One of Alfie Kohn's* latest blog posts (Transformation by Degrees) inspired me to put together a few thoughts I've been having about "participant-centered" team building. Now, as experiential educators, most of us know how important it is to build a trusting community of learners by first getting to know our learners (as the teacher discovered in Mr. Kohn's first story). After we get started how do we, as team builders, shift more (or all?) "control" of our learners' experience to them?
*Alfie Kohn is an educational thought leader advocating for less homework, less testing, and more "student-centered" educational practice. He is one of my heroes.
At this time I have more questions than answers about how to make team building more "participant-centered". In this post my intention is to light the fire. Let's see what we can come up with together. To get the wheels turning, let me share a couple of recent stories and then share some thoughts from Kohn's Transformation by Degrees.
One of the things I tried this Spring was to let go of the "harness demo" and have my groups figure out how to get them on - they were in charge of getting it done (and done correctly, meeting safety standards). Now, I did give them some information for safety reasons: The waist belt must be above the waist and, There should not be any twists in the webbing of the harness. It became a nice addition to the group's "team" building experience. It also helped, I'm sure, that there was at least one person in every group that had climbed before (having worn a harness). My groups ranged from 5th graders to adults. Yes, there did need to be fixes from time-to-time (that I pointed out), but they were in charge of getting it right.
On another note, here is a recent story from a fellow facilitator that highlights a factor of "control" (or management) with a group - time. Working with a new group (for a half-day program) my friend wanted to go around the room for (what she requested) "quick" introductions. The first few people shared their name, their role at the company and a little bit about themselves (one minute tops for each) - all was going "as planned." Then, the trend changed. The stories from each participant got longer. The planned (on paper) 10-minute intro activity turned into over 20 minutes of sharing.
So, how do we adjust "control" and still get in everything we've planned? Do we impose a time limit on things so we can get to other things on the list? Are our programs about quantity or quality? Can there be both? How much planning with participants can take place before a program? Do we (and they) have time to do this? Again, more questions than answers right now, for me.
Here are thoughts from Mr. Kohn (from Transformation by Degrees) about moving/ sharing control:
"...those of us who are trying to serve as change agents in education had better not count on teachers’ [facilitators] waking up one morning prepared to adopt radically different practices. In fact, we would do well to have some examples ready for how they can get from here to there step by step."
"It is possible to edge slowly away from traditionalism with respect to just about any specific practice."
"To learn something about the students was to transcend (or at least create the conditions for transcending) traditional pedagogy [team builders are pretty good at this part]. To invite the students to talk with, and then introduce, one another was to transcend an ideology of individualism — learning as an activity for a roomful of separate selves. To ask (rather than dictate) what the interview questions should be was to transcend the default model of top-down teacher control. In each case, what was challenged had simply been taken for granted."
"At each stage, one can move ahead only after confronting the unsettling truth that what looked like a destination turned out to be just a rest stop. There’s farther to go on this journey."
“My job,” a teacher in Ohio once commented, “is to be as democratic as I can stand.” Had she invited me to append a friendly amendment to her declaration, it might have been, “… and my other job is to push myself to be able to stand more democracy next year than I could this year.”
"Perhaps our motto should be: Change by degrees — but don’t underdo it."
What are the changes you are making (or have made) out there to be more participant-centered in your programs? We could put a "best practices" document together and share it with the world. What do you say? Add your ideas in the Comments below.
Keep me posted!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
After receiving my new Blocked Perspective activity from High 5 the other day (I'm so excited to try it out), blocks have been on my mind. Nate Folan, a friend and fellow team builder, inspired the Lotsa Blocks post back in April of 2015 - a series of six different activities using blocks. Block It Out is my latest development.
So far, in the beta testing phase, Block It Out is a table-top activity for six to twelve participants (but as you know, feel free to adjust this one to meet your needs).
Numbers: Six to twelve participants in a group - multiple groups can play.
Equipment: Masking tape, 12 wooden building blocks for each group (with pictures, numbers, and letters on the sides of the blocks), and a timing device for each group.
Set Up: You'll need a solid surface (e.g., end of a table) for each group. Stick down a 12-inch piece of masking tape on the surface you are using. Build two block towers (for each group), six blocks each, like in the first picture above.
The Challenge: The group is/groups are tasked to move the "Two Towers" into the "Pyramids" (picture 2) then into "The Wall" (picture 3) as quickly as possible. You will be giving them three attempts to get their best (lowest) time.
Let me know how this one goes for you! What needs to change to make it better? What can we add to make it better?
Keep me posted.
All the best!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
In The Chiji Guidebook: A Collection of Experiential Activities and Ideas for Using Chiji Cards (I co-authored with Steve Simpson), there is an object lesson activity called Relationships. In this activity you spread the deck of image cards out on the floor or table and ask your participants to scan the cards and look for "relationships" between two or three cards. When they find cards that relate they call out "RELATIONSHIP" and then pull out the two or three cards and share what relationship they see. After the share, the cards are placed back into the mix and more relationships are called.
For example, looking at the cards above, I see an eagle and an ostrich. They are both birds. (I cannot say they both fly since the ostrich is a flightless bird.) Or, I could pick out the lamp and the fire - the lamp can hold a flame, or they both provide light.
The facilitated objective behind the Relationships activity is to open up a conversation with participants about relationships. After you "play the game" for a while you can present questions like: What is important to you in a relationship? What do you bring to a relationship? What strains a relationship? What sorts of relationships are there? How can we fix relationships when they seem broken? An so on.
Recently I came up with Relationships Too. I wanted the interaction with the cards to be more random, a bit more challenging. I wanted to force more creative thinking sooner in the activity process (since, when I used this activity for the first time with a small group of corporate adults, I had little time to reach the "innovative thinking" objective I was asked to cover).
Here's the idea. Shuffle the deck of Chiji Cards and set the deck on the table. Then, place two cards (drawn from the top of the deck) to one side of the deck (see pictures above). Ask the group, "What relationships can you make between the two cards showing?" After an answer I ask, "Is there another relationship?" And again, "Is there another relationship?" I go on with this question until someone (or more than someone) tells me there are no more relationships they can see (Note: There is often some frustration that surfaces in the first round or two over my "incessant" question - good stuff to talk about!). After determining there are no more relationships between the two cars, someone in the group can flip over another card and place it on top of either of the two cards showing. Then, play continues. "What relationships can you make between the two cards showing?" "Is there another relationship?"
In both versions of Relationships (for me), the "easy" connections are identified right away. Then, over time, more complex relationships emerge. How many relationships can you make between the Farm card and the Rainbow card? How about the Farm and the Rabbit cards? (Is it only a Rabbit?) Again, both versions allow me to explore the complexities of relationships AND they help me emphasize that after we get past the "easy" answers, more complex and innovative ideas can emerge.
Find your copy of The Chiji Guidebook and Cards HERE.
Change up Relationships with Climer Cards. Find them HERE.
Go to Wood 'N' Barnes Publishing for a FREE Chiji Card Processing Activity HERE.
Have FUN out there my friends. Keep me posted.
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
I do like the Bull Ring activity, popularized by my friend Dr. Jim Cain. There are lots of fun adaptations of the Bull Ring contraption (including the 3-D version SHOWN HERE). And, there are lots of challenges that can be presented with any of the Bull Rings. One of my favorites is, "Hole in the Wall".
Here are my rules and the three-part progression to this challenge. (The participants in the video below are college students in a management-related masters degree program.):
PART 1: The group is challenged to move the Ball, using the Bull Ring contraption, from one pedestal to the other.
PART 2: The group is challenged to move the Ball, using the Bull Ring contraption, from one pedestal to the other. Before placing the Ball on the second pedestal, all the participants and the Bull Ring contraption must pass through a hula-hoop being held up vertically by the facilitator.
PART 3: The group is challenged to move the Ball, using the Bull Ring contraption, from one pedestal to the other. Before placing the Ball on the second pedestal, all the participants and the Bull Ring contraption must pass through a hula-hoop. This time the group must figure out how to manage the hula-hoop without the facilitators help. (This Part is shown in the video below.)
I describe the hula-hoop to the group as a hole in a wall. A hole in a wall is in a vertical orientation and our hole in the wall has special powers - it can move around within the imaginary wall but it must stay in the vertical position.
When I am holding the hoop for the group (in Part 2), each participant can tell me how high they would like me to hold it and if they want it moved at any point during their passage through it. The hoop works the same way in Part 3, but the group members have to figure out how to manipulate the hoop following the Rules of play.
In the video below the group is (obviously) attempting Part 3. Noticed they have figured out a way, following the rules, to get through the hoop together after loosening the strings - remember, when the Ball is in motion the strings must be tight. (Now, does the Ball "move" during the loosening of the strings? We did talk about this during the processing session.)
NOTE: I've titled the "Part 3" video below, Bull Ring Hooped since it's also on my YouTube channel by itself without a description. I didn't add any music to this video so you could listen to the participants work their plan.
What's your favorite Bull Ring challenge? Leave us a Comment below.
Have FUN out there!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Back in 2012 I shared Pipeline: Variation. In the post I included all the different materials and transportable objects I've seen being used for this classic activity. The basic idea is to move objects (most often round ones) from one point to another.
I also noted, it was the first (adventure-based) team building activity I learned (after the ice breakers of course) when I took my first Project Adventure training. Pipeline is still one of the most universal activities I know - it works with almost any age group (I've done it with Kindergartners using foam noodles) and any sized group (I've done it with over 100 participants all moving objects to the same destination). And the story continues....
Since moving to Colorado I've been doing some engaging contract work for Deb & David of Experiential Learning Associates. They showed me their version of Pipeline. They call it Bridges. Watching Deb present the activity to four classes of 5th graders, she told them the tools they would be using for the activity were bridges. She asked the students, "What do bridges do?" Some responses included, "They take us over dangerous things." "They save us time so we don't have to go around gorges and rivers." "They connect one place to another." I really liked hearing how the students were "connecting" to the activity right away. (I like the potential of this frontload for a metaphorical conversation about what "bridges" participants have in their lives - we didn't take this direction the day I saw Deb present this.)
Then Deb set up the idea of working together to move one marble from one point of the field to a bucket out in the field. First they worked together as independent classes and then, eventually, created one (super) long line of four classes to move one marble into the bucket. (The theme of the day included accomplishing things together.)
During this extravaganza, I saw a lot of participation within the individual classes. They split up into two or three groups in order to practice moving marbles. Then, when they all came together I was a little skeptical. I wasn't sure how engaged the students would be. As it turned out every one of the students did roll the one marble along their bridge at least once then I watched them head to the end of the line to see the end result. Since the marble movement didn't last too long it seemed they were engaged enough to all join in on the celebration after the marble finally made it into the bucket.
The (brief) processing session after the activity came back around to working together and what this looked like. Everyone had a small part in accomplishing a "big" task. It was mentioned that, "You might not always have the most exciting part of a task - like dropping the marble into the bucket - but your part is important to keep everything moving forward." A nice wrap up for 120 5th graders.
And then there were those words! As we were cleaning up our gear I asked Deb about the words written on the bridges. (Notice some examples in the picture above.) She said they are used as a processing (debriefing) tool. Participants can speak to the word/phrase they have on their bridge after the activity (or any activity really), or use another word/phrase they see being held up by someone else in the group. They are nice prompts to get people thinking and talking. I instantly fell in love with the added versatility of the bridges (Pipeline sections).
Within a few days I pulled out 12 of my wooden (corner molding) Pipeline pieces and added some character trait words (pics below). A quick search lead me to the Vocabulary.com site with a list of 74 character traits. Here are the 12 more positive traits I'm going to try out, predicting I'll add more in the near future: Brave, Serious, Resourceful, Respectful, Honest, Helpful, Leader, Cooperative, Determined, Energetic, Calm, Tolerant. I'll let you know how it goes and where I go with it.
Thanks Deb & David for sharing the cool idea.
Let me (and Deb & David) know how this works for you and what word/phrases you choose to use on your bridges! Leave us a Comment below.
Have FUN out there!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
STARTS? Just getting started with a new class? Do you have a new group in your calendar? Maybe a LARGE group? Try this interactive get-to-know-you activity. It's ready (below) for you to download and print - in two versions. One for a general population of participants or the High School class or group.
I learned this one from my friend Mike Spiller (Games of the World) way back when. I've seen a few versions of this one over the years with lots of great criteria to compare. Always a good one to get people talking.
Here's the basic idea. Divide your group (any size group can play) into smaller groups of five or six players. Give each small group one of the (double-sided) Statistical Treasure Hunt (STH) handouts you've printed out (downloads below). Then explain how it works.
Let's say we are using the "General" STH handout. The first section of criteria is worth 1 Point for each match. Let's use "One point for every brother and sister." Each player within a small group counts the number of brothers and sisters s/he has - yes, you can count step brothers/sisters and half brothers/sisters. Then each player shares his/her total. Add up all the totals. This number goes in the Points:____ column on the right side of the handout.
The second section is worth more points. For every player in the (small) group who has had (or has) braces they earn 5 points for the group - add up all the 5s and put this number in the points column. The final section has a few criteria worth open points (see the handout).
If you set a time limit for the activity (e.g., 15 minutes), have the small groups add up all their points after the time is up. You can also play until everyone has a number in each points blank (zero can be a number). After scores are totaled, there can be a winner and/or a wonderful conversation about the vast diversity your big old group has within it.
The bottom line is to get people talking and learning a bit more about each other. If you have certain criteria you want to ask your group, of course, feel free to make up your own STH handout. You can make several different handouts that can be used over a period of time. Start out with less-personal criteria handout and progress to more personal criteria handouts your groups would be willing to discuss once they get to know each other a little better.
I hope your "STARTS" are filled with adventure and amazement!
Have FUN out there! Keep me posted.
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Recently, I was a guest on the Growing People Podcast with John Losey. My good friend John and I talked about my journey as a team development professional, what my creative process looks like, my advice to new facilitators and more. HERE is the link to the full 55-minute interview if you have the time to absorb the whole thing.
For those of you pressed for time, the videos below are shorter clips taken from the interview covering a few of the main questions John had for me. I'd love to hear your feedback about my perspectives. Leave me a comment below.
Thanks for watching!!
All the best,
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Chris Cavert on What Makes a Great Facilitator (7:43)
Chris Cavert Advice to Young [and not-so-young] Facilitators (4:38)
Chris Cavert Apps and Resources [My Favorites at this time.] (5:16)
Recently, I launched my Online Store (so exciting) with my first digital download product, Are You More Like: 1001 Colorful Quandaries for Quality Conversations. In paperback form it is a handy "back-pocket" size you can take with you everywhere. And, so is this digital download - drop into your mobile devices and off you go! Great get-to-know-you group activities, still in your back pocket.
Other than simply asking and answering the thought-provoking questions (some examples from the book above) with one other person or a whole bunch of people, the book includes four interactive activities - one of which is Mix and Match. The activity requires you to create a pack of index cards (up to 40 cards, or even more, if you have a big group). First you choose 20 questions you want to work with, some fun ones and some more serious ones. Then, you write half of each question on one card - each card, in the end, will have a match.
With cards in hand, you're ready to play. GOOD NEWS, your cards are ready right here! The PDF download below is a set of 40 cards - some fun questions and some more serious. Print, cut and play on! More details about how to play are included in the document.
Have FUN out there. And, keep me posted!
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
I really enjoy hearing from people "out in the field". I especially love it when I get asked about my opinion on something I can speak to. It keeps me on my toes. Here's one such conversation I had recently with my friend Floyd. (Floyd provided us with a BOOK REVIEW on Beyond Drama earlier this year.)
I believe you'll find this read worth the time, even though the post is a bit longer than my usual. Floyd and I share our practices of muting, some of the advantages and disadvantages of muting, and an alternative to muting that emphasizes learning and not embarrassment. So, grab a favorite beverage and settle in for the story.
Floyd: Hey, Chris, Happy summer…
I thought I would take this time to delve in deeper to some things I had been thinking about, and see if I can't get some thoughts from more experienced folks I trust and respect. In an attempt to really get in deep, I am approaching each topic individually. If you are up to it, I would love to get your input.
So, this first topic is something I may have presented to you before. That is this thought of muting people who speak the most or the loudest in a community. Often when I see this it is with hopes that the people who don't speak up as much will have their voices heard by folks that talk a lot, and the ones who talk a lot will develop skills in listening and communicating in new ways. Do you have thoughts on this topic, or ways you have used it as a tool? How does it fit into the ideas presented in the stages of group development? What other questions am I not considering about this?
Chris: Hi Floyd, I do hope all is well!!
Okay, I'm going to take some time to extend this conversation you started about "muting people who speak the most or the loudest in a community."
First, I want to agree with one of your assertions. I too believe, in most cases, people are muted by the facilitator (where would the group be if they muted the talk-to-muchers?), with the "hope that the people who don't speak up as much will have their voices heard by folks that don't talk a lot." (I will get back to the second assertion you made with this first one.)
So, we both agree that the hope is others will speak up. Now, as we ultimately find out, muting someone (or more than someone), does not guarantee others will speak up. (We could start with the whole extrovert/introvert dynamics here as just one reason why.) So, as an educative practice, it's not the best tool to use to get others to speak up more. However, when you are a new facilitator (educator), it is a tool. And, you never know. I'm sure there are success stories after implementing the basic mute. To this day, I still threaten to mute when it seems like a "heads up" might nudge the group (or particular person) into a way of behaving. I will say something like this: "You know Steve, I noticing the muting bees have started circling you. They are attracted to a lot of sentences strung together by one person. If you happened to get stung by one of these bees I'll let you know. If it happens your vocal cords will swell up for a certain amount of time. I would hate for this to happen - just wanted you to know." Most of the time this light-hearted information gets the point across in that moment.
This is where I position myself with the basic traditional mute tool.
Let's go to the second assertion you mentioned, "...and the ones who talk a lot will develop skills in listening and communicating in new ways." Here's my "reaction" to this. If someone is talking so much that you must mute them so that others in the group can get some space to talk, it is "inconceivable" (to quote my favorite movie) that this person will make the leap to changing his/her behavior to be a better listener or communicator. It is more likely, when muted (if they stay muted) that they are simply formulating and rehearsing what they will say when they are un-muted.
Now, my "response" to this assertion. If a facilitator uses the muting tool, on purpose, to encourage better listening and better communication behaviors it would be educationally prudent to frontload the expectation. Here's what I would say: "If I end up muting you during the activity, meaning you cannot talk, it does not mean you did anything wrong. It simply means I would like you to turn on your listening behaviors and soak up the information that fills the room while you're muted. Combine the information you hear with the information you have in your head about the situation. Blend this up and see what you get. When you are ready to jump in and verbally share with the group again, go right ahead."
I see this way of muting as specifically "inviting" someone to experience a particular behavior - listening - at a specific time. Also, when I use this tool I don't use it only with the over-talkers. I use it with different people over a progression of activities. Then, we have another talking point to bring up during the processing experience. "What was it like for you going into listening mode after I muted you? Was there any benefit to you or the group when you went into listening mode?
Why do I mute in this way? When I share my process and say you have done nothing wrong, it (tends) to reduce the defensiveness from the participant. They are not embarrassed after being muted (in most cases!) it is simply a part of the experience. The group knows someone in the group is practicing a particular behavior and are often very supportive. By inviting the muted participant to verbally reengage when ready, I relieve myself of being the referee. As an educator, I want to encourage a certain behavior and then let the "student" practice and return to "normal" (for them) when they are so compelled. It's a more open way of learning something at one's own pace. One little step at a time.
Floyd: Thanks for getting back to me Chris. I'm excited to dig deeper into this topic!
First, to answer some of your questions, I am a long-time user (abuser) of the mute tool. a few years ago, however, I was placed in a position in a group where I was the only one not muted. This was a facilitator training at a course in the Midwest I had no experience with, but training as a contractor. The lead facilitator knew I had a lot of facilitation experience. The rest of the community I was working with knew each other (worked together in a residential treatment facility), but were unaware of my experience. As the day progressed, I realized that the lead was using a lot of "one right answer" methods and activities but, instead of encouraging an answer collaboratively devised by the community, he kept looking for me to "speak up" and solve the challenge. Finally as the group was working to come up with an answer for an activity, he muted everyone except me and expected that I would then bring the group to a good answer. This on the spot feeling has since then challenged my philosophy on its use.
Currently I use muting in a general way. I offer it as the consequence for stepping in the muting river, or as the theme of one of the islands on a triangle tension traverse, or use a half blind half mute twist to a challenge adding some unique dynamics. I have, however, stopped using muting on the loud ones. My hope with discontinuing the practice is that I can come up with something that offers groups some tools when they leave. I have come close to something I like, but it certainly needs to be refined. That is, I use an activity as a sort of pathways or grid. We get to the initiative and I will introduce safety concerns that must be addressed during the challenge, but it is up to the group to figure out how to complete the challenge, and by the end know all or as many of the rules of the activity as they can figure out.
As they experiment with things I will let them know when they have done something outside of the rules of play. So far I have had some good success with this and have noticed that the loud people might start out speaking loudly, but when the rules are nothing like they expected, they have to rely on listening to other people for ideas to experiment with, and as the community starts running out of solutions they then find themselves asking the quiet ones to speak up. As an introvert myself, I’ve noticed this invitation from my peers is often what motivates us [me] to share ideas. These ideas might still not be the solution, but everyone sharing and being heard, and everyone experimenting with ideas always gets people further. Again, needs to be refined, but something I am using in place of the mute.
Much more to the point, I stopped using the mute because I feel communities are performing at a level they reached through the storming and norming in their community environment in one way or another. When I mute a person I feel like your description is exactly what happens. That person is not likely to spend time listening (if they stay muted at all), but instead, will be trying to figure out what to say when they get a chance, or how to communicate their idea above all else happening in the group anyway. When they go back to their community environment, the loud ones will continue to be loud and heard, the ones with perceived power will continue to have the perceived power, and the quiet ones will continue to keep their ideas to themselves.
This takes me back to my years working with kids. we would take kids out of the pool to teach them lessons about behaving in the pool. In my experience, I have not seen either strategy work. It is not my responsibility as an educator to remove the challenges or to remove members from the challenge while I'm working with communities. My responsibility is to help the community identify problem areas occurring in their community, and then work with them to come up with actionable solutions they can use back in their own environment.
I agree with you that this can be a tool for new educators to use. My hope for these types of tools for facilitators is just as everything with facilitation; That they will be considered often, and from other points of view. (Today I may not like using the mute, but in conversations with others I am shown that it is a very good tool, and know why and how to use it).
I used to work with a fellow that would challenge me daily to know why I did what I did, how it affected the group, if the group walked away with the outcomes they were looking for and then some, and to find new ways to interact with groups and initiatives. This has been paramount to my growth as a facilitator. While I know this is the environment with many experiential programs, I know, and have worked in those situations, where those early tools just become the rule, and no one really knows why.
I like your ideas about offering muting and listening as tools to the group. I want to write "LISTEN" on a polyspot, and frontload it at the beginning of the day: "If anyone is feeling like they are talking too much, or have been unable to hear the rest of the community, you are welcome to stand on this listening spot for as long as it takes to reach the goal you are looking for. If as a member of this community you need to support someone else by encouraging them to use the listening spot for some reason, please feel free to offer this resource."
Likewise, if someone is feeling like they aren't being heard, or feel like someone's idea isn't being heard, this spot can be used here as well. The person can use this spot as a way of getting the attention of the group to share their ideas. While in the experience you can then process through why a community would need such a resource, and what this resource could look like back in the community environment. Man, I really like this! I can see so many opportunities for communities to take advantage of this.
I fear I have grown long winded here, and running all these sentences together may be causing the muting bees to get to buzzing.
Thanks again for your time!
Thank you Floyd for the inquiry! Let's keep it going.
What are your thoughts around muting participants? Leave us a comment below - carry on the conversation.
All the best,
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
Being a team building facilitator one of my most sought-after program requests is for "Leadership Development." As we know, we can run some amazing experiential leadership programs with a wide variety of team building activities and we can connect almost any leadership theory to the process and outcomes our groups encounter.
I just finished reading, The Courageous Leader (2017) by Angela Sebaly. (Angela, among other endeavors, is one of the owners - with Michelle Cummings - of Personify Leadership. A company that helps leaders reach their full potential.)
I've read a great deal of leadership theory over the past 20 years, moving along with the ebb and flow of ideas weaving them into my team building programs. What I really like about Angela's perspective on leadership is the aspect of courage and how it relates to leadership development. And, I love the parallels (I can see) between being a courageous leader and being a courageous (team building) facilitator. Here are some of the ideas from early on in the book that speak to both the leader and facilitator:
You will fail. You will fall down and scrape your knees, break a bone, and maybe even end up in a body case (metaphorically speaking, of course). There will be pain. Courage is the willingness to do something in the face of fear, discomfort, and pain. As a result, courage is what separates those of us who want something from those of us who achieve it. (xv)
As human beings, we are meaning-making machines. We do not leave the situation [we are in and experiencing] as data. Instead we add meaning, which creates emotion. The emotion we choose [or comes up for us] is based on the meaning we give the situation. Or, said differently, the meaning we give to a situation creates the emotion we feel. (p. 11)
Another honest realization that Angela tells us is that being a courageous leader [and I will add team building facilitation] involves pain. Most people will wince at this honest expectation of leadership [and facilitation] development.
The Courageous Leader is about being courageous in tough times. So, what are tough times, and what exactly is courage?
The fear of that pain is what stalls most leaders [and facilitators]. (p. 5)
Each of the main chapters in The Courageous Leader is filled with stories and lessons from Angela's personal experiences as a leader and from the leaders she's worked with and interviewed. The chapters also emphasize how courage, along with aspects of "pain" are vital for exponential growth and success. Here are the courageous chapters in the book:
If you deliver leadership development programs or you have the opportunity to develop leaders within your company or program, I recommend The Courageous Leader. It's a smooth engaging read with great take-aways. Not only for the leader in you and others, but for team building facilitators and their awareness of how they can present themselves to their groups. (Another Question: Are team building facilitators leaders?)
Listen to Angela (in this two-minute video interview) tell us about the "Big Temptation" - as leaders we are tempted to avoid pain, but in the long run, it often creates even more pain.
Reviews of The Courageous Leader Check out the Amazon sales page to read the rave reviews (found below the book details). Over 5000 copies have already been sold in just a few months.
Be courageous my friends! And, keep me posted.
Chris Cavert, Ed.D.
On Sale Now!
This blog is a space for hands-on programable fun - energetic activities and ideas that can be used as a means to bring people together; activities and ideas we as educators can add to our social development curriculums.
Dr. Chris Cavert is an internationally known author, speaker, and trainer in the area of adventure-based activity programming and its relation to community and pro-social behavior development.