Integrating Our Diversity

Christophany Groups seek to transform lives and heal our world in community, but the work of community, as you know, can be challenging due to our diversity. Thus, the work we do at the small group level might be seen as preparation for transforming the larger world. Rather than seeking to tolerate or overcome our diversity, Barbara Fleischer includes an important chapter on “Integrating our Diversity” in Facilitating for Growth. This is an important distinction. Fleischer notes that differences in opinions or styles may sometimes result in conflicts that require special facilitation skills which allow us to integrate differences so that dialogue can continue and deepen. 

Fleischer tells us that if conflicts that result from our differences are handled well, they can strengthen rather than weaken the group. Conflict can be growth-filled and creative when it leads to deeper understandings of the issues and challenges group members to examine their own behavior. However, she writes, “… when groups try to manage their diverse styles and opinions by becoming overly “nice” with each other, they often lose some of their honesty and authenticity, and the conflict-avoidance itself becomes dysfunctional to the ongoing dialogue. Managing diversity calls for a respectful, honest, and listening stance among all members in the group” (p. 78).

Fleischer notes that the differences among us may include the personality dimensions developed by Carl Jung and measured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is often used by those who facilitate or minister and unpacks how we might bring an understanding of these types to our small group dynamics.

The Introversion/Extroversion dimension can sometimes create challenges in groups, as extroverts tend to process events and ideas out loud, while introverts do so more slowly and internally. Fleischer tells us that participants can balance these differences by being sensitive to each other’s needs. For instance, extroverts may readily speak about the topic being discussed but may need some well-designed probing questions to enable them to reflect more deeply “out loud.” Introverts, on the other hand, benefit by having discussion questions ahead of time to give them ample time to reflect upon them. During the meeting, facilitators also need to check to ensure that introverts have a chance to get into the conversation.  

Jung’s second dimension of Sensate/Intuitive relates to how a person perceives information about the world. Sensate types rely on their observations and physical senses and appreciate specific factual information. Intuitives, however, are more concerned with the underlying meaning and potential that events hold than with the details of these events. Their descriptions are more impressionistic and may focus on feelings rather than facts. Facilitators should thus work toward making sure that a variety of questions are addressed in the group.

Thinking/Feeling is the third dimension and refers to how people make decisions regarding their perceptions of the world. Thinkers work deductively, making their judgments about the world through analysis and logic. Fairness is very important to them. Those who make their decisions based on feeling connect them to their most heartfelt values and judge situations based on circumstances. They tend to express their emotions more readily both verbally and nonverbally. If the feeling and thinking judgers do not have a basis of mutual understanding, they can begin to judge each other. In doing so, the thinkers may view feelers as lacking in discipline and logic, while the feelers may perceive thinkers as cold and distant. It is important to suspend judgment and to remember that group members are not required to reach agreement in a discussion, but rather leave space for each person to draw their own conclusions.

The dimension of Judging/Perceiving pertains to how an individual takes in information about the world. Those who lean toward judging may make decisions quickly to attain closure. Those who lean toward perceiving feel little urgency to make a decision as they enjoy their perceptions, looking at things from new angles or insights. Since these two types differ in their orientation to time and closure, their differences may be most pronounced when dealing with issues involving time or decision making. Punctuality may be more valued by some, and the judging participants may need to settle a question before moving on to the next, which may or may not be the norm, depending upon the procedures or ground rules of a group. In any case, the facilitator needs to remind the group of its agreed upon time and discussion norms, but also be flexible enough to make adjustments when needed. The group should openly discuss and agree upon variations of the norms, such as extending the meeting time or other accommodations.

Do Fleischer’s insights into small group dynamics resonate with your own experiences of facilitation?  What stories might you share? What wisdom might you add? Please feel free to share your reflections in the blog area below. 

(In this chapter, Fleischer also discusses how differing faith perspectives and cultural heritage affect the group dynamic and offers some further guidelines for resolving conflicts. I will cover these topics in my next post.)