By Kristin Cobble
When I first started out as an organizational development consultant, I worked with a man who seemed to have X-ray vision. When working with groups, he looked right into the heart of them and saw things no one else could see. He called out patterns in their interactions, he predicted what was going to happen and, most importantly, he knew how to help teams become more effective.
His name was David Kantor. An original thinker and contributor to the field of family systems theory, he applied what he had learned about individuals and family systems to working with leaders and leadership teams. The resulting transformations were remarkable.
For the 20-plus years I have been working with leaders and their teams, I have used Kantor’s way of thinking as one of my key lenses. His is a large and complex body of work, but an individual or group can benefit tremendously from understanding even a small chunk of it.
In my work with teams, I like to use Kantor’s group lens in a couple of different ways. First, I pay attention to the various “communication domains” of conversation that are taking place in the group, including:
- Results (Kantor calls it “power”): What is the group trying to achieve?
- Content (Kantor calls it “meaning”): What is the group talking about?
- Emotion (Kantor calls it “affect”): How are people taking care of one another as they engage in the conversation?
- Process: How is the group trying to achieve its goals? (Kantor used the first three; I added the fourth to my adaptation of his model).
Keeping these domains in mind, I then start noticing the different “action modes” employed by various members of the group, which capture four possible conversational styles:
- Move: To initiate. “I propose that we get into the Brazilian market.”
- Follow: To deepen or build on someone else’s move. “I think that is an excellent idea, and here is why…”
- Oppose: To challenge or correct another’s move. “I think it is too risky to go into Brazil right now, because …”
- Bystand (I call it Facilitate or Steward): To notice when the group gets stuck, name it, and make a suggestion for moving forward. “I see that we are going around in circles, perhaps we should do more research, and then reconvene.”
Like David Kantor, I have found that every conversation is a combination of some sequence of these domains and actions. By watching the patterns that emerge as a group interacts, I can predict the quality of conversation and, therefore, the quality of thinking in which the group will engage. I can then assess how solid the team is and where they need to develop conversational capacity to perform at a higher level.
Here are some of the action modes I watch for:
I pay attention to the variety in the actions that people take, and whether they tend to favor the same action over and over again.
- Is Suki the CEO mostly “moving” and rarely “following” anyone?
- Does John always “oppose” and never initiate a “move”?
If team members are stuck repeating an action over and over again, I will encourage them to consciously practice taking alternative actions.
- If someone mostly “moves,” I will assign them the practice of “following” three times a day. I’ll then ask them to reflect on how that feels to them, what they notice, and if, over time, this shifts their interactions with others.
I like to see if the order in which actions happen varies or if the same sequence of actions takes place consistently.
- Do many of their conversations begin with Suki making a move, then John opposing, then Kesha following John’s oppose, then Terry following Suki’s move, and then Suki concluding the meeting by announcing her final decision…yet another move?
If the conversation tends to follow a familiar pattern that doesn’t lead to optimal thinking, I will ask the group to name the pattern, help them interrupt it, and try a different sequence of actions.
I also take note of whether facilitating occurs during these conversations.
- When the team gets stuck, is someone able to name it and suggest how to move forward? Does the team follow their lead? It’s not enough for someone to simply make a suggestion. Unless the team also follows it, the team can’t get unstuck. Assessing a team’s “facilitating” capacity is one of my secret weapons to quickly determine how agile they are and where to intervene.
Lastly, I like to keep each of the team members’ cultural frames (which Kantor called “operating systems”) in mind. Are they:
- Open (orienting toward the group, valuing participation and adaptation)
- Closed (orienting toward the leader, valuing order and stability)
- Random (orienting toward the individual, valuing exploration and improvisation)
This final piece is important because when people come from different cultural frames, conflict can feel personal, as differences can be perceived as conflicting values. “Open” tends to think “closed” is rigid. “Closed” can think “open” is not results-oriented enough. Both can find “random” chaotic (think many Silicon Valley startups). And “random” can find the others suffocating, because they don’t like process or rules.
So employing this simple version of Kantor’s group lens, I invite you to think about the following when you consider your role in your team’s dynamics.
What kind of actions — and in which domain — do you take most often in your function? For example,
- Are you a “mover” in “results,” proposing ways for the group to make progress on its goals?
- Are you a “facilitator” in “emotion,” noticing when someone looks unhappy with the conversation?
- Are you a “follower” in “emotion,” highlighting how proposals will positively impact employees and clients?
- Are you an “opposer” in “content,” providing data that shows why certain “moves” aren’t a good idea?
Lastly, what actions do you take the least often?
Most people have a preferred level from which they track and enter the conversation. However, a person can have more impact when they take an action in a less predictable domain. For example, when the head of HR makes a business comment it carries more weight than when the CFO does. The same is true when the CFO comments on how a decision might impact the employees. Demonstrating behavioral flexibility makes leaders more effective.
It also makes teams more effective. When teams get stuck, if an individual can step out of their preferred way of contributing to the team, it can help to shake up the team’s ritualistic patterns and improve conversational structure, which results in better thinking, better decision-making, and therefore better results.
A recent client, whose habit was to “oppose in meaning” started practicing “moving in power” at least once during each meeting. Very quickly others began reporting that she felt more like a team player as they saw her working towards the same goals. A simple change shifted how she was seen by others, increased her sense of competence, and allowed the team to make faster progress on its goals. She didn’t give up on opposing in meaning – she still made that move when it was called for. But expanding her behavioral repertoire dramatically improved the team’s dynamic.
While it might not give you the same X-ray vision that he had, applying Kantor’s group lens of levels, domains, and operating systems can help you better understand your team’s capacity and chart a path forward to improve your efficiency. Not only that: it will also allow you and your team to express more of who you truly are.
A note about David:
David Kantor, who passed away in March 2021, has profoundly informed my work with leadership teams over the last couple of decades. I am grateful for not only his brilliant frameworks that enable lay people to get unstuck on their own, but also for what he implicitly taught me through his way of being. My greatest learnings from him were less about his models and more about the role that compassion and acceptance play in helping individuals and collectives heal. He embraced the suffering of human beings with so much love and compassion, as well as a twinkle in his eye. Everything was less scary and more manageable around him.
See Kantor’s book Reading the Room for a highly accessible introduction to his body of work with leaders, teams, and organizations.
Kristin Cobble, founder of Groupaya, has been coaching and consulting with leaders and their leadership teams for over twenty years.
Copyright © 2021 Kristin Cobble and Groupaya, Inc.