Thesis Sp. Com. 1996
H368a c.2
Hauck, Barbara J.
What's in the Game?
phenomenological
1996.

:

WHAT'S IN THE GAME?
A PHENOMENOLOGICAL ACCOUNT
OF HOW TRAINING GAMES ARE LINKED TO EVERYDAY EXPERIENCE

By
Barbara J. Hauck

A thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the
Master of Arts Degreee
in Communication Studies
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
May 30,1996

A. R. Smith, Ph.D., Director

T. Thompson, Ph.D.

Otri
U

QfrX

J. JoncSfPh.D.

a

Acknowledgements
Thank you to
Dr. Andrew Smith for opening an exciting, new, and wonderful world to me;
Dr. Tim Thompson for your ZenAVeick way of seeing that has gotten me through some very
rough spots, for the fun we have had working together, and especially for your friendship; and
Dr. Jean Jones for giving me inspiration to go on.
Thank you also to the MACS faculty:
Dr. Kathleen Golden for your special wisdom and support;
Dr. Terry Warburton for your humor and guidance;
Dr. Mary Alice Dye for getting me into the program in the first place;
and particularly
Dr. Bert Miller for a most wonderful assistantship and for your down-to-earth caring ways.
A special thank you to my family for putting up with my absences in body and spirit as I pursued
this degree: my children, Kelly, Corey, Shannon, Martina, and Matt; my sister Kate; and especially
my husband Rick ClafFey. Without your support I could not have done this.

This thesis is dedicated to
the memory of
Tom Costelloe
who believed in me enough to change the direction of my life.

i

Abstract
The following thesis is a phenomenological study of the manner in which training games
link with everyday experience. The presentation begins with an overview of simulations, a rigidly
formatted game environment; gaming, the activity of playing games; and games theory, a
mathematically-based description of how games work. I argue that a training game’s validity
cannot be discussed without consideration of human discourse which is laced with ambiguity.
Through Wittgenstein’s theory of language-games, my study suggests that discourse cannot be
understood without taking into account the environment in which it takes place. Because training
games attempt to teach skills meant for organizational settings, the study questions whether they
can truly teach such skills outside the setting in which they are to be used. Research has argued
that the link is made metaphorically and most studies support that claim, but this paper suggests
that the games need to be observed tropologically for a richer understanding of what is happening.
The method of study includes the following: participation and observation of games,
interviews, protocol writing, and protocol analysis of text. Observing two distinct games
environments (Bamga, a card game used in a conflict management workshop; and the Bam, an
experiential training session), I have written detailed account of each experience utilizing protocol
writing techniques. Five participants in Bamga were interviewed about the game, and text was
subsequently transcribed for the purpose of protocol analysis. The account from the Bam
experience was coded in the same manner. In both cases, tropological phrases — metaphor,
metonymy, synecdoche, and irony — as well as key ideas and environmental observations were
marked. Finally the coding from the two situations was compared.

ii

What has come to the surface is that the games environment acts as a magnifying glass of
the organization in which the participants belong. Although the game’s goal is to teach some skill
or concept to the participants, it more emphatically brings out the intrinsic nature of the
interpersonal relationships that occur within everyday life. This study suggests that trainers may
want to rethink the priority of the learning experience to emphasize first an understanding of the
dynamics at play in interpersonal relationships within the organization. Then the skill or concept
to be learned will be more easily understood.

Table of Contents
Introduction.....................................................

1

Review of Literature........................................

3

Games Theory and Gaming...................

3

Language and How It Affects the Game.

6

The Tropological Link..........................

12

Predominance of the Metaphor.............

15

Training Games and Training Objectives

22

Conclusion............................................

24

Methodology....................................................

24

Discussion of the Observations.........................

34

Bamga Description...............................

34

The Bam Description............................

41

Comparison of the Two Games........................

56

Bamga Interviews............................................

60

Joan.......................................................

61

Pat

62

Alice................................................................

64

Donna..............................................................

65

Ann.................................................................

67

An Overview of the Interviews...................................

68

What Does It All Mean? A Conclusion......................

70

Bibliography................................................................

75

Appendix A: Protocol Analysis of Bamga Interviews..

80

Appendix B: Protocol Analysis of the Bam Transcript

106

iv

Introduction:
How are training games linked to everyday experience?

The use of training games in both pedagogical and organizational settings is a common
tool in the present day focus on interactive learning. Lessons are taught juxtaposing the
traditional lecture with hands-on experiential learning through training games and simulations.
The supposition is that training games make the link into everyday experience, but how is that
achieved and what is actually learned in the process?
This juxtaposition is mirrored in the present business environment where companies find it
worthwhile to invest time and money into management training. Rather than expecting employees
to learn new skills on the job, some organizations utilize training games and business simulations
to give their employees some idea how the concepts will work in a real life setting. These
educational tools seem to aid in shortening the learning curve for individuals who are entering
new positions or taking on extra responsibilities. Additionally, management training attempts to
reinforce skills already important to the organization and to reorient employees into productive
behaviors.
According to Wehrenberg (1985), people retain information primarily through five
different methods: verbal (lecturing), kinesthetic (hands-on learning), trial and error
(experimental), visual (displayed material), and vicarious (observation). Because of these
variations in learning, a training session utilizing several styles of teaching is usually the most
effective (p. 88). For instance, one could teach the idea of teamwork through the memorization
of Larson and LaFasto’s eight characteristics of teamwork: clear and elevated goal, results-driven
structure, competent members, unified commitment, collaborative climate, standards of

1

excellence, external support and recognition, and principled leadership (Larson & LaFasto, p. 26).
Additionally, one could place the potential team in an experiential-learning setting and have them
participate in a game such as “The Wall” in which all members, male and female, fat and thin,
young and old, need to climb over a ten foot wall. The participants’ process of solving the scaling
of the wall may support the teaching of the Larson/LaFasto characteristics in a rich, clearly
understood manner. It may also bring out the strengths and weaknesses of the individual
members of the team — and may show in high relief the dependency of the group on each member.
Because humans communicate on multiple levels, it is not always clear how learning takes
place, and how what we learn in some situations may not be what is apparent. The use of training
games seems to set up a situation in which participants learn how to learn together; in which
people learn to conceptualize with others based on a shared experience. Because they have a
commonality in the experience of the training game, they develop a mutual idiom in which to
discuss mutual concerns. Perhaps this shared idiom and experience enhances understanding and
performance from the participants in the training game. The focus of my research is to chart this
process phenomenologically in three complementary ways: as a participant/observer, through
protocol writing, and through in-depth interviews.

2

Review Of Literature

Games Theory And Gaming
In order to lay the groundwork for explicating the linkage between training games and
everyday experience, it is important first to define and delineate the various forms of simulations
and gaming and to clarify some of the basic premises of games theories. According to Martin
Shubik (1975), there is a distinct difference between simulations and gaming. A simulation is the
representation of a system by another system purporting to have behavioral similarities (although
simpler) to the system being represented. In contrast, gaming utilizes participants either as
themselves or in an assumed role in a simulated situation. Both tools can be used in training, but
gaming allows for human choice while simulations maintain a prescribed presentation (pp. 12-13).
Therefore, most training games (even some considered as simulations) according to Shubik’s
definition are in actuality gaming.
Shubik categorizes games into six broad headings: entertainment, therapy, operations,
research, teaching, and training (p. 3). Disciplines which most often utilize games for training are
psychology, education, political science, military, business, and sociology with military and
business education (management science, operations research, and economics) expending the
most resources in the utilization of games. Shubik does not list communication. However, all
training as it relates to human interaction is essentially involved with communication. When
games are used for teaching, the subject matter either emphasizes principles, methods of
modeling, skills and/or facts, or they present dynamic case and supplementary course materials.

3

Games can also be categorized according to the formality of rules: either rigid orfree
form. A rigid structure has very specific rules easily understood by everyone, while a free form
game has many rules made up as the game progresses. When a game is structured in free form, it
is said to be environment-rich in contrast to the environment-poor structure of the rigid game
(pp. 3-4).
Gaming must not be confused with games theory or language-games. The first is a large
body of theory concerned with decision-making. The second is a theory about the use of
language in interpersonal interactions.
Games theory is important to the concept of gaming in that it helps delineate certain subtle
concepts of decision-making such as the state of information, strategy, move, choice, outcome,
and payoff. Defined in mathematical terms, games theory is utilized to construct, analyze, and
discuss games of all kinds.
When an individual sets out to create a game, he or she is confronted with several vital
problems that, if addressed properly, will secure the success of the game: (1) rules for words and
coding; (2) rules for rationality, information and data processing ability; (3) goals and motivations
of payoffs; (4) rules pertaining to environment-poor or environment-rich games; (5) rationality
and concepts of solution; and (6) players as individuals or groups. In a game based on the
mathematical games theory, these problems will have well-defined rules (dice or card games, for
instance). In gaming where the rules may not be as formal, these problems take on new meaning
(Shubikp. 14).
The structure of games theory makes it possible to evaluate the parts of a game according
to decisions made by the players. If the game is environment-poor with strict rules, it will be easy

4

to uncover the game’s structure. However, if the game is instead environment-rich with more
spontaneity and rule-changing occurring among the players, games theory may not be able to
uncover all the meanings of all the moves. Participants of the game may have different “rules”
with which they are playing and the language of the players may seem the same but mean different
things.
This ambiguity is especially apparent in relation to the payoff. In Shubik’s discussion of
the difference between an outcome and a payoff’ he acknowledges the hard-to-measure factor of
individual motivation. He defines the two concepts of decision-making in this manner: the
outcome is the physical state at the end of the game and the payoff has to do with motivation and
the relationship between the payoff in the game and the world. To understand the meaning of the
payoff, according to Shubik, a researcher must take into account individual preferences,
relationships among the evaluations of individuals, and the nebulous, hard to measure, consistency
between the verbal behavior and the choice behavior of individuals (p. 57).
Payoffs, Shubik argues (p. 71), may be defined in several ways:
•

Players may be paid a fixed money prize for best performance.

•

There may be a money payment varying in size with performance.

•

Chips may be redeemed at some rate of exchange.

•

One or more non-monetary payoffs may be given (presents, prizes, or rewards).

•

Players are paid at an hourly rate.

•

Grades in a class or a promotion may depend on a game.

•

Social, educational, or entertainment purposes may be served.

•

Players may want simply to beat others.

5

•

The payoff may be fiduciary.

With so many motives for payoff in a game, it seems that a mathematical approach to evaluation
(games theory) may fail to predict a participant’s behavior accurately, let alone how the person or
group assimilates or does not assimilate the lessons of gaming. Games theory works well when
trying to predict the outcome of rigid, environment-poor games, but when used to predict human
interaction, it falls short.

Language And How It Affects The Game
Robert Bostrom (1968) attempted to link games theory to interpersonal communication.
Through a process of coding, he sought to simplify interactions between two individuals through
a matrix. His model is based on three assumptions: “(1) that most communication is purposeful
activity occurring between at least two participants, (2) that the participants in this process have
goals that are observable and measurable, and (3) that the interaction of maximum value of
participants represents the goal of ideal communication” (p. 369). Realizing that interpersonal
communication is not always (if ever) ideal, he commented that many interactions that individuals
have are not mutually desirable and may even be antagonistic. The ideal interaction, therefore,
would be one in which there is “the greatest mutual satisfaction” between individuals (p. 375) and
individuals would strive for this outcome. Through rating choices of behavior by both players in
an exchange and placing them in an ordinal scale, he coded them and presented them in a grid.
Through analysis of the grid, the behavior of greatest mutual satisfaction for each player should
have become apparent. This result, though, is problematical.

6

Two years later, Thomas Beisecker (1970) published an argument against Bo strom’s
discussion. He argued that an individual cannot pursue both to maximize his own self-interest and
to maximize mutual group interest at the same time (two divergent payoffs): it is either one or the
other but not both (p. 109). Also he commented that, in Bostrom’s model, games theory could
only apply with the vigorous requirement of “individuals7 preferences [to] be represented on an
interval scale” (p. 111). This leaves open the probability that criterion valuation, preferences, and
interval units would not be consistent in reality (p. 107). Finally, he questioned Bostrom’s focus
on games theory as the solution to interaction as opposed to the communication process itself.
He based his doubts on three essential points: (1) the assumption that interactions occur from
“mutual cooperation as opposed to individual utility maximization”; (2) the lack of a clear
understanding of how preferences are weighted; and (3) the assumption that there is an
interpersonal comparison of the issues at all (p. 116).
In a rejoinder by Bostrom published together with the Beisecker article, he commented
that he was discussing games theory as applied to interpersonal communication in an ideal
situation: where individuals always want to cooperate (Bostrom, 1970, p. 121). He stated,
however, that the use of games theory can be a tool in analyzing communication, but is not the
only tool (p. 123).
Bostrom’s effort to apply mathematical models to interpersonal communication is
problematical by virtue of the very language we use to communicate. By his own admission, an
interaction needs to be part of an ideal environment of cooperation for games theory to apply.
This ideal environment is actualized in language where strict rule delineation is even more
problematical. Bostrom’s application of games theory takes on the characteristics of

7

performativity in which the system’s goal is to maximize output while minimizing input for
optimal performance. Each “‘move’ is ‘good’ when it does better and/or expends less energy
than another” (Lyotard, 1993, p. 44). The success of performativity, however, requires that the
system is stable (p. 54); that each “move” is consistent whether the activity is repeated twice or a
thousand times. When the boss says, “I need you to work two hours overtime tonight”, the
employee always responds with a smile “No problem!” But we are working in the realm of
human science where the referent is the human who is an active participant in the game (p. 57).
His or her input is an unpredictable element. If the employee’s child is performing in a play that
evening, the response may be completely different. The system, therefore, is intrinsically unstable
to the extent that it has more than one “move” available to it. It is linked to the “social bond
[which] is linguistic, but is not woven with a single thread. It is a fabric formed by the
intersection of at least two (and in reality an indeterminate number) of language games, obeying
different rules” (p. 40).
In a comparative analysis between games and the use of language, Ludwig Wittgenstein
(1973) points out that there are fixed rules to a game, but when we use language we have no
assurance that the one who is speaking is playing by fixed rules. We may discern what we think
the rules are or ask the addressor what they are, but we may not get a clear idea because the
speaker himself or herself may not even know the rules (pp. 38-9) or, in any case, articulate them.
We, as addressees, also have the power to respond to an addressor in a multitude of ways and,
therefore, have some control over the rules of the game (Lyotard, 1993, p. 13). There are
“countless kinds” of sentences, symbols, and words whose multiplicity of meaning does not
remained fixed (Wittgenstein, p. 11). A sentence spoken may be understood both as an

8

expression which can be replaced by another that means the same, and as one which cannot be
duplicated in meaning (p. 143-4). I may say, “Is the report finished yet?” or “Have you finished
the report?” Both mean essentially the same thing. If, however, I say the first sentence in an
angry tone after waiting an extra day to see the finished product, it will not be interchangeable
with the second sentence when phrased as a simple inquiry. The first sentence cannot be
duplicated because it is spoken within a specific context which helps to clarify its meaning.
Interlocution involves a series of language-games according to Wittgenstein in which the
addressor and addressee play through a dialogue. The language-game is not simply the words we
use but consists of the actions that frame the words as well (p. 5). An addressor and an addressee
are entangled in rules that effect (and affect) one another from the onset of the interaction and
these rules are subject to change. A player who changes the rules changes the game “because a
game is primarily defined by its rules” (Lyotard, 1994, p. 62). Consequently, any one person may
not get a clear understanding of what has been said. Wittgenstein gives the example of a child
who was surprised that “a tailor could ‘sew a dress’— he thought this meant that a dress was
produced by sewing alone, by sewing one thread on to another” (Wittgenstein, p. 79). Because
language-games are full of inventiveness, interlocutors can only look at them as “object(s) of
comparison” to give understanding to our speech (p. 50). They disclose that language is not “one
uniform thing but a host of different activities” (Grayling, p. 71).
Each activity that is part of any single interaction carries with it different rules, and
although their linkages are indeterminate, similarities can be described with Wittgenstein’s idea of
“family resemblances” (Wittgenstein, p. 32). In an organization, members may discuss the same
conflict situation, but describe it differently. One member might describe it as a hostile

9

disagreement with the boss. Another member might define the same situation as confrontational
but a good discussion. Although the two discussions are relativized by common experience, the
immanent meaning of each is distinctly different. There is a family resemblance between the two
ideas but they are not interchangeable.
Appropriate to this study, Wittgenstein (pp. 32-32) elaborates on family resemblances
through a discussion of games.
Consider for example the proceedings that we call “games”. I mean board-games,
card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?
— Don’t say: “There must be something common, or they would not be called
‘games’” — but look and see whether there is anything common to all. — For if
you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities,
relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don’t think, but look!
— Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now
pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but
many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball
games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost. — Are they all
‘amusing’? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning
and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games
there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches
it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck;
and at the games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but
how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through
the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities
crop up and disappear.
Figure 1
Family Resemblances of the Language Game called “Games”
(adapted from Aitchinson, 1994, p, 48)

Games from left to right: Ring-Around-The-Rosie. Tennis, Chess, and Cards.

10

Language-games weave through our everyday lives as a net of understanding rather than a
simple, straight-forward game of rules. We think we know our own rules for the game and the
addressee thinks the same, but our rules may only have a family resemblance to the addressee’s
rule; enough of a similarity to get us in trouble. Our own rules are tainted by multiple motives;
some of which we may not be aware we have on the conscious level. Wittgenstein defines such
activities as reporting, affirming, thanking, describing the appearance of an object, denying,
warning, reminding (the list can be never-ending) as language-games (Grayling p. 71,
Wittgenstein, p. 11). When two people begin a language-game, the outcome may not be clear
because each may have a different payoff in mind. In a negotiation, for instance, one party’s
language-game may be “compromise” while another’s may be “refuse.” The two parties do not
necessarily know each other’s game strategy. Therefore, the game rules become unclear. The
focus then is on how to identify what each party’s rules really are which requires in-depth
questioning, analysis, conjecture, involvement, and interpretation.
It would seem, in setting up a training game, that it would be impossible to construct
typical interactions in an everyday environment to the extent that all “players” have their own
ways of engaging language which changes from situation to situation. In the work environment,
an individual develops an understanding of the language-games related to that particular
sociocultural group, which are different from the domestic language games of family or other
sociocultural worlds. Even within the framework of one world, the language-game a person
engages is different from one interaction to another; an employee engages different “games” with
his or her boss than with a co-worker, for instance. If we accept Wittgenstein’s point that the
meaning of the interlocution between two individuals is not imbedded simply in the words said but

11

linked to the environment in which dialogue takes place, how can a training game which takes
place in a setting outside the work environment make the link to dav-to-dav activity? The ability
of a person to adapt from one “world” to another may be contingent upon the understanding of
how the situation recommends forms of language coupled with individual style. Because of the
complexity and subtlety of our day-to-day interactions, the success of the training game may come
only through the ability of its participants to make tropological links with everyday life: it may
trigger the language-games that individual participants use in everyday situations.

The Tropological Link
In everyday speech we utilize words in figurative senses to make our points. These turns
of phrase are called tropes. Hayden White (1978) defined them as “deviations from literal,
conventional, or 'proper5 language use, swerves in locution sanctioned neither by custom nor
logic (p. 2).” The use of tropes brings into discourse a view of an idea different from what would
be expected. It is “both a movement from one notion of the way things are related to another
notion, and a connection between things so that they can be expressed in a language that takes
account of the possibility of their being expressed otherwise (p.2).”
Although there are many tropes, language is specifically imbued with metaphor,
metonymy, synecdoche, and irony: the four master tropes. Metaphor is “understanding and
experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another55 (Lakoff, p. 5) or the perspective from which
we look at things. Interlocutors utilize metaphor to help identify a clearer picture of something
through a variety of perspectives or metaphors (Burke, 1945, pp. 503-504). Defining one’s boss
may include various phrases imbedded in everyday speech. “ My boss is a bear.” “He gives us

12

enough rope to hang ourselves.” “I am wearing my crash helmet into that meeting tomorrow.”
The addressor portrays a strong, rich image of his or her boss to the addressee even though
specific examples of the boss’s behavior are not used.
Metonymy is the use of a tangible in place of an intangible or the reduction of a more
complex realm into a less complex idea. When the addressor attempts to express an abstract
concept such as “the emotions,” he or she may find it easier to express the idea in terms of a
concrete image; “the heart,” for instance (p. 506). “This is a tight-knit group” implies that the
group is cohesive. The metonymic phrase gives the addressee a concrete image that is contiguous
to the abstract concept implied in the statement.
Synecdoche is the use of a part for the whole (LakofF, p. 36): a representation of a larger
concept or thing (Burke, p. 508). If the addressor speaks of “a statement coming from the White
House,” he is speaking of a policy statement coming from the United States Government. “The
White House” becomes a synecdoche of the larger political entity.
The fourth master trope, irony, is the combination of circumstances that results in the
opposite of what is expected. Burke describes it as arising “when one tries, by the interaction of
terms upon one another, to produce a development which uses all the terms (p. 512). It is the
dialectic that comes from opposing views imbedded into the same statement. “The manager
dictated that his employees participate in the conflict management training” implies that the
conflict may originate with the manager who demands that his employees learn how to cope with
conflict. “I didn’t know the rules, but I still won” is an irony especially when your opponent is
aggressively trying to win.

13

Most studies about training games have focused primarily on the metaphorical link with
everyday experience. Although there is overriding argument supporting this trope as facilitating
understanding more than others, the link among all four may supersede this dominance. White
postulates that discourse moves from an original “domain of experience” characterized by
metaphor, through a deconstruction of elements, metonymy. Then it moves to a “representation
of relations between superficial attributes and presumed essences”, a synecdoche, to a
representation of contrasts and oppositions which is characterized by irony (White, p. 5). He
suggests then that discourse actively utilizes all four tropes when working through the process of
understanding something; metaphor being the most naive and irony the most self-reflexive (p. 12).
With this continuously moving discourse, the predominance of the metaphor may find a challenge
through the influence of the other three master tropes.
Yet, the overriding theme in training games has been the metaphor. This bias may indeed
predominate, but if human interlocution is truly based in language-games and if interactions
between interlocutors can best be understood as family resemblances, perhaps training games link
with everyday life through a multiplicity of tropes. So if the understanding of the game is linked
to human interlocution and the family resemblance each player finds with his or her everyday
experience, the game’s effectiveness becomes vulnerable to the same ambiguity of meaning from
which all human dialogue suffers. How, for instance, can the card game Bamga be considered a
perspective (a metaphor) of a conflict within the context of an organizational setting? Is it not,
instead, a concrete example of an abstract concept to be understood (a metonym)? Yet the
interaction among the players seems to reflect their interactions in their day-to-day dealings.
Would this not then be considered a synecdoche? In order to discover whether this predominance

14

of the metaphor is valid, it is necessary first to outline the prevailing literature on metaphor in
language and as it pertains to training games, and, then, to again ask questions which may
uncover other tropological links within the framework of the games.

Predominance Of Metaphor
According to Lakoff and Johnson (1980), human conceptual systems are grounded in
metaphorical linkages: we understand new concepts filtered through predetermined conceptual
biases (p. 56). Metaphorical linkage is the extension of the metaphor into an overriding thought
process through which we frame our experiences. For instance if we buy into the conceptual
system that states metaphorically “business is war”, then we might say about a competitor: “I
outmaneuvered him with my strategy”, or “he killed me during the last fiscal quarter.”
Wayne Booth (1978) lists a number of criteria which make an effective metaphor:
coherence, novelty, appropriateness, and conciseness are among those listed (pp. 56-7). A
training game’s effectiveness may have some of the same characteristics of a good metaphor. If
the game has a clear concept, frames information in a new way, is appropriate to the issue at
hand, and is not unreasonably complex, the participants will be able to understand more easily its
link with everyday life.
Booth makes the point that a good metaphor means more than its literal words. He states,
“more passes from speaker to hearer than would have passed otherwise.... The speaker has
performed a task by yoking what the hearer has not yoked before, and the hearer simply cannot
resist joining him...” (p. 54). The metaphor becomes more than the sum of its parts: a gestalt

15

Some experiences take on the appearance of a gestalt; an experience in which the various
activities within it have more meaning occurring together than as individual units. The
composition of the gestalt may bear a similarity to another composition, thereby giving a sense of
familiarity between the two (Lakoff, p. 71). Often we structure our behavior according to another
commonly experienced gestalt which helps give coherence to our actions (p. 83). We may, for
instance, remember the manner in which a former employer reacted to our request for extra time
off. Our expectations of our present employer will reflect the actions of the former and may
affect the manner in which we approach him or her. By such linkages, we create “metaphorically
structured concepts” that help us understand the world around us (p. 85). A training game
attempts to create a metaphor of everyday situations in which the constructed experience contains
enough common ground for a linkage to occur.
The tools which training games utilize to create metaphorical links range from the creation
of a scenario to the sensitive prodding of a facilitator. A scenario is a written account of a
situation or context created for use in an exercise, a game, or the analysis of a problem, a system,
or a strategy in a particular setting. It describes settings of a situation, objectives of the
participants, relevant actors, resources, spatial boundaries, temporal sequences for previous
events, initial conditions and interactions with their underlying reasons, and the overall framework
within which a specific context can be studied (Brewer, 1978, p. 322). A good scenario is written
with many of the properties of a historical account allowing for the participants to work with a
“believable” story. The most important elements that contribute to the success of a scenario
include: “concern for the development of rich contextual information and detail; the selection of
key elements within that context; the temporal sequencing of those elements; and the relationship

16

of the historical to other scientific endeavors (p. 323).” The scenario is especially important in a
simulation where a complete system is created and the rules are rigid. By virtue of its detail, the
scenario gives less room for variation because it lays out a specific environment in which the game
will be played. The metaphorical format is already set and the potential link with everyday
experience is controlled.
This well-planned environment through the scenario is not necessarily essential to link the
game with everyday experience. Not all training games have a written scenario. Yet research
indicates that these games, nevertheless, work effectively to make metaphorical links. In openform experiential learning situations, for instance, the participants work through a series of
physical activities which highlight some points to be learned. The meaning of the activities may be
presented with some simple, unelaborated instructions and, yet, the link occurs with everyday life.
Baraga is another example of a game without a clear scenario. Utilizing cards, the game looks at
first to be a rigid, poor-environment game, but as the hidden rules emerge, it becomes clear that
this is not the case. The point of the game is made through the use of a facilitator during the
debriefing in both instances.
Facilitation can be approached in several ways as described by Bruce Rollier (1992) and
Michael Gass (1995). Rollier, who is most interested in management training games, sees the role
as one who helps describe and define the business climate created in the game. The
facilitator/trainer acts as observer and debriefer in order to create an environment of learning for
the participants. He or she fulfills the role of “integrator” of both theory and experience (Rollier,
1992, p. 450). This approach is most useful specifically in a rigid simulation environment. During
a training, two critical debriefing sessions help in directing learning, one after the first session,

17

and one after the game is complete. The first session is necessary for several reasons: it explains
the various outputs of the game and how they need to be analyzed; and it encourages teams that
may have lost money” and deflates teams that have become overconfident. The second
debriefing happens at the end of the game. During that session, some participants discuss their
own experiences describing what the “company’s” plans for the future may be. “Winning” may
have been the player’s goal, but learning concepts is the true goal of the game (p. 452-53).
Throughout the debriefing sessions the facilitator attempts to frame the simulation/game
metaphorically in relation to everyday experience in order to link the two.
This type of facilitation does not leave open much room for creative interpretation of the
experience. The game is constructed to define a situation and to link it in a specific way to
everyday life. Still the player may or may not accept the link the facilitator sets up. The rigid
environment of the management training game may have little in common with the everyday
environment experienced by individual players since each environment recommends its own
unique language-game. In the above case, it is questionable whether the participants play the
game or whether the game plays them. If the format is so closely monitored, the players may not
have the freedom to formulate their own environments. Instead they are acting out a priori
formulae of behavior to “prove” a predictable outcome: they are learning how to play that specific
management training game only.
Gass (1995) takes a different approach in describing the facilitator’s role. His training
game model comes specifically from experiential learning techniques and he emphasizes the
strength of the metaphor in learning. He defines facilitation styles as falling into one of six
different techniques (p. 1).

18

The first method, “letting the experience speakfor itself\ approaches the training by
setting up a well-orchestrated experience and allowing the participants to come to their own
understanding of the event (Gass, p. 2). In “speakingfor the experience, ” the second method,
the facilitator gives the group feedback on their behavior after the game is over. This method
come closest to Rollier’s approach and is good for simulations and business training games. It
does not, however, work well when the participants’ responses to the training prove to be
unpredictable. It may have the negative effect of ccdisempower[ing the player], hampering] future
opportunities for growth, and alienating] the facilitator from clients” (p. 3). The third method,
“debriefing the experience ”, also allows the facilitator to give feedback, but it is unlike the
second in that it requires the participants to reflect on their experiences with the game. Rather
than imposing a preconceived meaning on the experience, the facilitator encourages awareness of
the experience’s links with everyday life through carefully worded questions (p. 3). These first
three methods utilize the facilitator in a passive or reactive mode and depend on the participant
making the metaphorical link with day-to-day experience.
Gass points out that the most recent trends in facilitation have moved more toward a
proactive approach to learning. The following three techniques emphasize changing behaviors
through the actual experience rather than through the individual player’s construction of metaphor
with everyday life (p. 2). He indicates that some trainers believe the “strength of changing
behavior is affected more by the actual experience than by the analogies created by reflective
techniques conducted after the experience” (p. 2). Still he emphasizes the need to formulate pre­
existing metaphors to frame the training up front (p. 11). In other words, the facilitator rather

19

than the participant controls the metaphor. The following three techniques set up in some way
the motivation behind the training prior to the activity itself.
The fourth technique, “directlyfrontloading the experience ”, sets up the clients with a
prebriefing that directs them to specific objectives: what was learned in previous activities, what
the objectives will be, how the game is important in everyday life, what is the optimum behavior
for learning, and what behaviors will hinder learning. “Framing the experience ”, the fifth
technique, involves the facilitator introducing the game framed in a parallel structure. The idea is
that if the prebriefing has a clear metaphorical link in everyday life situations, the participants will
make the link without much said at the end of the session (p. 4). The last technique, “indirectly
frontloading the experience ”, is utilized if participants are resistant to change. The problem is
described in the debriefing and the facilitator alludes to other alternatives. In this manner the
group cannot deny a problem that exists when it actually occurs in the exercise (p. 5).
If a facilitator uses one of these three techniques, Gass emphasizes the importance of
choosing the proper pre-experience metaphor. He outlines a seven-step process to identify the
best way to frame the training (pp. 11-12).
1. The first, “state and rank goals, ” is critical because it also identifies whether a training game
is appropriate at all. The facilitator discusses the goals of the training and ranks them
according to priority. He utilizes this step to find out what the specific group’s issues actually
are.
2. Secondly, the experiential learning chosen for the training should possess “a strong
metaphoric relationship” to the training’s goals (“select a metaphoric adventure experience ”).

20

3. The third step requires the facilitator to show how successful resolutions in the game may be
different from everyday life (“identify successful resolution to the... issue ”).
4. Through renaming parts of the game with everyday concerns, the facilitator reinforces the
connection of the game with day-to day experience. Gass uses the phrase, “strengthen the
isomorphic framework” to define this fourth step which indicates a metaphorical structure.
5. Throughout the course of the game, a facilitator needs to check the framework of the
metaphor to make sure it is working with the participants preview client motivation ”).
6. Revisions need to be made in the game as it progresses to highlight the link ( “conduct
experience with revisions ”).
7. Debriefing after the experience should emphasize the positive aspects and reframe the negative
(“debrief”).
Gass’s and Rollier’s models of facilitation depend heavily on metaphor whether the style is
reactive or proactive. Yet the question remains whether the participants take in the experience
metaphorically — understanding the game (or everyday life) in terms of everyday life (or the
game); that is, replacing the substance for the whole (Lanigan, p. 65). Is it not possible, then, that
the player instead takes on understanding through metonymy — the game becomes the tangible
manifestation of the intangible experience of everyday life; that is, replacing the substance for the
attribute (p. 65)? Can the game, in fact, become a part of the whole, a synecdoche, which shows
itself to be a slice of everyday life rather than a distortion of it? Whether the player takes on
understanding metaphorically, metonymically, or synecdochically, there always exists, it seems,
irony within the experience of the game itself by the very fact that a game seems to reflect what is
considered “serious” day-to-day activities.

21

Training Games And Training Objectives
When one views training games as they link to everyday experience (perhaps through
tropological filters), one may ask the question, “What learning objectives are most appropriate to
training games and is this issue important to the question at hand?” A study conducted by Louis
Olivas and John Newstrom (1981) based on an earlier work by Newstrom (1980) may prove to
illuminate some interesting findings in regard to this.
The study seems to reveal that certain types of training objectives do indeed seem to
benefit more from a games format whereas other objectives do not benefit at all. What quickly
becomes apparent when the training objectives are categorized into fact-retention skills as
opposed to intrapersonal and interpersonal skills is the apparent success of the training game
when focused on the latter.
The following table shows the effectiveness of various training styles as related to six
different training objectives (taken from Olivas (1981), p. 65).
Figure II
Effectiveness of Training Methods
Training objective

Most effective method

Assessment of
management training
games

Knowledge acquisition

Conference method

Doubtful

Knowledge retention

Programmed instruction

Doubtful

Problem solving skills

Case study

Possible

Changing attitudes

Sensitivity training

Strong

Interpersonal skills

Role playing

Strong

Participant acceptance

Case study

Strong

22

Of the six, two -- knowledge acquisition and knowledge retention — are listed as not effectively
using management training games. Three — changing attitudes, interpersonal skills, and
participant acceptance ~ are strongly recommended for using games. One —problem solving
skills — is considered a possibility in the utilization of training games. The interesting observation
is that the objectives with assessments of strong or possible are imbedded in everyday human
interactions. Although the table implies that knowledge acquisition and retention are not
necessarily recommended for training games, the study does not define the parameters of
“knowledge.” The other areas in question — attitudes, problem solving, interpersonal relations,
and participant acceptance -- all seem to recommend the use of training games.
The Olivas/Newstrom study seems to reinforce the link between training games and
training objectives that focus on interpersonal and intrapersonal concerns. Both the
Olivas/Newstrom study and Gass raise the issue of utilizing appropriate training tools for the
concept to be learned. Does this mean that certain relational concepts are understood better when
the training has some reference (perhaps tropologically) in everyday experience? Training games,
when focused on interpersonal issues, allow the participants to find commonality with day-to-day
experience. If Olivas’s and Newstrom’s findings hold true, then the argument comes full circle
because it indicates that such concepts can be understood more easily through training games.
The understanding of human interaction may be facilitated through tropological linkages made
during similar activities.

23

Conclusion
When a training game is utilized to explicate some concept, piece of information, or skill,
the training finds itself intrinsically linked to human interactions by the very language used and by
the human activity imbedded in the game. The training game cannot separate itself from the
language-games which imbue the activity. The participants act out the games imbedding them
with tropological significance. As such, this form of training, the game, seems to work best when
focusing on intrapersonal and interpersonal skills. Still the questions remain, “What benefit does
the player of the game really receive from the experience?” “Is it a deeper understanding of some
concept or is it simply an uncovering of the language-games intrinsic in the relationships among
the players?” In the subsequent research material, it is my hope to shed some light on these
questions and to uncover the impact, if any, of all of the four master tropes within the training
game setting.

24

Methodology

Finding the linkages between training games and everyday life may require probing that
which is immanent (under the surface) during the course of the training game sequence and that
which is immanent in retrospect after the game has been played. Consequently, this study has
taken a phenomenological approach to research.
Phenomenological inquiry finds its strength in the description and illumination of the
“meanings of human experience that constitute the activity of consciousness” (Hoshman, p. 22). It
approaches the search for new knowledge through retrospective accounts to find the essence of
some act sequence, and, in so doing, uncovers the meaning of that experience as perceived by
another person (p. 22). In contrast to any other science, phenomenology does not attempt to
classify, abstract, or taxonomize. It, instead, offers the possibilities of sense-making insights
within our lived experiences (Van Manen, p. 9). It aims “to transform lived experience into a
textual expression of its essence — in such a way that the effect of the text is at once a reflexive
re-living and a reflective appropriation of something meaningful...” (p. 36).
Perhaps communication scholars and others can credit the emergence of phenomenology
to a backlash from the strict positivistic view of science that has predominated Western thought
throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. According to Merleau-Ponty, it is impossible for any
scientific explanation to be “separated from terms that are rooted in human experience” (Meyer,
1975, p. 341). The restrictions of a positivistic approach which deals specifically with that which
is observable, cannot uncover all that is discoverable because it does not compensate for the
possibility of the subject adapting to situations (p. 341).

25

Several key concepts help to define and delineate phenomenological thought. Edmund
Husserl argued in his early writings that the only way to get to the root of a phenomenon is to
“turn to the subject” to supplement the objectivist focus of scientific inquiry. He felt that the
roots of truth lay within the knowing subject’s consciousness as opposed to the observable
phenomenon itself. “Turning to the subject” requires that the researcher approach the subject free
from presuppositions; specifically presuppositions that are unverified phenomenologically
(Spiegelberg, 1984, p. 77). This concept lays the groundwork for phenomenological reduction, a
bracketing of our preconceived beliefs.
Husserl saw reduction as a two-stage process. The first, eidetic reduction, is a reduction
from simple facts to the general essences immanent in the phenomenon. How to discover these
essences and then to subsequently reduce the phenomenon to its essence, Husserl has not made
clear, however. The second step is the phenomenological reduction proper in which we suspend
or inhibit beliefs that are part of our everyday life. He does not expect that we forget about our
biases, but that we do not attach any weight to them as they pertain to our experiences within the
framework of our study (Spiegelberg, p. 120). We are to “direct our glance by way of a peculiar
reflection to what is left of the phenomenon in all its aspects, to intuit its essence, to analyze and
to describe it without paying attention to its existence” (p. 120). Intuiting, a critical part of
reduction, is not exactly intuition. It is a logical insight based on “careful consideration of
representative samples” in order to “grasp essential relationships”. Spiegelberg writes that, “...it
is always the intuiting of the phenomena, particular as well as universal, in which all genuine
knowledge finds it terminal verification.”

26

Merleau-Ponty’s view of phenomenology differs from that of Husserl in several key
points. Husserl’s struggle to get at the essence of things implies the need to construct or
constitute the roots of the phenomenon. Merleau-Ponty makes the case that “the world is here
before any analysis I can make of it (Speigelberg, p. 551). Therefore it must simply be described.
He argues that there is no inner man: instead “man is in the world and only in the world does he
know himself (Merleau-Ponty, 1978, p. xi).” While Husserl looks at reduction as the pivotal tool
of phenomenological research, Merleau-Ponty considers it simply as a device, a means to loosen
us from our habitual view of the world. He simplifies the definition of reduction by describing it
as a “fundamental amazement (an amazement which is never to be overcome)” (Spiegelberg, p.
552). According to Merleau-Ponty complete reduction is impossible whereas Husserl insists that
it is achievable. Merleau-Ponty argues that, since we are in the world, we cannot become
“absolute mind”; we carry out our reflections “in temporal flux on to which we are trying to
seize” (Merleau-Ponty, p. xiv). In other words, our minds are too busy to focus enough on one
matter: we cannot thoroughly bracket all our biases.
Phenomenology lends itself well to communication studies because the meanings in
language are so inexact. Considering the earlier discussion about language games and family
resemblances, an understanding of research based on language may require a search for immanent
meanings in interactions. Therefore, I have opted to approach my study phenomenologically.
According to Robert Bogdan and Sari Biklen (1982), good researchers start with an awareness of
their theoretical base and allow this knowledge to help choose methods of data collection (p. 30).
My interest in the qualitative elements in learning and the variables imbedded in human behavior
has led me to this methodological orientation.

27

I have utilized a phenomenological approach in three explicit ways: (1) protocol writing
based on the observation of two game environments, Bamga and the Barn, (2) protocol analysis
based on five interviews with participants in the Bamga, and (3) the protocol analysis of the
protocol writing of the Bam. Bamga is a card game utilized in conflict management and
intercultural training sessions. It seems to be simple but actually has hidden rules which create an
environment of conflict during the play of the game. The session studied in this paper has
approximately 14 participants. The Bam is an experiential training workshop in which
participants (16 in the workshop described below) act out physical challenges that are geared to
teach teamwork and trust.
Protocol writing is the act of “generating ... original texts on which the researcher can
work (p. 63).” It demands that the researcher describe the experience as he or she lives through it
without trying to embellish. The writer needs to focus on experiences that stand out and sensory
stimuli that are apparent (pp. 64-5). After observing the two training games, for instance, I wrote
down each experience from my viewpoint. I presented as many observations about the
environment, the people, and their interactions as I could remember utilizing my extensive notes
and my memory. In both cases, I did not tape record the games. However, after both, I tape
recorded some of my own observations. I wrote out the protocol writing for each experience
within two to three weeks after the games were played. I attempted to bracket my particular
biases as I reflected on the experiences. For instance, I already had met briefly one of the Bamga
players. During the game, I watched her as she interacted with no consciously preconceived
notion of what would happen. According to Merleau-Ponty, however, complete reduction is
impossible, so I may have been influenced by the pre-game contact. By acknowledging my

28

familiarity with her, however, I believe I am able to bracket whatever underlying biases there may
have been.
The second area, protocol analysis based on interviews, is a twofold process. The first
part, the interviews, are recorded and later transcribed into the written word. They are developed
in the manner of a dialogue between two human beings. According to Sandra Weber (1986), an
interviewer’s attitude about the interviewee makes all the difference. If the interviewee is
considered a subject, informant, or simply a provider of informational data, the relationship will
not allow for a joint effort at discovering new knowledge. The phenomenological approach
encourages participation of both the interviewer and the interviewee in a shared reflection on the
experience (Weber, p. 65).
Steinar Kvale lays out the following twelve main aspects for understanding a qualitative
research interview (1983, pp. 174-178):
1. Life-world — the interviewer seeks to describe the interviewee’s central themes he or she has
experienced.
2. Meaning — After discovering the central themes, the interviewer attempts to understand their
meanings.
3. Qualitative — The effort is made to discover as many nuances in the description of the
interviewee’ life-world as possible.
4. Descriptive — The interviewer attempts to get as much of a description of feelings, behaviors,
and experiences from the interviewee.
5. Specificity — Rather than general opinions, the researcher focuses on specific situations and
act sequences.

29

6. Presuppositionless — The researcher may have his or her predispositions and biases, but in the
context of the interview, he or she needs to be open to the unexpected and new.
7. Focused — Even though the interviewer avoids standardization of questions, he or she needs
to have a focus on certain themes.
8. Ambiguity — When an interviewee makes ambiguous statements, it is the interviewer’s
responsibility to discover whether the contradictions are simply from a missed communication
or whether the participant is truly making a statement of the contradictions imbedded in
experience.
9. Change — Sometimes during an interview, the interviewee changes his or her meanings and
descriptions from insights discovered. He or she begins with one concept of an experience at
the onset of the interview and ends with a changed vision.
10. Sensitivity -- The sensitivity of the interviewer to the subject of the interview or interpersonal
interactions with the interviewee may affect the outcome of the knowledge discovered.
11. Interpersonal situation — Because both people, the interviewer and the interviewee, react to
one another, there is a reciprocal influence that helps define the interview itself.
12. Positive experience -- Because a qualitative interview is conducted as a conversation between
two people with a common interest, the experience has the potential to be a positive
experience for both participants.
In phenomenologically based interviews, the interviewer asks open-ended questions that
lead to a discussion between the interviewer and interviewee. The intention is to create a
conversational environment about the meaning of some experience (Van Manen, p. 66). In the
context of my thesis, for instance, I am seeking to discover the meaning behind the game

30

experience for the participant and whether tropological links are made with everyday life. The
following are three questions that I utilized as starting points for discussion in relation to Bamga
1. What was it like to play Bamga?
2. How did you feel when you first encountered another player “breaking the rules?”
3. How have your everyday interactions been affected or not affected by the game experience?
Question 1 sets the stage for a dialogue of the general spatial and relational environment
during the game. The second question leads to discussions about nonverbal interactions, conflict
management, relational situations in day-to-day interactions, and opens up discussions about the
work environment. The final question helps to uncover whether or not any tropological link with
everyday experiences has occurred at all.
Kvale makes the point that there exists “a continuum between description and
interpretation” during the interview process, (p. 180). He defines what he describes as six
possible phases of interpretation that occur during the course of the interview. These phases may
take on sequential characteristics but also may move from one to the other. The first three phases
occur during the interview itself while the second three happen after the initial interview is
complete. The first phase may be considered the interpretation the interviewee gives of his own
experiences -- his “life-world.” This would include what he thinks, feels, and does about the issue
at hand. A second phase occurs when the interviewee “discovers new relations.” He may, for
instance, realize that his actions in a certain training game were similar to his reactions during a
specific event at work. When the interviewer interprets and condenses the interviewee’s
comments, another phase of interpretation occurs both through the interviewee and interviewer.
The interviewee has the opportunity at this point to refine or redirect the interviewer’s

31

interpretation of what was said. This process can happen at many different points throughout the
interview.
After the interview is complete, the interviewer transcribes and interprets the interview as
a whole. This is the protocol analysis stage of the process on which I will elaborate later. Kvale
suggests two more phases of interpretation which may or may not happen. Sometimes the
interviewer gives the written transcriptions and his or her interpretations to the interviewee for
comment. Kvale calls this the re-interview stage. This gives the interviewee the opportunity to
fine-tune the interviewer’s understanding of what was said. Finally, the sixth phase of
interpretation may involve the interviewee acting upon new insights discovered through the
interview process. If this phase is enacted (which is not assured), the research interview takes on
the characteristics of a therapeutic interview (Kvale, pp. 180-2). In my study, the last two phases
did not come into play.
The second part of the “protocol analysis based on interviews” is the transcription and
interpretation of the interviews themselves. After all the interviews are completed, the
information needs to be transcribed into written text and formatted in two columns — one wide
and one narrow. The widest column will contain the protocols which are the verbatim texts of the
interviews. These protocols should include all words, pauses, and phatic expressions spoken by
the interviewee as well as the remarks made by the interviewer. The other column will be
reserved for interpretation. According to Ifechukude Mmobuosi (1985),the recorded protocols
should be interpreted “in terms of the what and the how of experience”. This includes how the
interviewee “gives account of experiences, such as use of recall or remembering, generalization,
illustration of statements, and figures of speech” (p. 265). In my coding, I looked for eight

32

different items: dominant theme, key phrase, my observations, environmental notations, metaphor,
metonymy, synecdoche, and irony. After the coding was complete, I looked for similarities and
linkages of meaning throughout each interview separately and then grouped together.
The third area, the protocol analysis of the protocol writing, was specifically focused on
the observations at the Bam. Since I could not interview participants, I opted to look for
immanent themes through my own protocol writing. (The participants were part of a drug and
alcohol rehabilitation center and their privacy precluded me from arranging interviews.) Although
the findings are not as rich as the interviews, I discovered enough thematic similarities to support
the findings of rest of my study. I coded the protocol writing of the Bam in the same manner
untilizing the same eight items as the Bamga interviews in order to make the comparisons.
Emily Stevick (1971, p. 136) describes this final step in this manner: “The replies were
translated into summary statements. Every summary or translation was checked against the
original to see that the sense had been maintained. Repetitive statements were eliminated. All
relevant, non-repetitive, translated components, given equal weight regardless of their frequency,
were integrated into a total gestalt which is the fundamental description of the experience...” In
my protocol analysis of the games, I discovered a rich organizational culture for which I was not
looking that seems to reflect both the game environment and the everyday organizational
structure of the players.

33

Discussion Of The Observations

In order to present my findings clearly, I will first frame the research through the
presentation of the protocol writings of both training game experiences. The first, Bamga, is a
card game administered to a management training workshop to teach conflict management. The
five interviews related to this game are presented as Appendix A. The second, the Bam, is an
experiential learning center where a group of sixteen adults participated in four different activities
throughout the course of one afternoon. I have included a coded version of this same text as
Appendix B.

Barnga Description
It is 9 AM. Dr. Brown and I are standing in front of a very old mansion. It is where the
executive offices of a retirement and nursing home complex are located. The exterior is painted
yellow with white trim. There is a sweeping stone patio at the entrance. As visitors, we must ring
a bell and wait until someone asks the purpose of our visit. We tell them that we are here for the
training, so she unlocks the door. We know this because we hear a loud buzzer as the lock is
released. The entryway is a large room painted pink with flowered wallpaper as an accent. On
the left is a curved staircase to the second floor, a grand piano, a bathroom, and a hallway. A
looped mg with multi-colored flowers, but predominantly light green in color, covers the parquet
floor. The opposite wall has windows and two windowed doors from which we can clearly see
out on to an expansive yard and beyond to Lake Erie. On a side table is a bronze-cast statue of a

34

hunter with two dogs. There is a mirror on the opposite wall that has an elaborate frame
depicting a fountain. To the right is a fireplace framed in white and yellow marble and the
entrance to another room.
When the Director arrives, we enter the room to the right down two stairs. This room is
paneled in dark wood throughout including parquet floors. There is an old Persian rug with red
and dark blue patterns. Across the room is a fireplace surrounded with red marble and a carved
wooden mantel. Above the mantel is an old Dutch painting of a woman reading a letter. The
walls are adorned with several paintings of landscapes that seem to be painted in the 19th
Century. Arranged along the walls are several old leather high-back chairs and a 19th century
style couch. There is a glass-doored cabinet with porcelain figures inside: some are Chinese and
some are European, but they all look very old. On the left is a set of bay windows looking out
into the yard. A four-foot ficus tree is placed there. A heavy wood table and one folding table are
placed in the center of the floor. There are several folding chairs around the tables.
To the right is a large arched entryway to another room flanked by two floor-to-ceiling
wood bookcases which have a number of leather-bound books on them. There is a set of three
wide stairs going up into this room which seems to be a sun room. Next to this entryway stands a
wrought-iron lectern which has a commemorative plaque mounted on its top. The room is
surrounded on three sides by windows and has a red, black, and yellow tiled floor. There are
several white wicker chairs and another folding table with folding chairs. Several plants are set on
a low windowsill which has an inset planter. There is one old side table painted black with a dark
marble top. Another tiled table has predominantly blue and gold scenes painted on the tiles. We
will use both of these rooms for the training.

35

Dr. Brown, Dr. Mueller, and I are preparing the two rooms for the first part of a conflict
management training session. We set up four areas in which the participants can interact in the
training game, Bamga: one is around the large wooden table by the bay windows; another is
around a folding table in the center of the first room; a third is along the wall by the bookcases;
and the fourth is in the sun room. We have been told that there will only be twelve participating,
so Dr. Brown decides that we will break them into four groups of three people each. He seems
concerned that the groups will not have enough members and shows some anxiety that the
morning go well. The Director is willing to help, but I sense that he is not certain why the room
needs to be rearranged. Dr. Brown is moving about from one place to the other placing chairs
and tables and arranging his papers. He is impatiently but pleasantly giving directions. Since the
game requires the movement of winners and losers, it is necessary that at least one participant will
stay at the original table for at least one round.
The Director of the organization, a retirement village, is present as we arrange the room.
He seems curious about our activity, but does not ask any questions. People start arriving with
coffee mugs, note pads, and pens. They are unfamiliar to me except one person who I met one
time a few months ago. Since we have seats placed at four tables dispersed about the room, the
individuals arriving seem a little confused about where they are supposed to sit: they stand and
look around. I notice some individuals place themselves carefully next to certain others. Others
arrive. One attempts to bring a chair over to another table, but Dr. Brown directs her to sit where
the chair is placed. We have fourteen participants in the end — two men and twelve women.
Through body language I am aware that all these people have some authority in the
organization. Some individuals wear clothing (the men in suits and the women in conservative,

36

well tailored dresses) that indicates this authority. Others are not dressed as carefully, but have a
demeanor that impresses me as ones who make decisions. Their walk is assured or they make
statements that indicate confidence within the group.
Each table is numbered 1 through 4 with four people sitting at Tables 1 and 2 and three
sitting at Tables 3 and 4. Dr. Brown begins by stating that he is throwing them into an activity
first rather than a didactic introduction. As he explains the game they are about to play, there is
some jocular interplay among the players. I have had one prior exposure to the game, so I am
already aware of the rules, both secret and obvious.
As I pass out the basic rules, he explains that the game is played similar to Euchre. One
person looks confused. I comment that they will take tricks. I am aware from the looks of some
of the participants that there are at least three individuals who do not play cards or are not very
good at cards. Their body language shows me that they are uncomfortable by the idea of playing.
Dr. Brown continues to describe the play of the game stating that the individuals who take
the most tricks must move up to the next highest table and those who take the fewest tricks, move
to the next lowest table. When the player who wins is already at the highest table, he or she does
not move; and, likewise, when the player who loses is already at the lowest table, he or she stays
there. Dr. Brown states that the lowest table is #1 and the highest is #4. The game will consist
of three or four rounds in order for the tables to rotate several times.
An individual from Table #1 begins to comment that she has always considered 1 as the
highest. “You know, like #1, the best!” Her tone is laughing but defensive. The individuals at
Table #4 are quiet, but smile.

37

There is much talking and laughing in the room as Dr. Brown explains these basic rules.
Now he states that when the next set of rules are passed out, the participants may discuss the
game within their individual tables to make sure everyone knows how to play. After a few
minutes, the rules will then be collected and the game should begin with the players are not being
allowed to speak to one another for the duration of the game. They can use hand signals but no
sign language and written symbols but no written words. He states that this rule will be strictly
enforced. There is some mumbling and chuckling but mostly the participants become quieter. I
begin to pass out the sheets.
In Bamga, each table receives different rules. The highest card may be an ace or it may be
a king, or the trump may be a spade or a club. All the other rules are the same -- the highest card
or highest trump card gets the trick. Each deck only includes cards from nine through ace to
speed up the play of the game. All the cards are dealt with any extras placed aside.
The rules are distributed and there is quiet talking among the players. I cannot hear what
they are saying, but I realize that they are defining the rules so that each member of their table
understands what to do. After a few minutes, Dr. Brown and I take the rules away from the
players and the game begins in silence. The tables start to play out their hands in quiet, mannerly
fashion. After each of the tables plays at least three tricks and a winner and loser at each table is
obvious, he directs them to rotate. Because there are few players at each table, Dr. Brown assists
in identifying which players need to rotate and where they need to go. In this rotation, five
individuals end up at Table 2. There is a little confusion about the seating because the table has
only 4 seats around it. One of the seats from Table 1 is moved and the play begins again.

38

This time the game quickly moves into some confusion at Tables 1, 2, and 3. When the
first trick is complete, the players find themselves in disagreement about who has won the trick.
At Table 3, one of the men, the Director of the organization, seems irritated. He gets flushed and
starts gesticulating with his hands furiously. The other player does not back down pointing to the
floor to indicate that a certain card is lower in value than another: she eventually takes the trick.
Table 4 does not seem to be in conflict at all. Tables 1 and 3 are playing but the individual players
are shaking their heads and silently laughing. Even with the disagreements, the game continues
until several tricks are taken.
Dr. Brown again rotates the players. In Round 3, Table 2 begins to show frustration. One
of the players slams his hand down on the table after not being allowed to take a trick. Table 3
also shows frustration and one of the players throws her cards down on the Table each time her
turn comes. Table 4 seems to still be calm although there are signs of frustration as the players
shake their heads.
In the fourth and final round, one player at Table 2 seems to take over the play. Each time
a trick is played, she forcefully grabs the trick from the center. The other players try to argue
against her action through hand gestures and facial expressions, but she vehemently defends
herself through eye contact, facial expressions, and head shaking. At Table 4, one person has
continued to win throughout the rounds and, as a consequence, has never left that table. Her
demeanor throughout the play has been calm and relaxed. In this play she is showing frustration
with the two other players through quizzical smiles and head shakes.
When Dr. Brown stops the play and ends the game, most of the players begin to talk at
once before he asks for their reactions. There are accusatory comments such as, “You were

39

playing by different rules!”, or “you did not understand the rules!” It is hard to identify who is
speaking.
Dr. Brown asks the players how they felt during the game. I am asked to write down each
of the ideas that the groups identifies. I have a large marker and an easel with a large tablet on it.
This group is talking at once. I am unable to identify all the things that are being said. Dr. Brown
and Dr. Mueller repeat some things that I can write. I sense that this organization has trouble
with its hierarchy in that each supervisor seems to have a sense of authority that does not
compromise easily. The demeanor of the participants is friendly but highly assertive — almost
aggressive ~ with one another.
The discussion identifies a list of feelings and reactions. Some participants have figured
out early that different players were working with different rules. With hand signals, facial
expressions, and written symbols, the players learn to compromise their rules to keep the game
going. Some players continued to dominate over the game through intimidation (Table 2, Round
4) and others through simple stubbornness (Table 4, Rounds 1, 2, and 3). The players who gave
in to others comment that they felt helpless during the play.
Dr. Brown and Dr. Mueller are explaining to the group that in confrontational situations,
participants feel much the same way about the circumstances as they did in the game. They note
that certain interactive behavior styles have surfaced in this circumstance and through the
discussion: compromising, submissive, majority rules, and threats. The two of them have asked
the participants to brainstorm about real-life situations that may be pertinent to the Bamga
experience.

40

The participants break into three different discussion groups and Dr. Brown directs them
to come up with two situations — one at work and one outside work -- in which the rules for the
various participants are different. The groups form through proximity at the end of the play as
opposed to alliances. He gives them some time to discuss and identify these situations. I am
aware that this exercise is an integral part of the debriefing for Bamga. I realize that without this
linkage, the game players may not grab the full impact of the game.
Three situations arise through the discussion: one outside work and two at work. The
situation outside work is the manner in which individuals approach a yellow light when driving.
Those who stop at a yellow light (“slow down and prepare to stop”) frustrate cars behind them
who consider the rules for yellow traffic lights to mean “hurry up and get through.” I think that
this is an odd one since I am of the first school of thought.
The second situation identified relates to the organization. Supervisors have different
enforcement styles concerning employment rules. The last situation seems to be connected to the
first. Some departments allow one twenty minute break for employees while others allow two ten
minute breaks. The employees with one break see the others out for a break a second time and
resent that they do not have the same. The rules are different and the communication breaks
down.

The Barn Description
I have traveled three hours to reach the Bam. It is a real 100 year old bam with electricity
but no running water. (It has an outhouse.) Inside the space is open with one side installed with a
rappelling wall. There are some cables stretched across the width of the bam perhaps ten feet off

41

the ground. I see two gymnastic mats and two rope ladders hanging from the ceiling. On one
side of the bam is a one story high closed-in room. It takes up perhaps an eighth of the square
footage of the bam. There are windows in the walls of the room, so I can see inside. It has a
desk in it but nothing else that I can see. I have the urge to go into the room, but I turn my focus
on the activities at hand.
The director of The Bam, Mary, and her student assistant, Dave, are busy checking how
two large ropes are attached to the wall. They place two climbers’ hooks on the ropes as I make
my presence known. I have been here before. In June, I came to interview Mary about what it is
like to facilitate an experiential game. I have not, however, actually watched the games in action
at this point.
The group that will be going through the training this time is waiting outside. It is a warm
day and the bam doors are wide open. Mary and Dave finish preparing and the three of us join
the group outside. The group of sixteen adults, five women and eleven men, has come from a
residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation center. Three men and three women are black: the rest
are white. This is a new experience for Mary. She has some anxiety over the success of this
particular training session Mostly she works with students and corporate entities.
The group’s facilitator, John, is leading them in some stretching exercises after which the
group gets in a large circle for introductions. Mary and I have decided that I will introduce myself
at this point and explain why I am here. John already knows I will be present today. Mary starts
by explaining very simply that she is going to lead them in a series of experiential learning games
followed by a debriefing. After Dave and I explain our presence there as well, Mary requests that
the group move into the bam and sit in a circle on the floor.

42

I have established that I am going to be as inconspicuous as possible, so I sit outside the
circle taking notes. Mary and I decided before the event that I would not tape record the training
because the group was from a rehabilitation center and the members’ anonymity was important.
Additionally the group members had been sent to the center by the courts which made their
identities even more critical to protect.
Full Value Contract. Mary begins by introducing what she calls a Full Value Contract.
She lists several expectations and rules she has for the group members and requests that each one
individually agrees to them vocally. She states that anyone in the group may add to her list as
well. Her conditions are as follows:
• Each member of the group must be responsible for himself or herself and the others in the
group. If a group member sees another member doing something that seems dangerous either
physically or emotionally to that member, he or she has a responsibility to stop the activity and
voice his or her concern.
•

Dave and Mary promise to give the group problems but will not solve them.

•

Smoking is prohibited in or near the Bam. She reinforces this by explaining the barn’s age
and stating that the school will not replace it if it bums down.

•

She states that if one member wants to take a break, the whole group must take a break at the
same time.

•

Each member of the group will have the choice to take the challenge of each activity. If the
member does not want to participate actively, he or she will not be forced to do it. However,
the member is expected to encourage and spot other member who do participate.

•

Mary promises that she will challenge the group to stretch themselves.

43

•

John, the group’s rehabilitation facilitator, adds that there will be no cut-downs or put-downs.
He requires that this will be an emotionally safe environment.
Mary then starts asking members to agree to the contract. She states that she has an

imaginary bowling ball in her hand. She asks if anyone wants to speak. One member indicates by
lifting his hand that he wants to speak. She roles the ”ball” and tells the group that each one must
throw or pass something imaginary to the next speaker.
The first speaker states that he will do the best he can, will help each of the other members
of the group, and will keep to the contract. He passes a “football” to a woman in the group. She
states that she will keep to the contract as well and will work on her weakness in communicating
with others. She throws a “doughnut” to another woman who promises to finish each task. The
fourth member throws a “Frisbee” and states that he is there to have fun and find a sense of
community. Other members throw such items as a “penny,

33 CC

snowball,” and “apple” and promise

such things as working on self-confidence, helping friends, and overcoming fears. Each member
of the group takes their turn to agree to the rules and to state their own personal challenge for this
day. The process of making the promise is extended to the facilitators as well and I do not
exclude myself in this part of the day. Since everyone is agreeing to abide by the rules, I
volunteer to do the same although I am sitting outside the circle. Mary states that she agrees that
I should also verbalize my acceptance of the Full Value Contract.
The Swinging Rope. Mary suggests that the group members remove their jewelry and
place the items in a box. Several members do so. She asks the group if they are ready for their
first challenge. They agree and she brings out a large rope perhaps ten feet long. Dave takes hold
of one end and one of the female members takes hold of the other end. The two start swinging

44

the rope about one revolution a second as if they are playing jump-rope and Mary encourages the
others to pass through the rope one at a time without touching it and without missing a swing.
The group runs through with no particular order. Some members run at once and the others
stagger their attempts. After they all pass through, another member of the group takes the rope
so the swinger can pass through.
Mary notes that this activity seems easy. Now she directs the members to pass through
the rope without missing one revolution and without missing one member including the swinger.
They line up single file. When the first member goes through, he takes the swinger’s turn and she
goes to the end of the line. The group claps spontaneously to the time of the swing in order to
assure that everyone gets through on time. This activity is successful.
Mary comments on the success of the group, but now states that the team needs to go
through in pairs. The group congregates and begins to discuss how to achieve this. One white
male member begins to take charge of the planning and the group accepts the direction of this
man willingly. A second black woman also becomes outspoken and tells the group to “hush-up
and listen.” The “leader” directs the members into pairs. The team lines up and passes through
the rope but misses a rotation and forgets about the swinger even though the swinger is calling
aggressively for someone to take the rope from him. They must do it again. Mary asks how
many members understood the rules. Half the team agrees that they do, but the other half admits
that they don’t. The team acknowledges that the breakdown occurred in planning. The “leader”,
however, maintains his position and directs one of the members of the first group to take over the
rope. The other member will run through again with the swinger. This plan works and everyone
claps when the activity is finished.

45

Mary now requires the team to pass through in threes. The team again discusses among
themselves how to achieve this. They line up and begin to run through. One of the members of
the first group takes the rope from the swinger, and the other two members go through again with
the swinger. The first attempt doesn’t work because their timing is off. The second time, one of
the women gets hit in the eye with the rope. She has to stop. Mary asks if the team wants to stop
and wait for the woman to recover. The woman insists that the team continue and that she will
join in later. Mary asks for consensus on this and the group agrees. The hurt member watches as
the team continues. It takes them two more tries to get the activity right.
Mary calls the group together for a short debriefing session. The members sit in the
middle of the floor in a circle. She asks if anyone has any thoughts on the activities. One person
states that a good leader is needed. Another makes the comment that too many people were
talking at once. One woman in the group comments that once the problem is stated, and a
solution is suggested, the group should just do it.
The groups facilitator, John, then takes over. He asks, “How can these experiences be
used as part of recovery [from addiction to drugs and alcohol].”
One person states that the concentration needed for each of the activities reminds him to
keep focused on sobriety. When he forgets to pay attention, he slips up. Another comments that
the activities need all the members pulling together and helping each other in a similar manner to
the focus of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The woman who is hurt is now commenting
that doing things together is a new experience for her. John states that when the members go
through their rehabilitation program, they begin one by one. When an individual gets the courage
to do so, he or she takes on a partner (a sponsor) and finally s/he begins to trust the whole group.

46

They become open to suggestions and allow a common leader to emerge. The woman who was
hurt comments that if she had been hurt “on the outside,” she would have been angry and have
“gone off.” Instead she felt trusting of the others in the group.
Mary now invites the group to do one more activity with the rope. She wants the group
members to go through in pairs again. Each member needs to go through twice, however; the
second time being with a different partner. When the group begins to talk out the plan, too many
people begin to talk a once and several ideas are proposed. One women begins to get agitated
and shows some irritation. She comments, “This is so frustrating.”
At this point, Maiy stops the activity and interjects, “Now let me repeat what I said.
Now I’m not going to tell you anything differently, but I just want you again to hear the rules.
Don’t attach new rules to this activity.” She now repeats the rules.
The group begins again to brainstorm. Another woman is acting frustrated. She now
states, “The first person coming through....you take the rope. Then everybody will have a
different partner going through and it won’t be a problem.”
This idea doesn’t work because most people want to know who their second partner will
be. It is hard for me to understand what plan is being formulated because too many people are
speaking. Nevertheless, the team finally has work out the plan. It has taken at least ten minutes,
longer that the other planning sessions. The first time is not successful because the first person
swinging the rope does not know who her partner is. The second time is successful and the whole
group laughs, claps, and praises one another.
Debriefing Of The Swinging Rope. Mary calls for another debriefing session. She takes
a large beach ball and rolls it to each person who wants to speak. Now the woman who had

47

spoken up earlier states that she was becoming exasperated during the planning session because
she felt that the group was overworking their strategy and that it was actually easy to solve. Mary
points out to her that, although her idea was a legitimate way of thinking, there are other ways of
working out plans. She states that even though her plan might be a good one, there are ideas that
may be as valid. She needs to appreciate other people’s manner of making plans. A lot of other
people need to know who their second partner will be. This is only another way of thinking and is
equally as valid.
John now links the experience with their rehabilitation program. He states that recovery
includes learning how to control anger and to slow down. The recovery of one individual
depends on the support of the group: the program is a team effort. He also states that there is
more than one plan toward rehabilitation and other members of the group need to respect that.
At this point Mary calls for a break.
The Wall. Outside of the bam is a free-standing wall. It measures approximately ten feet
high and is about 8 feet wide. It is a heavy-duty panel that is mounted on telephone pole posts
which are buried in the ground to give the construction support. Attached horizontally to the
back side of the wall are three 2 foot by 2 foot beams placed 2 feet apart beginning approximately
3 feet down from the top of the wall. In the center of the top beam, a sturdy rope has been
attached which hangs down to the ground. The rope has knots tied in at about one and a half foot
or two foot intervals.
The objective of the activity surrounding the wall is for each member to climb over the
smooth side with the help of the other members of the group. Dave reminds the group that

48

climbing is voluntary and anyone who does not want to attempt this can choose to work only as a
spotter; but everyone must participate.
He is now explaining how to spot the climbers. He is careful to explain what to do if the
climber does not make it to the top. “Don’t try to catch them because you will get hurt. If
they’re falling, lean them towards the wall so that they come down slowly.”
Mary now is describing how the group is going to get their team members over. The
physiques of these people are diverse: some are fit and thin; some are unfit and heavy; some are
tall and others are short. She tells them that one member needs to climb the wall first and stand
on the top post. That person will help lift members over the wall. Another member needs to spot
the lifter. He or she must be standing on the next post and place his or her arms on either side of
the lifter’s body leaning toward his or her body to assure that the lifter does not fall. The
members have been given helmets to wear for this activity. I am surprised that the women readily
put these on. They are not worried about how they look.
She emphasizes that this is an exercise for each member to do his or her personal best. If
one person can climb the wall and another can only get half way up, it does not mean that the first
is better. Each participant must try to push himself or herself beyond his or her personal limits
and, in so doing, succeed. The goal is not to compare achievement with others.
Now the man who has take on leadership roles throughout the training and another man
go to the wall and begin to climb. The two have not discussed any plan with the rest of the
group. Mary stops them and ask, “Does anybody know what the plan is? How many people
know what the plan is here?”

49

No one seems to know. Individuals in the group seem to be making their own plans
without discussing the ideas with the rest. Mary expresses to me a concern about the well-being
of the participants. She is concerned that with the initial chaos of the group, someone will be
hurt. One man states, “ Well, maybe these two guys are not the right ones to be lifting on top of
the wall.”
Another fellow makes the comment that one of the team members who has a lot of upper
body strength may be a better one for that job. They also pick a second man who seems almost
as strong to spot the lifter. These two are medium height: the group decides that the tallest men
need to stay below because they work best as spotters. They can also help give height to those
who are scaling the wall.
The first two people to agree to go over are the two heaviest women in the group. I note
that both of them do not hesitate for a moment. The group rallies behind them one at a time as
they approached the wall and lifts them up to the man on the top who helps them over. Each
climbs down and returns to the front of the wall to help the rest go over. The third girl is light
and easy to lift, but the fourth is frightened until the man on the top says to her, “Hey, it’s me!”
Then she seems to feel safer and allows the others to help her over.
One man is extremely heavy. I am not certain whether the group will be able to get him
over but they do. They figure out that two of the strong men need to be on the top to help lift
him, so two other people walk behind the wall to spot two lifters. One of the spotters is the
woman who had hurt her eye during the rope exercise. She has decided not to climb the wall, but
she is very helpful spotting and lifting.

50

The last man, the tallest, decides that he will climb the wall by running and leaping to the
lifters. He attempts this five times, but only until the others come behind him to lift does he
achieve the height he needs.
Pebriefin2 of the Wall. The group return to the Bam and sit in a circle on the floor
again. Mary takes the ball and states that there is power in communications. She asks if anyone
wants to speak. One person says that she was glad that she had the choice to participate.
Another man states that he was surprised at the willingness of the girls to participate. A third
comments on the growth of trust that occurred in the exercise. Then one of the women who
scaled the wall states that she was afraid of the hurdle but went anyway. Another man comments
that it was nice to help others and that it had built a sense of confidence in his ability to help. The
fact that the group looked at two different plans is brought up as a positive result of the exercise.
John has now taken over the facilitation of the group. He is focusing on his own AA
agenda. He asks the group, “How can what you learned in this activity be translated into real-life
behaviors later on?”
He comments that the wall could be seen as the obstacles each of the participants had to
face as they go through his or her rehabilitation. With the help of other people, it is possible to
overcome those obstacles more easily that trying to do it alone. When small groups try to make
plans separate from the group, it does not help the group as a whole. He notes that the man who
ran and leaped at the wall was using a different style, but that was OK because each individual has
his or her own style for recovery.
Mary focuses on the man who lifted the participants over. She comments that she was
amazed at his strength and asks him how he feels about the experience. He comments that he is

51

used to having people depend on him, but it was nice to have these people trust him. Also he
realized that he needed to trust the person spotting behind him. Mary asks if the group could
have different individuals take turns being in control.
Wild Woosev. Mary and Dave have attached two heavy cables to the walls
approximately two feet off the floor. They are linked together at one point and extend away from
one another at approximately a 30° angle. Dave explains that two people will be side stepping
along each cable holding hands and leaning into one another to give each other stability as they
move along the separating cables. He shows how the rest need to spot the pair. There needs to be
at least one person each behind both of the walkers. Others need to place themselves between the
two cables and under the walkers. They will lean over with their arms resting on their knees so
that if the walkers fall, they will land on the backs of the spotters. As the walkers move along the
cables, more spotters will be needed. Mary and he demonstrate. Their hands are linked upright
palm to palm and their arms become stretched out in front and stiffened as they move along the
cables.
The first to try are the same man who took charge in the beginning of the other two
exercises and another man. They start out too fast and do not pay attention to their arms: they
bend at the elbow and fall perhaps 12 feet from the start. Now one woman and a man try. Mary
directs the spotters behind the couple to lift their hands up in order to catch them if they fall. She
also helps the walkers lean into one another more. This pair traverses about 12 feet also, but they
are shorter which requires them to lean in more than the first pair.
The next pair, a man and a woman, has a problem because the man cannot get his
balance. Mary calms him down by helping them get the proper positioning. The next pair, two

52

tall men, have the technique and are able to traverse the cables about 20 feet. I note that each
group gets better because they seem to learn from the others. I also note that fear in this exercise
was not gender specific. Both men and women could be either afraid or confident.
At this point, I notice that some of the participants have wandered off outside the bam.
Some are smoking a cigarette; some have gone to the outhouse; some are simply talking among
themselves. This seems to cause a feeling of disintegration in the group process. The pairs who
are traversing the cable are not concentrating as well and fall easily. John realizes that several
have wandered off and calls the group back. The last two pairs to attempt the activity do much
better with the re-establishment of support. They both keep eye contact and position their arms
properly. The rest of the group encourage them along with comments. “You can do it!” “That’s
it!” “Keep going!” These two pair traverse about 20 feet each.
We are sitting around in a circle again. Mary seems to be in a bit of a hurry. I sense that
she wants a short debriefing this time. She asks if anyone wants to say anything. At first no one
speaks, so I feel it is important that I make a comment. I tell the group that I noticed that when
the group lost interest in the activity, the participants did not do as well. I comment that I sensed
the need for group support was important to success of the individual members. The group
agrees and expressed appreciation for my observances. One of the participants comments that
“we all need someone to fall back on.” Another said, “We can depend on others for help.”
While the group is discussing the importance of dependency, one of the women begins to
frown and pulls back from the circle. She has her knees up and is hugging them. Someone asks
her what she is thinking. She refuses to respond and Maiy intervenes by saying, “We all need to

53

respect her privacy. If she wants to share her feelings, she will do it.” She reminds the group that
this workshop is to be a safe experience both physically and mentally.
Tangle Traverse. This activity caused me some concern. I knew that I would have been
one who refused to do this exercise. Attached to opposite sides of the Bam are two taut cables
about 20 feet above the ground. On either side hang two rope ladders attached to the ceiling and
two loosely dangling ropes. Also there are two ropes attached at opposite ends on the ceiling and
drawn through pulleys on the opposite side of the Bam: they are attached in the reverse of one
another. These ropes hang loosely about two feet above the floor in an arc and the free ends are
coiled on the floor on opposite sides. There is a climber’s clip on each of these ropes. The
members of the group who want to tiy this exercise are now putting on harnesses which are
looped around each leg and attached at the waist.
The participants work in pairs. After the harnesses are attached to the climber’s clip, the
pair climb their rope ladders positioned opposite one another along the cable. They are now at
opposite ends of the cable. The rest of the members have split into two teams and are holding on
to the loose ends of the ropes attached to the climbers. This ensures that if the climbers fall, the
team can ease them down to safety.
When the climbers reach the cable, each takes hold of the loosely hanging rope next to the
rope ladders and begins to side-step along the cable. They work their way to the center where
they trade the ropes in their hands and maneuver around one another to the other side. When this
is accomplished, the teams on the floor gently ease each participant to the floor.
The first pair begins to climb the rope ladders. The man has made it to the top, but the
woman can not get herself to step on the cable. She has tried several times, but is not succeeding.

54

Mary is intervening here. She asks the woman if she wants to come down. She says, “Yes!”
Now Mary is saying that the problem here was that the pair had not established any emotional
connection prior to climbing the rope. There is a discussion as to who should take the woman’s
place and, finally the man on the cable and another woman agree that she should come up. While
the climber climbs, the group keeps a tension on the rope attached to her harness. She makes it
to the cable and the pair attempt to trade ropes and pass one another. The ropes attached to each
of the climbers become tangled: the two climbers are eased down at this point, but the group
praises them for trying.
Now another pair, an man and a woman, attempts the activity. This time someone states
that the climbers have to be aware of which side of the cable they are facing before climbing the
ladders. The two who climbed before did not make that assessment first. The man is heavyset
and I can tell that he is afraid as he climbed the ladder. He is breathing heavily and keeps
hesitating. Mary reminds him that he does not have to do this, but he persists. When he reaches
the cable, it takes him a long time to get on. There is a definite moment when I can tell that he
has decided to complete the activity. At that moment, he climbs on to the cable and begins to
side-step toward the middle. Throughout all of it, the rest of the members of the group are
encouraging him by saying. “You can do it! Come on!” As he is eased to the floor, I can see that
he is proud of himself.
It is obvious that the group was getting tired. Some of the members take off their
harnesses. One more pair, two men, climb the rope. This team is able to do the activity smoothly
and quickly.

55

Debriefing of Tangle Traverse. Mary has stepped aside for this debriefing and lets John
take over. He asks the heavyset man why he continued to attempt the traverse although he was
so afraid. The man said that it was because he was being encouraged by the other members of the
team. John links that with the encouragement given to one another by members of AA. The
woman who had retreated earlier speaks up and comments on her fear of dependency on others
because she has been hurt before by some people she had trusted. John states that it is good that
she shared that feeling after all. Her ability to share her fears is more difficult than the activities
just performed.

Comparison Of The Two Games

The two training game situations I observed have vastly different environments according
to Shubik’s description (Shubik, pp. 3-4). The experiential training session at the Bam had very
few rules. The participants were set to the task of solving several logistic problems which were
described in simplistic terms setting up an environment-rich scenario. In contrast, the Bamga on
the surface was an environment-poor game with very specific rules and very little room for
variation. When the participants went through the game and debriefing, however, the Bamga
turned out to be surprisingly rich because the players did not know aU the rules.
In both training games, the debriefing by the facilitator was key. If any of the activities
were performed without a debriefing session, it could have been viewed as simply a game for
entertainment with no link in everyday life. As discussed in the literature review, Gass describes
six different forms of facilitation: letting the experience speak for itself, speaking for the

56

experience, debriefing the experience, directly frontloading the experience, framing the
experience, and indirectly frontloading the experience (Gass, p. 1). The Bamga was a true
debriefing in which the participants played the game with no remarks to frame the event up front.
The Bam utilized a debriefing structure in the beginning, but because of the frequency of the
debriefing sessions, later activities were essentially frontloaded as well.
Gass comments that experiential training sessions in which the facilitator “lets the
experience speak for itself’ are less likely to teach interpersonal or intrapersonal skills, or help the
participants “resolve certain issues confronting their lives” (p. 2). In the case of the Bamga and
the Bam, the facilitators’ active framing of the experience helped create tropological links with
day-to-day experiences.
Neither of the games observed were business simulations, although both techniques are
used for organizational training. The first, the Bamga, is used in conflict management or
multicultural training workshops. The second, the Bam, is used to enhance teamwork and trust
among organization members.
During the observations at the Bam, I noticed that the same individuals were taking
similar “jobs” during each of the activities. In the beginning, one male participant immediately
went first through the ropes. When a leader became necessary for the organization of the activity
this same man took charge. He was not, however, a person who plans, so the activity quickly fell
into chaos. A second person seemed to take charge as his “second in command.” She would tell
the others to “hush up” and to go here or there after the leader would decide how to do it.
During the climbing on the wall, a new “leader” emerged. He was quiet throughout the whole

57

afternoon, but he had the qualities of strength and reliability. The rest of the group began to rely
on these traits in him especially as the lifter in the Wall exercise.
During the debriefing, the facilitators would link their recovery process with the varied
successes of each of the activities. Their program counselor would comment on the need of each
member to rely on others to help them through their rehabilitation. He would discuss their fear of
trusting others and how each of the activities depended on trust. The group members seemed to
make metaphorical links with their own lives as was evidenced by the emotional withdrawal of
one member and the eventual disclosure by her that she was troubled by all this trust. It seemed
to me that the members of this group specifically benefited from the experience by learning more
about their own personalities and how far they could stretch their limitations. I think also that
they discovered much about each other. For instance, the others realized that the man who took
the leadership role in the beginning did not have the organizational skills to plan out his idea well.
They began to look for another leader.
The Bamga situation showed a similar disclosure of personalities and limitations. When
the first managers arrived, their demeanor was self-assured and assertive. Because the room was
arranged around several tables, there was some confusion about where to sit: it seems that the
participants are habit of sitting in a specific seat during meetings in this room. They also sit next
to certain people: after most participants arrived, one person came in and tried to move a chair
from one table to another to sit next to someone. When she was told that she could not do that,
she accepted the limitation reluctantly.
The game itself highlighted some powerful allegiances among some of the organization
members. In particular, the Director and one other manager moved together from one table to

58

another. That fact in itself was a random occurrence, but the manner in which the two developed
an allegiance against other players inferred a deeper working relationship. Their nonverbal
communication and mutual attacks on other players ensured that they dominated the play at each
table; even when the other players had mutually different rules from the pair and could
theoretically gang up on them.
Some individuals tended to give in easily. I noted that at several tables, a single person
seemed to dominate the play. Others would look confused or frustrated, but would choose to
accept the behavior of the aggressive player even when they knew that their rules were being
violated.
During the debriefing, the comments of the individuals exposed those personality
differences more emphatically. Some who stated that they thought the others who “didn’t know
the rules” were “dumb” or “forgetful,” had shown aggressive behaviors during the game. Others
who had just given up stated that they thought they misunderstood the rules or that the other
players must know something they did not know. A third group realized that the rules were
different for each table. These people chose to observe how the others reacted. They played to
discover either the worth of the cards or to simply observe their coworker’s reactions. In the
subsequent interviews, the characters of each interviewee clarified what I had observed about
each during the game. In fact, the organizational structure as it pertains to each of the
interviewees rose clearly to the surface.

59

Barnga Interviews

Each one of the interviews began with a question that asked what it was like for the
participant to go through the game. The responses of each and the subsequent conversations
have uncovered an interesting network of interpersonal and organizational relationships among
the participants. Each of the interviewees are in managerial positions in the organization. They
are all female although I do not consider this a factor in my discoveries. My criteria for choosing
each one were that they had taken part in the workshop and that they had made an impression on
me during the observation of the same. My initial intention was to focus specifically on the
playing of Barnga, but in every one of the interviews, the role-playing activity became as much a
focus of attention as the game.
Two of the interviews were given in a small conference room off the reception area for the
nursing home management offices, one was performed in a small resident dining area, and two
were given in individual offices. I completed all five over the course of three different visits to the
site.
The building in which all the interviews were conducted is a fairly recent construction. It
is one story and seems to amble giving the impression that it is actually more than one building.
There are two entryways: one into an area that houses residents who need minimal care; and the
other, the one I entered, into a maximum care area. There is a double-doored entryway with the
first set of doors entering out on to a curved driveway and the second set entering in to a very
wide hallway which has 19th century paintings on the walls and a large plant situated by two
upholstered chairs. Along the hallway is a hand-rail with a pink line beneath it. There is a

60

numbered plaque with removable nameplates on it. To the left is the entryway into the dining area
and a door entering into the dietician’s office, the kitchen, and the kitchen manager’s office. To
the right is the reception area for the office suite. A receptionist sits at a desk in an open area.
Behind her and to her left are the entrances to several offices and the conference room. To the
right behind her is a hallway leading to other offices. There is a lot of activity going on and when
the doors are open to the various offices, one can hear much of what is being said.

Joan
Being the one who brought the idea of the workshop into the organization, Joan was
concerned about her co-workers’ receptiveness to the activity. We met in a small dining room off
the main dining area, not in her office. Later I found that she works next to the office reception
area in a space separated by partition walls but with no door. She is placed outside her boss’s
office so that each time her boss enters or leaves her room, she walks through Joan’s area. Until I
realized this, I wondered why she chose such a public space to meet me: residents of the Village
came and went through this dining area several times throughout the interview.
Joan’s discussion of the workshop was full of metaphorical phrases that indicated a strong
sense of victimage and otherness: her language implies that she is in essence a stranger to the
community of her co-workers. She mentioned an “underlying feeling” in relation to her concern
about her co-workers’ acceptance of the workshop. She worried that they would not see “the
forest for the trees”, a suggestion that her co-workers may fuss over little details, but may not
understand the full picture of what is happening. Later, when speaking about her boss she
commented that he gives them “enough rope to hang ourselves.” Does he bait her placing her in

61

the center of conflict and then not help her out when she needs it? When discussing the playing of
the game, she commented about “backing] off“ and that others had a “higher” understanding of
the rules. Her voice tended to waver at moments in the discussion and her eyes showed a great
deal of anxiety even when she laughed.
Her position as initiator of the training session is full of irony. In order to help the
organization deal with conflict, she has suggested a training to address this issue. Yet the training
itself places her at the center of conflict and seems to exacerbate her conflictual relationships with
her co-workers. During the playing of the game, Joan was willing to let others dictate the rules of
the table. She did not show any signs of aggression throughout, rather she very quickly deferred
to the other players’ rules. I found out during the interview that she had known the rules
beforehand. Nevertheless, she did not seem to be enjoying her secret: rather she was showing
signs of anxiety. This dichotomy is ironic because one who knows the rules usually has the
advantage.
When I interviewed her, I did ask her about the first time she played and how she
responded to others at the table. She stated that she let others dictate the rules and thought that
she just missed something.

Pat
My second interviewee met me in the dining area after Joan was finished. Pat suggested
that we go to her office because some of the residents tended to eaves-drop and she was
uncomfortable with that. She pointed to one elderly woman and said that she liked to start
rumors. I thought about Joan’s choice of environment and realized that that particular woman

62

was not in the room when we had been talking. Still others had been. Joan’s worries were more
directed to the staff than the residents I concluded.
Pat’s office was set outside the kitchen. Hers was a more private space although one wall
had windows looking into the kitchen. Also several times announcements were made over a
loudspeaker and perhaps two times we were interrupted by someone with a question. One wall
was covered with a bookcase containing various dietary, scientific, and medical publications. She
had a computer terminal to one side of her desk and a stack of papers on the other side. A chair
sat conveniently facing her desk for visitors. It was not a large office so it gave the feeling of
clutter although everything is neatly placed.
When we began the discussion about the game, Pat surprised me by saying that card
playing is against her religious beliefs. She had to decide whether it was ethically correct for her
to participate. Because she felt it was best for the experience of the group, she persisted anyway.
It wasn’t long before she realized that the rules were different for each table. Again, she had to
decide if it was ethically correct for her to continue playing, and for the same reason she
continued. Her sense of ethics and honesty permeated her interview.
Several interrelated issues came to the surface during our discussion. She found it
disturbing that the newer employees were more receptive to the training and participated in the
role-playing whereas the older employees resisted becoming involved. Apparently, this lack of
participation and support is common: she described the poor response to a training tape she
proposed to show. She commented that these people are “in a rut” and mentioned a clique of
older employees several times. She implied that this clique deals with conflict by forming alliances

63

against the other person rather than facing the situation directly. She stated, “...some people gain
confidence through power” and contrasted it to gaining confidence through knowledge.
During the conflict management training session, Pat was very introspective. Although
she was part of the role-play, she did not volunteer. In contrast, she was the most open and
receptive during the interview. I sense that she thinks before she speaks and keeps to herself in
uncomfortable situations.

Alice
When I interviewed Alice, we met in the conference room along side the reception area.
Alice manages the kitchen, so when I came she offered me a cup of coffee which I accepted. The
conference room was very small; enough to contain one large table and several chairs but not
much else. A display easel was leaning against the wall behind me. Two walls had windows
looking out onto the grounds. The door also had a window, so anyone could see who is using the
room.
Alice impressed me as one who is outspoken but who defers to authority quickly. She has
a strong sense of status as it relates to herself and others. I sense that this trait made it difficult
for her to believe that her rules may have been correct during the Bamga. As it turns out, she
never figured out that the game had different rules even during the debriefing. When confronted
with someone else’s rules, she would argue vehemently at first. If the other person insisted,
however, she would relent. While she was playing against the Director, she began to have a

64

disagreement with him over who had take a trick. When the Director insisted that his card was
trump, she said nonverbally, “You know, I’m gonna back down. Do what you want to do.”
In her description of her place in the organization, she emphasized that she needs to be
able to compromise and to come up with other solutions for something. She commented that she
needs to satisfy a lot of people and that there are no rules set in stone. Her position as kitchen
manager demands that she be concerned with the well-being of a lot of people. She reminded me
that she is in a service industry (food) and, as such, people’s comfort is foremost in her job. This
consideration is apparent from her first response. She explained that at the first table during
Bamga, one of the players revealed that she could not play cards. (I realize now that this was
Pat.) Alice commented, “So we already knew who we were gonna have to help along.”
When the discussion came around to conflict in the organization, she responded that she
resists being “drawn in” to the politics of the place. Her approach has been to avoid “tearing
down bridges.” Every individual has his or her own personal agenda which Alice seemed to
respect. Essentially she has approached her co-workers similarly to the residents: she tries to give
them what they want within reason.

Donna
I met Donna immediately after interviewing Alice, so the interview took place in the same
conference room. I remember Donna as being very aggressive while playing the Bamga. During
the last cycle of the game in particular, she had dominated her table using broad gesticulations and
assertive facial expressions. In the interview, she commented that she figured out that the rules

65

were different early in the game. She was outspoken during the debriefing as well but did not
participate in the role-playing.
Donna was difficult to interview because she did not easily respond to my questions nor
elaborate on them. Nevertheless, I discovered her interview to be one of the more telling. Her
use of words that metaphorically linked the subject to war terms was enlightening: “alliances,”
“struggle,” “protect territory,” animosity,” and “taking sides” are examples of these. This use of
language was especially poignant in light of some of the other statements she made. She
commented in the beginning, “One of my downfalls is that I always have to be right.” Then she
stated that new employees must feel really intimidated by the older staff members because of their
assertiveness. She made the comment that when interviewing for new employees, the
organization looks for that type because, “someone whose quiet and not willing to assert
themselves,... you hate to say it, but they’ll get eaten alive here.”
There are some contradictory statements in her comments. She spoke of open
communication in one sense and lack of communication in another. When she discussed the lack
of communication, it was in conjunction with a “we/they” dyad. I was able to discern that this
conflict is between the administration and the managers who deal directly with the patients. The
situation is exacerbated by positioning of the various offices: the administration is in the mansion
and the other managers are in the new building. The open communication of which she spoke
seems to be among the managers who deal with the patients.

66

Ann
Ann’s interview was held in her office which is directly behind the receptionist’s desk.
The space was small but comfortable with a desk facing the door, filing cabinet and bookcase
along the walls, and some personal photographs framed on the wall. She kept the room very
orderly: there was no clutter.
During the Bamga, Ann and the Director moved together from table to table. As I
mentioned in the comparison of Bamga and the Bam, the two developed an allegiance which
precluded any other member of their table getting their way. Ann never figured out that each
table had received different rules. Perhaps this allegiance may have contributed to her not
becoming aware of this. With the two supporting one another, it was hard, maybe impossible, for
others to negotiate with them.
Ann’s language contained many power-related metaphors. Unlike Donna, however, these
were not necessarily war words. She stated in the beginning that she is “the type of person who
did not give in,” and who “was aggressive about enforcing my set of rules.” Her opinion of those
who did not go by her rules was that they were “nutty” and did not listen. When she learned what
was really happening, she seemed to accept that as a reason why “people were acting the way
they were.” She did not consider that this was why she was acting a certain way. As we
discussed the possible benefits of the training, she commented that she did not believe that Joan
gained anything from it, but did not consider that she might have adjusted her behavior instead.
Although Ann seemed to take a dominant role in her organization, she also realized that
sometimes she makes assumptions which blind her to another way of thinking. She castigated
herself for not figuring out that the rules were different and was relieved when she discovered

67

why things were not going as smoothly as she thought they should. She commented in the
interview that she had tried to avoid making assumptions since the training because she realized
that all the facts may not be revealed. Her approach to problem-solving has been confrontational
which supports Donna’s description of the managers as being assertive.

An Overview of the Interviews
When I chose these people to interview, I was not aware of their organizational
relationships, nor was I concerned about the role-playing sequence that followed the Bamga
debriefing. I was primarily interested in discovering how they experienced the Bamga in order to
keep the focus on one specific game sequence. However, when I interviewed the participants, it
became apparent that I could not separate the role-playing from the Bamga, and that their
organizational structure greatly affected the outcome of the workshop.
The role-playing, facilitated by Dr. Mueller, was intended to work through a conflict
management situation that regularly happens in the work environment. When Dr. Mueller asked
for two volunteers, Donna and some of the others encouraged Joan and Alice to enact a typical
situation where Alice approaches Joan about her editing. Alice quickly felt uncomfortable
participating, so Pat took her place. The two enacted a discussion, a language-game, on whether
the meaning of some material had changed through Joan’s editing. After completing the
sequence, Dr. Mueller proposed some suggestions to both of them about how they could improve
the outcome of the interaction.
Two specific conflict situations surfaced in my interviews. I believe they are actually
linked to one another. The first concerns the focus of the role-play, Joan’s editing. Hired in a

68

newly formed position as a public relations specialist, the long-time members of the management
structure have resisted accepting the corrections Joan makes on their writing. Pat describes the
most resistant group as a “clique” of old timers which includes Donna and Ann, the two most
assertive individuals in my interview group. Pat and Alice, on the other hand, accept Joan’s
integration into the corporate structure. The condition is exacerbated by the fact that Joan is
intimidated by their resistance but outspoken nevertheless.
Hired by the director James, Joan was placed in an organizational setting that had already
established rules for the process of publishing and advertising. The system ran smoothly since all
the managers were comfortable with their own way of doing things. When James decided that all
public relations functions needed to be funneled through the same individual, he created an
environment in which the managers had to adapt to new rules. The old managers have resisted
selecting this new way of doing things which means that Joan’s position in the organization
continues to be a center of conflict. The result is that the new rules for publication have not been
accepted and resistence has become the norm.
James’s inaction in regard to this situation may arise from one of two reasons: he is
unaware of the situation or he is allowing it to work itself out. From the information given in the
interviews, it seems to be the latter. Joan has described James as a manager who “gives us
enough rope to hang ourselves.” Additionally, the high level of assertiveness among the staff
seems to corroborate this.
The second conflict situation arose through the interview with Donna. She spoke of a
“we/they” situation with the administration and the nursing home staff managers. Joan’s problem
may be linked to that feeling because she was hired by the Director and then placed in the building

69

with the staff managers. Joan commented that she had “a reputation that [she] was James’s girl”
which corroborates this attitude. Perhaps the older managers resist Joan’s position because they
resent James’s intervention in their established system of doing things.

What Does It All Mean?
A Conclusion
Wittgenstein states, “Consider

‘games.’....What is common to them all?

If you look

at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships......”
(Wittgenstein, p. 31).
Training games are not only linked to one another by similarities and relationships built
into the frame called “games,” but by their tropological links with everyday experiences.
Participants act out their place in community even within the activity of the game. Before the play
begins, the participants already have predetermined systems of interaction with one another in
which each interlocutor has his or her own payoffs) in mind. The game becomes another frame
in which to play out the activity that happens in day-to-day experience. The participants move
through the experience responding to one another in familiar language and actions giving the
sense that the game is playing them rather than the reverse.
Whether we are within the framework of our organization or working through a training,
we bring with us value systems we have already established and we negotiate, respond to, accept,
and judge others through them. These values arise out of our own view of the world: they are not
inherent in others who receive the benefit or curse of our labels. They are instead a way of
ranking ... with regard to other faces and other things” (Lingis, 1994, p. 46). The values we place

70

on another are predicates we assign to the other (p. 46). We may consider the other a leader, a
mooch, or lazy; and all our interactions with that other person are colored by this predicate. The
other acts and interacts in relation to our own value system and in relation to their own as
pertaining to us and others. A training game can only bring to the surface the values that are
already established in the minds of each participant; and, when raised to view, these values can be
questioned and adjustments can be negotiated.
When we observe the aggressiveness with which one player takes the cards in defiance of
another, we see the addressor establishing his or her “rightness in order to silence the other” (p.
71): we see the addressor imposing her values on the other. The position the player takes as the
aggressor is an index to her attitude; to the metaphorical concept (as defined by LakofF, pp. 7-9)
which frames her language and her relationships. She speaks of “animosity,” “alliances,” and
“taking sides.” When we observe the participant run to the Wall without consideration of the
others, we see an index of one who does not think through something before he does it.
Within the framework of everyday community, we structure our discourse of personal
values so that they do not impede on the established truths. The public discourse is independent
of the individual. Its coherence, consistency, verifiability, and rationality is established without
concern for personal health or sanity (Lingis, p. 137). Yet it maintains the equilibrium within the
community through institutional criteria which dictate common values and rules of behavior. The
objective of a training game, perhaps, may simply be to cut through this equilibrium and shift our
view just enough to see new potential in our interactions with others. The game may teach facts
or skills, but this new knowledge is incidental to the deeper understanding of ourselves and others
in communicative relationships.

71

Our value systems rise to the surface through language. Discourse, la langite, reveals
evidence of what is hidden like the tip of the iceberg in which most of its substance lays below the
surface. Yet much can be revealed about an addressor through his or her choice of words and
nonverbal cues. Each person’s value systems influence the language games in which he or she
participates. If an employee’s value system is based on “family first”, his language will be laced
with allusions to his children and the chances are good that he will not stay late at work if his child
is performing in a play that night. If instead his value system is based on “work first”, his
language will reflect that priority and he will probably stay. One could look for evidence of an
addressor’s value system through metaphorical linkages and perhaps discover a great deal.
However, one must be open to shift the paradigm to another view. We cannot stay within the
realm of metaphorical links, for instance, as being the only way in which one makes the leap from
the training game environment into everyday life. Such a view creates a thin, tightly woven
framework in which to understand what has happened -- and it leaves open the danger that much
will be missed. The four master tropes become heuristic devices with which to uncover a
multitude of meaning in the play of the game.
Joan’s situation is laced with irony. She has been hired as a communication specialist
interacting between the organization and the public. Yet members of the organization resist
communicating with her in order for her to do the job properly. She facilitates the opportunity to
have the organization participate in a conflict management training game: yet she seems to be the
center of the conflict itself. But is she? Is she instead a lightning rod for conflict that is actually
aimed toward the Director? Is she the embodiment of metonymy standing next to the Director —
the physical manifestation of his “poweri’? She and the other members of the game environment

72

act out their own organizational culture synecdochically through the playing of the game. For
example, the Director, Donna, and Ann take charge of their tables and their everyday
environments. Alice is conciliatory during Bamga and within her daily interactions with co­
workers and residents. Joan worries about whether the others will appreciate the training and
suffers from lack of approval as she interacts daily. Pat looks at the game as a learning experience
and, within the organizational environment, makes the effort to teach her co-workers. When
viewed through such variations, the training game environment becomes thick with meaning. No
longer can one view the learning experience simply in terms of knowledge transfer or
metaphorical linkages.
What one learns in a training game may be simply his or her own relationship within the
organizational structure. The participants of the game may benefit most when they are able to
truly see the actions and attitudes of themselves and their co-workers and how these affect
interactions within the organizational environment. If that is the case, the one person who
benefited the most from Bamga may have been Pat who told me, “[After figuring it out] I found it
more interesting just to put down anything just to see the other’s reactions and I didn’t care
whether I won or lost. I wanted to see what the other people were doing, and I wanted to see
who the aggressors were.”
If the training game environment is simply a magnifying glass to interpersonal interactions
within the organizational environment, perhaps trainers and facilitators need to rethink what the
focus of learning really is within the game environment. Perhaps the primary focus of training
should always be to uncover relational issues that arise during the play of the game with the
secondary focus being the learning of some skill or concept. Perhaps those who participate may

73

become more understanding of conflict management, teamwork, or business decisions, for
instance, if, through the play of the game, they first develop an awareness of their own value
systems that affect their interactions with one another and the value systems at work in others. In
truth, the effectiveness of a training game is limited by its inability to address the effects of
intrapersonal value systems within the context of the organizational environment and how they
play out through day-to-day language-games. The strength of a training game, therefore, may be
in its ability to help the game players become aware of these value systems and, in so doing, leave
open the possibility of taking them into account in their interpersonal interactions.
If, indeed, the training game uncovers such interpersonal interaction, its effectiveness may
be enhanced further by follow-up. The trainer may need time to evaluate interpersonal
interactions within the context of the game uncovering their meaning through various heuristic
devices such as the tropes and to return to the organization with his or her findings. What would
happen, for instance, if the participants in Bamga became truly conscious of the dance of power
occurring within their organization? Some people would suggest that Joan’s position be changed
since she seems to be the center of the conflict — but would it not be better for the members of the
organization to learn how to manage this conflict? For instance, if Ann realized that her
authoritarian nature precludes acceptance of other people’s ideas, would she try to be more
sensitive to other viewpoints? The results of a training game may be more than the members of
an organization expect to receive; yet its effectiveness seems enhanced if the deeper issues
involved in interpersonal relationships are allowed to be addressed.

74

Bibliography
1. Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in (he mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon, Cambridge:
Blackwell.

2. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. California: Chandler Publishing.

3. Beisecker, T. (1970). Game theory in communication research: a reaction an reorientation.
The Journal of Communication, 20 (2), 107-120.

4. Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education, an introduction
to theory and methods, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Ltd.

5. Booth, W. C. (1978). Metaphor as rhetoric: the problem of evaluation. On Metaphor,
48-70.

6. Bostrom, R. (1968). Game theory in communication research. The Journal of
Communication, 18(4), 369-388.

7. Bostrom, R. (1970). Rejoinder: games and communication process. The Journal of
Communication, 20(2), 121-124.

75

8. Brewer, G. D. (1978). Scientific gaming: the development and use of ffee-form
scenarios. Simulation and Games, 9 (2), 201-211.

9. Burke, K. (1945). Four master tropes. A grammar of motives. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

10. Gass, M. A. (1995). Book ofmetaphors, volume II. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

11. Grayling, A. C. (1992). Wittgenstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

12. Hoshman, L. (1989). Alternate research paradigms. The Counseling Psychologists,
17(1), 22-29.

13. Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Womack, D. (1993). Building communication theory.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

14. Kvale, S. (1983). The qualitative research interview: a phenomenological and
hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal ofPhenomenological Psychology, 14 (2),
171-195.

76

15. Lanigan, R. (1995). From enthymeme to abduction: the classical law of logic and the
postmodern rule of rhetoric. In Langsdorf, L. & Smith, A. (Eds.). Recovering
pragmatism's voice: the classical tradition, Rorty, and the philosophy of communication,
(p. 65). Albany: SUNY Press.

16. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

17. Larson, C. & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork: what must go rightAvhat can go right.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

18. Lingis, A. (1994). The community of those who have nothing in common.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

19. Lyotard, J. F. (1993). The postmodern condition: A Report on Knowledge, Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.

20. Lyotard, J. F. & Thebaud, J. L. Just gaming. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

21. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1978). Phenomenology of Perception. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.

77

22. Meyer, M. W. (1975). Toward a phenomenological theory of learning: the contribution of
B. F. Skinner. JourmlofPhenomenological Psychology 5 (2), pp. 335-368.

23. Mmobuosi, I. B. (1985). An alternative approach to the evaluation of management
training: the use of protocol analysis method. Management Education and Development,
16 (3), 262-268.

24. Newstrom, J. W. (1980).Evaluating the effectiveness of training methods.
The Personnel Administrator, Jan, 59.

25. Olivas, L. & Newstrom, J. W. (1981). Learning through the use of simulation games.
Training and Development Journal, 35 (9), 63-65.

26. Rollier, B. (1992). Observations of a corporate facilitator. Simulation and Gaming,
23 (4), 442-456.

27. Shubik, M. (1975). Gamesfor society, business and war: towards a theory ofgaming.
New York: Elsevier.

28. Spiegelberg, H. (1982). The phenomenological movement: a historical introduction.
The Hague: Martinus NijhofFPublishers.

78

29. Stevick, E. L., (1971). An empirical investigation of the experience of anger.
Phenomenological Psychology, Volume I. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

30 Van Manen, M., (1990). Researching lived experience. London, Ontario: University
of Western Ontario.

31. Weber, S. J., (1986). The nature of interviewing. Phenomenology and pedagogy, 4
(2), 65-72.

| 32. Wehrenberg, S. B. (1985). Management training games: the play’s the thing. Personnel
Journal, 63 (3), 88-91.

33. White, H. (1978). Tropics of discourse: Essays in cultural criticism. Baltimore:
The Johns Hopkins University Press.

34. Wittgenstein, L. (1973). Philosophical investigations, 3rd Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentiss Hall.

79

APPENDIX A
Protocol Analysis of Barnga Interviews

80

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomv

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase______

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses - Envtromental notation

Joan
(We are in a dining area. She
has a tenuous look. She is not
smiling.)

What was it like for you to be part of that workshop?
Umm. I personally felt proud because I was the contact who brought the program
into the village, umm, and (hesitation) I was hoping that my co-workers would
get. would get, a good feeling because I had played Bamga before ~ had gone
through this kind of program once before. Umm, I wanted to share that with my
co-workers.
OK. When you came into the room, how did you feel? When you played the
Barnga before this didyou play it in relation to conflict management?

(She is tentative in her
speech.)
(She has her hands in her lap.
She seems a little tense. Her
facial expression is anxious
and defensive.)

We played it in relation to cultural diversity. It was somebody from [a certain
school] who did this for us at [a certain organization]. He was the multicultural
director at [a certain school] at the time.
In that case, how did you feel about it being used in conflict management?
I definitely, umm, I drew definite similarities right away, even, even as we were
doing the discussion part of it after we had done the Bamga game itself the first
time that I had played it. I totally brought my mind to work here because I got —
and it had. (excited) a year had lapsed from the first time I had played it until we
got it here.

(I)
(She has a shaky voice.)
Similarities between multi­
cultural and conflict manage­
ment. Brought my mind (M)
(She gets animated.)

So you came up with the thought yourself that Bamga would be goodfor
conflict management.
Yeah.
So you said you were proud, you were having a feeling ofpride when you came
in. Try to go back to that day and how did it feel starting to go through it and
the sense you got with the people who were playing. I played it too after having
known what it was about. So I know it's kind of a different thing than someone
who has never played it before.
There was something, some underlying feeling I had that was, that I was
nervous about how my co-workers would take this whole experience. If they
would get the same thing out of it that I got out of it.

Underlying feeling (MM)
Nervous about other’s
reactions.
(She has a preconscious sense
ofsomething being wrong.)

OK.
And I guess a little part of me thought, "I hope they don t think this is stupid —
that I hope that they can see the forest for the trees, kind of.
Do you think they got the message?
Mmm. no.
James says he thinks they did. James says he thinks he did. He feels he got
something out ofit.
I believe that. I would sav that James did get it too. But after, after, umm. we
played it- you know, after we had that meeting and there was the discussion
81

Forest for the trees (M)
(Do her co-workers mis­
understand her general ideas
andfocus on small details?
Does she fear this?))
(She smiles and answers
slowly.)

She confirms that the Director
understood.

(M) - metaphor
(N-1M) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text—Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

among the directors. It’s a tight-knit group there — and I don’t intend to bash
anybody personally in any way. But the most important, umm, comment that
came out of the meeting was — and this, and this was pretty much relaying it to a
couple who didn’t make the meeting, who would have been a part of that group - was, “we played a card game.” Rather than “ we played a card game which
illustrated other kinds of communication for us.” You know, that is all they ever
got out of this, we spent the morning playing cards. And I thought they missed
the, missed the message by that. And that illustrated to me that they missed the
message.

Tight-knit group (MM) (She
is an outsider to this group.)
(She is looking at me directly.)
(Her tone is firm, resentful,
and resigned.) (They belittle
experience she had set up)
They missed the message.
(She is disappointed.)

So you ’re thinking that a lot ofthem did not really take out ofit a sense ofwhat
happens with a lack ofcommunication.

Not pulling together. (M)
(She is firm.) (She gives
contradictory messages.. Tightknit group. She is not part of
the group nor is the group
reflected in her (S))

They don’t pull together. That’s my impression.
Even with the debriefing?
Well I’m sure a couple of them came away with that, you know, and I did my
soapbox. You know, speech to ... to convince a couple that I could, but, but. but,
they go, “wow, Joan’s on her soapbox.” You know, you missed the point, you
missed the point, you missed the whole point of the whole morning? You know,
and I still don’t know for sure if I got through or not.
How did you feel about the role-playing? You were really a big part ofit.
I know, (long pause) I was nervous. I thought it was necessary. And I think a
little good has come from that. In retrospect because, umm, the way people treat
the, uh, communications around here., the things that I do is a little more
sensitive. They consider it a little more often than they did before.
That ’s good.
It was funny because, uh, at the end of that, uh... uh, session that we had. I
walked. I walked out to ... It might have been you or Doctor Brown and... who
was the other gentleman that was with you?
Dr. Mueller.
And James. And, uh, I said, “Geez, my backside is warm.” and Dr. Brown said.
“Yeah, you were really in the Hot Seat.” and James said, “Yeah but she can
take it.” You know, and I thought. “So he did this on purpose, did he?! You
know, and umm, I have had experiences in the past where James puls me into
situations where he knows that I will stir things up unconsciously (she
emphasizes this) because...
He knows.
He knows, and he has, yeah. He does that on purpose. I think twice now have
I called him on the carpet. "Did you do this on purpose?” You know, that kind of
thing and there he did it. yeah. He's the kind of manager that gives us enough
rope to hang ourselves. He’s not. he’s not the kind on manager that breaths,
breaths down our neck and looks over our shoulder and says, "what are you
doing next, what are you doing next, why are you doing that?” You know,
because he lets us. he’s very good in that way especially for a creative person.
82

(She is laughing.)
Persuasion
On her soapbox (S)
(She believes they rejected
what she said.) (She speaks
quickly here and is gesti­
culating with her hands.)
(This is an uncomfortable
subject. She is weighing the
positive and the negative
before she speaks.) More
sensitivity. (What do they
consider?)
(She looks up and to the right
when she speaks.)
(Long pause)
(She is chuckling but her eyes
are tentative and not smiling.)
Backside is warm (M)
Hot Seat (M)
She can take it (M)
(She is really laughing. She
lifts arm at the elbow, closed
hand up to face level. (I))
James puts me into situations
(status) (victimage)
Stir things up) (M)
Called him on the carpet (M)
(She is dramatic.)
Gives us enough rope to hang
ourselves (M)
Breaths down our necks (M)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony_____

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase______

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses - Enviromental notation

because he lets us run with our, with the things that we need to do.
Great. When we were going through that session, and I was watching people
through that game playing and I noticed that some people were really
aggressive and some were really passive. Were they holding on to their
character the way they normally are or are there some new things showing up?
I’m trying to think, I don’t feel 1 have a good enough, a good enough, urn,
opinion of that because I backed off, and I don’t know that...although, the first
time I played it I backed off, too. I just let other people run it. ‘Cause I assumed
that other people had a higher understanding than I did of it. But I acted the way
I did because I did {emphatic) understand what was going on...the second time
around. So I might have skewed things somewhat, {she laughs).

Looks over shoulder (M)
(Director givesfreedom, but
she fears his reactions.)
Lets us run with (M)

(She is pensive at first. Then
she begins to speak assuredly.)
Backed off (M). Doubts her
own understanding.

Well then, maybe we ought to talk about the first time you did that. How did you
feel the first time you did it. You didn 7 know the rules. How long did it take
you before you realized that....
I never got it. I didn’t understand it at all. I didn't figure it out. But the light
bulb sure went off when they said, “ Each table played by a different set of
rules.” And I totally {emphatic) zoomed in on that when he said that, that
everybody plays by a different set of rules. And then I totally related that like to
communication and especially the multicultural thing at that point. You know.
WOW {she almost whispers this). We do see things differently, you know.
Whether they’re good people or bad people, you know, or what you can’t group
them into, you know....

Lightbulb sure went off (M)
Didn’t understand until it was
explained Zoomed in on (M)
She smacks the table with her
hand.
Multicultural thing (M)
(Her eyes are open wide.)
(Awareness ofdifferences)

They have different rules.
Right.
So when you did it the first time, were you really frustrated?
I was very passive. Just... I was willing to let everybody else do what needed to
be done because...I didn’t know what was going on.

Passive. Not taking charge.
Unsure of herself.

Are you a card player?
Umm. I have played cards. It...I mean... at that time I didn't really play cards all
that much. I don't... I didn't know a lot about... I didn't understand trump and I
didn't understand...

(Thoughtful.)
Didn’t understand

That's part of the reason you were passive.
Possibly.
I think ifsomeone is a card player, they 're a little more aggressive only because
they know how cards are supposed to be played.

83

(She laughs.)

| (M) - metaphor
j (MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(1) - Irony

CODING KF.V
Normal text —Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

I have no idea. I never played hearts. Umm....One person stuck out in my
mind and I think she might have been grouped with James at one point where
the two of them bucked heads a lot. Umra.... as part of the group. And I would
say that she s a....she s a card player and she’s a go-getter. She speaks her
mind. You know, she speaks it like it is, like she...her opinion as she sees it.

mo?

Bucked heads (M) (Conflict)
Go-getter (M)
Speaks it like it is (M)
(She is relating her game
behavior to her day-to-day
persona (S))

Alice
mich one was the woman who you said was kind of an intermediaty for you at
times?
Oh gosh, who was I talking about? I know that, I know that it’s very funny how
I fit into this organization because personally I think I have a lower feeling of
how I fit in than my co-workers. But sometimes, umm, it has improved. Let
me start off by saying that. But both Pat and Alice, like, after two and a half
years of me just getting battered verbally by the majority of the directors. Those
two finally put their foot down and said, “I don’t mind working with Joan” and
that’s kinda how it started where I finally figured out, “maybe I am not doing it
wrong.” That maybe you know.

(First sentence is pensive.)
Lower status
Fit into (M)
Getting Battered (M)
(vicitimage)
Put their foot down (M)
Support for her

They were just getting used to it.
I suppose, but it took a long time. In other words, in my estimation it took a
long time for people to figure out that I wasn’t there to...to make their lives
miserable. I wasn’t there to...to., you know...just to be a thorn in their sides. I
was there to do a job and I was following through with orders from the top. You
know. And although, and although James supported me, he just sort of let me
flap out there by myself. I took a lot of guff those couple of years. You know,
and it is still now I won’t, I won’t openly unless I really feel strongly about
something, I won’t get crazy about disagreeing with somebody just because its
not worth it to me. I mean I’ll just figure out another avenue to take (pause) to
prove my point. Um, I come into things prepared all the time. That’s one thing
that these people have taught me (emphasis) to do is do my homework, you
know. If, umm, if there was a reason I may have added on something, I have my
grammar book saying this is why that is grammatically incorrect. You know. I
mean it comes down to even something as minor as that, you know. And I, you
know, I just feel like I was the brunt ofjokes for a long time, you know. And
that’s a, that’s on a personal level and, and um... Pat or Alice finally said to me,
“You know, this was going on and we finally put our foot down. They only
confirmed what my suspicions were because up until that point I didn’t have
any, any kind of um... uh... (pause) evidence that that actually was happening.
Unt I’ve been know to read into things especially personally, so I didn’t know if
it held any water or not. And um, and...how was it then (reflexive) Pat said to
me that she really respected me because I... because I stuck it out. I totally acted
professionally even in light of what was going on around me (pause) which was
petty. And, yeah, it was personal but it wasn t because....because...I was...it
could have effected my function in the business part of it had I let it.
And vou were establishing a new position here which was being resisted and
that is impersonal.
Right, but I couldn’t differentiate the two. I couldn’t tell if it was personal
84

(It took a long time for
acceptance.)
Thorn in their sides (M)
Following through with orders
from the top. (Hierarchy and
status)
Flap out there by myself (M)
A lot of guff (M)
Get crazy (M)
(She is protecting herself)
(Emphatic)
She is prepared when she
suspects a possible
confrontation.
Brunt of jokes (M)
Put our foot down (M)
Support. Suspicions, Evidence
Reading into things.
Held any water (M)
(Admission of exaggeration.)
Earned respect
Acting professionally
(She is convincing herself that
the actions of the others were
petty and she could separate
her personal and professional
life.)
(She contradicts herself.)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony_____

CODING KEY
Normal text -Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase______

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

or not, so, so I just cast that aside and said. “I have a job to do here.” You know, | Cast that aside (M)
James’s girl (She feel an
and every time I got, you know ....and at a point I had, I had a reputation that I
alliance with James and his
was James’s girl. You know, that I was the teacher’s pet, kind of, kind of
office as opposed to the people
attitude, you know, where I got my way. All I had to do was go to James and
directly involved with resident
whine. And, and although I did go to James, it was more for, “James, I need
care.)
your help ‘cause this isn’t getting done.” More than anything, but it was, it was
(She has a slight whine in her
perceived differently. So I don’t know if that interrelates or not.
voice to emphasize the word
“whine”)
(This last sequence is stated
assuredly and without much
hesitation.)

85

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - melonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text — Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses - Enviromental notation

Pat
What was it like for you to play Bamga?
It kind of caught me off guard because I have never played cards or held a deck
of cards. And, um, I really struggled with it. Do I participate or do I not
participate? But I grew up in a Swedish family and they were teetotalers and
there was no cards or drinking and its something as a teenager and as an adult I
have never had a desire to learn card games or do anything with cards so (she
laughs) So I just had, ...you know, wanted to let you know that because, um,
afterwards I was kind of quiet and Sue said that to me, “Did that bother you?
You know, were you OK?” Because role-playing doesn't bother me being a
teacher and I think more of that needs to be done. And I said what bothered me
was that more people didn’t participate. That there tends to be a little clique in
our organization here. And the newer people like Joan and myself are, you
know, more willing to participate and be more active to try to, you know, learn
from our situations, umm, where some of the older.... and I don’t mean older
meaning age-wise but some of the more long-term employees, umm, ...are kind
of in a rut. I feel that it’s a major problem, and I don't we’ve nipped it yet.
How did you feel going into the game? Just give me a feeling of the thoughts
that went through your mind during the process of the game.
OK, when I was at my first table. I was honest with my other two players and
indicated to them I had never played cards before. I’ve never even held cards (I
laugh). I don’t know how to shuffle cards. So I was very honest and let them
know (emphasis), because we could still talk, you know, so I could tell them that.
Umm, the first thoughts through my mind were, “I’ll back out. I won’t play.”
and then I thought, “Well, you know, this is OK. You know. I’ll play.” Umm,
you know, “I’ll tell them and I’ll do my best.” OK. well then when we had to
rotate tables, I immediately knew, as soon as the first (pause) process...I don’t
know what you want to call it....as soon as the first series started... um. well,
when we put down a card ...I have to be honest with you, I don’t remember a lot
of the details of it. It was. you know, a while ago and it wasn’t something that
stayed clear in my mind. Umm, but as soon as we put down the first cards, and
that, you know, whatever you call that...

(She is seated at her office
desk and seems happy to meet
with me.) Unexpected activity.
She is in a training session at
work and is asked to do
something she doesn’t do. (I)
Struggle with propriety.
(She emphasizes this.)
More people didn’t
participate. (She emphasizes
this.) (She compares game
with role-playing andjumps to
evaluation ofrole-playing.)
(Everyday experiences?)
Clique. Participation in roleplaying by newer members,
not older ones. (Status)
In a rut. (M) (She is
laughing.)
Nipped It (M).
(She emphasizes this.)
Honesty
Honest
(I)
Back out (M)
Propriety dilemma
I’ll do my best (Is this a
synecdoche of her actions in
the work environment?)
Honest(She’s trying to
remember.) Stayed clear (M)

Played the trick.
Yeah, OK. I thought they said the rules at my first table, you know, that that
should be my hand and it wasn't, I knew right then and there what was going
on.

Understood the rule change.

You did? (I laugh)
Because I’ve been through enough, I’ve been through a lot of seminars and I’ve
been through you know, other role-playings and that that I knew exactly that
there were different, each table had been give a different set of instructions. So
that point in time, umm, I found it more interesting just to put down anything
just to see the other’s reactions. And I didn’t care whether I won or lost. I
wanted to see what the other people were doing, and I wanted to see who the
aggressors were, you know.
(I laugh) It became an experiment for yourself.
86

(She has been through
training.)
(She uses the game for her
own experimentation.)
(Is she looking at what to
expect at work? (S)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Rold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses —My observations
Normal text in parentheses-Enviromental notation

Yup, yup, yeah because I knew...and in that point in time I, I was trying to
decide, Do I pull out because 1 know what’s going on or do I continue?”
Right, right.
And so I felt (pause)my decision was it’s better to let the majority of the people
benefit from it. Just because I know what’s going on. you know, I’m not
gonna... because somebody’s going to think something’s strange if I would have
gotten up and called one of you out of the room and said, “Listen, you know”,
my husband’s done something similar, you know, to it. It may not be exactly the
same, but, you know, there’s other games...

Propriety
Pull out (M)
Considers the majority over
herself. (Tearn player)
Concerned about the effect of
her withdrawal.
Indecision about proceedure
when one knows the rules.

Does he do training?
Yes, yeah, well [his company] has a real strong...I mean they have a learning
cent~er...a mini college up in
where they do a lot of training. So
I’ve been through, you know, some different tilings ‘cause I worked for [his
company] for eight years.
OK, so you sensed what was going on?
So I thought, you know, from my view I knew what was going on so it was more
interesting for me to see how the rest of them handled it. And for me I though
| then maybe I can understand how I fit in the picture, umm, communicating with
them knowing that...you know, I mean. Ann and James, I mean, nobody else
could say anything. I mean, at their table they just, you know, went with it. So I
thought, well, you know, “I have to interact with them on a daily basis and if
they’re that headstrong, you know, and I’m not that way, then how do I make
sure that I get....” You know, so I used it as a way to try to gain (emphasis)
from it. not just to walk out of it. I don’t know if that was best or not but it was
(she laughs).

She was aware that the rules
were different. Fit in the
picture (M) Observing co­
workers’ behaviors. (She
realizes that she must be
assertive.) (Relating to
everyday experience (S)J
Went with it (M)
Gain from it
(She is gaining important
information about coworkers.)

I participated in a Barnga game a couple ofweeks ago knowing full well what
the rules are after have observed twice andfound that I tried to figure what the
other people’s rules were.
And so I just played around with what cards I put down and...I mean James was
wondering, you know afterwards, “ I couldn’t figure out why you were putting
down all those..” which were high cards for him but they were low cards for me.
You know, but I was watching their reactions which I don't think, I mean they
were so intent on winning that they were not absorbing... Any of the other two
tables I went to., (hesitates) and I guess the other interesting tiling was that I did
not lose. I was not the low person from the first table. (I laugh and she smiles
broadly) You know, that kind of gave me., and of course at that point in time I
didn’t know (pause) what we were doing. I didn't catch on until I got to my
second table and I didn't get to my second table until the third game because the
first game I was not the low person. So I didn t have to move. Umm, so it
wasn't till the third game that I got to (pause).warn*... and I guess the second
game when the new person came to our table, there were still two of us that
played by the first rules, so I didn t catch on then.
They were dominant.

87

Played around with (M)
Experimenting.
High vs Low (I)
Not Absorbing (M).
Winning was most important.
(Does being right get in the
way of learning). She didn’t
lose. (I)
Catch on (M)
(She is remembering the
sequence.)
Low person (M)
Catch on (M)

(M) — metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Yeah, I didn t catch on then, umm, and I....the rules were simple enough that I
could pick up, but I was just awkward, you know, of course.... and then by the
time I got to the next table, the next table was James (pause)...

Catch on (M)
She notes James.

And Ann.
No, the next table was Donna. It’s the middle table. James and Ann were last.
Umm, but the next table was a bigger table. The, the... On the third game I
rotated to a table that had more people that the first. First table, we only had
three and the next table I think there were five.
Were you at the first table, the one at the top?
Yeah, I started in the alcove.
That was the calm table up on the top. (I laugh)
Yeah, we were calm, (she laughs)
But James and Ann ended up at that top table eventually.
Right, right.
That was very interest. The one person who stayed there seem to be very
levelheaded. She was playing her game along and then James and Ann got
there and she was still calm but she was getting these comical looks on her face.
She had gone through all three. That's when she hit a brick walls.
Because she had be dominating that table. She had never left that table.
And then the two ofthem got there and it was really comical. (I pause)
How didyou feel about the experience linking with conflict management? You
know, we went into the conflict management thing afterwards. Did you feel that
it did...?
Mmhuh, I thought it did because it proves or it, it shows that if you don’t have
(pause)...you don’t have communication that there’s a lot of assumptions that get
made and that you know, people put blinders on and I mean, you know, to me
that card game said they put the blinders on and “these are the rules. These are
the rules I was given”... even though it was Table One. You know, first table
that everyone of us were at, were given a set of rules and we carried those rules
with us to every table. We tried to .... and, and I think that that s what happens
in, in our every day trying to interact and resolve conflict, we come with our set
of rules and we keep our blinders there and we don't try to understand or try to
listen and try to look at the total, we, we often keep blinders on.
This game is also used in intercultural classes, by the way. So when you move
to[a foreign country], keep this in mind because its the same issue because they
ha\>e their rules and you ha\>e yours and they ’re different rtdes. So you have
had some wonderful training for yourfuture experience. (We both laugh)
I know just in trying to communicate just with the language barrier, umm.
88

Dominating that table. (M)
Staying at one table gave the
player authority.

Proves, Shows, Assumptions
(MM) to work environment
People put blinders on (M)
(She is emphatic here)
People stick by rules without
questioning their validity.
Carried those rules (MM)
Keep our blinders on (M)
(People will question others ’
actions before they look at
their own behavior as being
questionable.)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses-Enviromental notation

you know, there is frustration, and if you can’t communicate., and I think people
have to learn that. Umm, I, I just think we have some real aggressors here that
maybe because they ve been here a long time, umm, they’re not real receptive to
newcomers. I m not sure what it is. I’ve been trying to figure it out. I’m,
(exasperatedpause) I like to communicate. I like to keep things...open
avenues...I like to interact with people and unfortunately I thinks some of our
management isn’t quite....

Aggressors vs Newcomers
(MM) to work environment
(.I sense frustration here for
the older employees and their
acceptance ofnewer ones.)
Open avenues (M)

Doesn’t do that right.
Yeah.
Well, then we did the role-playing. And you were saying earlier that roleplaying is comfortable for you, that you think its a good thing. Now I guess I’m
going to ask you again. How did you feel going through that because you were
one of the key people?
Yeah, it didn’t bother me....It didn’t bother me personally. I, I guess, I. (pause)
it’s going to sound like I’m double-talking here. Personally it doesn't bother me
to role-play. Personally I think that we learn a lot from role-playing. What
bothered me was that more people didn’t role-play, and (pause) the people that
didn’t role-play are the people that (laughs) should role-play and are critical and
many times don’t often interpret what we role-play. I don’t know whether I’m
getting myself...getting through or not. But I just (exasperatedpause) I guess I
can be very honest with you because this is confidential. Donna is the one that
said Joan and I should role-play. Joan and I have a very good relationship. I
don’t have a problem dealing with Joan. It’s the other people who think...
because I’m the type of person that if I have a problem. I go to Joan. What
happens, though, is that other people get involved when they don’t need to be
involved and create the conflict. Joan and 1 can work things out. You know, I
mean if I didn’t agree with something, I go to her. I don’t need somebody to
defend me or stand up for me. I’m. you know. I... and I think that goes with
some people gain confidence through power. I don’t need power. I’m confident
that I know what I’m doing, that I can handle myself, that, you know, if I don't
care for the way Joan’s written something, I’m going to go to her.(emphasis).
I’m not going to run to somebody else, but around here too often(emphasis),
people run to somebody else. And I mean, I’m not talking about little stuff. I m
talking about Sue will run to Ann. Something that Sue should come and tell me.
Sue will go and tell Ann. And Ann has no business knowing it.

(She emphasizes this.)
Double-talk (I)
(She is frustrated that the same
people always participate.)
Getting myself through (M)
(She is not certain I
understand'.)
Honest
Joan and I ..good
relationship. (I)
(She emphasizes this.)
(She is direct and honest with
people and doesn’t appreciate
interference by others.)
Stand up for (M)
I don’t need power.
Some people gain confidence
through power. (M)
Running to others for
assistance.
No business knowing (M)

Right, and then it will cause some conflict.
And I think some, and I'm totally honest with you because I trust that you're
there to try to get information so that our society can be better in the long run,
umm. Sue has never worked anywhere else, (emphasis) Donna lias never
worked anywhere else. Ann has. But there s that clique right there and its
tough for the rest of the managers. You know, it’s just that strong clique is
there, and. umm. you know. Joan and I are newcomers from *92. Now we have,
since we've done the role-playing, or the little exercise, seminar, umm. we have
two new managers and...
So that will shake things up a little.

89

Honest
(She seems to trust me.)
Lack of varied experience.
Clique
Clique vs Newcomers
(This dyad parallels
aggressors vs newcomers. Is
it the same?)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) — Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text—key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

And some of the things.... I missed the planning meeting... James calls those
planning meetings, like when you people came and did your little seminar. And
now they had one this Friday, and I guess there were some sparks that came out
when one of the new managers said, “Well, I think we have to be more flexible
with our people’s assignment., uh. works assignments. I don’t think we can say
these are your hours, and bang.” and Ann just jumped up and said, “Oh no way!
We can’t do that! No way can nursing operate that way! (she is adamant).
Well we don’t and we’re back to the same old thing. Have we resolved it? No! I
mean, we can’t find as directors to communicate. I have no problem with roleplaying. I just wish that more people (pause) would do it. And that’s, that if I
came away with uneasy feelings, it was I felt that again the same old people roleplayed. (she laughs) You know, I mean not old but, I mean...

Planning meeting vs Bamga
experience (I)
Some sparks (M)
More flexible (M)
Bang (MM) Conflict between
old and new managers.
(She becomes animated.)
Problems with communication
among directors.
Same people role-playing (I)

The same people would volunteer
Yeah
that would volunteer two years ago or ten years ago.
You got that and even though we’re here ten years ago, I mean the newer people
are the ones that role-play.

Newer People (M)

Right.
And I just feel here...I have my own personal feelings on why there’s conflict,
and that’s because there’s too much good old, you know, chitter-chatter back and
forth that stuff....instead of the person just going right to the person, you know,
and saying, “ I have a problem with this. Can we work on this? Can we work
together?” And that’s the way it, in all my training through management
courses and. you know, through any of my work experiences that’s the way I’ve
done it. You know, and as I say I don’t have a problem working with Joan.
(pause) And it’s funny after the role-play Joan came over to my office and we sat
and had a talk. And I mean we were truly role-playing, you know, to show
examples of what went on, but, I mean, we resolve issues, you know. I mean
and we get them done. So...

Good old chitter-chatter
(MM)
Indirect resolution of conflict
Joan and Pat talk after the role
playing. They get along. (I)
We get them done
Direct resolution of conflict.

Well didyou think the experience was worth while?
I do. Unfortunately I felt, and this is my interpretation. I felt that (pauses) you
know the people who were in the room they knew what you were saying, but I
don’t know if it carried out of the room, (pause) Ido. Unfortunately I felt, and
this is my interpretation, I felt that (pauses) you know the people who were in
the room they knew what you were saying, but I don’t know if it carried out of
the room, (pause)

(She doesn 7 think the others
have the desire to use what
was learned.)
Carried out (M)

That's interesting. So you don 7 think it carried. So you don 7 see anything that
changed since?

Honest

I haven’t personally seen anything that changed, but then. I have to be honest
with you, I have been gone a long time. You know. December was hol.days and
it was crazy. So you know (pause) I don’t want to say U was a waste of time

90

Not a waste of time (M)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text — Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

because I don’t feel it was a waste of time. I feel that, you know....

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses - Enviromental notation

Waste of time (M)

You have to keep doing these kinds of things as reinforcement for this.
Right, right. I think there has to be reminders. I think there has to be, you
Need reminders
know... I think what would have been good... I think if there were key people
Key people (M)
that would have picked up on it, you know, the next month, the next month, the
Picked up on it (M)
next month to do, you know, little reminders of it. You know, we should have
Repeat over and over
role-played at the next couple department meetings. Uhhm. So think there has
(She is focused on roleto be a follow on of some type that...umm... and I don’t know that it should
playing as the key to training.)
always be... One of my other concerns that I always had that when I came here, I I A follow on (M)
have a lot of information on, on quality assurance and total quality management. |
I was trying to get something started and, umm, I brought in the video of Joel
She has attempted to use
Barker’s, I can’t even remember the name of it now., his first video, you know.
training in the past but it was
Talking about paradigm shifts, you know. And they just like, “Well whose she?” | not well received by older
You know. So a lot of it’s with the older manag...er with the people who have
employees. (Not part of the
clique.)
been her longer, it’s like they don’t want to hear an idea from somebody else.
They want to be the ones to come up with the idea.
They want it to stay status quo.
Yup, yup and, yet they want to grow. And I think James is trying, but I think its Contradiction. Key players
a struggle because of maybe some of the key players. So I guess what I’m saying | (M)
(Who is “they? ” Old timers?)
if there could have been a follow on in the, you know, the next time we had a
Want to grow but want to keep
department director’s meeting if we could have done a little more so. But I
status quo. Director wants
don’t... I think he... I think too we need to get a little more people involved. I
mean I have no problem presenting. And I did that little thing on talking about I change, but is up against old
Deming and some of the different key people in TQM and what you know,
. | timers,
they’re doing. But nobody else. Everybody’s like, “I hope they don’t ask me.
Key people (M)
Oh. gee, I hope they don’t look at me.” You know, and I’m not saying this for
Training sessions are open to
everybody, but maybe the next month and we could have picked up on
anyone who wants to present,
something and somebody else could have role-played, and maybe since I had
but most are afraid to take
role-played the first meeting then I would have asked two other people or three
charge.
other people to role-play at the next one. And then they would have asked three
Picked up on (M)
other people to role-play at the next one. Get everybody involved, (emphasis)
and but not have it necessarily come top down that, you know, James is the one
giving the direction, but each time have a different person. I think it would have I She proposes a plan
been good to have, you know, Sue and Ann and some of the others involved in a
Come top down (M)
role-play and I think that until they get actively involved and do some of that, I
don't, I think we’re constantly going to struggle with this, you know, little
Clique
clique. And I think the conflict is still going to be there.

91

(M) - metaphor
(N1M) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony_____

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Alice
What was it like for you to go through the training and game?

[Pensive)

The first group that I encountered, umm, (pause) we were, we had that few
minutes prior to doing anything to, to, to communicate a little bit. Ummm. so
we already, I already knew in that group who could play and who could not. So
that, the first initial group (pause) prior to getting all the instructions, we had,
we had communicated a little bit. So (sigh) we already knew who we were
gonna have to help along.

Understanding between group
members. (Teamwork)
Someone in the group did not
know how to play cards.
(Pat?)
Help along (M)

Right, the ones who don 7 know how to play cards.
Right, we already knew that. So that communication was already there. But as
we started to switch and, and who had the most cards and we were moving
around to different groups, the second group that I got to (pause) umm, (pause)
it started to become a little bit more difficult already, not realizing that the
instructions given out were all different. Till the end of the session. I did not
know that I felt really (she laughs) no, not realizing that (pause) it wasn’t just
the card game I didn’t understand. I was the I didn't even catch on that
different instructions were given out. (she laughs). So by the second, the second
group, umm, became argumentative. I mean it was like, 'Take it.”

Unable to communicate
verbally
Didn’t realize there were
different rules. (Emphatic)
Argumentative
Like, “Take it” (S)

Which table were you at?
With Mr. [....1 (James). I was up in the (pause) umm (pause) oh, what do you
call that little room?

Mr. [...]. Status

The alcove. That was the first table.
Yeah, we were up there first and then I moved down to the table where Joan and
James.... (pause)
Oh so that was the second group was with James and Joan, and Ann / think was
at that table, too?
Mmm, could have been. I know James and Joan were definitely there.

(She is thinking.)

So you were back in the corner.
That first group was mellow. Because like I said we had that few minutes to
figure out the game, meaning that we knew who didn't know how to play cards.
So our mindset was we were gonna help that person along. But (pause) when
by the time I got to the second table, like I said, it (pause) for me it started to
become almost (pause) argumentative with just the cards, (emphasis) I mean it’s
like, “You’re not paying attention to what I’m saying to you.”. And he’s going,
“You’re not paying attention to what I’m saying to you.” (She laughs in a
defiant manner.) Well, then (pause) he it. it was kinda like an over., he just
kinda overpowered me and I just said, '’You know. I’m gonna back down.
(resigned). Do what, do what you want to do.” So. um, that was the second table
I went to. The third table that I ended up at... and 1 believe the last table, 'cause
I didn’t. I moved... I only moved twice..., umm. must have had the same set of
rules that we started with. But we had people from two different... We a some
92

Mellow (M)
Help that person along (M)
Second table - Argumentative
She is aggressive (S)
He challenges her (S)
He dominates - Status
Overpowered me
(M)(dominance and status)
She backed down (M)
Two different games being
played. Contradiction

(M) - metaphor
(NIM) - melonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

who knew the same rules and some obviously who didn’t, so two of us kinda
were playing our game and they were playing their game, but...the second table
was definitely the worst. Was that?...
Yeah. (I laugh)
And again to the very end of the entire session, I did not realize that initially
everybody received different rules. So, and, so and most of them had picked up
on that obviously. Either they had picked up on it or they weren’t confessing
that they had and I don’t know.
/ don't think that a lot ofthem picked up on it.
Oh, (she pauses) well because I didn’t and I admit it. I did not realize that (she
pauses) ... I thought we all started out fair, (she pauses) , you know, that it was
all pretty much across the board and that their interpretation what they were
reading was just different (she pauses) than mine. Well, it was just a whole
different set of rules. You know, so that was a little... (she pauses) That was
fimny, I mean, I find it funny that I didn’t even make that connection.

She admits not understanding.
(She thinks that she is one of
the few who did not know there
were different rules.)
Confessing (Fairness? Lack
of trust of coworkers?)
didn’t and I admit it (Is she
implying that others are not
truthful and she is?) (She
didn 7 like to hear that others
missed that point. Outsider?
Victimage?) AH pretty much
across the board (MM) vs
Whole different set of rules—
(Fairness?) Funny

What were some of the things that you noticed that were power actions?
Oh, facial expressions, definitely, were... Umm. people, like I said the one table
where James and Joan was, it was definitely the facial expressions and then the
actions....

Facial expressions

Do you think they had the same rules?
I don’t know if they started out on the same rules or not. I think they did. I
think because they were pretty much playing the same game. It was. it was me, I
mean. I had no idea... and then the other person.... I couldn’t remember who was
at the table with us either., (she pauses) Oh. Tom! And I think he had his own
set totally, but it was definitely...so there were three diff. three different sets of
rules at that one table. And. urn. the facial expressions, the gestures of. you
know, us forcibly sliding these cards back and forth across the table. Umm. (she
pauses) the body language, the. the moving of. you know, they would get up...
Tom would get upset and rock, (she laughs). You know, so those are things that
I noticed most. I thought, at the end of the whole thing I thought the card game
was humorous (she pauses) just because it just did... It created so much of a. you
know, a ... There was some, at the one table it was like almost animosity. You
know, like, (she laughs) “How dare you?" But it, it was fun.

I had no idea (Confusion)
His own set totally (M)
Three different sets of rules
Forcibly sliding. Aggression
Upset and rock Aggression
Humorous
Animosity
Fun

Then you yourself how did you feel when you realized something was wrong?
Well, I... With the people in a particular group, that one particular group with
James, Tom. and Joan, with James and Tom being obviously my superiors, (she
pauses) the older you get. the more you realize that it s... no matter what the
point is, no matter... it’s not going to do anything. Just, you know, kind of step
back, let’s look at it again, see what’s going on. Then. I mean, when I did that,
when I finallv just said. “OK, I just need to (she pauses) look at what’s
happening, something's not right.’’ Umm. I just felt that I was not catching
something that was going on. That was just... it was, it was me feeling that way.
(her voice falters).
93

Status (She tends to speak her
mind, but shows respect.)
Not going to do anything
Kind of step back (S)
Resignation
Observation
Blaming herself
Not catching something (M)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text—Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

In lieu ofthat, when we had the debriejing and the role-playing when everything
starts to become clear, did yourfeelings change? You said you were not
catching what was going on.
I still didn’t catch it, even during the debriefings. I either was not paying
attention to what somebody (she laughs) was saying to me. When I was leaving
at the end of the seminar, or that particular meeting. That’s when I realized the
rules.... Somebody had to tell me that we did not have the.... I still at that point
through that whole thing did not realize that the rules were different. I mean it
was the end of the session and I’m like, and I had said that.... I was, I was fine
with the exception of that one table with James, Tom, and Joan where it got so,
kinda hostile almost, you know. And that I didn’t understand why he just,
James in particular, he just kept giving my cards back and finally I just took all
my cards and gave them to him. (she laughs). You know,...

Didn’t catch it (M)
(She gives only one alternative
to this either/or statement.
She believes she was not
paying attention.)

Kinda hostile
Kept giving my cards back
She challenges
Resignation

(1 laugh) "You play them. ”
Here! You can have them. It’s not worth the fight. You know, it was not worth
the battle, realizing that obviously I didn’t understand what he was doing was
how I felt about it. But I was all the way to the end of that entire thing and
somebody said, “Didn’t you know that we all had different rules?” I’m like,
“Well, no, but now that makes sense.” I mean...so I sat through that whole thing
not knowing, not knowing. I, I must have missed something.

Here! You can have them.
(S) ofwork environment?
Defiant resignation
Not worth the fight (M)
Sudden understanding
Blaming herself for missing
something

The focus was conflict management. Do you feel that you got any understand
through the process of the game playing, finding out there were different rules,
and now you have had a couple ofmonths to let it sink in. Has that given you
any insight into conflict at all?
(Pensive)
Umm. (she pauses a long time) Hmm, I’m trying to think over the last few
months... or the last seven years.
Is that how long you've been here, seven years?
Uhuh. I deal, for myself in the particular department that I work in, I deal a lot
with a lot of people all the time. And, umm, I’m trying to answer your question.
I’m trying to find the answer to your question, (she pauses a long time) I would
say prior to even going to that particular seminar, that conflict management to
me is always,... has to be,...has to come from you first. It can’t always be the
other person that you’re having the conflict with. So I m the kind of person, I
have always been the kind of person that will always say, “What didn 11 do right
here?” (her voice wavers). You know if somebody's upset from based on what I
said or my actions or their body language when you admit have an encounter
and their response is not what you thought it would be. You know\ when you
think somebody is going to be happy about something and they let out a sigh of
(she sighs), you know, “I can't believe it!” Well then you know something's not
right. I’ve never walked away from that. I mean, I deal with that immediately.
Umm, I’ve had very few problems (pause) with tilings coming back to haunt me.
so to speak, meaning that once I thought I’ve, we ve resolved it, that it s come
back to say, “it’s not really resolved” like you think. So. yeah, so I ve had very
few problems with that here... or anywhere, really. Umm, I think any time you
you know, try to educate yourself with anything that you gain something from it.
94

Find the answer (M) Solving
conflict first starts with
yourself. Can’t always be the
other person. Does she get
blamed by others? Victimage.
Places blame on herself
She tries to solve problems but
blames herselffor them (I)
They let out a sigh (M)
Immediate response to
problems Never walked away
from(M)
Back to haunt me (M)
She is open to new
information

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KF.V
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

That particular day, (pause) I kind of left there feeling a little stupid so I’m not
sure. ■■('ve both ,auZh>- Hey> you ^ow. I’m trying to be as honest as I possibly
can. (pause) Umm, I hope I ve tried,...I’ve tried to answer the question. I’m not
sure if I did or not.

Blaming herself
Honest

I think the essence ofit is that people work with different rules. And so conflict
comesfrom each person thinking that his or her rules are right.
Well. I guess you see, for me when you work in a service industry, and that’s all
I ve ever done is that,... there are no rules and that you learn that very quickly.
Umm meaning that you have a lot of people to satisfy and that, umm. I’m not
saying bending the rules are technically correct either but you need to be really
flexible. That is just really important because you will never survive if you
don’t. You always have to be smiling and you always have to...I don’t usually
have a problem that I can’t get something that will satisfy everybody. Because
in anything when you’re catering or when you’re servicing residents here, you’re
trying to satisfy all of their wonderful needs. I realize that’s not possible.
(emphasis) I mean, you know, the realistic part of that is not possible. But your
mind needs to be, you need to be constantly focusing on..or trying to have a
creative answer. Or, and something that everyone can live with. So far as the
conflict management, for me that’s what it is, I mean you have to say, “OK. So if
you don’t want filet mignon today, how about we’ll do pork chops for you?” I
mean, you know, so your mind is constantly thinking on those terms. And a lot
of that avoids all that conflict. I mean, you have to have a suggestion or....and
you have to make them buy into it. I mean and so that....
(I laugh.) Be a good salesperson.
Exactly, and so that works for me. Even in dealing with other people.

No rules (Does she mean
overriding rules?)
A lot of people to satisfy
Bending the rules (M)
You will never survive (MM)
(She has to be efficient and
satisfy a lot ofpeople.)(l)
(Contradiction - no
rules/bending rules)
Wonderful needs (The use if
this term tells me that even
though she cannot fulfill
everyone's needs, she does not
resent this and makes an effort
to do it anyway.)
Mind needs..constantly
focusing on..creative answer.
(M)
(She needs to be flexible)
Satisfying others and avoiding
conflict.

How about the staff here?
We’re talking the management staff?
Yeah.
Hmm. (pause) Well, I would say that again there are a lot of different
personalities, umm, and a lot of people want different things from their jobs.
And I think give that, given where they came from and where they want to go,
there’s a lot of things that are factored in even every day to that. And did it
helped conflict management? Did it do anything here? I don t know that I ve
noticed a major change. Umm. (pause) Again for me, I you learn all their
personalities, you learn the things that they like, you learn the tilings that they
don’t like. Umm. so I guess I’m like, you know. I’ll adapt to the environment,
to what the surroundings are. You know, for me I make some simple rules for
myself. I don't gossip with people, umm, because it s work related. I have no
reason to talk about anybody, because I may have to (she laughs) work with them
in the near future and again, 1 mean, that for me, umm, that’s pretty day-to-day
routine stuff. So I try to keep, umm. away from the conflict and. umm, I mean I
try to avoid that. Umm. but it, 11 can’t say that I’ve noticed any major
significant change (pause) unfortunately. And I just think it has to do with
(pause) personalities. Your not knowing no matter where it is or it s going to be
95

Different personalities
Want different things from
their jobs. She is aware of
others’ needs. (Does she
consider her needs?)

I’ll adapt to the environment
(MM)
(She has established her own
rides ofetiquette.)
Avoids pettiness
Avoids conflict (But is there
conflict among workers?) (I)
No major change

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KF.V
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -Aly observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

able to change that.
This organization has a lot ofstrong personalities. It seems to me that can be a
double-edge sword That's good because they 're self-driven but / think they
must have difficulty getting consensus in this group ofpeople.
And that’s true. Very true so, again, I mean.(she sighs) I think that it probably
will make all of us stop, think before we speak. You know and that’s great.
Even if they do that.
Do you think people have ?
Umm, yeah. I would say that they have at least done that. And that is good.
That, that’s great. Umm, (pause) you never gonna take away the, the politics
that goes on. So (pause) yeah, I think it’s at least made people stop and think
before they speak... (pause) Which, uhh, I mean, I don’t think some people
realize is what they say to other people about a conflict that’s going on with
someone else, them and someone else, that....and I realize that they’re trying to
draw you in and, you know, and, you know, you need to have those sides, this,
that... We maybe have a good working relationship and that I don’t personally
want to be drawn in to those things. Umm, and I’ve said that to people, you
know. Not that I don’t care. If there’s anything I can do to help, I’ll be glad to.
But you guys need to work it out. You know, it’s not a problem. I don’t have
that problem, you know, so.... because it’s, umm, somebody told me a little
(pause) anec... (pause) a long time ago and it was pretty much about home but it
pretty much relates to anything in life. Uhh, we never heard her talk about her
husband. And, umm, not that everybody needs to do that, but. you know, a
group of women work together, you know, most of them say something at some
times, some time, and she said, “No,” she said. “ There’s... I don’t talk about
my home because, umm, you don’t tear down the bridges. Once you’ve turn,
you know, you tear down the bridges, then there’s nothing. And. you know, I
kinda, I try to live by that. I don’t tear down bridges between anybody. Not in
my home, not the people I have to live with, you know. Umm. so I have a fairly
good working relationship with most people here. The good thing about [this
place] is that even with all the strong personalities, they do take the time to sit
down and talk it out and listen to your idea which is in a lot of places I’ve
worked, nobody really cared. Took the time to hear you. Umm, so there is a
group effort in trying to make... the particular, the Village itself, you know, an
employable, wonderful place to work... and they work at that. And, umm,
whether it be resident oriented or staff oriented, they go all out.

96

(She's talking about the
training.JMake... us stop,
think before we speak. (M)

Never take away politics (0
Political environment doesn’t
change, but members consider
others before they speak.
Draw you in (M)
Political sides
She avoids being in the center
of conflict.
Work it out (M)
Separating personal life from
business. (This a metonymic
sequence that describes her
behavior at work)
Don’t tear down bridges (M)
Don’t tear down bridges (M)
Co-workers take time to listen
to ideas of others
Took time to hear you

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Donna
IVhaf was it like for you to go through that training and the game?
The card game?

(She is smiling. She sits
across a table with elbows on
the table, hands clasping one
another. We are in a small
conference room.)

Yeah.
I kinda caught on I think early when we switched groups that different people
had different rules. So I knew that was the case but it was still frustrating.
One of my downfalls is that I always have to be right.

Different people had
different rules.
' She pauses)
(She says this assertively. Her
eyes are wide and she is
aughing.)

Which table were you atfirst?
Right in the middle.
Do you remember in what sequence you moved or did you move?
I moved to the front. No, I moved to the back table first and I moved up. I
moved by the window. I was never to the top. I was at the table right by the
stairs. Then I went back to the original table.

(She was very expressive
during the game, but now I am
having a hard time getting her
to talk)
To the top
(Does she want to be “to the
top? ” Is this a metaphorfor
top position?)

So it wasfrustrating to you? Can you give me an idea ofsome of the actions or
behaviors that you observed and you did yourself to establish the rules?
Probably like signs, gestures. It always helped when somebody else was playing
by the same rules because she and I had an alliance. It was like she and I had
the same rules so we helped each other.

Signs and gestures. (She
moves her hand up.) An
alliance. (M) (war word)
Helped each other

/ think the last table you were at I think I remember you were very expressive.
I think it was Tom and, I think Karen. Well they were just playing their own
game. ‘Cause again, the two of them were playing by the same rules. So they
were playing almost like their own game. The struggle came about when
everybody thought that, you know, the trick was theirs when everybody went to
go and grab it. We all had our preconceived ideas who should win the trick.

Alliance between two others
Struggle (M) (war word)
(She laughs.)
Win the trick (M) (war word)

How long ha\>e you been here?
(I am still struggling to get her
to open up.)

Ten and a half years.
men we did the debriefing and we had the role-playing, give me some ideas of
what you felt during that time and what you think you got out ofit.
See Joan was my -1 supervise Joan - so I didn't want to say a lot because a lot
of times there gets some animosity between staff and Joan. and. you know. I
when I had to take her on and I supervised her. it was real difficult because I had
to be fair to Joan, so when she was doing the role-playing, I didn’t want to say a
lot because I didn't want to appear that I was taking sides. And the things in
that role-playing were very real-life things that go on in the organization.

97

Animosity (war word?)
Fairness
(She begins to open up.)
Taking sides (MM) (war
word)
Rolc-plaving and real-life (M)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - nietonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I)-Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text — key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Yeah, Ifigured that.
One thing about this organization, I think we’re very open and we do have
conflict but I think we have the type of relationship here that one moment we
can be in conflict, but it’s only professional. And we don’t hold grudges here. I
think that s probably a good way of putting it. ‘Cause oftentimes we have a lot of
strong personalities in this village.
I noticed that. (I laugh)
Very much so and, you know, when you have potential, I guess, to protect, and
when you believe in something strongly (pause) its hard to negotiate.

Open communication in
organization. (She chuckles.)
(Open communication and
aggressiveness? Is this
irony?)(I) Conflict, but
professional. (She emphasizes
this.) Strong personalities.
(She is one of those strong
personalities)
Protect (territory?) (I) (war
word)
Hard to negotiate, (war word)

Right, tight.
And sometimes the simplest thing that you feel shouldn’t be a problem, a lot of
times is where the conflict comes in.

Simple things cause problems.

Do you see any difference between people who have been here a long time and
people who have been here a short time? Is there a difference in that way? Do
you find any difference in integrating somebody new. For instance someone is
going to be replacing Pat soon.
Ummhh. Well I think, I think the comfort level. Definitely I’m sure its not there
when you first get here. You know, I’ll be perfectly honest. I think me and then
some of the other people who work here can be really intimidating unless your
really self assertive, umm, type of person. You know, I think we actually look
for people you know when we are interviewing people, new people, especially
management, I think we look for those sorts of people. Someone that’s going to
fit in because someone whose quiet and not willing to assert themselves, you
know, you hate to say it, but they’ll get eaten alive here. I mean they’ll get lost
in the shuffle and nothing would ever get done. You know, decisions would be
made for them and that’s not good either. So whether that’s good or not I don’t
know. I think, though, that people feel comfortable rather quickly here.

(She laughs.)
Intimidation] of new
employees (war word)
Looking for self assertive
people. (She emphasizes this.)
Eaten alive (M)
Lost in the shuffle (M)
Decisions made for them.
(Comfortable quickly? Could
that be possible in such an
environment?_)(!)

Oh, that's good.
(Reflective mood)
and
I don’t think, you know, we’ve had a couple new — I don’t know if
___ — I don’t think they were here when — We’ve had two key positions.
umm, turn over in the past six months and (pause) one person had been here
over ten years and the other person had been here like seventeen years. So I
mean there were two major changes and, umm, I feel that the people that are in
those positions right now are going to be just fine. They have kind of found
their niches and slipped right in, and you know, we have a good time.

Discussion of new employees
and their ability to fit in.
Found their niches and
slipped right in. (M)

Do you feel you have gotten anything out of the training over these past few
months?
Well I think. I think that it was good for me to see personally the way I
expressed myself when things didn’t go my way, and, umm. I think it made me
take a good hard look at myself and it maybe how we communicate as a group
even. You know we don't always see eye to eye on things.
98

(She is thinking and speaking
slowly.)
Introspection on group and
self communication.
Don’t see eye to eye (MM)
(don 7 always agree.)

(M) - metaphor
(M\D-ira*on°my

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Yeah, that's what it was about, really, how you deal with that.
Do you think it has changed anything about the way you guys communicate.
Has it done anythingfor the communication?
I think we’ve really, umm, that’s always been our pet peeve that we don’t
communicate I mean especially - there’s always been that “we”, “they” over
there, I mean, ‘cause they’re so far removed. I mean, truly the base of the
operation is here as far as the staff, the majority of the staff, the majority of the
what goes on in the resident care and things of that nature. And its in these two
buildings. And I think communication has always been a problem, umm, and
we see that and sometimes it just, you know, I think we try to make each other
aware as well informed about things as we possibly can without calling each
other with every, you know, little thing or detail.

Don’t communicate. WeThey (MM) (Didn 7 she say
that the organization was
open?)
Base of operation in resident
care.
Communication always a
problem.
Awareness without too much
detail.
(She is reflective. She does
not respond quickly.)

So do you think its helped at all, the workshop?
Umm, Yea. I don’t think its a waste of time. I can only say that its helped.
How do you think its helped?

Awareness of what is lacking.
(A'faybe more of the details
need to be communicated.)

Just by keeping us aware. Keeping us aware of maybe what we’re lacking.
Would you explain the management structure here ? You are saying that it's
“them” and “us”.
Well, James, of course is at the top. He’s also President and, then um. Sue and
Tom are vice-president positions. Sue is vice-president of health care and she’s
more, umm, responsible for the programming needs of the village. And Tom is
vice-president of finance and information systems. He is more responsible for
the purse strings.
OK.
Then we have several directors of departments and programs. There s myself
and, umm, then we have directors of nursing, environmental sendees, building
systems, dietary, activities, recreation, myself, volunteers and the Director of (the
independent living) House. So we have these directors, eight in all.
And where are they physically?
Well, the Director of (the independent living) House is over in (the independent
living) House. Volunteers and recreation, they work primarily in these two
buildings, but they do have some some volunteer activities over in (the
independent living) House.
(The independent living) House. Is that different than what you do over here?
Us Independent Living. This is the nursing home and personal care. But for the
most part the other seven directors are situational in these two buildings.

99

This is information about the
hierarchy of the organization.
(She is sitting in the same
position throughout. She is
smiling.)
(I sense that her smile is not
genuine.)
(I am looking for a clear
understanding of “us/them ”)

(M) - metaphor
r\lM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

OK. So its kind of the us is these two buildings in a sense and the them is (the
independent living) House and James and his hierarchy.
Right.
OK. And so the communication between the them over there and the us over
here is part of the thing that your dealing with.
See a lot of the other directors, the seven directors, we work relatively closely
because all of our focus and attention is on resident care and, umm, and so a lot
of what we do, you know, we work relatively closely.

100

She is commenting on the
closeness of the us.
(The communication problem
seems to be between the
administrative organization
and the nursing home staff.)

(M) - metaphor
(MM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

COPING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Ann
I am in an orderly office. She
is behind a desk and I am
facing her.)

mat was it like for you to go through the game?
Well I’m trying to recall what it was. (she laughs)
men you went through the conflict management workshop, you played the
game.
Right, we played the game where we were all playing with different rules.
Umm, and the feelings that we got from that. Umm, I guess (pause) in my
situation with that, I was the type of person who did not give in, you know, to
what was going on, who was aggressive about enforcing my set of rules, (she
chuckles) Umm, you know, because that’s my management style. I probably
thought that everybody that was at the table that wasn’t playing by my rules was
kind of nutty and, and just didn’t know what they were doing. You know, and I
thought, “what the heck are they doing?’ You know, and, “Don’t they know the
rules? Didn’t they listen? Didn’t they read?” You know, you sort of make those
assumptions that you shouldn’t make. Umm, (pause) I don’t know.

Different rules
Did not give in, (M) (power)
Was aggressive about (power)
enforcing my set of rules.
(MM) (power)
Nutty
(She focuses on her own rules
and does not accept that others
may have a different way of
approaching things. She
admits this may not be good.)

How soon did you figure that there was something going on with the rules?
(Her bias blinds her to other
ways ofapproaching things.)

I didn't figure it out. I didn’t know it till afterwards.
When you didfind out, how did you feel?
Well, it certainly made things clearer then. You know, you could understand
why people were acting the way they were. Um, the hard thing about our table
was is that two of us were operating under the same set of rules. James and I
were at the same table. We were operating under the same set of rules.

Justification for difference
Alliance

You were together throughout.
All the way. So we actually ganged up on the other people. You know, you had
two people that were dominant who were ganging up on the one or two other
people who were operating under different rules and decided that we didn’t care
what they were doing, (laughs) We would just ignore them. So it was kind of
funny.

Ganged up (M)
Dominant who were ganged
up on the [others] (S?)
Didn’t care
Funny

I noticed that the last table you were at, that was interesting.
Very, that was where Karen was who had been queen of the table for the whole
day and it was very... Karen had figured it out and knew what was going on and
was very adamant about doing things her way and James.... That s when \\c just
decided, we just took things away from her. The two of us just ganged up on her
and said, “Well, you know, we went like this (she waves her hand). Just ignore
what she says. Well, we had our score and we kept it our way and we just
ignored her totally, (she laughs deeply)
(I laugh) I was watching that table. I thought it was hysterical.
But at the time, you know, we didn’t know what was going on and. you know.
I’m thinking, “Gosh, how could Karen have been up here through all
101

Queen of the table (M)
(She sees things in terms of
power.)
We went like this...(j/fe
waves) (MM)
Negates the other

Ignores the possibility that
Karen might be correct.

(M)- metaphor
(MM) - melonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) — Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text —Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses —Enviromental notation

of these rounds and she still doesn’t know what’s going on?” So, and I guess,
you know, I don’t know, I... afterward I thought, “Boy, you’re not too swift.
You didn’t figure out that you were operating under different rules by now.” You
know, I thought I was kind of dumb actually. Cause some people did figure that
out and it just... I guess it just never entered my mind that we were given
different rules.

Castigates herself
Not too swift (M)
Never entered my mind (M)

How did you feel during the debriefing?
Well, I guess I felt after finding that out I sort of felt relieved. You know, you
sort of feel like, “well, gosh, there was a reason why this went the way it did.”
You know, umm, I think because we’ve all.... I think because here we’ve always
looked at ourselves as a pretty cohesive team, too, that it was really funny
because you start thinking, “Gosh, you know, maybe we’re not as cohesive as we
(she laughs) think.” And then in the end you find out, well, it’s because we were
operating under different sets of rules. So that’s why it happened

Relieved.
Justification of actions by
others
Cohesive team (S)
Questions cohesiveness (I)

Did you sense any linkage in real life for you?
Well, I think since then I think it makes you think about, umm, assuming
things. You know, not to make assumptions and I think that we often do that in
the positions that we’re in... Umm, that you have to find out all the information
before, you know, before you think a certain thing or decide a certain thing. So
hopefully I’m not doing assuming as much as I was doing before.

Consideration of assumptions
Solution - find out all the
information

And the role-playing?
We just did the one with Joan.
Right.
You know I don’t know how I felt about that. You know, off the record Joan
and everybody here have always had..
Do you want me to stop this?
Well, if you want to use it as part of your research. But we sort of have an
adversarial... Umm, Joan’s sort of always been the cog in the wheel who, you
know, that people have a hard time with her. I sort of thought it.. I don’t know,
I guess I didn’t feel it was an appropriate thing to do.

Adversarial
Cog in the wheel (Misuse of
phrase) (M)
Inappropriate

Ah, that s interesting. Because it was kind of a sensitive subject anyway.
Well, it was. And to do it in front of everybody...(pause). You know, I don't
know, I just... because we had all know that there were problems... and I get
along fine with Joan, but there’s a lot of people that don t and I guess I just
didn’t feel like it was an appropriate place to, umm. try to air those or to do
something about it. I was uncomfortable with that.
Did it make a difference after?

102

Private matter. (She seems to
be careful about reprimanding
in private.)
Air those (M)
Uncomfortable

(M) - metaphor
rMM) - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase______

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

Ho, I don't think it made a difference, (pause) In fact I think we discussed this
editing thing... Isn’t her editing people’s?...

(Thoughtful)

Right.
We just had an argument over that at the last department meeting. It’s
continuing. Umm. you know, people not wanting her to edit or, umm ... Well,
then., and I think Joan’s more reluctant to do tilings now because someone gave
her a list they wanted deleted from a computer program that she does and she’s
afraid to delete it. (she laughs) So I’m not sure that she gained anything from
that. I don’t know how she felt about it. Uhh, I can’t speak for her. But she’s a
little bit more leery now, I think of doing things.

Argument.
Joan‘s more reluctant
(I)
Joan did not gain anything
(Ann looks at Joan as being
the one who needs to change,
not others.)

There's conflict in any organization. My question is did it do anything to
alleviate or change anything in this organization?
Well, I don’t know. For me I feel like it helped, because, like I said, I try not to
assume tilings now with other... When I hear some things now or when a
department head, urn... even if I get things on EMAIL, I guess I try to clarify
things better before I get excited about something.

Try not to assume things
(She is making an effort and
knows she is biased towards
her own opinion.)

Do you think other people are doing that?

I would hope so. You see, I, I don’t think we have a lot of conflict in this
organization. I’ve worked in other organizations and I don't think there a lot. I
think there’s day-to-day interaction. I think that we have a lot of very strong
supervisors who, who just interact. You know, we have our... and we speak up.
We’re very outspoken. We say what we think, but I don’t think we carry that
on. You know, if I say something in a meeting today that, that, uh, ticks
somebody off, I don’t think that that lasts. Umm, at least I hope not. And I
don’t, I don’t feel that way. You know, we had a big thing at the last department
head meeting over something else, too, and one of the new man supervisors said.
“Whoa, I’m never saying anything again!” You know, it was an idea he brought
up and all we were doing was debating and I think there’s a lot of debate that
goes on in this organization. But when you have a lot of strong-minded people,
that’s not bad You know, everybody gives their ideas and then we usually can
come to a consensus without without fighting over it. You know, I think there’s
a lot of collaboration that goes on. And the new supervisor is just not... for one
thing he’s not used to the position. He never was a supervisor. He’s brand new
at it and he felt, because we debated the point he brought up, he felt like he was
being attacked when it’s really not meant that way. We weren’t attacking him.
We were attacking his ideate laughs) You know, he has to learn not to take
that personally. And I don’t... I think that’s healthy. You know, you don't want
to sit in an organization where the CEO stands up there and tells you what to do
and everybody just nods “yes.” You know, that’s not very good either or very
productive. You know, people here have a lot of good ideas and we share them a
lot. So, and this new supervisor just has to learn that. You know, we try to tell
him that, “ Oh. this is normal for here.” You know, you just got... we’re just
debating. That’s all we’re doing. You know.
Do you think he took that to heart or... ?

103

Not a lot of conflict

Strong supervisors
Outspoken
Ticks somebody off (M)

(She is very animated.)
(Compare this description to
the interview with Pat. Ann
sees herself as debating.
Others see her as
uncompromising.)
Collaboration
Debate

Separation of private and
business
(She is strong-willed and
works better with employers
who are more lassez-faire than
authoritarian.)

(M) -- metaphor
(MM) - metonomv

(S) - synecdoche
(I) - Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase

Italic text in parentheses —My observations
Normal text in parentheses -Enviromental notation

I think he'll be all right. I think he’ll be all right. I just think cause he’s new.
You know, he also said uh, he was sent to a couple seminars on supervision and
says, “ I don’t know why I have to go to these, um. dumb seminars on
supervision.” I said “You know, I’ve been in this business for a long, long time
and I’m still going to supervision seminars and every time I go, I pick up
something new. You know, even if it’s one point you bring away from there, it’s
worth it. It’s worth going.” So, you know, and he’ll learn that. He’s just too
new. Yeah, I remember when I first started. (She laughs) It was much different.
And I think if you get to the point where you feel you don’t need it anymore, you
know, then you need to look for another line of work.

(Authoritarian in tone.) (She
is attempting to teach
something to the new
supervisor.)
Pick up something new (M)
Willing to learn

I sensed a lot of strong supervisors as I was observing the game.
Right. But it’s not a... I mean, I guess that in some organizations that could be
trouble if everybody was vying for the same thing, but I think in this sort of an
organization where, you know, you’re not competing for a job or a position or
your major goal is the resident and if you keep that in mind everybody’s really
working towards the same thing. So, um, you know, it’s not really an
adversarial type of thing.

Motivation for the
organization overshadows
personal competition.
Working for the same thing.
Not adversarial

Is there anything else you can tell me about the interaction ofpeople during that
training session or anything anybody said afterwards that might have been a
response to it?
Positive response
Uh, I mean generally it was a positive, umm, you know, there was positive
response to that. I mean nobody came out of it and said “Oh, that was really
dumb.” You know (she laughs). Uh, you know, I think everybody thinks they
benefited from it in some way. You know, we may have different ideas about
how we did benefit from it. Like I said I have never felt like we had a lot of
conflict anyway. I mean, you’re gonna have conflict on the job as you’re
working all the time and you just resolve that as you go along. The most
important thing is that you’re able to openly dialogue with people and because
we have that here I think that things don’t build up, you know. When you don’t
dialogue and things build up and you have a big explosion, then you have bigger
problems. And I don’t really see that. Of course, I, I’m the sort of person and
everybody isn’t like that, but I’m very direct with people. If you tick me off
today, I’m going to call you in and I’m going to tell you, “You know, gee, I
really didn’t appreciate that.”(she laughs). And and other people will tell you
that that I do that. Umm, all the way up to James. You know, if he did
something and I was mad about it, I would tell him if I wasn't happy about it.
And that I feel is just, it just helps. You know, then it’s over. It’s done and it
doesn’t build up into something bigger. You know, it’s much, much worse when
you have people just running around talking behind people s backs and they
don’t resolve things.

Different ideas about benefit
Never felt we had a lot f
conflict (Does her strong
personality blind her to the
conflicts among others?)
Openly dialogue

Direct
Tick me off (M)
Outspoken. Not intimidated
by status.

Talking behind people’s
backs (M)

Right, I don 7 like that either. I've worked in places where people were direct
and in places where people were not direct\ and it is much, much easier when
they are direct.
I have a hard time with my nursing staff over that. You know, they come to me
with something another nurse did or said and I’ll say. “Well, did you talk to
them about it?”
“Well. no. I have to work with them.”
104

Hard time vs not a lot of
conflict? (I)

(M)-metaphor
/MM1 - metonomy

(S) - synecdoche
(I)-Irony

CODING KEY
Normal text - Dominant theme
Bold text - key phrase______

Italic text in parentheses -My observations
Normal text in parentheses - Enviromental notation

“Well that's the reason why you should talk to them about it. (She emphasizes
this). To their face. You know, if I call them in and say something they’re going
to know you ran to me and told me. It’s going to make it worse.”

Authoritarian tone
(She gives her employees the
responsibility of solving their
own problems.)

So, do they?
I really work on that. I do a lot of coaching and, you know, and I don’t jump in
and handle a problem I feel they could do on their own. I’ll say, you know, I’m
not going to get into the middle of this. You talk to her and then if it’s not
resolved, then the two of you come to me and we’ll resolve it. But I’m not going
to jump into the middle.”
You know, ‘cause then you end up the bad guy. So, it’s just not worth
it. I find that a lot of people have a hard time with face to face confrontation of
any sort. You know, they just can’t do it. And, um, it’s a constant thing with
nurses training, coaching, sending them to seminars and some of them just never
make it. You know, they just never can do that. It’s not in their personality or
whatever. I keep saying it’s a learned process. You can do it. You know, every
time you do it, it gets a little easier.

105

(She does not have any
patience with small problems.)

Allow other to solve problems

Jump in the middle (M)
Bad guy (M)
Confrontation and negotiation
are learned processes.

APPENDIX B
Protocol Analysis of the Barn Transcript

106

OBSERVATIONS AT THE BARN
I have traveled three hours to reach The Barn. It is a real 100 year
old bam with electricity but no running water. (It has an outhouse.) Inside
the space is open with one side installed with a rappelling wall. There are
some cables stretched across the width of the bam perhaps ten feet off the
ground. I see two gymnastic mats and two rope ladders hanging from the
ceiling. On one side of the bam is a one story high closed-in room. It takes
up perhaps an eighth of the square footage of the bam. There are windows in
the walls of the room, so I can see inside. It has a desk in it but nothing else
that I can see. I have the urge to go into the room, but I turn my focus on the
activities at hand.
The director of The Bam, Mary, and her student assistant, Dave, are
busy checking how two large ropes are attached to the wall. They place two
climbers’ hooks on the ropes as I make my presence known. I have been here
before. In June, I came to interview Mary about what it is like to facilitate an
experiential game. I have not, however, actually watched the games in action
at this point.
The group that will be going through the training this time is waiting
outside. It is a warm day and the bam doors are wide open. Mary and Dave
finish preparing and the three of us join the group outside. The group of
sixteen adults, five women and eleven men, has come from a residential drug
and alcohol rehabilitation center. Three men and three women are black: the
rest are white. This is a new experience for Mary. She has some anxiety over
the success of this particular training session Mostly she works with students
and corporate entities.
The group’s facilitator, John, is leading them in some stretching
exercises after which the group gets in a large circle for introductions. Mary
and I have decided that I will introduce myself at this point and explain why I
am here. John already knows I will be present today. Mary starts by
explaining very simply that she is going to lead them in a series of
experiential learning games followed by a debriefing. After Dave and I
explain our presence there as well, Mary requests that the group move into the
barn and sit in a circle on the floor.
I have established that I am going to be as inconspicuous as possible,
so I sit outside the circle taking notes. Mary and I decided before the event
that I would not tape record the training because the group was from a
rehabilitation center and the members’ anonymity was important.
Additionally the group members had been sent to the center by the courts
which made their identities even more critical to protect.

New situation
Anxiety
Desire for success

(People are listening
intently. They are serious
about this event because
there is no distraction.)

Anonymity

Full Value Contract
Mary begins by introducing what she calls a Full Value Contract.
She lists several expectations and rules she has for the group members and
requests that each one individually agrees to them vocally. She states that
anyone in the group may add to her list as well. Her conditions are as
follows:

Full Value Contract —
Expectations and rules.

• Each member of the group must be responsible for him or herself and the
others in the group. If a groupmember sees another member doing something
that seems dangerous either physically or emotionally to that member, he or
she has a responsibility to stop the activity and voice his or her concern.

Responsibility

107

. Dave and Mary promise to give the group problems but will not solve them.
Smoking is not prohibited in or near the Bam. She reinforces this by
explaining the barn’s age and stating that the school will not replace it if it
bums do™.
• She states that if one member wants to take a break, the whole group must
take a break at the same time.
• Each member of the group will have the choice to take the challenge of each
activity. If the member does not want to participate actively, he or she will
not be forced to do it. However, the member is expected to encourage and
spot other member who do participate.
• Mary promises that she will challenge the group to stretch themselves.
John, the group’s rehabilitation facilitator, adds that there will be no cutdowns or put-downs. He requires that this will be an emotionally safe
environment.
Mary then starts asking members to agree to the contract. She states
that she has an imaginary bowling ball in her hand. She asks if anyone wants
to speak. One member indicates by lifting his hand that he wants to speak.
She roles the ”ball” and tells the group that each one must throw or pass
something imaginary to the next speaker.
The first speaker states that he will do the best he can, will help each
of the other members of the group, and will keep to the contract. He passes a
“football” to a woman in the group. She states that she will keep to the
contract as well and will work on her weakness in communicating with
others. She throws a “doughnut” to another woman who promises to finish
each task. The fourth member throws a “Frisbee” and states that he is there to
have fun and find a sense of community. Other members throw such items as
a “penny,” “snowball,” and “apple” and promise such things as working on
self-confidence, helping friends, and overcoming fears. Each member of the
group takes their turn to agree to the rules and to state their own personal
challenge for this day. The process of making the promise is extended to the
facilitators as well and I do not exclude myself in this part of the day. Since
everyone is agreeing to abide by the rules, I volunteer to do the same although
I am sitting outside the circle. Mary states that she agrees that I should also
verbalize my acceptance of the Full Value Contract.

Group responsibility

Group acts in unison
Free choice

Growth
Stretch themselves (M)
Emotionally safe
environment
Cut-downs or put-downs
(M)
Commitment
Ball gives speaker authority
(M)
Commitment
(Choices ofthrown objects
are reflections ofmembers *
personalities?)
Personal growth
Fun/Community
Self confidence
Commitment
(I note that the group seems
cohesive. They are not
mocking one another)

The Swinging Rope
Mary suggests that the group members remove their jewelry and
place the items in a box. Several members do so. She asks the group if they
are ready for their first challenge. They agree and she brings out a large rope
perhaps ten feet long. Dave takes hold of one end and one of the female
members takes hold of the other end. The two start swinging the rope about
one revolution a second as if they are playing jump-rope and Mary encourages
the others to pass through the rope one at a time
without touching it and without missing a swing. The group runs through
with no particular order. Some members run at once and the others stagger
their attempt. After they all pass through, another member of the group takes
the rope so the swinger can pass through, without touching it and without
missing a swing. The group runs through with no particular order. Some
members run at once and the others stagger their attempts. After they all pass
through, another member of the group takes the rope so the swinger can pass
through.
Maty notes that this activity seems easy. Now she directs the
members to pass through the rope without missing one revolution and without
108

Trust

(She volunteers without
being asked)

missing one member including the swinger. They line up single file. When
the fim member goes through, he takes the swinger’s turn and she goes to the
end of the line. The group claps spontaneously to the time of the swing in
order to assure that everyone gets through on time. This activity is successful.
Mary comments on the success of the group, but now states that the
team needs to go through in pairs. The group congregates and begins to
discuss how to achieve this. One white male member begins to take charge of
the planning and the group accepts the direction of this man willingly. A
second black woman also becomes outspoken and tells the group to “hush-up
and listen. The leader” directs the members into pairs. The team lines up
and passes through the rope but misses a rotation and forgets about the
swinger even though the swinger is calling aggressively for someone to take
the rope from him. They must do it again. Mary asks how many members
understood the rules. Half the team agrees that they do, but the other half
admits that they don’t. The team acknowledges that the breakdown occurred
in planning. The “leader”, however, maintains his position and directs one of
the members of the first group to take over the rope. The other member will
run through again with the swinger. This plan works and everyone claps
when the activity is finished.
Mary now requires the team to pass through in threes. The team
again discusses among themselves how to achieve this. They line up and
begin to run through. One of the members of the first group takes the rope
from the swinger, and the other two members go through again with the
swinger. The first attempt doesn’t work because their timing is off. The
second time, one of the women gets hit in the eye with the rope. She has to
stop. Mary asks if the team wants to stop and wait for the woman to recover.
The woman insists that the team continue and that she will join in later.
Mary asks for consensus on this and the group agrees. The hurt member
watches as the team continues. It takes them two more tries to get the
activity right.
Mary calls the group together for a short debriefing session. The
members sit in the middle of the floor in a circle. She asks if anyone has any
thoughts on the activities. One person states that a good leader is needed.
Another makes the comment that too many people were talking at once. One
woman in the group comments that once the problem is stated, and a solution
is suggested, the group should just do it.
The groups facilitator, John, then takes over. He asks, “How can
these experiences be used as part of recovery [from addiction to drugs and
alcohol].”
One person states that the concentration needed for each of the
activities reminds him to keep focused on sobriety. When he forgets to pay
attention, he slips up. Another comments that the activities need all the
members pulling together and helping each other in a similar manner to the
focus of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The woman who is hurt is
now commenting that doing things together is a new experience for her. John
states that when the members go through their rehabilitation program, they
begin one by one. When an individual gets the courage to do so, he or
she takes on a partner (a sponsor) and finally s/he begins to trust the whole
group. They become open to suggestions and allow a common leader to
emerge. The woman who the outside.” she would have been angry and ve
“gone off” Instead she felt trusting of the others in the group.
Mary now invites the group to do one more activity with the rope
She wants the group members to go through in pairs again, ac mem
109

(There is talking and
laughing here. Some are
calling to others to come
through the rope. There is
no pattern.)
Organization
Cohesion
Group planning
Leader emerges. He is the
most outspoken
Assistant emerges (She was
first swinger)
Problem occurs
(Confusion about
responsibility)
Understanding
(One woman isfrowning
and annoyed)
Breakdown in planning
Cohesive satisfaction

One member is hurt and
encourages the rest to
continue. She is angry at
first. It takes an effort for
her to maintain composure.
Leadership

Concentration reminds him
to keep focused on sobriety
(M)

All members pulling
together (M)
Group support
Doing things together is a
new experience
Begin one by one
Working together
Trust
Emergence of a leader
Gone off (M)

needs to go through twice, however; the second time being with a different
partner. When the group begins to talk out the plan, too many people begin to
talk a once and several ideas are proposed One women begins to get agitated
and shows some irritation. She comments, “This is so frustrating.”
At this point, Mary stops the activity and inteijects, “Now let me
repeat what I said Now I’m not going to tell you anything differently, but I
just want you again to hear the rules. Don’t attach new rules to this activity.”
She now repeats the rules.
The group begins again to brainstorm. Another woman is acting
frustrated. She now states, “The first person coming through....you take the
rope. Then everybody will have a different partner going through and it
won’t be a problem.”
This idea doesn’t work because most people want to know who their
second partner will be. It is hard for me to understand what plan is being
formulated because too many people are speaking. Nevertheless, the team
finally has work out the plan. It has taken at least ten minutes, longer that the
other planning sessions. The first time is not successful because the first
person swinging the rope does not know who her partner is. The second time
is successful and the whole group laughs, claps, and praises one another.

Talk out a plan
Agitation
Stick to the rules
Simple rules complicated
by actions (I)

(Most people want to know
what they 're doing next
This planning is confusing
but the group succeeds.)

Debriefing of the Swinging Rope
Mary calls for another debriefing session. She takes a large beach
ball and rolls it to each person who wants to speak. Now the woman who had
spoken up earlier states that she was becoming exasperated during the
planning session because she felt that the group was overworking their
strategy and that it was actually easy to solve. Mary points out to her that,
although her idea was a legitimate way of thinking, there are other ways of
working out plans. She states that even though her plan might be a good one,
there are ideas that may be as valid. She needs to appreciate other people’s
manner of making plans. A lot of other people need to know who their
second partner will be. This is only another way of thinking and is equally as
valid.
John now links the experience with their rehabilitation program. He
states that recovery includes learning how to control anger and to slow down.
The recovery of one individual depends on the support of the group: the
program is a team effort. He also states that there is more than one plan
toward rehabilitation and other members of the group need to respect that. At
this point Mary calls for a break.
The Wall
Outside of the bam is a free-standing wall. It measures
approximately ten feet high and is about 8 feet wide. It is a heavy-duty panel
that is mounted on telephone pole posts which are buried in the ground to
give the construction support. The back side of the wall has three
2 foot by 2 foot posts attached horizontally 2 feet apart beginning
approximately 3 feet down from the top of the wall. In the center of the top
post, a sturdy rope has been attached which hangs down to the ground. The
rope has knots tied in at about one and a half foot or two foot intervals.
The objective of the activity surrounding the wall is for each member
to climb over the smooth side with the help of the other members of the
110

Beach ball (M)
Overworking strategy
Validity of alternative plans
(The woman who is the
focus of this is not happy at
first but then accepts this)
Controlling anger
Slow down (M)

group. Dave reminds the group that climbing is voluntary and anyone who
does not want to attempt this can choose to work only as a spotter; but
everyone must participate.
He is now explaining how to spot the climbers. He is careful to
explain what to do if the climber does not make it to the top. “Don’t try to
catch them because you will get hurt. If they’re falling, lean them towards the
wall so that they come down slowly.”
Mary now is describing how the group is going to get their team
members over. The physiques of these people are diverse: some are fit and
thin; some are unfit and heavy; some are tall and others are short. She tells
them that one member needs to climb the wall first and stand on the top post.
That person will help lift members over the wall. Another member needs to
spot the lifter. He or she must be standing on the next post and place his or
her arms on either side of the lifter’s body leaning toward his or her body to
assure that the lifter does not fall. The members have been given helmets to
wear for this activity. I am surprised that the women readily put these on.
They are not worried about how they look.
She emphasizes that this is an exercise for each member to do his or
her personal best. If one person can climb the wall and another can only get
half way up, it does not mean that the first is better. Each participant must try
to push him or herself beyond his or her personal limits and, in so doing,
succeed The goal is not to compare achievement with others.
Now the man who has take on leadership roles throughout the
training and another man go to the wall and begin to climb. The two have
not discussed any plan with the rest of the group. Mary stops them and ask,
“Does anybody know what the plan is? How many people know what the plan
is here?”
No one seems to know. Individuals in the group seem to be making
their own plans without discussing the ideas with the rest.
Mary expresses to me a concern about the well-being of the
participants. She is concerned that with the initial chaos of the group,
someone will be hurt.
One man states, “ Well, maybe these two guys are not the right ones
to be lifting on top of the wall.”
Another fellow makes the comment that one of the team members
who has a lot of upper body strength may be a better one for that job. They
also pick a second man who seems almost as strong to spot the lifter. These
two are medium height: the group decides that the tallest men need to stay
below because they work best as spotters. They can also help give height to
those who are scaling the wall.
The first two people to agree to go over are the two heaviest women
in the group. I note that both of them do not hesitate for a moment. The
group rallies behind them one at a time as they approached the wall and lifts
them up to the man on the top who helps them over. Each climbs down and
returns to the front of the wail to help the rest go over. The third girl is light
and easy to lift but the fourth is frightened until the man on the top says to
her, “Hey, it’s me!” Then she seems to feel safer and allows the others to help
her over.
One man is extremely heaw. I am not certain whether the group
will be able to get him over but they do. They figure out that two of the strong
men need to be on the top to help lift him, so two other people walk behind
the wall to spot two lifters. One of the spotters is the woman who had hurt
her eye during the rope exercise. She has decided not to climb the wall, but
111

Voluntary activity

Success based on personal
goals
Same leader, but he does
not plan.
People are milling around
talking in little groups.
There is no organization.
Uncertain plan.

Reorganizing plan

(I do not expect these two
to go first.)

Frightened
Building trust

Knows her limitations

she is very helpful spotting and lifting.
The last man, the tallest, decides that he will climb the wall by
running and leaping to the lifters. He attempts this five times, but only until
the others come behind him to lift does he achieve the height he needs.

Different solution to a
problem

Debriefing of the Wall
The group return to the Bam and sit in a circle on the floor again.
Mary takes the ball and states that there is power in communications. She
asks if anyone wants to speak. One person says that she was glad that she had
the choice to participate. Another man states that he was surprised at the
willingness of the girls to participate. A third comments on the growth of
trust that occurred in the exercise. Then one of the women who scaled the
wall states that she was afraid of the hurdle but went anyway. Another man
comments that it was nice to help others and that it had built a sense of
confidence in his ability to help. The fact that the group looked at two
different plans is brought up as a positive result of the exercise.
John has now taken over the facilitation of the group. He is focusing
on his own AA agenda. He asks the group, “How can what you learned in
this activity be translated into real-life behaviors later on?”
He comments that the wall could be seen as the obstacles each of the
participants had to face as they go through his or her rehabilitation. With the
help of other people, it is possible to overcome those obstacles more easily that
trying to do it alone. When small groups try to make plans separate from the
group, it does not help the group as a whole. He notes that the man who ran
and leaped at the wall was using a different style, but that was OK because
each individual has his or her own style for recovery.
Mary focuses on the man who lifted the participants over. She
comments that she was amazed at his strength and asks him how he feels
about the experience. He comments that he is used to having people depend
on him, but it was nice to have these people trust him. Also he realized that
he needed to trust the person spotting behind him. Mary asks if the group
could have different individuals take turns being in control.

The ball gives authority to
the speaker (M)
Choice
Male dominant thinking
Trust
Overcoming fears
Confidence
Comparison of plans

Obstacles each have to face
(M)
Different solutions to a
problem is a metaphor for
different ways of recovery.
(M)
Dependency
Trust
Different leaders

Wild Woosey
Mary and Dave have attached two heavy cables to the walls
approximately two feet off the floor. They are linked together at one point
and extend away from one another at approximately a 30° angle. Dave
explains that two people will be side stepping along each cable holding hands
and leaning into one another to give each other stability as they move along
the separating cables. He shows how the rest need to spot the pair. There
needs to be at least one person each behind both of the walkers. Others need
to place themselves between the two cables and under the walkers. They will
lean over with their arms resting on their knees so that if the walkers fall, they
will land on the backs of the spotters. As the walkers move along the cables,
more spotters will be needed. Mary and he demonstrate. Their hands are
linked upright palm to palm and their arms become stretched out in front and
stiffened as they move along the cables.
The first to try are the same man who took charge in the beginning
of the other two exercises and another man. They start out too fast and do not
Pay attention to their arms: they bend at the elbow and fall perhaps 12 feet
from the start. Now one woman and a man try. Mary directs the
112

Trust and dependency

No planning. Too quick to
start
(He acts true to form)

spotters behind the couple to lift their hands up in order to catch them if they
fall. She also helps the walkers lean into one another more. This pair
traverses about 12 feet also, but they are shorter which requires them to lean
in more than the first pair.
The next pair, a man and a woman, has a problem because the man
cannot get his balance. Mary calms him down by helping them get the proper
positioning. The next pair, two tall men, have the technique and are able to
traverse the cables about 20 feet. I note that each group gets better because
they seem to learn from the others. I also note that fear in this exercise was
not gender specific. Both men and women could be either afraid or confident.
At this point, I notice that some of the participants have wandered off
outside the bam. Some are smoking a cigarette; some have gone to the
outhouse; some are simply talking among themselves. This seems to cause a
feeling of disintegration in the group process. The pairs who are traversing
the cable are not concentrating as well and fall easily. John realizes that
several have wandered off and calls the group back. The last two pair to
attempt the activity do much better with the re-establishment of support.
They both keep eye contact and position their arms properly. The rest of the
group encourage them along with comments. “You can do it!” “That’s it!”
“Keep going!” These two pair traverse about 20 feet each.

Getting directions

Anxiety and assistance
Learning from others
Fear
Disintegration of support
(The participants lose
concentration when the
group does not show
support)
Group encouragement

Debriefing of the Wild Woosey
We are sitting around in a circle again. Mary seems to be in a bit of
a hurry. I sense that she wants a short debriefing this time. She asks if
anyone wants to say anything. At first no one speaks, so I feel it is important
that I make a comment. I tell the group that I noticed that when the group
lost interest in the activity, the participants did not do as well. I comment that
I sensed the need for group support was important to success of the individual
members. The group agrees and expressed appreciation for my observances.
One of the participants comments that “we all need someone to fall back on.”
Another said, “We can depend on others for help.”
While the group is discussing the importance of dependency, one of
the women begins to frown and pulls back from the circle. She has her knees
up and is hugging them. Someone asks her what she is thinking. She refuses
to respond and Mary intervenes by saying, “We all need to respect her
privacy. If she wants to share her feelings, she will do it.” She reminds the
group that this workshop is to be a safe experience both physically and
mentally.
Tangle Traverse
This activity caused me some concern. I knew that I would have
been one who refused to do this exercise. Attached to opposite sides of the
Barn are two taut cable about 20 feet above the ground. On either side hang
two rope ladders attached to the ceiling and two loosely dangling ropes. Also
there are two ropes attached at opposite ends on the ceiling and drawn
through pulleys on the opposite side of the Bam: they are attached in the
reverse of one another. These ropes hang loosely about two feet above the
floor in an arc and the free ends are coiled on the floor on opposite sides.
There is a climber’s clip on each of these ropes. The members of the group
who want to try this exercise are now putting on harnesses which are looped
around each leg and attached at the waist. The participants work in pairs.
113

Lack of support from the
group

Someone to fall back on
(M)

Dependency
Rejection
Respect

After the harnesses are attached to the climber’s clip, the pair climb thenrope ladders positioned opposite one another along the cable. They are now at
opposite ends of the cable. The rest of the members have split into two teams
and are holding on to the loose ends of the ropes attached to the climbers.
This ensures that if the climbers fall, the team can ease them down to safety.
When the climbers reach the cable, each takes hold of the loosely
hanging rope next to the rope ladders and begins to side-step along the cable.
They work their way to the center where they trade the ropes in their hands
and maneuver around one another to the other side. When this is
accomplished, the teams on the floor gently ease each participant to the floor.
The first pair begins to climb the rope ladders. The man has made it
to the top, but the woman can not get herself to step on the cable. She has
tried several time, but is not succeeding. Mary is intervening here. She asks
the woman if she wants to come down. She says, “Yes!” and she descends the
rope.
Now Mary is saying that the problem here was that the pair had not
established any emotional connection prior to climbing the rope. There is a
discussion as to who should take the woman’s place and, finally the man on
the cable and another woman agree that she should come up. While the
climber climbs, the group keeps a tension on the rope attached to her harness.
She makes it to the cable and the pair attempt to trade
The ropes attached to each of the climbers become tangled: the two climbers
are eased down at this point, but the group praises them for trying, ropes and
pass one another.
Now another pair, a man and a woman, attempts the activity. This
time someone states that the climbers have to be aware of which side of the
cable they are facing before climbing the ladders. The two who climbed
before did not make that assessment first. The man is heavyset and I can tell
hat he is afraid as he climbed the ladder. He is breathing heavily and keeps
hesitating. Mary reminds him that he does not have to do this, but he persists.
When he reaches the cable, it takes him a long time to get on. There is a
definite moment when I can tell that he has decided to complete the activity.
At that moment, he climbs on to the cable and begins to side-step toward the
middle. Throughout all of it, the rest of the members of the group are
encouraging him by saying. “You can do it! Come on!” As he is eased to the
floor, I can see that he is proud of himself.
It is obvious that the group was getting tired. Some of the members
take off their harnesses. One more pair, two men, climb the rope. This team
is able to do the activity smoothly and quickly.

Fear

Trust and commitment
(1 have not noticed this man
yet. The woman is the rope
swinger)
Effort praised/partial
success
Planning
Fear
Persistence and overcoming
fear
Encouragement from the
group
(The lifter on the wall and
another)

Debriefing of Tangle Traverse
Mary has stepped aside for this debriefing and lets John take over.
He asks the heavyset man why he continued to attempt the traverse although
he was so afraid. The man said that it was because he was being encouraged
by the other members of the team. John links that with the encouragemen
given to one another by members of AA. The woman who had reheard
earlier speaks up and comments on her fear of dependency on °thers
she has beenhurt before by some people she had trusted. John states that it is
good that she shared that feeling after all. Her ability to share her fears is
more difficult than the activities just performed.

114

Encouragement

Sharing/trust