As always, Dutch brings up a good point, i.e. that "the standard for any
exercise or simulation is to do no harm." I respect his opinion
immensely and am forever grateful for his contributions.
However, I think a clarifying/elaborating point might be useful:
exercise and simulations are tools. In the wrong hands they can do
great harm but the potential harm lies in use, not the tool itself. A
hammer can build, but that same hammer can kill - the user determines
that use.
As I think about any exercise and especially psychometric instruments,
I would offer that ANY exercise or simulation has a potential for harm.
I have seen even the Myers Briggs exercise cause a war veteran to cry in
a group setting because of what it revealed and said about him. But I
put that response more on the situational context - the intense
exercises leading to the moment and the circumstance of the moment -
more than the instrument. The psychiatrists leading the exercise
intentionally caused the moment. They went on to debrief the
situational beautifully. I ran into the man years later and he shared
that moment was definitely one of Massey's "significant emotional
events", i.e. caused great change in his value base. (That program was
transforming in my own life, too.)
Accordingly, I would emphasize Jimmy Shelton's words "The debrief is
the key and needs to defuse some of these feelings."
One of my mentors for organizational development work said, "Behavior
is real." It follows that when you evoke behavior thru simulations,
activities, and instruments, they are real. The feelings are real.
When you evoke feelings, you can't shut them off as if you have some
sort of psychological faucet.
Sometimes you want powerful feelings. I will tell you that I once had
a student tell me during the debrief of the prisoner's dilemma that "it
is OK to lie in a business setting because you are expected to win." He
was the ringleader that caused his group to lie. I spoke to him
yesterday and he told me that the Prisoner's Dilemma, some subsequent
comments from peers, and reflective thinking subsequently evoked has
caused him to re-think his position and now he understands lying is not
proper in a professional setting. He thanked me for the insight. In
another team building exercise I used the Zin Obelisk, a problem solving
exercise from the Pfieffer series that I consider to be extremely
innocuous. However, in this case an executive was pretty boorish and
competitive. We had 3-5 conversations about the exercise over the
following weeks. He and his staff report a fairly significant change in
his behavior. Which was desired.
Again, Dutch is right on target with his "standard." I would offer a
supporting standard, that if you do an exercise with a standing team or
organization, I believe you have an ethical responsibility to FULLY
deprocess the exercise, i.e. cause and facilitate discussion after the
exercise. That is why one-shot interventions that use simulations -
especially powerful ones - border on being unethical; kind of like being
a hit and run driver.
If an ethical standard were developed for OD consultants and
performance coaches, I would like to see wording that recognizes that
simulations and activities do manipulate people - teams and
organizations - and that such professionals have an ethical
responsibility to properly deal with that fact.
Best wishes to all.
Ed
Drive On!
>>> "Dutch Driver" <
Choragus@worldnet.att.net> 12/14 8:58 PM >>>
> Jimmy Shelton wrote
> I agree with others that there some very good learnings that can come
out of
> these activities and have used and will use again. A couple of
things to
> watch for would be the "hard feelings" that may be generated. The
debrief
> is the key and needs to be used to defuse some of these feelings.
Also, I
> once participated in a session where each participant put up a dollar
and
> the "winning" group took all. Although it was only a dollar, it
seemed to
> add a little more meaning to the exercise. In fact, I am still
"ticked" off
> at the group who won. I don't think I personally would use the real
money
> but it was an interesting spin.
I believe the possibility of long-lasting residual effects that have
been noted
by several who have used this exercise drives another nail in its
coffin.
I would think the standard for any exercise or simulation is to do no
harm.