Why ‘Group’ for ‘Individual’?
Updated: Mar 24
In recent years, I am more attracted to work with intact teams rather than ‘open programs’. (By ‘open programs’, I mean that the participants actually do not work with each other back in the office.) In addition, when the focus is actually on individual development, it seems that one-on-one coaching is more effective than group work, cost consideration aside.
Yet, I am reminded the advantages of group work as I am reading a HBR article. It is called ‘The Real Reason People Won’t Change’. http://hbr.org/product/the-real-reason-people-won-t-change/an/R0110E-PDF-ENG. It describes a group process to examine individuals’ unconsicous ‘Big Assumption’ (mindset in my previously-used language) and thus ‘Competing Commitment’ which prevents us from realise change we aspire to. It is a wonderful process.
The article argues – ‘…Left to their own devices people tend to create tests (part of the process) that are either too risky or so tentative that they don't actually challenge the assumption and in fact reaffirm its validity… ‘ Simply having someone else to listen forces us to be more conscious. It also says – ‘…. It can be very powerful to guide people through this diagnostic exercise in a group – typically with several volunteers making their own discoveries public – so people can see that others, even the company's star per-formers, have competing commitments and inner contra-dictions of their own…. ‘ People are motivated by peer.
True – we cannot have this for one-on-one work.