Inspire

Inspire Learning Platform

Types of support and pitfalls

Different types of suppoort approaches as well as pitfalls in supportive practices

Types of support

The overviews below present different types of support approaches as well as pitfalls in supportive practices. It is not a definitive list, but something which we hope will get your own reflections going. Please consider these as inspiration that you may adopt and use flexibly to match your specific contexts and situations. 
At the bottom is a list of relevant references and resources and a short introduction to basic mentoring and the art of posing questions.

A general remark concerning support of GE CoPs: Based on the collected professional experience and expertise in INSPIRE, we understand a CoP as a group that is a "living organism" which changes over time depending on internal and external circumstances which affect the way its members interact, their appreciation of belonging to it, the conflicts that may arise, the level of commitment of each member to the group and how this exerts influence on their practices. The group dynamic is always complex. Among other things it may entail resistance, competition, rivalry, alliances, criticism, differences in their sense of belonging, higher or lower recognition of the group’s value and contribution to their practices, As Change Catalyst it is important to be aware that there is no single or predictable pattern in group dynamics and in each members commitment and appreciation of the benefits of the CoPs. It is also important to keep context firmly central in all interactions: social, economic, political and institutional factors (to name some) impact each member, the group dynamics, its advances, backlashes, impact and outcomes in many different ways. Staying attuned to these factors is a foundational value, on which all other practices should be based. On that note: We hope you may find the following useful to sharpen and focus your attention and reflective capacity.

Type of support

Directive

For the one who delivers support, directive support entails offering direct and (more or less) normative examples, advice and pointers on solutions and how to act.

Directive support is useful when those who are supported lack specific knowledge, experience and / or when examples will provide a boost for encouragement and action.

Beware of making those supported dependent and of inadvertently taking over their responsibility and initiative.

CoP-facilitator: As CoP-facilitator you might want to keep an eye out for employing directive support – in the long run, directive CoP-facilitation may backfire, as it might  boost de-pendence and skew the balance or uptake of tasks and responsibilities in the CoP and keep members from taking active part.

Mentor: As Change Catalyst you might want to use directive support with great caution and deliberation – and be especially careful to temper it with process-focused, empowering or critical friend style support, in order to ensure that the CoP comes away empowered and strong.

Expert: by default, this style of support lends itself very well to the kind of support an expert delivers, as experts are called in to deliver their specific expertise, experience. It is often wise, however, to temper a directive style with a softer, explorative offering of expertise in order for the recipients to adapt and take in (unsolicited advice, and sometimes also solicited advice, is not always easy to heed)

Process-focused

For the one who delivers support, process-focused support entails keeping the ongoing process front-and-center, foregrounding the individuals’ and the group’s dynamics, progress, collaboration, interactions and feeling-tone and energy.

Process-focused support is useful when those who are supported are in charge – and especially when the context is one where collaboration and reflection are emphasised. This type of support will boost the competence of those supported through qualified attention and enhancement of important aspects of exchanges and interactions not often in the limelight.

Beware of not taking over or of giving destructive dynamics, such as splitting or scapegoating, disproportionate attention.

CoP-facilitator:  by default, this style of support lends itself very well to the tasks as CoP-Facilitator, as an explicit process-focus will enhance the overall collaborative environment of the CoP.

Mentor: by default, this style of support lends itself very well to a change catalyst’s support in mentoring and supporting the process and progress of the CoP.

Expert: As expert it may not always be possible to offer process-focused support, as this often requires engagement over long-er periods of time than a one- or few-times appearances to offer expertise.

Critical Friend
For the one who delivers support, serving as a Critical Friend entails being “someone who is encouraging and supportive, but who also provides honest and often candid feedback that may be uncomfortable or difficult to hear. A critical friend is someone who agrees to speak truthfully, but constructively, about weaknesses, problems, and emotionally charged issues” - The Glossary of Education Reform
The Critical Friend approach is useful to sharpen the focus on tasks, outcomes, ways forward and how to identify and overcome obstacles. It is especially powerful to use in idea-tion and evaluation phases. It requires as well as generates a collaborative environment.  
Beware of what Professor John MacBeath terms the ‘inherent tension in the idea of critical friend’: “…Friends bring a high degree of unconditional positive regard. Critics are, at first sight at least, conditional, negative and intolerant of failure. Perhaps the critical friend comes closest to what might be regarded as ‘true friendship’ – a successful marrying of unconditional support and unconditional critique.” https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/change-management/critical-friends

CoP-facilitator: the Critical Friend approach with its balancing act between being a friend and a critic is good – but maybe also difficult - to practice as a CoP-facilitator, as the facilitating and managerial tasks of this position may not always provide the necessary distance to the questions and concerns at play.

Mentor: by default, this style of support lends itself exceedingly well to a change catalyst’s support in mentoring and supporting the process and progress of the CoP. The art of balancing the ‘inherent ten-sion’ of the Critical Friend is especially useful from the engaged yet clearly distinct position as Change Catalyst.

Expert: As expert, providing Critical Friend support is an added benefit, but not necessarily or always possible, especially if you are called in to offer your expertise only once.

Empowering
For the one who delivers, empowering support entails focusing on the strengths, opportunities and ways to amplify the creativity of those who are supported. Empowering is cen-trally concerned with rendering the ones supported in possession of their voice, strength, possibility, power, agency and clarity to act. It can take the shape of empowering ques-tions. But also as leading by hard-won example. 
Empowering support is useful when those who are supported may not be able to see or envision their own strengths, or possibilities or appreciate their own agency and creativity clearly. 
Beware of unrealistic boosting and unfounded flattery – this may in the short run seem empowering but will likely backfire and demotivate in the long run.

CoP-facilitator: by default, this style of support lends itself very well to the tasks as CoP-Facilitator. As the attention of the CoP-facilitator necessarily also balances prac-tical and managerial matters, this type of support may not always seem to be afforded the attention and focus as one might ideally desire.

Mentor: by default, this style of support lends itself very well to a change catalyst’s support in mentoring and supporting the process and progress of the CoP.

Expert: As expert, leading by example is an effective way to empower others. Especially when combined with openness and empathetic engagement with those supported.

Pitfalls in supporting CoPs – potentially destructive group dynamics

Taking over

Taking over entails inadvertently taking on responsibility and tasks, that rightly belong elsewhere. This especially applies to difficult and heavy tasks and complex responsibilities. It is especially difficult to avoid as CoP-facilitator or Change Catalyst when other members tend to avoid contributing or stepping in, because it may seem to be an obvious exten-sion of tasks and responsibilities that are (rightfully) defined and assigned to these roles.
Indications that the dynamic of taking over is at play include a notable imbalance in the distribution of what is really a collective ‘burden’, along with an insidious irritation or frustration felt either by the ones who are ‘landed’ with the extra responsibility or by a sense of belittling or patronizing felt by those who are lightened too much by the act. 
Possible neutralizers: Insisting on ‘staying with’ and containing the (collective) challenge in solving the assignment of the tasks/responsibilities and not give in to the internal and external pressure to solve the situation prematurely or find ways to dissolve the resulting tension. And also insisting on and taking the time to engage in open joint explorations of how tasks and responsibilities are distributed most meaningfully and adequately. 

Making dependent

Making dependent is closely connected to taking over and involves a dynamic where the position of being ‘in charge’ is boosted, but at the cost of the ones over which this charge is being exerted – who in turn risk becoming dependent on the ones in charge. This is at first a highly and deceptively gratifying dynamic, seemingly rendering the one on whom the others are dependent stronger and idealised, and for the ones who thereby become dependent, blissfully free of responsibility and the need to handle complexity and difficulty. However, in the long run this dynamic becomes confining and smothering for both parties.  It is a very seductive dynamic, and indications of this is a blind eye for the resultant power-differentials – and even of misuse of this power.
Indications that this dynamic is at play include a sense of more wants more, of an insatiable and unstoppable and continuous evolvement of needs and demands. As the person in charge, indications show as an excessive preoccupation with oneself and a sense of inflated goodness and idealisation. As the ones dependent, indications include reluctance and / or refusal to take responsibility, insistence on demands being met by others. 
Possible neutralizers: Recognising and acknowledging the limits and less-than-ideal sides of the one(s) in charge, and the need for gradual relinquishment of what they are being charged with, even if this is painful and personally upsetting. And staying with and insisting on the responsibility and need for the ones dependent to take on their own agency and complex situation. A neutralization of the dynamic of dependency may require external eyes – it is therefore good as CoP-facilitator to practice consulting with Change Catalysts, select experts or others more external to the group dynamic on these types of mechanisms in order to establish a body of witnesses and observers, thereby keep this dynamic in check.

Parallel processing

The dynamic ‘parallel processing’ presents a way to understand the dynamics of a difficult, tense and unsolved psychological conflict, that has transmitted itself to being played out somewhere else than where it originates. It can be put in motion both subconsciously and consciously (in bad faith) and has a tendency to divert focus and attention away from where it originated. As when a group of leaders end up in an inexplicable conflict, which correspond exactly to a suppressed and/or unacknowledged conflict between members of the organisation or group – the parallel process in this instance is a way for the conflict to become known in order to be handled. A constructive resolution (and potential growth) involves recognizing the dynamic and empathetically handling the originating problem or conflict at the source. 
Indications that parallel processing is at play: Parallel processing show as dynamics that seem difficult to understand or adequately describe and often involve splitting, dispropor-tionate or excessive frustration, demotivation, disillusionment or conflicts in the group – dynamics whose origins or grounds cannot be clearly defined or identified or agreed upon. 
Possible neutralizers: As CoP-facilitator it can be difficult to identify this dynamic, as it has a tendency to embroil the ones centrally involved – and here it is very useful to bring in the perspectives of a Change Catalyst, and sometimes also experts or other people external to the dynamic, who might more neutrally be able to reflect on the showing symptoms and the sources of the dynamic. A clear indication that the right identification has been made is that the dynamic is immediately dissolved in the ‘showing arena’, with a corre-sponding intensification at the source, and this may then need to be handled explicitly. 

Scapegoating

Scapegoating involves diffusing a potential tension by letting one person take all the blame and be treated as the (only) culprit. This dynamic is highly seductive as it absolves oth-ers from responsibility or blame for the underlying tension/conflict. It also has a strong tendency to win However, scapegoating rarely solves the real issues, and success in elimi-nating a scapegoat will not necessarily lead to a resolution of the situation, but rather will demand a new scapegoat. Scapegoating is in the long run destructive for a group and very difficult to repair, especially if the scapegoating is ‘successful’ in assigning blame and culpability to the scapegoat. 
Indications that scapegoating is at play include collusion and successful ‘winning over’ or convincing otherwise neutral or external parties to seeing and treating an individual as solely responsible for a complex situation and thereby absolving others. This can often lead to a consolidation of a quid-pro-quo dynamic that can be very difficult to call out and neutralize in the long run.
Possible neutralizers: scapegoating is ultimately a dynamic of polarization and exclusion – possible neutralizers therefore involve counteractions to precisely polarization and ex-clusion, such as allowing for subgrouping or allies and for exploring the different and potentially conflicting perspectives with a view to finding integrative accommodations.

Relevant Resources
Critical friends references: 

 

Questions references:

 

Mentoring references: 

 

Destructive Group Dynamics and possible neutralizers

  • Weisbord, Marvin, & Sandra Janoff (2007) Don’t just do something, stand there! Ten Principles for Leading Meetings That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, Inc.
  • Weisbord, Marvin, & Sandra Janoff (2015) Lead More, Control Less. 8 Advanced Leadership Skills that Overturn Convention. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, Inc.

 

More on mentoring and questions
– check this presentation for more.
Back Next Module