Acting Together on Sexual Violence and Bullying: Community Collaboration Grant.

Report from Survivors of Abuse Recovering Society

Men and Women Working Together to End Sexual Violence

Gender-Aware / Gender-Transformative Facilitation Training

Partner: Chrysalis House Association, Kentville, NS.

Authors: Bruce Dienes, Ph.D, Ginger MacPhee, B.A., & Mary Lee Chaddock, B.A., B.Ed. March 15, 2014

Overview:

With the goal of enriching community ability to enhance understanding and communication in single and mixed

gender groups, S.O.A.R., Chrysalis House, and Juniper House collaborated on a project to develop a gender-

aware and gender-transformative facilitation training program. The target audience was professionals and

volunteers who were already experienced in facilitation, but wanted more expertise in applying gender issues to

their work. The program was designed to enhance skills and proficiency in working with mixed-gender groups or

groups of men and boys.

The “gender-aware” aspect focussed on recognizing that to engage men and boys, there needs to be awareness

on the part of the facilitator of what process and content will motivate that demographic to attend and

participate fully in the group or workshop. If you can’t get them in the door, the work cannot be done. The

“gender-transformative” aspect focussed on designing processes that, while safe and respectful, operates

outside of the normal pattern of communication and behaviour of men and boys, and in doing so, enables a new

level of awareness and potentially a change in attitude and behaviour on the part of the men and boys. The two-

day training process was designed with these two main goals in mind, so that the participants could learn

experientially how these worked. [See the White Ribbon issue brief by Minerson, Carolo, Dinner and Jones

(2011) for a description of these two concepts.]

The program was designed to offer thought provoking, sometimes controversial, topics of interest to spark rich

dialogue about gender, safety, and healthy communities. A variety of adult learning modalities were utilized to

encourage full and equitable participation. Handouts on gender issues (e.g. from Killerman, 2013) and violence

against women (sourced from local women’s transition houses) enhanced the content aspect of the training.

The workshops took place in Digby, NS and in New Minas, NS over two days at each location. The training left

participants with a well-defined toolkit of information about enhancing the effectiveness of single and mixed-

gender groups (See appendices). They left with increased knowledge and understanding about the role of

gender-aware and gender-transformative programming in creating effective dialogue for those involved in

ending violence against women and girls.

Focus Groups

In preparing for our two-day trainings we held two strategic focus groups with relevant community partners

and community members to determine interest in the training and to find out what skills they needed to

facilitate groups that could effectively engage men and boys in ending violence against women and girls.

The first of these focus groups took place on August 26, 2013 in Kentville, NS. There were 17 in attendance,

representing women’s shelters, local police, Mental Health and Addictions, educational institutions and

volunteer community groups. The second was held at the other end of the Annapolis Valley in Digby, NS with 11

people attending. The range of occupations was similar, plus a church minister.

Even though there were a number of people with many years of facilitation experience, there was a great

interest in becoming more conversant with tools that would enable them to do this work more effectively in a

gender-aware and gender-transformative manner. Over 80% of the focus group participants expressed a desire

to take the training. In describing their experiences, one common theme that emerged was the challenge of

balancing the process and content of groups and workshops between safe, respectful, non-threatening

environments on the one hand and challenging, effective, thought-provoking environments on the other.

Another concern was that if the process was designed only to meet the needs and communication styles

expected by men and boys, it might engage them, but not challenge them. Also, such process would likely not be

appropriate in a mixed-gender group.

This feedback confirmed our assessment that there was need for introducing facilitation processes that were

respectfully challenging of entrenched masculine patterns of behaviour (see Wood, 1994), and were based on

activities and communication styles that would work for all, irrespective of gender conditioning. We recognize

that there is a place for workshop processes that are targeted to create an environment specific to men and

boys, but given that we had only two days of training, we decided to focus on a form that would apply to the

widest range of situations. Moreover, several women in the focus groups spoke to challenges they had

experienced with communication and conflict in women-only groups also, and welcomed an opportunity to

explore processes that blended respect and challenge in a safe and effective way, regardless of the makeup of

the group.

Processes

Our first objective was to determine the necessary elements of training to help facilitators feel confident in

creating an appropriate environment when discussing delicate and often volatile topics in mixed or same gender

company. The second objective was to have the participants feel safe in the group, enabling them to discuss

these topics in earnest and come up with viable, doable solutions, which would engage men and boys in ending

violence against women and girls.

It is important that each activity (process) and discussion (content) be both purposeful and relevant. There is no

one set of exercises that “does the trick”, rather a group of activities allows the participants better to know

themselves, as well as activities that push the participants to consider concepts in a way they may not have done

before. Participants will have differing learning styles and needs, so activities need to be selected that,

collectively, will meet the needs of the group, even though all participants may not benefit equally from every

exercise.

We strongly recommend a focus on process facilitation (setting up a process that constrains the behaviour of the

group towards desired outcomes) rather than an overly interventionist, directive approach. The rational and

examples of this approach are described in the handout in Appendix 7. If we had had more time we would have

added an introductory day to highlight the empowering approach to facilitation that we teach in our Group

Facilitation courses, influenced by the work of Dale Hunter (2007) and her colleagues. The training we gave

assumed that the participants were already familiar with such an approach, but this may not always be the case.

We selected an overall agenda, and five processes, that we had found to be effective in our previous work and

covered a range of styles. We do not present these as the only correct choices, but as an example of the type of

activities that can create gender-transformative environments.

Following are the five main principles that we looked for in choosing processes:

1. Equal opportunity for participation

2. Non-competitive; cooperative

3. Allowing for and encouraging truth-speaking and openness

4. Focus on listening attentively to others

5. Encourage awareness of diversity

Each process we introduced is described below.

Framework and Physical Facilitation: All aspects of the design of the training workshop are designed with a

view to interrupting some of the common gendered patterns of behaviour (see Appendix 7 and Wood, 1994)

that can create a problematic environment for working on gender-based violence issues, especially in mixed-

gender groups.

For example, the opening and closing circles go around from left to right so that no one has to “fight” for space

to speak. If the more assertive people always speak first, it can leave others feeling as if there is nothing left to

say when it is their turn. These circles give a place for people to speak without interruption or questioning. Once

a person (even a shy one) has spoken once in a group and has had a positive accepting experience it is more

likely that they will speak again, even in a more challenging process.

We opened with an informal “café” setup of tables and chairs and stayed that way for much of the workshop,

moving into a circle only when process required. We never used the “classroom” mode of chairs lined up in front

of facilitators, as that tends to heighten power dynamics and can make people feel they are back in school.

Taking regular breaks, providing healthy snack and drinks and keeping on time show respect for all and

maintain ability to focus.

Circulating a printed agenda (see Appendix 1) gives participants full awareness of the training process. They can

anticipate what is coming and know when breaks will occur.

Holding regular opportunities for evaluation and feedback throughout the workshop gives participants

influence over their experience and a sense of agency. When they see the workshop process altering over the

two days in response to their feedback, it diminishes the power differential between the leaders and the

participants and models creating a safe and engaging environment.

World Café: [See Appendix 2 for an overview, and Brown, Homer, & Isaacs (2007) for a detailed description.]

We set up the World Café with three to five people at a table, with materials at each table to record the

dialogue in text or graphics (e.g. drawing, doodling, etc.). We chose a relatively non-threatening topic for this

first event: “How does gender impact your life?”, but one that would provide an opportunity to examine the

broad range of impact that our gendered society has.

One person at each table volunteered to be the recorder. After about 10 minutes of discussion, those who were

not recorders were asked to move, each to a different table and continue the discussion with the new group

there. The recorders stayed to continue their role. This repeated one more time. Having a small number of

participants in each group allows time for all to share.

The guidelines for World Café are: to have a clear goal, create a safe and welcoming space, focus on real-life

concerns rather than abstractions, take the risk to be open about what really matters to you (including your

feelings about the issue), encourage everyone’s participation rather than trying to impose your worldview, focus

on connecting the diverse perspectives that may emerge (rather than on which one is “right”), work

cooperatively to identify patterns and insights that emerge, and share these with the whole group at the end.

This process meets all five of our desired principles.

Starting with this process enables people to meet a large number of others in a short time in a context that

builds openness and connection. This process itself, regardless of the content, seeds further participation as the

days progress.

At the end of this process (as with all five of them) we engaged the participants in a discussion of how this might

impact dialogue in male or mixed groups on difficult issues such as understanding and challenging gendered

violence. There was excitement about using this process. The only drawback is that it needs a critical mass of

people to work well. It cannot be easily used in a small support group, for example. But it was suggested as a

great way to engage community members in these issues for the first time, or for a regular “open house” event

to continue the dialogue.

Thinking Environment: [See Appendix 3 and Kline (1997, 2009) for details.]

Nancy Kline (1997, 2009) has applied the ten aspects of the Thinking Environment listed in Appendix 4 in many

venues – not-for-profits, corporate boardrooms, individual coaching, couples counselling, etc. Many of the

norms and pressures of our culture interfere with our thinking instead of enhancing it. Her research and practice

have demonstrated what needs to be done to enable the creative thinking power of all present to be unleashed

and shared. Working on eliminating violence against women is going to take a synthesis of all our best thinking

and strategy.

The ten aspects of a Thinking Environment are mostly simple, familiar things that we instinctively see as useful,

but that we rarely see used well in group environments. We explored the resistance to using them in this

workshop and then practiced especially the Attention aspect. While these skills are simple, they are not easy to

master, as they are in opposition to how groups usually run, and they require the creation of a different culture

around how we meet and work together. They also tend to be very different from how men have been

conditioned to operate. The creation of a Thinking Environment is not about finding ways to sharpen just your

own mind – it is about how to create an environment such that all those who are around you think better. This

reversal of the way in which masculine conditioning trains men – to use tools that advance their own power –

and instead to use skills that empower those around them is a key reason this is so effective in disrupting

masculine conditioning.

Consider the table below. Note that these suggest stereotypical ways in which men tend to be conditioned in

our Western culture, not inherently how men are. [This is why we use the term “masculine conditioning” instead

of “male conditioning”. As Michael Kaufman (1993) has said, “Masculinity is not in our genes, it is in our

imaginations.”] So this is not intended to be a put-down of men, but to demonstrate how men have been

(without their consent) conditioned into patterns of behaviour that tend to shut down creative thinking. We are

not interested in “training men to think like women”, but rather to discover ways in which all humans work best

together, and train men and women how to use these skills and processes together to work collaboratively to

create a better world.

Thinking Environment Male Conditioning

1. Attention Take over and talk

2. Establish equality Assume superiority

3. Be at ease Control

4. Appreciate Criticize

5. Encourage Compete

6. Supply accurate information Withhold or dissemble

7. Feel Toughen up

8. Create diversity Deride difference

9. Ask Incisive Questions Know everything

10. Humanize the place Conquer the place

It was beyond the scope of this training to cover all aspects of the Thinking Environment and we focussed

primarily on Attention, without which the others do not work well.

Attention is very different from just listening without interruption or listening in order to figure out how you will

respond. It is being truly interested in what the person will say next, and committed to discovering their point of

view. It is not a passive process or a blanking of your mind. There are three aspects to the task, and the

challenge is to put equal focus on all three:

1. Pay active attention to the content of what the person is saying (including body language, etc.)

2. Notice your internal reaction to what they are saying (but not strategizing a response – wait for your

turn!)

3. Keep up your efforts to maintain the Thinking Environment in all its aspects.

Participants practiced this skill using the topic: How do we engage men in ending violence against women and

girls? For this exercise we used triads instead of dyads: one person talking, one paying attention, and the third

observing. We find that having someone observe the listener helps them to keep focussed and the observer can

provide feedback at the end of the round. After one round, participants would change roles. After three rounds,

participants returned to the large group for discussion and feedback.

We repeated this exercise in various contexts throughout the workshop. Participants noticed how easy the

instructions were, and how hard it was to do. The first step is obvious, but if you suppress your awareness of

your own response to what is being said (in an attempt to really focus on the person who is talking) that act of

suppression takes up energy that you need in order to be focussed. There is a skill to learn of noticing how you

are feeling and thinking, but not reacting or acting on it until it is your turn. Meanwhile, you need to remember

to keep maintaining the other aspects of the Thinking Environment (being at ease, giving appreciation and

encouragement, etc.). This takes a considerable amount of practice before it becomes second nature, but the

participants noticed that even a small degree of focus on these things, however imperfectly manifested, made a

huge difference in being able to hear and be heard.

Communication Roadblocks: [See Appendix 4 and Bolton (1986) for details.] These roadblocks would be

familiar to anyone who has studied conflict management since the mid 1970’s. The come out of the

Effectiveness Training developed by Thomas Gordon (1977). Gordon’s insight was to develop methods of dealing

effectively with conflict even when there was an imbalance of power between the individuals in conflict. Hence

his books were directed at parents, teachers, leaders, etc. Robert Bolton’s (1986) classic book, People Skills,

gives a very useful and concise summary of these roadblocks, and explains that these are, in his words “high-risk

responses”, not necessarily to never be used. The key is to practice avoiding high-risk communications when

there is conflict or potential for conflict. If one examines the list of twelve roadblocks, it becomes apparent that

these modes of communication again fall into how masculine conditioning encourages men to communicate.

Thus, practicing avoiding their use can be gender-transformative.

We did a demonstration role-play of at first showing a dialogue where several of these were used, followed by

one where none were. There was no script – the demo works best when it is as realistic and impromptu as

possible. Participants then paired off and practiced by discussing the topic: Why is violence against women a

men’s issue? We again used the triad process described above. This allowed the observer to gently point out

roadblocks as they appeared and encourage the person to reframe their statements. It was interesting to note

that while most participants had encountered this information in their previous training, doing the work in the

context of gender dynamics and examining gender violence gave it a new sense of importance and showed how

the underlying programming of a patriarchal society is deeply embedded even in the way we phrase our words.

Challenging the places where this shows up in our lives enables us to engage in social transformation on a very

personal level, and enables us to model that work for others around us.

Fishbowl with Unstructured and Structured Discussion: A “Fishbowl” process involves having a small group

meet in a circle facing one another while the larger group sit around them in a wider concentric circle to observe

the process. In this particular Fishbowl exercise we wanted to demonstrate the importance of a facilitated

process in order to create safe and effective communication of challenging issues. Men often prefer a “free-

flowing” discussion without many constraints such as designated process or designated leadership. This

informality can be effective in some situations. However, there is no such thing as a group without leaders and

without process. When these are not made conscious it tends to mean that discussion reverts unconsciously to

the “default” socially conditioned behaviour. This is usually not conducive to creating the safety and openness

that is needed to move forward on these issues, particularly in a mixed-gender group.

This information is not given to the group prior to the exercise – the idea is to try out the unstructured and then

the structured process, and follow that by asking the group (including both those in the fishbowl and those

observing) to consider the different impact of the two modalities. The second round has people responding to

the question sequentially in a circle, and having exactly three minutes each to respond. If they finished earlier

than three minutes, people continued to give them attention until their time was up. I some cases this meant

they started speaking again with new thoughts. Once the initial round had finished, people were free to share in

a less structured manner. We used two different topics of discussion so that the conversation could be fresh

each time.

Topic 1: Why do people stay in abusive relationships?

Topic 2: Why do men abuse women?

In both training locations a similar pattern evolved. In the first round, the participants who were seen to be

experts re the question (for example transition house workers, therapists, etc.) spoke soonest and more often.

In the debriefing after round two some interesting points arose. The sense of time was very different for those

who considered themselves to be “experts” than for others. In round two they reported feeling unable to cover

such a complex topic in such a short time, and they shifted from “reporting the facts” to sharing their

experiences and feelings. The others were feeling that there was no way they could fill three minutes and felt

hesitant to share their apparently uninformed opinions, but in the presence of unconditional patient listening,

they for the most part relaxed and were able to share their insights. The net impact was to create a more level

playing field and to enable people to go deeper and share from a more personal space.

We did not present either modality at a “right” way to communicate, but asked participants in what situations

each one would work best. The key teaching was that one needs to consciously choose the process for these

dialogues. Choosing to use a less structured form is fine, so long as one is doing it out of knowledge of its

qualities and awareness of the needs of the group you are working with. When asked which of the two

processes they would select for a mixed-gender group discussing violence against women, there was a great

preference for structured dialogue, at least to begin the process and set the tone.

Personality Profiling: [See Appendix 5 for an example of how the different personality profiles might impact

how you work with someone, and True Colors™ web site for more information: http://truecolorsintl.com/. See

also Meaningful conversations: Connecting the dot and True Colors (Kashiwa, 2001).]

Our goal for selecting the True Colors™ personality profiling exercise was to give an opportunity to look at

diversity issues and communication between diverse groups without dealing directly with issues of racism,

sexism, etc., which would have taken a longer workshop to address in sufficient depth.

The exercise first involved a condensed version of the questions used to determine your True Colors™ profile.

The participants were then divided into groups based on their primary color: Blue, Green, Orange or Gold. Each

group was tasked with designing an agenda for a workshop or event that would engage men and boys in anti-

violence work. When done each one reported back to the whole group. The insights came from realizing how

different the approaches were, and recognizing that each group was assuming that people would be attracted

by the same things that they wanted. This was followed by a second exercise where participants divided up into

groups of the colour they were least associated with, and were given the task of developing a promotional video

script that would attract the people who did identify with that colour. Each group then acted out the script and

received feedback from the rest of the participants. Many participants found this challenging, but it was a great

insight into the need to think outside one’s own box and take the time to learn about the needs and styles of

diverse people unlike oneself. It also pointed out the need for designing a range of activities that would enable a

diverse group to be comfortable with the process and eager to participate. The final question was to ask what

insights participants might have garnered form this as to what they might need to consider when designing

program to engage men and boys.

Integration and Evaluation: The afternoon of the second day consisted of exercises to provide opportunity for

participants to reflect on how the tools and insights from the workshop might apply to the work they hoped to

do. We used the Thinking Environment attentive listening triads to help focus the process, and to give people

more experience with that skill. The first focus was to look at challenges we may encounter in mixed gender

groups and the second was to ask, “How will this information impact your work? ”. These exercises segued

naturally into an evaluation of the training, and the training closed with a circle of appreciations that each one

shared in turn about someone ion the workshop. A more complete evaluation form was provided anonymously

online and the results from that are discussed below.

Demographics and Evaluation

Participants were asked to provide feedback from the training and responses were received from 27 people, 22

females and 5 males. They ranged in age from 18 to over 65, and the majority were between the ages of 30 and

65. The ethnicity of participants was primarily European-Canadian/White however; there was also

representation from African-Canadians, Acadians, Quebecois, and Métis.

In order to enhance the skills of professionals and volunteers in the community many community members

were invited to participate from a variety of fields of work. The majority of participants came from Mental

Health and Addiction Services, Health Services, Police/Justice, and front-line not for profit organizations. Other

areas represented included not-for-profit management, research, local government, youth workers,

therapist/consultants, students, volunteers and “other”.

The evaluation included questions about violence against women as well as comments on the process. At the

end was an optional questionnaire that included a Rape Myths Acceptance Scale (Gerger, Kley, Bohner & Siebler,

2007) and the Gender-Equitable Men Scale (Pulerwitz & Barker, 2008) that we intend to use as baseline to

compare with a similar sample of participants at the end of Chrysalis House’s Engaging Men and Boys in Ending

Violence against Women and Girls project in 2015.

Discussions about gender, safety and healthy communities had allowed for lively discussion around the topic of

violence against women and the impacts of this problem on the community. This was reflected in the narrative

responses from the evaluation form:

• All participants agreed, at varying levels, that violence against women is a problem for our community

and that it can be prevented.

• There was agreement from everyone that it is everyone’s responsibility to work to end violence against

women.

• When asked if they felt it was likely that they would intervene when hearing someone make an

inappropriate joke or comment about someone’s body they all agreed at varying levels of comfort that

they would.

• While not completely confident in having a solution to the problem everyone believes they know some

of what they can do to work to end violence against women.

• When asked to discuss the root causes of violence against women there were a number of common

themes that were discussed, such as a lack of education and awareness of the issue.

• There was some belief that lack of knowledge around the pervasiveness of the problem and its impact

on the community may stem from a lack of open dialogue around such difficult topics like violence and

sexual violence. The challenges that relate to open discussion around this issue are likely rooted in social

and cultural norms which tolerate and support violence and gender inequality. This creates an inability

for young men and women to have effective tools to step outside of social norms and can result in very

poor methods of coping with social problems.

• In order to promote a community that is violence free, participants felt it necessary to encourage open

dialogue to build community awareness and participation. They feel supporting and promoting any

current programs aimed at dealing with the problem of violence is necessary as well as encouraging and

initiating new programs.

• Promoting gender equality is seen as an important step in addition to taking action when witnessing acts

that undermine it.

• Necessary steps in having a community free from violence must include the use of prevention education

along with the promotion and education healthy relationships.

There were a variety of modules offered over the two days of training including; Thinking Environment; World

Cafe; Communication Roadblocks; Fishbowl; True Colors™. This allowed full and equitable participation using a

variety of methods. The modules were well received with Thinking Environment being received most positively

and World Café very close behind. The others were rated in the sequence listed above. One challenge with

using True Colors™ is that it requires someone who is certified as a True Colors™ facilitator and can add cost to

the training. When designing a similar training the leaders may want to choose a different tool to address

diversity issues. An excellent resource for transformative group processes is The Change Handbook (Holman,

Devane & Cady, 2007), which describes over 60 methods.

Feedback on aspects of the locations, content, process and facilitation were overwhelmingly positive. Some of

the highlights identified by participants involved a sense of safety and comfort created in the environment which

allowed people to speak freely without judgement and therefore be more engaged.

When asked for ways to improve on the modules participants asked for more information, follow up, more in

depth conversations and to continue to build more diversity among the groups. One suggestion was to draw on

the expertise of the participants more, rather than relying primarily on the facilitators’ input. The goal of

providing skills and insights which participants could take to enhance their work was successful as the impact of

the training was reported to be significant. Most valued having been provided with a different way of thinking

about their work, which allows them to feel more confident and hopeful about their work. They left feeling

more confident in being able to work with men and boys, mixed gender groups, and in reaching out to more

diverse groups.

Feedback on the format: Some suggested that trying to learn so many different techniques, while dealing with

issues that can be emotionally exhausting, and trying to transform ingrained habits of communication was too

overwhelming when condensed into two consecutive days. The workshop may work better for some as a four

or five week course given in three-hour sessions once a week, giving time to digest the information and come

refreshed for new experiences each week. However, there is also benefit to the cumulative effect of persisting

through a two day event. Each workshop planner would have to make up their minds on format based on their

knowledge of their target audience.

The overall impact was very positive, and several organizations have asked when the training might be available

for them in their area. One person wrote: “I participated in this two day program in Digby recently and can

testify without hesitation that it was a transforming experience for me. What I mean by that: I and the others in

the training program were/are engaged people, young and old, and this pilot program re-ignited for me many

dormant visions, hopes, dreams, and skills and that ‘deep yearning’ to make a difference here and now!”

Recommendations

1. Ideally have facilitators who have expertise and experience in gender issues and in engaging men and

mixed-gender groups. One key to success in such trainings is the ability of the workshop leaders to

model the behaviours and communication styles they are trying to teach. This requires a deep

understanding of socially conditioned gender roles, the capacity to not get caught up in them oneself,

and an ability to be aware of how they operate in the group as the training unfolds. It is important that

the leaders have enough experience and grounding that they can operate non-judgementally and create

the safety for all participants to engage the issues. A detailed but very readable analysis of gender can

be found in Killerman’s (2013) book The Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook: A Guide to Gender.

2. Focus on Process Facilitation rather than a directive approach. Note that there are two definitions for

“Process Facilitation”. One is simply to put attention on facilitating the process of the group as well as on

delivering content. Hopefully we all do that all the time! The other is to set up an agreed-upon process

for the group that facilitates the group in a desired direction by its very nature, thus not requiring as

much intervention of the apart of the facilitator and creating a more equal power relationship within the

group. Participants do not appreciate being interrupted or corrected and a too directive style can set up

a power dynamic between the facilitators and the group that echoes the patriarchal frame that we are

working to challenge.

If on the other hand you design a process that constrains and challenges unproductive communication

styles, and obtain the buy-in from the participants at the beginning of the training (or at the beginning of

a group you are leading) then the participants are much more likely to have a transformational learning

experience. In addition, if you are seeking to train community leaders who are not experienced in group

facilitation, giving them a framework that itself moves the group towards its aims, regardless of the

content of the group discussion on any given day, they are able to more quickly take up leadership of

the group and become independent and sustainable on their own. Process facilitation can address issues

such as equalizing opportunity for participation, focussing on affirmation rather than criticism, pacing

the meeting, managing the level of seriousness/playfulness/creativity (e.g. World Café), enhancing

understanding of divergent points of view (e.g. though reflective listening), etc.

As a quick reference, the ten aspects of the Listening Environment are a good guide as a checklist to see

if the processes we have chosen cover enough ground. Alternatively, the five goals we specified above

are a minimum list:

a. Equal opportunity for participation

b. Non-competitive; cooperative

c. Allowing for and encouraging truth-speaking and openness

d. Focus on listening attentively to others

e. Encourage awareness of diversity

See Appendix 7 for an example of using this approach in a men’s group. See The Art of Facilitation

(Hunter, Thorpe, Brown & Bailey, 2007) for a facilitation approach to empower groups, and a full outline

for a training program for facilitators.

3. Choose content appropriate to the group. One of the challenges in designing a workshop on these issues

is to provide content that is sufficiently challenging and engaging to motivate the group and help them

address the issues at a meaningful level. However, if things are too challenging, participants may shut

down or not return on a second day. If you look at the topics we chose for the training, they start out

quite general, and build in intensity as the workshop progresses. For example, on the first day, the first

topic is “How does gender impact your life?”, which is rather generic, then later, “Why is violence against

women a men’s issue? ”, and move up to “Why do people stay in abusive relationships? ” and “Why do men

abuse women? ”. Content also needs to be age-appropriate and selected with sensitivity to local culture.

Remember that the process the group is practicing is more central than the topic they are addressing, so

do not let the intensity of the topic be a pretext for abandoning the process. Part of the learning is to

practice using the processes in increasingly challenging situations. Content information can be obtained

from many sources, but the opportunity to behave in ways that challenge ingrained gendered behaviour

are rare. This is the real value that you are offering to participants.

4. Provide a variety of facilitation skills and tools. If you present only one or two tools in the training, there

is a danger that the participants will see these as the “correct” or “only” ways to achieve the group

goals. When you present four or five different approaches, they will see immediately that a) not all

approaches work for all people, and b) each tool addresses a different aspect of the issue at hand. For

example in the training we delivered, we included exercises for experiential learning (e.g. the Listening

Environment exercises), observational learning (e.g. demonstrations and the Fishbowl exercise)

engaging multiple perspectives (e.g. World Café) and diversity issues (e.g. the True Colors™ exercise).

Multiple embodiments of the processes that create gender-transformative environments enable the

participants to see beyond the specific process and into the principles used to create it. This makes it

easier for them to select other processes with similar principles but that they feel are more appropriate

to the needs of a group they are leading. Of course, this can be overdone and too many choices

presented too quickly can end up being confusing. It is important to debrief each exercise fully and

encourage participants to imagine how it might be applied in their own situations. An excellent resource

for transformative group processes is The Change Handbook (Holman, Devane & Cady, 2007).

5. Draw on the wisdom of the group. A workshop that is a one-way presentation of expertise again

replicates patriarchal assumptions about power and control. Asking participants to give demonstrations,

share experiences from their own work, or critique the process all add to the engagement of the group

in the learning process and help to make it more relevant to their real-life challenges. Evaluation should

be built in throughout the workshop, not just at the end, and there needs to be real effort to

incorporate the evaluation into the workshop as it unfolds. When this is seen to happen, there is much

more “buy-in” on the part of participants.

6. Provide handouts and links to resources. These trainings can be emotional and/or tiring and it may be

difficult for participants to remember key aspects of the training. Make sure that there are sufficient

resources that participants can review and deepen their understanding of the principles they have

encountered. With permission of the group, a contact list can be circulated so that participants can draw

on one another’s experience as appropriate.

References

Bolton, R. (1986). People skills: How to assert yourself, listen to others, and resolve conflicts. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Brown, J., Homer, K., & Isaacs, D. (2007). The World Café. In Holman, P., Devane, T. & Cady, S. (Eds.). The change

handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler. Web: http://www.theworldcafe.com/

Gerger, H., Kley, H., Bohner, G., & Siebler, F. (2007). The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression

scale: Development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior. 33, 422–440.

Holman, P., Devane, T. & Cady, S. (Eds.). (2007). The change handbook: The definitive resource on today’s best

methods for engaging whole systems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Web:

https://sites.google.com/site/thechangehandbook/

Hunter, D., Thorpe, S., Brown, H., & Bailey, A. (2007). The art of facilitation: The essentials for leading great

meetings and creating group synergy. (2nd

Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Web:

http://www.zenergyglobal.com/docs/books/

Kashiwa, A. (2001). Meaningful conversations: Connecting the dot and True Colors. Web:

http://truecolorsintl.com: True Colors International.

Kaufman, M. (1993) Cracking the armour: Power, pain and the lives of men. Toronto: Viking. Web:

http://www.michaelkaufman.com/books/cracking-the-armor-power-pain-and-the-lives-of-men/

Killerman, S. (2013) The social justice advocate’s handbook: A guide to gender. Johannesburg: Impetus Books.

Web: http://www.guidetogender.com/

Kline, N. (1997). Time to think: Listening to ignite the human mind. London: Cassell. Web:

http://www.timetothink.com/

Kline, N. (2009). More time to think. Poole-in-Wharfedale, UK: Fisher King Publishing.

Kohn, A. (1986). No contest: The case against competition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Minerson, T., Carolo, H., Dinner, T., & Jones, C. (2011). Issue brief: Engaging men and boys to reduce and prevent

gender-based violence. Ottawa: Status of Women Canada. Web: http://www.whiteribbon.ca/front-

page/engaging-men-and-boys-to-reduce-and-prevent-gbv/

Pulerwitz, J. & Barker, G. (2008). Measuring attitudes toward gender norms among young men in Brazil:

Development and psychometric evaluation of the GEM scale. Men and Masculinities, 10(3), 322-338.

Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture. Florence, KY: Wadsworth, Inc. Web

excerpt: http://www.austincc.edu/colangelo/1318/woodgender.htm

Appendices

1. Sample Training Workshop Agenda

2. Process: World Café

3. Process: Thinking Environment

4. Process: Communication Roadblocks

5. Process: Personality Profiling – True Colors™

6. Handout re Overview of Training.

7. Handout on Process Facilitation

8. Handout on Building Awareness

Appendix 1 – Sample Workshop Agenda

Survivors of Abuse Recovering: Facilitating Male and Mixed-Gender Groups

Chrysalis House and Juniper House: Engaging Men and Boys in Ending Violence against Women and Girls

Gender-Aware / Gender-Transformative Facilitation Training

Kentville, Oct 30 and 31, 2013 at the Millett Community Centre, New Minas

Agenda Day 1

9:00 Process: Introductions & Housekeeping

9:15-10:30 Process: World Café:

Topic: How does gender impact your life?

10:30 Break

10:45 Process: The Thinking Environment:

Topic: How do we engage men in ending violence against women and girls?

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Process: Twelve Communication Roadblocks

Topic: Why is violence against women a men’s issue?

2:15 Break

2:30 Process: Fishbowl with Unstructured then Structured Discussion

Topic 1: Why do people stay in abusive relationships?

Topic 2: Why do men abuse women?

3:30 Process: Review, Evaluation and Closing Circle

Topic: What will you say to others about today?

Day 2

9:00 – Process: Opening Circle and Agenda Review

9:15 Process: Personality Temperaments – True Colours

Topic: The importance of play in facilitation and engagement

10:30 Break

10:45 Process: Personality Temperaments continued

Topic: How does this enhance our understanding of gender?

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Process: Using What We’ve Learned

Topic: Challenges we may encounter in mixed gender groups

3:00 Process: Integration and Evaluation

Topic: How will this information impact your work?

3:30 Process: Closing Circle

Topic: Appreciations

Appendix 2: World Café

Appendix 3: Thinking Environment Handout.

Ten Components of a Thinking Environment

- Adapted from Time to Think by Nancy Kline

1. Attention: Attention is very different from just listening without interruption or listening in order to figure out how you

will respond. It is being truly interested in what the person will say next, and committed to discovering their point of view. It

is not a passive process or a blanking of your mind. It is paying active attention to the content of what they are saying and

to notice your internal reaction to what they are saying (but not strategizing a response – wait for your turn!) and also to

your efforts to maintain the Thinking Environment. This combination of active attention acts as a catalyst to help the person

think better. And their best thinking will enable the group or team to perform better and support one another better. Good

independent thinking emerges spontaneously – it is not hammered into shape from the outside! This component is the key

– none of the others work well without it.

2. Equality: If you regard the other person as your thinking equal (regardless of any power differential between you) they

will think better around you than if you see yourself as better than, or less than, they are. Even in a hierarchy people can be

equal as thinkers. Give equal turns. Knowing you will have your turn improves the quality of your attention. Respect

boundaries. Avoid interrupting.

3. Ease: If you are at ease inside yourself, regardless of any seeming rush or urgency around you, people will think better

and faster around you. We have bought into an equation, that can be described in many ways: “Rushed=Important”;

“Tense=Focused”; “Pressured=Alive”. None of these are true. “Ease=Quality”.

4. Appreciation: If you appreciate people five times more than you challenge or criticize them, they will think more clearly

and imaginatively. Nelson, Daniel & Lemare (2006) found that critical thoughts result in impede blood flow to the brain,

whereas appreciative thoughts enhance it. Appreciation is necessary for optimal brain functioning. Appreciation does not

necessarily mean agreement with ideas. It means respect for the person. Effective appreciation is succinct, sincere, and

specific.

5. Encouragement: En-Courage-ment means to give courage. If you champion their excellence rather than compete with

them, they will think better around you. Build courage to go to the unexplored edge of ideas by eliminating competition

between thinkers. Competition determines which idea on the table is better than another. Encouragement finds the best

ideas, ones that had perhaps never been thought of before. “Better-than” does not equal “Best”.

6. Information: If you give complete and accurate information, and do not collude with denial of the difficult realities your

group faces, or withhold information out of mistrust or competitiveness, people will think better around you.

7. Feelings: If you are comfortable in the presence of people's feelings and can avoid being triggered by them, they will

think better than if you need to shut those down. Allowing appropriate emotional release restores the ability to think well.

8. Diversity: If you are interested in the differences between you and others – diversity of ideas and cultures – they will

think better around you than if you give the impression (however subtly) that your way is best. Encourage divergent

thinking. Ensure diverse group identities. “Community is that place where the person you least want to be around always

is.” What do you need to face, feel and let go of in order to be comfortable around people who are different from you?

9. Incisive Questions: If you can assist people (using their own words) to break out of limiting assumptions, they will think

better around you. [This component requires more training than we can address in this workshop – see Nancy Kline's books

for more information.]

10. Place: If you provide an environment where you will be working together that says to everyone, “You matter!”, they will

think better. When we respect and fulfil our physical needs, we think better.

Appendix 4: Process: Communication Roadblocks

COMMON COMMUNICATION SPOILERS

From People Skills by Robert Bolton, Ph.D.

Sue Maxwell, a woman in her mid-thirties, sighed as she said again. We took the family to visit my parents over

Thanksgiving have been under heavy emotional and financial pressure this year and I resolved to be very gentle and caring

with them. But they started criticizing how I handle the kids and I got mad. I told them they didn't do such a great job with

me and my brother. We argued for half an hour. All three of us felt very hurt.

"This type of thing happens each time I return home," Sue continued. "Even though they have no right to say some of

the things they do, I love and want our visits to be pleasant. But somehow, we almost always say things hurt each other."

Sue's experience is, unfortunately, a common one. Whether it is with parents, children, bosses, employees, colleagues,

friends, or "all of the above," people usually long for better interpersonal results than they commonly achieve.

Since there is in most of us a strong desire for effective communication, why is it so rare and difficult to establish? One

of the prime reasons is that, without realizing it, people typically inject communication barriers into their conversations. It

has been estimated that these barriers are used over 90 percent of the time when one or both parties to a conversation has

a problem to be dealt with or a need to be fulfilled.2

Communication barriers are high-risk responses—that is, responses whose impact on communication is frequently

(though not inevitably) negative. These roadblocks are more likely to be destructive when one or more persons who are

interacting are under stress. The unfortunate effects of communication blocks are many and varied. They frequently

diminish the other's self-esteem. They tend to trigger defensiveness, resistance, and resentment. They can lead to

dependency, withdrawal, feelings of defeat or of inadequacy. They decrease the likelihood that the other will find her own

solution to her problem. Each roadblock is a "feeling-blocker"; it reduces the likelihood that the other will constructively

express her true feelings. Because communication roadblocks carry a high risk of fostering these negative results, their

repeated use can cause permanent damage to a relationship.

What specific barriers are apt to hinder a conversation? Experts in interpersonal communication like Carl Rogers,

Reuel Howe, Haim Ginott, and Jack Gibb3 have pinpointed responses that tend to block conversation. More recently,

Thomas Gordon devised a comprehensive list that he calls the "dirty dozen" of communication spoilers.

These undesirable responses include:

Criticizing: Making a negative evaluation of the other person, her actions, or attitudes. "You brought it on yourself—

you've got nobody else to blame for the' mess you are in."

Name-calling: "Putting down" or stereotyping the other person "What a dope!" "Just like a woman...." "Egghead."

"You hardhats are all alike." "You are just another insensitive male."

Diagnosing: Analyzing why a person is behaving as she is; playing amateur psychiatrist. "I can read you like a book—

you are just doing that to irritate me." "Just because you went to college, you think you are better than I."

Praising Evaluatively: Making a positive judgment of the other person, her actions, or attitudes. "You are always such

a good girl. I know you will help me with the lawn tonight." Teacher to teenage student: "You are a great poet." (Many

people find it difficult to believe that some of the barriers like praise are high-risk responses. Later, I will explain why I

believe repeated use of these responses can be detrimental to relationships.)

Ordering: Commanding the other person to do what you want to have done. "Do your homework right now." "Why?!

Because I said so...."

Threatening: Trying to control the other's actions by warning of negative consequences that you will instigate. "You'll

do it or else ..." "Stop that noise right now or I will keep the whole class after school."

Moralizing: Telling another person what she should do. "Preaching" at the other. "You shouldn't get a divorce; think of

what will happen to the children." "You ought to tell him you are sorry."

Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning: Closed-ended questions are often barriers in a relationship; these are those

that can usually be answered in a few words—often with a simple yes or no. "When did it happen?" "Are you sorry

that you did it?"

Advising: Giving the other person a solution to her problems. "If I were you, I'd sure tell him off" "That

's an easy one to

solve. First ..."

Diverting: Pushing the other's problems aside through distraction. "Don't dwell on it, Sarah. Let's talk about something

more pleasant." Or; "Think you've got it bad?! Let me tell you what happened to me."

Logical argument: Attempting to convince the other with an appeal to facts or logic, usually without consideration of

the emotional factors involved. "Look at the facts; if you hadn't bought that new car, we could have made the down

payment on the house."

Reassuring: Trying to stop the other person from feeling the negative emotions she is experiencing. "Don't worry, it is

always darkest before the dawn." "It will all work out OK in the end."

WHY ROADBLOCKS ARE HIGH-RISK RESPONSES

At first glance, some of these barriers seem quite innocent. Praise, reassurance, logical responses, questions, and well-

intentioned advice are often thought of as positive factors in interpersonal relations. Why, then, do behavioral scientists

think of these twelve types of responses as potentially damaging to communication?

These twelve ways of responding are viewed as high-risk responses, rather than inevitably destructive elements of all

communication. They are more likely to block conversation, thwart the other person's problem-solving efficiency, and

increase the emotional distance between people than other ways of communicating. However, at times, people use these

responses with little or no obvious negative effect.

If one or two persons are experiencing a strong need or wrestling with a difficult problem, the likelihood of negative

impact from roadblocks increases greatly. A useful guideline to follow is, "Whenever you or the other person is experiencing

stress, avoid all roadblocks." Unfortunately, it is precisely when stress is experienced that we are most likely to use these

high-risk responses.

The twelve barriers to communication can be divided into three major categories: judgment, sending solutions, and

avoidance of the other's concerns:

JUDGING

1. Criticizing

2. Name-calling

3. Diagnosing

4. Praising Evaluatively

SENDING SOLUTIONS

5. Ordering

6. Threatening

7. Moralizing

8. Excessive/Inappropriate Questioning

9. Advising

AVOIDING THE OTHER'S CONCERNS

10. Diverting

11. Logical Argument

12. Reassuring

Roadblock #13: Telling others they are using roadblocks!

Appendix 5 – True Colors™: Personality Profiling

STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH EACH COLOR by Bruce Maxwell, Copyright © 2007

Strategies to improve your relationship with a co-worker:

GREEN

• Once you have identified the needs, problems, or challenges and are ready to present possible solutions, start

with the big picture to gain consensus on the goals, intentions, and objectives.

• Demonstrate how your solutions are innovative, visionary, and creative.

• Be prepared to provide the technical data on solutions you suggest.

• Have your most articulate person present the proposal.

• Make sure the solution is logical, solves the problem, and gives good answers.

• If possible tie your solution to existing company resources to help them justify those resources.

• Whenever possible, present a written plan beforehand to allow Greens time to think about your ideas.

• Don’t expect to convince them the first time. They will need time to reflect and consider.

• Talk one-on-one or in small groups.

GOLD

• Be punctual. If you set an appointment for a meeting or a phone call, don’t be late.

• Establish a clearly defined goal for your meeting and track your success in reaching that goal.

• If they don’t have a pre-defined goal, help them set one.

• Be dependable. Whether you are delivering a presentation or samples of your products, if you say you will do

something – Do it!

• Recognize their accomplishments and expertise.

• Come prepared with a plan that can be modified on the spot as necessary.

• Work out the details of your plan before you present it.

• Arrange your presentation in a logical way with a beginning, a sequence of points, and an end.

• Include the pros and cons.

• Give an explicit statement of the problem to be solved.

• Be honest, ethical and moral. Don’t suggest that you could cut corners to reduce the cost.

• Show integrity.

• Be cost-effective. Show them how the use f your products or services will enhance their effectiveness and that

doing so will increase their financial position.

BLUE

• Be optimistic. Focus on the good that this decision will do for all concerned. Minimize the negative impact.

• Be real and sincere. Put your own ego away.

• Show your compassion. Get in touch with your own Blue side.

• Be sensitive to how your statements are received. Test for buy-in and significance.

• Start your presentation with a concern for the people involved.

• Include people’s feelings among the causes/facts to be considered.

• Present the team building aspects of your solution.

• Be sensitive to the feelings of the team members. Make sure you thank them for their contributions.

ORANGE

• Project energy and enthusiasm.

• Present information about your company in an exciting, energetic way.

• Show how solving their problems will be an adventure.

• Be action-oriented.

• Clearly identify the positive results of utilizing your product or service.

• Identify the full spectrum of possibilities, from the risky ones to the conservative options and let them choose their

comfort level.

• Give them many options demonstrating the flexibility of your company, your products/services, and your customer

service.

• Listen for information you might have forgotten to consider. Revise your idea to take that information into

account.

• Clearly outline the next action to be taken.

• Be out-going, engaging, and humorous.

• Help them realize that working with you will provide a job well done.

Behaviors that would cause stress in your co-worker

GREEN

• Being boxed in. Whenever possible provide three options and let them make the final decision on which way to go.

• Tedium. Greens dislike repetition, so refrain from processes that are boring and obvious.

• Strive for innovation and far-reaching.

• Ignorance. Take the time to do sufficient research so that you will not be caught unaware. Verify your facts before

you present a proposal. Greens love to tear your presentation to shreds with facts you were unaware of but should

have known.

• Distractions. Focus on the key components needed for your solutions. Resist the temptation to go off on tangents

and cover interesting but unrelated information. You may never get back to your proposal.

GOLD

• Interruptions. Turn off your cell phone. Pick a time for your meeting when the prospect will be less likely to be

rushed.

• Insufficient time. Do not let yourself run out of time. Set clearly achievable goals for the time you have been

allotted.

• Change of plan. Do not change your plans. If you set a time for a meeting or a phone call, be there on time. Present

what you said you were there to talk about. Do not try to change the plan at the last minute.

• Chaos. Come prepared with all the materials you will need organized in an orderly way with everything easy to

hand.

• Indecisiveness. Be a strong leader. Have a step by step plan and follow the plan.

• No Follow-Through. Make sure to check back later when you said you would to see what next step they would like

to take.

BLUE

• Disharmony. Be aware of the other personality types involved and don’t allow conflict to occur.

• Disrespect. Be respectful of age, seniority, and leadership roles.

• Arrogance and rudeness. Create an environment of everyone working together to solve the organization’s

problems. Don’t present yourself as the know-it-all who is here to save the day.

• Lack of Support. Make sure that you also present how your organization will support them after the sale and your

excellent customer service.

ORANGE

• Negativity. Always be up-beat and positive. If you’re having a bad day, stay home.

• Deadlines. As much as possible, let them define the deadlines and then be flexible.

• Waiting. Get your ducks in order and be ready to deliver. Provide a proposal that is results-oriented, flexible,

effective, achievable and immediately deliverable. If you can’t do that, break it down in pieces that are deliverable.

• Paperwork. Have your people take care of the paperwork. Try not to set yourself up to be waiting for paperwork

from the client.

Appendix 6 – Handout re Overview of Training

Survivors of Abuse Recovering: Facilitating Male and Mixed-Gender Groups

Chrysalis House and Juniper House: Engaging Men and Boys in Ending Violence against Women and Girls

Gender-Aware / Gender-Transformative Facilitation Training New Minas, Oct 30 and 31, Millet Centre or Digby, Nov 20 and 21, 2013 at NSCC Digby

The Facilitation Team:

Bruce Dienes, Ph.D., Project Coordinator, Engaging Men and Boys in Ending Violence against Women and Girls.

Bruce has a background in Community Psychology and has worked with groups of men for over 30 years. He has taught

courses on “Perspectives on Masculinity” and “Issues in Support Group Leadership” at the University of Illinois and on

“Perspectives on Masculinity” and “Community Psychology” at Mount Saint Vincent University. He is a trainer for peer

counsellors and group facilitators for S.O.A.R.

Rhonda Fraser, B.A. (Women’s Studies), M.A. (Sociology). Rhonda has 17 years’ experience working with Chrysalis House

and is currently the Executive Director. She is Co-Chair of the Transition House Association of Nova Scotia. She has

facilitated professionals and community groups and helped develop the Rural Women’s Forum and Leadership for Change

with young women. http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/chrysalis/

Angela Johnston, B.A. is one of the founders of Compassion Action and has 10 years’ experience delivering presentations,

facilitating workshops and developing community organizations. See http://www.compassionaction.ca

Lori Andrews is certified with the Canadian Professional Counsellors Association and has 10 years’ experience as an

Outreach Worker with Juniper House. http://www.juniperhouse.ca/

Mary Lee Chaddock, B.A., B.Ed. has 25 years teaching experience with a focus on special needs children. She is a group

facilitator and a trainer for peer counsellors with S.O.A.R. as well as having run peer counselling programs in high schools.

http://survivorsofabuserecovering.ca

Gender-Aware: Being aware of the differences in gender conditioning that shape how people communicate, what kind of

space they need to work in and so how you need to design events and environments.

Gender-Transformative: Designing events and environments in such a way that they gently challenge conditioned gendered

behaviour and thinking so that participants develop an increased range of choices as to how they interact. “Masculinity or

Femininity is not in our genes, it is in our imaginations.”

Engaging Men and Boys: Finding ways to reach out to males in a way that excites and motivates them to become involved

in anti-violence work. This requires environments where they feel welcome and respected, and also challenged and

provided with the skills and experience they need to do this work. Engaging males also means deconstructing some of the

myths and misinformation about men, for example the quote: “While it is true that most violence is perpetrated by men, it

is not true that most men perpetrate violence.” has proved to be a powerful ice-breaker in opening doors for men to work

together with women.

Confronting Sexism: Part of the journey towards partnership in this work is to assist men in becoming aware of male

privilege and structured discrimination against women that still persists in our society. When transforming an oppressive

society one key challenge is to find ways to enable those in the oppressor role to become conscious of this role that has

been put upon them without their consent, see how it is dehumanizing to all involved, including themselves, and to provide

tools to enable them to make different choices to replace the thoughts and behaviours that are problematic. To be

effective, this needs to be seen as also a men’s issue and for men to take leadership in advocating for men to engage and

persist in this work. This week’s training is the beginning of creating an environment in which this work can move forward.

Thanks to Nova Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women for funding this training!

Appendix 7 – Handout on Process Facilitation

Process Facilitation with a Men’s Group

Often facilitators will attempt to equalize participation or set a tone in a group by intervening individually with

group members. For example, “I know you are eager to share, Joe, but since you have already spoken three

times, let’s give Fred a chance to speak as he hasn’t said anything yet.” This set us three potentially problematic

dynamics:

1) It enshrines the facilitator as a person with power over the group, making it less likely that group members

will take responsibility for developing and maintaining a group culture.

2) It publicly interrupts a group member, possibly causing them to feel a loss of face and possibly lessening their

sense of engagement with the group. 3) It puts someone (Fred) on the spot to share before he may be ready.

Process facilitation takes an alternate tack: A process is designed such that it creates an environment in which

the group will flourish. Rather than having to intervene with individuals, the process itself shapes the

atmosphere of the group. It needs to be explained in advance, and have the group’s agreement to use it. The

design will depend on the goals and nature of the group. For example, a simple process structure for a men’s

group could be:

1. Check-in: Going round the circle from the facilitator’s left, each person take two minutes speaking on a

specific question. (This can range from “How was your week?” to “What do you see the key issue we

need to deal with today?”, etc.) Each person gets two minutes, even if they finish speaking sooner. The

facilitator or appointed group member will give a 30-second time warning if required.

2. Topic of the day for discussion (whole group). After a brief presentation of information on the issue by a

group member who has prepared this ahead of time, do another “go-round”. Guidelines for speaking in

the go-round:

• Speak from your own experience, rather than responding to others’ comments.

• If their ideas trigger thoughts in you, speak from your thoughts, not as a critique of theirs.

• Share how you feel about the issue, as well as what you think.

3. After the go-round, move to open discussion, with looser guidelines and more interaction.

4. At the end of the discussion, take time for each person the briefly appreciate the input of the person

next to them.

5. Take a break. Provide opportunity for some physical activity and nourishment.

6. Break into small groups and continue dialogue about the issue, perhaps with a new focus.

7. Come back into the larger group and reflect on what was shared in the smaller groups.

8. Evaluate the meeting using “Good and Better”: “What was good about today’s meeting?” and then

when that question is exhausted, “What could we do differently next time to make the next meeting

even better?”

9. Closing Circle: Each person take a turn around the circle sharing how they might use a useful insight they

gathered from the meeting.

• The check-in creates an environment where everyone is given the opportunity to share, rather than

having to fight for it. It also means that in a short while, everyone in the group has spoken, and no one

has been interrupted or put down. Having spoken once, this “primes the pump” and makes it easier for

people to speak again. For those who have no trouble speaking to the group, it gives them that

opportunity and releases some of the tension they may have felt while wanting to share. This has served

both to create safety and to produce a more equal atmosphere. The check-in also denotes a shift from

an informal meet-and-greet space in to the more structured group environment, and participants’

behaviours will adjust to this as they become familiar over time with the group culture

• The topic discussion guidelines challenge the male culture of competition and over-focus on analytical

thinking. They also create a group norm for being more open about emotion.

• The appreciation time provides an alternative to one-upping each other.

• Taking a break and taking care of physical needs provides an alternative to the culture of constant

productivity.

• Mixing small group and whole group activities meets the varied needs of participants who are more

comfortable in one or another of those environments.

• Keeping evaluation constructive and future-oriented derails the tendency to criticize unhelpfully.

• The closing circle indicates the transition out of the group culture into that of the world. Demarking the

group with a simple go-round or similar process helps to remind participants that the group culture and

expectations are different from those in the day-to-day world.

Can you identify elements of the Thinking Environment used in the model above?

What process would you design to meet the needs of a group you are involved in?

I have used variants of this model with many types of men’s groups, and find it to be highly sustainable. These

groups tend to be more effective, last longer, and have more positive outcomes than those that either let male

conditioning run unchecked, or rely on a dominant facilitator to intervene. They are particularly powerful when

blended with a shared leadership model where the facilitator engages group participants in leadership roles

from the very beginning, so they take ownership of the group. Having a template for a meeting process makes it

easy for participants to plan an effective meeting themselves.

Prepared by Bruce Dienes, Ph.D.

Project Coordinator

Engaging Men and Boys in Ending Violence against Women and Girls

Chrysalis House Association / Juniper House

bruce.dienes@engagingmenandboys.ca

Appendix 8 – Handout on Building Awareness

Building Awareness and Engagement of Men in Eliminating Violence against Women

Warm-up Exercise (from Gridley & Turner, 2010)

1. Think of some ways that gender impacts on your life.

2. What would you be more (or less) able to do if you had been born a different sex?

3. If you awoke one day to discover that gender equality has miraculously been achieved, how would you

notice?

Women: (United Nations, 1980/1996)

• Make up half of the world’s population

• Perform nearly two-thirds of the world’s work hours

• Receive one tenth of the world’s income

• Own less than one hundredth of the world’s property

Power: (adapted from Gridley & Turner, 2010)

Why do so many men use violence against women? “Because they can,” was the response of a police

superintendent. In terms of information, authority, resources, decision-making, coercion or privilege, power

differences constrain or expand the choices of women and men in many contexts. Not small choices like what

kind of coffee you want, but key choices about what kind of life you will live.

Choice = Power.

Power is not something we “have“, but rather how we do things. Power dynamics are more subtle than they

were 50 or 100 years ago. Women are no longer legally the property of men, but power differences increase the

risk of women experiencing violence within a relationship, and decrease her ability to escape from it.

Partnership: (adapted from Gridley & Turner, 2010)

“Women make gains partly through their own efforts, partly through the necessary protection of anti-sexist

legislation, partly through the gradual re-education of men and partly through the support of men who have

always been disgusted by the aggressive display of male power.” (Edgar, 1995, p.13).

Real partnership is built on relationship – an equal share in the design and implementation of any activity:

“Nothing about us without us!”

Engaging Men:

Engaging men in eliminating violence requires a fine balance of becoming conscious of male privilege in our

society while also becoming conscious of our inherent shared human values of equity and justice. Motivations

that arise from “duty”, “shame” or other similar focusses will not last. But once men realize that all humans are

caught in the web of gender oppression, and that being forced into the oppressor role is also dehumanizing,

they can begin to make new choices about their roles in life and refuse to collude with stereotypical gender

roles. This is not about “helping”, which assumes a power differential, but about creating partnerships. In the

words of Lilla Watson, with an Aboriginal activists group in Australia “If you have come here to help me, you are

wasting our time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work

together.” To keep this work sustainable, men need to take initiative in recruiting, educating and inspiring more

men to become involved in changing the culture that breeds violence.

===========================================================================================

Gridley, H. & Turner, T. (2010). Gender, power and community psychology. [In Nelson, G. & Prilleltensky, I. (2010). Community Psychology: In Pursuit of

Liberation and Well-being.] New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.

Edgar, D. (1995) New grist for men’s old mill. The Age 11/08/95.

United Nations (1980/1996) The United Nations and the advancement of women, 1945-1996. New York: United Nations Department of Public Information