"Facilitation; Do It With Style!"

By: Steven R. Gustafson, MS
Copyright © March 5, 1994

This article will focus on the merger of two different models that identify different individual and group characteristics. Upon closer examination, we see that these two models supplement one another very well. By merging these two models, we are then able to view the behaviors of specific individuals or the group as a whole. This information will allow the facilitator to observe the group's growth, measured against the merger of these two models. While there are many different styles and designs available for a facilitator to utilize, many of them hinge on a previous design or model. This article is about such a merger.

The first model which focuses on the individual, is the Flow Theory Model, Beyond Boredom and Anxiety, Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, (1975). This model identifies an individual's mental state during a given life experience. The three realms are; Boredom, Flow Channel, and Anxiety. The Flow Theory model is complex and refers more to the mental consciousness in relation to holistic life experiences. The model diagram is as follows:



The Flow Theory model becomes a useful tool for facilitators, by acting as a measure for engagement level, by an individual, in comparison to that individuals skills and challenge level. By targeting a balance between participant skills and challenge ability, a facilitator is able to provide the opportunity for participants to be immersed in the flow channel, unconscious to other happenings surrounding them or possible occurrences in the future. The participant is void of any agendas, hidden or foreseen. The facilitator is prompted when a participant is in the flow channel, when the participant demonstrates total involvement in the activity at all levels of consciousness. If the challenge level is too low, measured against the individuals skill level, then the participant will fall into the boredom realm. If the challenge level is too extreme, measured against the skill level of the participant, then the anxiety realm comes into view.

This model maybe superimposed into any activity that an individual might be engaged in at a physical, emotional, and/or mental level. I have found that by maintaining the same headings, a new, horizontal diagram may be drawn. This horizontal version may help to bring more clarity to the original diagram, when utilizing the Flow Theory model in adventure activities. This restructured diagram is as follows:



While focusing in on the individual, we as facilitators may receive crucial information that will allow us to become more effective. The facilitator may then alter an experiential activity, to better address the individuals needs and goals. Ideally, an individual would spend a considerable amount of time in the flow channel.

For example, if an individual within a group you are facilitating, is physically challenged, then setting the group up with a Nitro-crossing might push that particular individual into their anxiety state. For all practical reasons, the person has mentally 'checked out' of the group. The participant might be saying to themselves, "I can't do this" or "I am going to look foolish so I won't try it at all." The challenge for the facilitator would then be to redirect the activity, in a less physically/emotionally/mental challenging fashion, which would allow this person to slip back into the flow channel. Conversely, you may have an individual that is very physically/emotionally/mentally able, who is in boredom and the facilitator may need to increase the challenge, possibly by adding a blindfold or increasing the story line to increase the challenge of the activity.

While it is possible to address each of these individuals separately, it might be a more beneficial experience if the bored individual were to help the anxiety individual find a less challenging, but still supportive, role. This would help bring the anxiety person back into flow channel and the bored person up to flow channel. This peer involvement could be viewed as empowerment.

A modification to the Flow Theory model, would be the addition of a new zone entitled, "Grow". This zone would be located on both sides of the flow channel. The suggestion of this new zone brings to mind the examination of "Edge Work" in the book "Processing The Adventure Experience", by Reldan S. Nadler and John L. Luckner, 1992. The authors refer to the 'Edge' as the furthest most region of a participants comfort zone. New discoveries at this 'edge', by the participant, either expand their comfort zone or diminish it, thus redefining the participants edge boundary. By the addition of the Grow Zone and Edge Zone, the facilitator can aim the individuals to these zones and then provide adventure activities that would allow the participants to interact between the grow and flow channels. Let us restructure this new model with the incorporation of the Grow and Edge Zones.



This new model will provide the facilitator a bases, to measure where an individual aligns, based on perceptions of the individual's verbal input, body language, energy level, and commitment to the activity. Remembering the goals and expectations of the individuals, the facilitator may then select activities and/or structure a progression of activities, that would allow this individual to interchange between the in Grow-Flow-Edge zones.

This approach is useful when an individual, in a particular group, may be ready to push for a breakthrough experience. The facilitator would ideally, target that one individual into the Edge Zone, in efforts to allow the opportunity for the individual to expand their comfort level. The inverse would be providing the opportunity for an individual to settle in the Grow Zone, on the side of boredom, for a less stressful experience. This may be viewed as a resting state.

The ideal individual would have all of their experiences in the Flow Zone 100% of the time, while the least ideal individual would have all of their experiences be in Boredom or Anxiety. The probability of the ideal individual occurring is very rare. It is however more probable that individual will fall somewhere in between the different zones. It is in a facilitators best interest, to be aware of this model approach.

For reference, let us view the Flow Theory model in its original format with the addition of the Grow Zone and the Edge Zone.



This leads us to the second model in which we can measure group involvement. FORMING, STORMING, NORMING, PERFORMING, and TRANSFORMING, Tuckman (1965), Schutz (1971), & Bion (1961). This model identifies the developmental/functional level, a group is at, based on group characteristics and achievements.

1st STAGE - Forming is the first stage in which a group comes together for introductions, names, background, interests, and all of their social graces are still in tact. The members are developing leadership roles and followship roles.

2nd STAGE - This is where personal differences and idiosyncrasy try the patience of the majority of group members. Mannerisms, communication styles, lack of communication, avoidance, and perfectionism, are just a few possible factors that could ignite a group to be at odds with other members and limit the groups accomplishments. If a group is lacking in a particular skill, it is sure to be pointed out by someone in the group during this stage.

3rd STAGE - Norming is the third stage where individuals begin to reconcile differences, solve conflicts, expand ground rules, address strengths and weaknesses, and develop a finer sense of "timing" when it comes to sensitive topics. The group begins to take action and function towards common group goals.

4th STAGE - Performing is the forth stage where the group begins to function and complete tasks that previously would have been very difficult, if not impossible, to complete back in the other three stages. This is a higher level of interaction that builds on the strengths of the group and helps to improve on the weaknesses of the group. The group begins to set its own structure and rules that best fit the groups mutual needs, (4th Stage from Island of Healing, Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe (1988)).

5th STAGE - Transforming is the fifth and last stage, where the group is faced with two decisions; accept the new experiences and apply them towards future group exercises/experiences, or denounce the experience and not progress and regress in development.