Tag Archives: communication

Cliches: Siamese twins

Avoid advice and management consultants

Siamese twins are a specific form of cliché, waiting to fill the vacuum in a speaker’s brain

Believe it or not, in this day and age, I am going to speak to you in plain English.

There is so much advice back and forth about management that, by and large, people are unsure whether they are coming or going.  Managers try this and that advice and things just get worse and worse.

Much of this advice is hit and miss because there are no hard and fast rules in management.  Yet, each book or training course or consultant, again and again, claims once and for all to have an up and coming theory over and above all others that will see you through thick and thin.

Between you and me, give or take one or two of these sources, none of them has advice based on the here and now, the real cut and thrust of management and it will leave you high and dry.

Further, employing consultants costs you an arm and a leg.  They tell you a cock and bull story, taking you only so far and no further time and again.  They hum and ha, do bits and pieces, spread doom and gloom and leave you at sixes and sevens.

They charge an arm and a leg.  Then, they take the money and run, leaving you in rags and tatters to sink or swim.  Meanwhile, they are alive and well and living in luxury, enjoying days of wine and roses, while you are left in sackcloth and ashes on a diet of bread and water.

If you don’t want to end up slipping and sliding between a rock and a hard place, take my advice: avoid consultants, clichés and advice.

Avoid them like the plague.

Coming shortly:  The benefits of the good consultant

Facilitating a session without using a pen

In my most recent article, Enhance your facilitation effectiveness, I put forward the view that the effectiveness of the facilitator can be increased if they do not write anything during a session – transferring, instead, all the generation and recording of contributions to the participants.

This practice means that the participants own the content and, especially, the output.  My experience is, if the participants contribute fully throughout the process, they are more likely to be committed to the actions they have proposed.

How do I manage without using a pen?

 

The first activity

Let’s start with design.

A facilitated session that has been well designed has specific objectives – each objective is a separate agenda item.

For example, if you are conducting a project review, the first objective is most likely to be to define what was successful in the project.  This objective can be achieved by asking a simple question: What went well.

To start off, the participants arrange themselves in small groups to consider this question.  Every person has a pen and cards – this means that every single person has the opportunity to contribute.

The purpose of this activity in small groups is not to gain agreement but to generate ideas.  This gets the participants familiar with a crucial concept: If I want my ideas heard, I must respect the right of the others to have their ideas heard.

They also experience two other positive concepts.

First, this is a dynamic activity which engages all.  And second you, the participants, not a facilitator, are responsible for its success.

Wyeth team working 1

Sharing the contributions

Having discussed the question, generated ideas and written their answers, the participants give me their cards.

We are all eager to see what others have written.  Indeed, excited.

This first plenary session is usually powerful.  On most occasions, the introduction of the first contributions is met with nervous laughter.  Then, there is recognition that what someone has written is what we have all been thinking but have not dared to say.

Participants then realise that we are talking about what actually happened – and that many others think the same.  Phew!

I post the cards on the boards, the participants telling me how to arrange them – cards with similar ideas are placed together to form clusters.

 

Subsequent contributions

At the same time, subsequent cards can be added but only by agreement with the whole group.  These new cards are written by one of the participants.

To write these new cards, I choose the first person to my right to write the first cards; then the next person becomes secretary to write further cards, and so on round the group.

 

Clustering and heading

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Having put all the cards in clusters as instructed by the group, I check each cluster with the participants:

– does every card in this cluster belong here

– are there others that can be added from elsewhere on the boards

– what words summarise the contents?

They agree the wording for a heading for each cluster and the secretary writes the heading cards which I post on the board.

 

The significance of visualisation

As a participant, you write your own contributions to share with the group and then you see them on the boards.  Your cards are in your handwriting.  This is a powerful experience.

You see that your card has significance and you recognise that the cards from the other people have significance just like yours.  You see how each card complements the other contributions.

If you are a participant, you are fully engaged in this process through your contributions and then by directing the organisation of the cards on the boards.  You see how the discussion builds from many disparate ideas into a logical and coherent structure.

The boards are a physical focus of attention.  In a facilitated event, you experience far greater concentration levels.  The focus is on the content – not behaviour, not seniority, nor whose idea it is.

All contributions are equal and not dependent on the loudness of your voice nor the speed of your car.  Everyone is focused on the same thing at the same time and directly related to the issues that they wish to resolve.

So, that is the process – what are the benefits?

 

The benefits of this process

I will mention what I believe to be the two most significant benefits.

First, this process uncovers what is actually happening, not what we are supposed to think or are expected to say.  Everyone can plainly see what is going on.  When action is proposed, those actions are made on facts, not supposition nor wishful thinking.

Second, engagement in the process leads to ownership.  This, in turn, leads to commitment; actions proposed will be executed.