A matrix for group development
Since early 2017 I’ve been using a simple tool to work with groups in various ways. This is partially based on the ACT Matrix since it fills a similar function and has mostly replaced it when I work with group development. It is also influenced by my work with the PAX Good Behavior Game, specifically creating the PAX Vision for a classroom — what students want to see, hear, feel and do more of, and less of. This might all be familiar if you were at the ACBS World Conference in Sevilla, where I did a workshop together with Tony Biglan and Dennis Embry on evidence-based kernels in multiple settings. Our collaboration eventually led to a peer-reviewed paper.
For reference I’d like to name this matrix the “matrix kernel” since it’s meant to be used together with other evidence-based kernels. This is also a core component of my research on how evidence-based kernels can help create nurturing workplaces.
First I’ll explain the basic functions, then give some examples of using it, including working with Elinor Ostrom’s core design principles for improving the efficacy of groups —as used in the PROSOCIAL initiative.
As seen in the image below, there are four quadrants in the matrix. The upper ones are overt, observable behavior, and the lower ones are for mentalistic terms and covert behavior, like attitudes, traits, values, thoughts and feelings. This distinction allows the facilitator to model and train participants in the skill of defining actionable behaviors from less specific terms. It also has the advantage of letting the facilitator reinforce all participation by writing everything said by groups members on the board and prompt the sorting process as needed (“ok, that sounds like a value?”, “can you give me an example of how “respect” could show up as a behavior?”).
The two quadrants on the right hand side denotes what the group wants more of, and the left side what they want less of.
The context is determined outside of the matrix, by asking a question such as “To create a great work environment, what do you want more of and what do you want less of?”. The two most commonly used questions seem to be centered around improving the groups well-being/collaboration and effectiveness, as two separate matrices. With these kind of broad questions the “finished product”, in terms of matrix content, can be referred to as a shared vision for the group. The quotation marks are there to emphasize that the vision should be updated from time to time.
The quadrants or sides don’t have to be used in any particular order. But you may need to prompt the group if they focus too much on only one of the sides.
It’s important to put enough time and emphasis on the “less” part, since that usually brings up undesirable experiences that participants have had, in this or past groups. It can sometimes be a bit hard to get the participants going on this part. Asking about experiences from other groups can help start the process of sharing. Since sharing requires courage and showing vulnerability, this also helps the group members to connect.
You can use the matrix in a wide array of settings. It could simply be about how you want to make your meetings better, or to prepare/follow-up a project or delivery of service.
As previously mentioned, each of Ostrom’s eight core design principles could be explored and defined using this matrix. Using “Fair and inclusive decision-making” as an example, and then work on what the group wants to have more and less of to evolve that principle in your group.
One example of how I have used this with a group was during a weekend with a management team that had some unresolved interpersonal conflicts. I was acting as the moderator for the whole weekend, and started off by drawing the quadrants on a whiteboard. Then I asked what they thought was important to do more/less to enable constructive collaboration during the coming discussions. Making this shared vision took about 15 minutes, and the whiteboard remained clearly visible in the room the rest of the weekend. During the first session I pointed out when someone behaved in accordance with the whiteboard vision, reinforcing the “more” behaviors, and kindly reminding of the “less” behaviors that they had agreed upon.
When starting the session after lunch I randomly selected a couple of group members and asked them to remind us of things either already on the whiteboard that they found important, or add new things. At the end of the session, I asked them which “more” behaviors they had observed (or which traits/feelings/etc they had experienced), providing them with opportunities to reinforce each other for prosocial behavior.
Asking participants to predict, observe and reflect on the matrix/vision, as described above, is an example of an evidence-based kernel — a tool that helps facilitate behavior change. It is very helpful when you want a shared vision to come alive in daily activities, or any kind of matrix. Use the sequence of predict, observe and reflect in close connection to an activity to enhance its impact, for example at the beginning and end of a meeting.
Another kernel is “random calling”, done by putting the names of group members on sticks or paper and randomly selecting who will get to speak. This also helps getting everyone involved, and avoids the issue of some group members taking up too much talking space.
The matrix kernel can also be used at the level of individuals, for example by asking a question like “what do you need to thrive at work?”, or “what can you do more/less of, to contribute to a great work environment?”. This can be done before the group discusses a similar topic together, to create a shared matrix/vision. I’m sure there are many other possible ways to use this matrix kernel as well.
