A co-facilitator of mine asked me a question relating to a topic about a particular leadership style called the Leader's Window by John Beck.


To give an idea as to what the Leader's Window is all about, think of a window equally divided into 4 quadrants - two above and two below separated of course by two lines - one vertical and the other, horizontal. Now... think of this as a chart - with the base (the x-axis of said chart) representing a measurement called 'Task' and the y-axis representative of teh chart's left side, reffered to as the 'Relationship' side. For those of you familiar with Ken Blanchard's Situational Leadership, the illustration is very similar - I won't be surprised if Blanchard's illustration (and idea) was a precursor to the idea (and illustration) by Beck.


The idea is that these four quadrants represent the following combination of Task/Relationship:


Lower right quadrant is repersentative of Low relationship but high tasks, ( a.k.a. S1)

Upper right quadrant represents a High task, as well as a High relationship combination (S2)

Upper left quadrant represents High relationship but Lower tasks (S3)

Lower left quadrant represents (S4) where tasks and relationships are lessened and a similar situation happened with tasks.



Anyway... getting to my point, these quadrants represent the four ways leadership can be handled with certain individuals - its a model useable by all - it likewise happens to be (as mentioned earlier) easily interpreted by any previous readers of Blanchard's Situational Leadership.

S1 represents a leadership style that sets direction - leaving nothing to chance, never mind the opinionis of others. It is, after all a low relationship factor, yet high in instructions / directions giving.


On the other hand, S2 is high in both Tasks (instructions) and Relationship (communication).


One activity asks the participants to decide which fits more for a given scenario - you have a Best Friend who's ready and willing ot help in a Kitchen renovation - but mind you, with no known skills. And you have a sibling (brother or sister) who is likewise untrained but not as excited in helping with the Kitchen renovation.

The solution given by Beck's case is that for the sister, you use S1 (high task, low relationship); while the best friend is handled with S2 (high task, high relationship). My co-facilitator's bone of contention is that why is this the case, shouldn't it be the other way around?

For a long time, I thought of this as well and if we simply look at things from a Blanchard perspective, that should be the right solution (sister S2; friend S1) because the sister needed a higher relationship style - to possibly convince her to help... remember her low motivation? Whereas the best friend would be more high task, but no need for a high relationship, since this friend is a genuine volunteer. This is the Situational Leadership approach. So what makes L4 see things differently?

Beck has a formula... P = A+M (potential = ability + motivation), and to make a long story short, out of a possible high of 4 (A=2 and M=2) to a possible 0 (A=0 and M=0), we'd have a P1 alligned with S1, P2 alligned with S2, etc... The Sister had an ability of 1 and motivation of 0, while the Friend had ability and motivation of 1 each - hence his was a higher potetial whihc landed in S2.

The reason for this seemingly incongruent thought is that in as S2, you ask them for their input - and the sister wouldn't care less, while the friend would be excited - so we use the less strict style on the friend and the one with tighter control on the sister.

I may be talking goobeldy-gook to some folks here - not surprising since its a blog that enterd the middle of a story and told in a very short manner. I will endeavor to explain things in more detail in succeeding posts.

Note: I recently changed the title of this blog from 'On Facilitating' to "On Facilitating, Coaching and Leading" - why? Well, upon reviewing what I was placing in this site, I realized that most of what I was alluding to, were not just exclusive facilitating skills, techniques or topics - not really.

I therefore just expounded the blog to cover a wider range of topics, and align the title with its contents. Though most of the article may still be facilitator-based, the expanded focus allows me better leeway in inserting ideas, monologues, articles about the three items.

I relate strongly to these three roles, and it is but natural that I like discussing them. Entries to this blog should therefore start picking up, specially since its coverage has expanded.

One of the greater challenges of a facilitator is the lead in query usually mentioned by us in any training. Its simple, yet can be very risky for some - and yet it also shows that we are ready to take on anything that our participants may dish out. What is this lead in query?

"What Questions do you have?"

This means we are inviting anyone to ask questions about the topic - but things don't really just limit themselves to what was discussed - as is often the case, many of my participants ask queries related to the topic, yet are focused on their hoping to hear some comment, opinion or clarification about their situation, problem or concern. At times the questions seem innocent enough, yet they carry deep undertones.

As a facilitator therefore, I need to consider the question - its possible different dimensions and implications. I, of course answer it as best I can. At times a truthful answer may not be what the question's owner needs - at other times, I have to qualify my response as a 'personal opinion' as opposed to this being company policy - specially when what I am about to say is not official company standard lines or answers. Most of the time, I remain candid - and I guess that this is one trait my participants respect in me.

I am willing to answer the question - but I clarify if what I am saying is what the 'official line' is, and if I have a varying opinion to this , I likewise specify my 'personal' counterpoint. In answering some questions, I have to clarify what 'hat' I am wearing - what viewpoint I am coming from... whether it is as an empathizing colleague, or a more measured response from a manager/leader. People like this approach - they know I'm not keeping things form them, and they respond with positive feedback.

The Q & A portion is a dreaded segment not just in trainings, but in public presentations - and many who dread this probably fear themselves looking incompetent or foolish. This may be true if one cannot give a valid answer and then tries to give it anyway. There is also the fear of ridicule - and though I may have had my share of irate or difficult audience members, I have yet to see someone openly contradict me or shame me while I am talking. Why so? Am I just lucky? No... truth to tell, I inform my participants if their query is answerable by me - or if they should consult others about the answer they are looking for.

I don't pretend to be an expert, I don't' force any issue - I simply inform... either by giving an answer - or two, by giving my personal opinion or measured advice, but I will also be the first to admit if I am not an expert in a particular field - but this does not mean I won't help them explore their dilemma, query or concern. I extend a hand to help - if not answer, to understand.

Maybe this helps them - if not by finding the answer, by at least realizing that I am willing to help. Sometimes, this is enough to turn what may be a possible vociferous complaint for not helping them, into a grudging acceptance of my limitations. There is no such thing as a master of all things - that is just hubris... and hubris is the dichotomy of earnestness.

Answer honestly, answer candidly - if need be, explain your answer - if you can't address the question, offer to help them find the answer or solution - then own up to solving it, to helping them. That should get anyone through those next challenges in handling queries when said difficult or challenging questions do pop up.