting plan should include the procedures and techniques to be utilised during the session. The techniques should be paradigm preserving since the group has not yet learnt to develop the appropriate dynamics and trust that are required for more creative techniques (McFadzean, 1998b, 1999b). Second, during the session the facilitator needs to intervene on issues relating to the task and the meeting structure. For example, the management of time may be necessary or interventions may need to be undertaken if dysfunctional behaviour occurs during a particular procedure. Third, the post-session report may require the facilitator to communicate information on task and structural-related issues. For example, feedback on the process and the session outputs can be inserted into the report.

[ 544 ]

The facilitator for a level 2 group, therefore, will need to develop his or her knowledge on task and process-related issues. Consequently, a level 2 facilitator will need the following competencies: Planning ± understand the client’s problem and ensure goal and process congruence between group participants; gather task-related information from clients; plan and monitor effective use of time. Group dynamics ± focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task, goals and the meeting structure. Problem-solving and decision-making processes ± apply paradigm preserving techniques. Communication ± communicate task- and structural-related information. Personal growth and development ± develop knowledge on task- and processrelated issues.

Level 3: attention to team structure Level 3 groups are attentive to the development and structure of the team, as well as the task and meeting process. Consequently, level 3 groups are aware of the need for requisite variety (Keltner, 1989; McFadzean, 1998a). In other words, these groups consist of members that are hand picked in order to obtain as much of the appropriate information and expertise needed to undertake the task. These groups will be multidisciplinary, consisting of multiple stakeholders and employees from different levels in the hierarchy. A great deal of thought is put into who should be in the team and what their roles and responsibilities should be. The facilitator must therefore ensure that requisite variety has been established as well as intervening during the session on dysfunctional issues regarding roles and responsibilities as well as task and structural problems. Thus, communication and the facilitator’s personal growth should include information and knowledge on task-, process- and peoplerelated issues. The competencies of a level 3 facilitator therefore are as follows: Planning ± understand the client’s problem and ensure goal and process congruence between group participants; gather task-related information from clients; plan and monitor effective use of time; ensure that requisite variety has been established. Group dynamics ± focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task, goals, the

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

meeting structure and their roles and responsibilities. Problem-solving and decision-making processes ± apply paradigm preserving techniques and paradigm stretching techniques. Communication ± communicate information on task- and structuralrelated issues and on roles, responsibilities and appropriateness of membership. Personal growth and development ± develop knowledge on task- and processrelated issues as well as participant skills and abilities.

Level 4: attention to team dynamics Level 4 groups are attentive to the task, the meeting process, team structure and the dynamics of the group. In other words, the team is not only concerned with who should be in the group, but also how they behave. Consequently, during pre-session planning, the facilitator must also gather information about relationships and the political climate of the firm. In addition, interventions will be made on dysfunctional behaviour relating to the group’s dynamics such as conflict, free riding, dominance, scapegoating and so on (Smith and Berg, 1995; Schwarz, 1994). Since level 3 and level 4 groups are more aware of the human elements within the team, they are able to use more creative problem-solving techniques (McFadzean, 1998a). In general, these groups should use paradigm preserving or paradigm stretching techniques (McFadzean, 1999b). Paradigm stretching techniques require more imagination, thus leaving participants open to ridicule or criticism. There should therefore be awareness within the group of behavioural factors. For example, if criticism or judgement is made too early in the process, it will inevitably lead to less creative ideas being generated (Osborn, 1957; McFadzean, 1998b, 1999b). At the end of the session, the facilitator can evaluate the meeting and gather feedback on the task, the meeting structure, the participants and the group’s dynamics. This can be summarised and communicated back to the participants in the form of the postsession report. The competencies for a level 4 facilitator, therefore, are as follows: Planning ± understand the client’s problem and ensure goal and process congruence between group participants; gather task-related information from clients; plan and monitor effective use of time; ensure that requisite variety has been established; gather information on

behavioural, political and relationship issues. Group dynamics ± focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task, goals, the meeting structure, their roles and responsibilities and their behaviour and relationships. Problem-solving and decision-making processes ± apply paradigm preserving techniques and paradigm stretching techniques. Communication ± communicate information on task- and structuralrelated issues, roles, responsibilities and appropriateness of membership and team dynamics. Personal growth and development ± develop knowledge on task- and processissues, participant skills and abilities, and group dynamics and relationships.

Level 5: attention to team trust A top level group is a group that is attentive to the task, the meeting process, team structure, group dynamics and team trust. Level 5 groups not only want to see the team as a whole succeed, but they also wish each individual participant to succeed. The participants are self-aware and are attentive to the other members’ feelings and emotions. The facilitator, therefore, needs to be aware of the participants’ emotions regarding the problem or situation. This information can be gathered during pre-session planning and will be useful during the problem-solving workshop. A facilitator is not a counsellor but he or she can intervene if a participant’s emotions drive him or her to act in a dysfunctional manner. This, however, must be undertaken with great care and skill. Since a level 5 team is aware of its emotions, it is able to use more ``probing’’ creative problem solving methods (McFadzean, 1998a, 1999b). These are paradigm breaking techniques, which can prove to be uncomfortable to less experienced groups (McFadzean, 1999b). Paradigm breaking techniques use different methods of expression, as well as unrelated stimuli, in order to encourage creative ideas (McFadzean, 1998b, 1999b). For example, some techniques utilise drawing or roleplaying so that participants can develop quite dramatic output (McFadzean et al., 1998; VanGundy, 1988; Morgan, 1997). It is very important to gain feedback from level 5 sessions so that subsequent meetings can be improved. Information, therefore, needs to be gathered regarding the task, the meeting structure, team development, group dynamics and the emotions and feelings of

[ 545 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

the group. Thus, level 5 facilitators must have the following competencies: Planning ± understand the client’s problem and ensure goal and process congruence between group participants; gather task-related information from clients; plan and monitor effective use of time; ensure that requisite variety has been established; gather information on behavioural, political and relationship issues; gather information regarding the participants’ identity and self-awareness. Group dynamics ± focus on the attitudes, values, beliefs and perceptions of the members regarding the task, goals, the meeting structure, their roles and responsibilities, their behaviour and relationships and their feelings and emotions. Problem-solving and decision-making processes ± apply paradigm preserving, paradigm stretching and paradigm breaking techniques. Communication ± communicate information on task- and structuralrelated issues, roles, responsibilities and appropriateness of membership, team dynamics and trust, empowerment and self-awareness. Personal growth and development ± develop knowledge on issues regarding the task, process, participant skills and abilities, relationships and group dynamics, and emotions.

Implications for managers The competencies for the five levels of facilitation have been summarised in Figure 2. The specific competencies have been positioned above the general competencies. This is because the general competencies act as a foundation for facilitators. Consequently, these are the basic building blocks for guiding and supporting groups. The model has a number of implications for managers, which are discussed below.

Implementing the competency model According to Mirabile (1997, p. 77): Competency models provide potentially valuable information, but they’re useless if there’s no coherent and systematic implementation strategy for leveraging the information. Experience has shown that it’s often the lack of strategic implementation and necessary support structures that leads to the inevitable collapse of a new program, direction, or initiative that once held promise.

Rifkin et al. (1999) suggest that the first step in implementing a competency model is to

[ 546 ]

tailor the framework to take into account the company’s values and culture and its strategic plans for the future. Next, facilitators and the appropriate managers must study their current processes and practices and compare them with the competency model. In this way, they can ascertain whether these systems adequately support development of the desired competencies. For example, managers need to ensure that recruiting and selection, training and development, performance appraisals, succession planning, compensation and employee communication should help foster and develop the desired skills in the competency framework. Finally, facilitators and managers can use the competency model to ascertain baseline measures and performance standards, and to assess skills gaps (Wright et al., 2000). From this, educational and training programmes can be developed.

Training and evaluating the facilitator According to Robbins et al. (2001, p. 195-6): For students, early careerists, and their mentors, [the competency framework] can help identify needed courses or practical experiences that might otherwise be omitted from their development training.

Figure 2 can, therefore, act as a useful guideline for training and evaluating facilitators. Facilitators need to develop the knowledge and experience to support groups at every level. Consequently, a variety of workshops can be designed to teach facilitators how to support teams in each of the different stages of group development. There are two benefits of the model presented in Figure 2 that have a direct impact on training and education. First, it clarifies potential cause and effect relationships between competencies. For example, problems in performance at one level can be diagnosed by looking at the weaknesses at this level and at the level below it (Rifkin et al., 1999). An appropriate developmental programme can then be put in place in order to improve the facilitator’s skills. Second, it acts as a framework for evaluating an individual’s strengths and weaknesses. An individual’s strengths can then be systematically expanded and reinforced whilst his or her weaknesses can be reduced by education, training and practice. According to Wright et al. (2000, p. 1204), one of the major benefits of competency-based education is that it ``allows segmentation of material into distinct study units to meet the needs of specific individuals and groups.’’ Consequently, education can be

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies

Figure 2 Summary of facilitator competencies by group level

Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

undertaken more easily in a computer-based environment because segmentation lends itself to this mode of study (McFadzean and McKenzie, 2001; Wright et al., 2000). In addition, a facilitator should always evaluate sessions in order to improve both the meeting and facilitation processes (Sugar and Takacs, 1999). This can be achieved by creating a feedback instrument, which can be designed using Figure 2 as a guide. For instance, there is little point in evaluating variables such as relationships and emotions if the group itself is only concerned with the task and the meeting structure. This will only be valuable to the team if it wants to develop further. In such cases, it is useful to give some feedback on the group’s dynamics and the participants’ roles and responsibilities. Otherwise, the level of evaluation will depend on the level of the group and its aims and objectives. For example, according to the model, a level 1 group should acquire goal congruence.

Consequently, at the end of the meeting, the facilitator needs to evaluate how adept he or she was at developing and maintaining goal congruence during the session. Facilitators face complex problems every time they develop and support group meetings. Subsequently, the ability to think critically will significantly influence the quality of facilitator support and the group’s productivity. According to Taylor (2000), the team’s competency process should include the opportunity to assess and encourage the development of critical thinking skills. This can be achieved through the annual appraisal process, practical exercises and education. Figure 2 and the list of competencies presented in this paper can act as a guide for these procedures. For example, during the appraisal process, the facilitator and his or her manager can use this list to discuss the facilitator’s performance plus other practical issues such as resources, education, and so on. In addition, the list of

[ 547 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

competencies can be used to discuss selfassessment questions that help to enhance critical thinking skills. These could include the following (Taylor, 2000): What made you select this process for this particular session? When undertaking this type of session, what are the red flag indicators? Red flag indicators can point to potential complications. What complication would each red flag indicate? What actions would you take to avoid these complications? What skills do you need to avoid these complications? How was this group session different from, or similar to, other group sessions that have had these complications and that you have supported? What methods did you use to establish trust between yourself and the group? What did you learn from your experience of supporting this group that might change the way you practice? Share with us an example of good teamwork you have experienced. What made this a good teamwork experience? How is good teamwork fostered? When communicating with clients and group participants, how do you know when an understanding has been reached? From the assessments, the manager can ascertain what skills need to be strengthened or developed further. Consequently, a performance plan for the following year can be designed outlining future goals and an action plan to help him or her achieve these goals (Taylor, 2000).

Matching an appropriate facilitator to the group and the task Managers often ask facilitators to support their meetings. These facilitators may belong to a separate internal department or they may come from a consultancy firm or a specialised facilitation company. Choosing the correct facilitator, however, is very important. A poor or ineffective facilitator can seriously diminish the team’s productivity. Consequently, managers must choose the facilitator carefully. The choice of facilitator should depend on the level of the group and the task to be undertaken (McFadzean, 1998a). A task that requires creative ideas, for instance, will require a group that will be comfortable using paradigm stretching or paradigm breaking techniques (McFadzean, 1999b). In other words, the group must have developed up to levels 3, 4 or 5 (attentive to roles and responsibilities, relationships and emotions). In addition, the facilitator must be capable of supporting such a group. A level 2

[ 548 ]

facilitator, for example, should never support a level 3, level 4 or level 5 group because he or she may not have the experience or knowledge to assist these teams effectively. Consequently, managers must be aware of the link between the task and the experience of the group when choosing an appropriate facilitator.

Mentoring facilitators Mentors can draw upon a deep knowledge base to help train, coach, advise and guide a new or less experienced facilitator (Swap et al., 2001; Ragins et al., 2000; Higgins and Kram, 2001). Research has shown that mentoring can improve job performance, satisfaction and retention (Lunding et al., 1978; Mullen, 1994; Scandura, 1992). A more experienced mentor can therefore support a facilitator when he or she first steps up to the next level of facilitation (Berry, 1993). The mentor, using the list of competencies as a framework, can observe the facilitator at work and provide valuable, constructive feedback. In addition, the mentor can support the facilitator during the session if he or she runs into difficulties. According to Bokeno and Gantt (2000), however, mentoring should not consist of a monologue between the mentor and the proteÂge but a two-way conversation, which can aid understanding. Evred and Tannenbaum (1992) suggest that both parties should be open to learning and revising the way they perceive processes and systems. In fact, Bokeno and Gantt (2000, p. 250-1) believe that dialogue is important because ``revising the way we see something requires the existence of and the exposure to alternative and even opposed perceptions.’’ They judge this to be crucial to the relational development necessary for organizational learning. Again, the competency framework can be used as a framework for discussion, guidance and learning for both the facilitator and his or her mentor.

Summary This paper has explored the facilitation element of the Attention Stairway, which was presented in part 1. The model has provided a valuable framework for exploring facilitator competencies. The competencies have been divided into general skills and specific skills. The general competencies are ones that are needed in most circumstances, whereas the specific competencies focus on the group level. These have provided a number of implications for managers, especially in the areas of training, evaluating and choosing facilitators.

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

References Ackermann, F. (1996), ``Participants’ perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems’’, Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, pp. 93-112. Albanese, R. and Van Fleet, D.D. (1985), ``Rational behaviour in groups: the free-riding tendency’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp 244-55. Amabile, T.M. (1996), Creativity in Context, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Amabile, T.M. (1998), ``How to kill creativity’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 77-88. Anson, R., Bostrom, R. and Wynne, B. (1995), ``An experiment assessing group support system and facilitator effects on meeting outcomes’’, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 189-208. Barnard, J. (1999), ``The empowerment of problem-solving teams: is it an effective management tool?’’, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 73-84. Basadur, M., Graen, G. and Green, S. (1982), ``Training in creative problem solving: effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organisation’’, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 30, pp. 41-70. Belbin, M. (1993), Team Roles at Work, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail, Heinemann, London. Berry, M. (1993), ``Changing perspectives on facilitation skills development’’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 23-32. Bettenhausen, K.L. (1991), ``Five years of group research: what we have learned and what needs to be addressed’’, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 345-81. Bokeno, R.M. and Gantt, V.W. (2000), ``Dialogic mentoring: core relationships for organizational learning’’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 237-70. Bottger, P.C. and Yetton, P.W. (1987), ``Improving group performance by training in individual problem solving’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 651-7. Bouchard, T.J. (1972), ``A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 418-21. Bouchard, T.J., Barsaloux, J. and Drauden, G. (1974), ``Brainstorming procedure, group size, and sex as determinants of the problemsolving effectiveness of groups and individuals’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 135-8. Bray, R.M., Kerr, N.L. and Atkin, R.S. (1978), ``Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 1224-40.

Briggs, R.O. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1996), ``Team theory of group productivity and its application to development and testing of group support systems’’, CMI Working Paper Series WPS-96-1, University of Arizona. Connolly, T., Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. (1990), ``Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computermediated groups’’, Management Science, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 689-703. Couger, J.D. (1995), Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding, Boyd & Fraser Publishing Co., Danvers, MA. De Bono, E. (1992), Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas, Harper Collins, London. Dennis, A.R. (1996), ``Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information, but you can’t make it think,’’ MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 433-57. Dennis, A.R. and Valacich, J.S. (1993), ``Computer brainstorms: more heads are better than one’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 531-7. Diehl, M. and Stroebe, W. (1987), ``Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward a solution of a riddle’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 497-509. Evers, F.T., Rush, J.C. and Berdrow, I. (1998), The Bases of Competence: Skills for Lifelong Learning and Employability, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Evred, R. and Tannenbaum, R. (1992), ``A dialog on dialog’’, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 1, pp. 43-55. Fern, E.F. (1982), ``The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-13. Frey, L.R. (1995), Innovations in Group Facilitation: Applications in Natural Settings, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ. Gallupe, R.B., Bastianutti, L.M. and Cooper, W.H. (1991), ``Unblocking brainstorms’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 137-42. Gallupe, R.B., DeSanctis, G. and Dickson, G.W. (1988), ``Computer-based support for group problem-finding: an experimental investigation’’, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 277-96. Gallupe, R.B., Dennis, A. R., Cooper, W. H., Valacich, J.S., Bastianutti, L.M. and Nunamaker, J.F. (1992), ``Electronic brainstorming and group size’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 350-69. Ganster, D.C., Williams, S. and Poppler, P. (1991), ``Does training in problem solving improve the quality of group decision?’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 479-83. Garfield, M., Satzinger, J., Taylor, N. and Dennis, A. (1997), ``The creative road: the impact of the person, process and feedback on idea

[ 549 ]

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

[ 550 ]

generation’’, Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the AIS, Indianapolis, IN. Garfield, M.J., Taylor, N.J., Dennis, A.R. and Satzinger, J.W. (in press), ``Modifying paradigms: individual differences, creativity techniques and exposure to ideas in group idea generation’’, Information Systems Research. Gersick, C.J.G. (1988), ``Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 9-41. Gladstein, D.L. (1984), ``Groups in context: a model of task group effectiveness’’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 499-517. Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975), ``Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: a review and proposed integration’’ in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, NY. Hare, A.P. (1981), ``Group size’’, American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 695-708. Higgins, M.C. and Kram, K.E. (2001), ``Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 264-88. Hirokawa, R.Y. and Gouran, D.S. (1989), ``Facilitation of group communication: a critique of prior research and an agenda for future research’’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp 71-92. Hunter, D., Bailey, A. and Taylor, B. (1995), The Zen of Groups, Fisher Books, Tucson, AZ. Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), ``The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-51. Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993), The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High Performance Organisation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Keller, R.T. (2001), ``Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 547-55. Keltner, J. (1989), ``Facilitation: catalyst for group problem solving’’, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 8-32. Kozar, K.A. and Zigurs, I. (1992), ``Human and machine roles in team product reviews’’, Information and Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 149-57. Licker, P.S. (1997), Management Information Systems: A Strategic Leadership Approach, The Dryden Press, Orlando, FL. Lunding, F.S., Clements, C.E. and Perkins, D.C. (1978), ``Everyone who makes it has a

mentor’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56, pp. 89-101. McFadzean, E.S. (1996), ``New ways of thinking: an evaluation of K-groupware and creative problem solving’’, doctoral dissertation, Henley Management College/Brunel University, Henley-on-Thames. McFadzean, E.S. (1998a) , ``The attention wheel: how to manage creative teams’’, Working Paper No. 9823, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames. McFadzean, E.S. (1998b) , ``Enhancing creative thinking within organisations’’, Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 309-15. McFadzean, E.S. (1999a) , ``Using adaptive structuration theory to explain group creativity’’, Working Paper No. 9918, Henley Management College, Henley-on-Thames. McFadzean, E.S. (1999b) , ``Creativity in MS/OR: choosing the appropriate technique’’, Interfaces, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 110-22. McFadzean, E.S. and Nelson, T. (1998), ``Facilitating problem solving groups: a conceptual model’’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 6-13. McFadzean, E.S. and McKenzie, J. (2001), ``Facilitating virtual learning groups: a practical approach’’ , Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 470-94. McFadzean, E.S., Somersall, L. and Coker, A. (1998), ``Creative problem solving using unrelated stimuli’’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 36-50. McFadzean, E.S., Somersall, L. and Coker, A. (1999), ``A framework for facilitating group processes’’, Strategic Change, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 421-31. Mirabile, R.J. (1997), ``Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling’’, Training & Development, Vol. 51 No. 8, pp. 73-7. Morgan, G. (1997), Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing and Managing, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mullen, E.J. (1994), ``Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange’’, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 257-81. Nelson, T. and McFadzean, E.S. (1998), ``Facilitating problem solving groups: facilitator competences’’, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 72-82. Nunamaker, J.F., Dennis, A.R., Valacich, J.S., Vogel, D.R. and George, J.F. (1991), ``Electronic meeting systems to support group work’’, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 40-61. Offner, A.K., Kramer, T.J. and Winter, J.P. (1996), ``The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming’’, Small Group Research, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 283-98. Osborn, A.F. (1957), Applied Imagination, revised ed., Scribner, New York, NY.

Elspeth McFadzean Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: part 2 ± facilitator competencies Management Decision 40/6 [2002] 537±551

Ragins, B.R., Cotton, J.L. and Miller, J.S. (2000), ``Marginal mentoring: the effects of type of mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1177-94. Rifkin, K.I., Fineman, M. and Ruhnke, C.H. (1999), ``Developing technical managers ± first you need a competency model’’, Research Technology Management, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 53-7. Robbins, C.J., Bradley, E.H. and Spicer, M. (2001), ``Developing leadership in healthcare administration: a competency assessment tool’’, Journal of Healthcare Management, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 188-202. Romig, D.A. (1996), Breakthrough Teamwork: Outstanding Results Using Structured Teamwork, Irwin, Chicago, IL. Scandura, T.A. (1992), ``Mentoring and career mobility: an empirical investigation’’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-74. Schwarz, R.M. (1994), The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Schwarz, R.M. (2000), ``Comments on facilitator competencies’’, Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 33-4. Smith, K.K. and Berg, D.N. (1995), ``A paradoxical approach to teaching group dynamics: first thoughts, first findings’’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 398-414. Sparrowe, R.T., Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J. and Kraimer, M.L. (2001), ``Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 316-25. Stumpf, S.A., Zand, D.E. and Freedman, R.D. (1979), ``Designing groups for judgmental

decisions’’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 589-600. Sugar, S. and Takacs, G. (1999), ``Games that teach teams: tale of the rat’’, The Journal of Quality and Participation, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 54-5. Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M. and Abrams, L. (2001), ``Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace’’, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 95-114. Taylor, K. (2000), ``Tackling the issue of nurse competency’’, Nursing Management, Vol. 31 No. 9, pp. 34-8. Tuckman, B.W. (1965), ``Developmental sequence in small groups’’, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 63 No. 6, pp. 384-99. Tuckman, B.W. and Jensen, M. (1977), ``Stages of small-group development revisited’’, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 419-27. VanGundy, A.B. (1988), Techniques of Structured Problem Solving, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. VanGundy, A.B. (1992), Idea Power: Techniques and Resources to Unleash the Creativity in Your Organisation, AMACOM, New York, NY. Wheeler, B.C. and Valacich, J.S. (1996), ``Facilitation, GSS, and training as sources of process restrictiveness and guidance for structured group decision making: an empirical assessment’’, Information Systems Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 429-50. Wright, K., Rowitz, L., Merkle, A., Reid, W.M., Robinson, G., Herzog, B., Weber, D., Carmichael, D., Balderson, T. and Baker, E. (2000), ``Competency development in public health leadership’’, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 90 No. 8, pp. 1202-7.

[ 551 ]