Tag Archives: problem solving

Effective Meetings

Why don’t team members speak up

Leave a comment

Are you concerned that team members do not speak up during discussions?

As individuals, they are bright, forthcoming and have plenty to contribute.  At the coffee machine, discussion is animated and flows swiftly.  Yet, when you all troop into a meeting, the flow of dialogue immediately dries up and energy evaporates.

Then, as soon as the individuals get out of the door, they are reanimated and have plenty to say.  Why has lethargy supplanted vitality?  Here are four possible reasons:

  • the boss
  • perception of the expertise of others
  • lack of confidence
  • premature conformity.

1.  The boss

It feels natural for the boss to maintain their role of boss in a meeting – they call the meeting, chair it, sit in a prominent position, make decisions.

But, a boss-centric meeting encourages team members to think: “If you are the boss, then you must know all the answers.  Or, you think you do.  The easiest and safest thing is for me to keep quiet.  You decide, I will follow.”

The boss gets no feedback so cannot update their perception of the world.  Discussion is limited and no new ideas are floated.

This is a self-reinforcing situation, but you can break into the circle.

First, ensure that everyone understands what the meeting and each agenda item is aiming to achieve.  Second, have different people introduce and lead individual agenda items.  Third, instil an understanding that everyone is responsible for the success of the meeting – you can do this by going round the table to seek contributions.  .

And fourth, find an opportunity to give your boss some feedback.

2.  Perception of the expertise of others

The position of the expert, or the more experienced person, is a variation of the boss situation.

If people perceive one of the group to be an expert, they tend not to question that person’s expertise.  This means the expert gets a clear run and their assertions go unchallenged.

Of course there is a role for people’s expertise and experience – we want to know what they think.  But their contributions need to be evaluated as to their practicality, how they can effectively be applied, the same as any other idea.

An expert may be an expert in a narrow field and be less capable of seeing how their expertise will work in practice – this is where the other team members come in.

If contributions are rated by the experience of the contributor then it could be like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror.  The same problems recur and basic issues are not resolved.  Again, discussion is limited and no new ideas are floated.

To overcome this, encourage the belief that everyone has something to contribute.  Second, evaluate ideas on merit.  Third, challenge defensive behaviour such as “We already tried that and didn’t work.”

3.  Lack of confidence

Newer members of a team are prepared to join vigorously in the dialogue over coffee but often less willing to contribute in front of the whole team.

But, when do new team members feel comfortable about contributing to a more formal meeting – after one week, one month, one year?  If they are not immediately encouraged to speak up, this sends out signals.  Signals such as:  new ideas are not welcome; contributions are evaluated on status, length of service and number of scars.

However, since the old hands have been around for longer, they are more likely to see issues in the same way as they always have done.

One way to manage this is actively to seek out the contribution of newcomers: “Is this something you experienced at your previous job?”  Another tactic is to support those who struggle to make an impact, give them airtime.

4.  Premature conformity

When the team makes a decision, we would like all the team members to agree to that decision.  Successful follow through of actions is increased if everyone is committed.

However, if the group enforces unanimity too early in a discussion, individuals will limit their feedback and withhold different ideas.  People will be more concerned with conformity than with digging into issues.  Not only will they keep quiet during discussion, but they will also have limited commitment afterwards.

As a result, criticism takes place after the decision has been made, rather than before.  The Bay of Pigs may have taken place over fifty years ago, but it still stands as one of the most famous examples of group think.

To avoid group think, make it clear at each stage of discussion what contributions are welcome:   creative ideas, evaluation or execution.

 

So, if you want your meetings to be dynamic and people to commit to the outcomes, you have to encourage a culture in which everybody’s contribution is welcomed and the issues are aired openly around the table.

Facilitation

Why I don’t hold a pen: The perils of pen holding

2 Comments

sharpie-flip-chart-blueI don’t hold a pen when facilitating.

The only thing I do with a pen is, when asked to do so by the participants, to put a flash mark on a card on which they want clarification or over which they disagree. The event is their event, so all contributions are written by the participants and I would never change that.

 

The criteria of a facilitated event

Let’s have a look at five criteria of a facilitated event and the impact of the facilitator using a pen.

The first criterion is that the focus is live issues. Now, those who know most about the issues faced by the unit or company are those who are actually engaged in the work. I do not have their knowledge of the company, nor do I have their experience of the culture. This means the participants must take ownership of the process.

Second, all contributions are accepted. Our job, as facilitators, is to demonstrate that every single contribution matters, regardless of apparent superficiality or humour or spelling or grammar – let the group sort that out. Let the participants assume responsibility for the success of the activity.

Third, not only are all contributions accepted but all contributions are equal. Regardless of seniority, ability to shout, velocity of your vehicle – your contribution will be considered. Standing at the front, holding a pen, is about power and inequality and that is contrary to the philosophy of facilitation.

Fourth, ownership of contributions and discussion is with the participants. Ownership is firmly given to the group from the start – it’s their event, their issues. Every person has a pen and access to cards. Individuals will see their contributions, in their own handwriting, visible to all, posted on the boards. They will see how each of their cards, and those of their colleagues, contribute to the progress of the group.

Fifth, a well facilitated event is phased, participants see progress from the start to the final agenda item: action. The output is action to which all have contributed and to which all are committed – they have created their own future.

The impact of the interfering facilitator

If you hold a pen and write contributions from the group, there is a temptation to edit or paraphrase. You may feel that they have used too many words, it’s unclear to you, it sounds like jargon, you can’t see the relevance. This is not our responsibility. It is arrogant to think that we know better. If there is any editing or paraphrasing, it should be done by the participants because they own the contributions.

Altering in any way, for whatever reason, something a participant wishes to contribute is contrary to the principles of facilitation. It disempowers the OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAindividuals and it elevates the facilitator beyond their authority. Remember: there is no higher authority than the group.

If an individual has strong feelings about something, writing it themselves, in their own words, is very satisfying. If you then suggest editing that contribution, they will not be happy. Also, you risk losing the vivid, powerful and colloquial nature of their idea.

A final point on the facilitator damaging the process by interfering. If you alter an individual’s contribution in any way, for any reason, then everyone will follow your example – you will have lost the commitment of the group.

That’s why I don’t carry a pen. And don’t you be tempted either.

Facilitation

Re-establishing facilitation as an effective activity: 2. So, what is facilitation?

Leave a comment

My experience of facilitation

To start with, let me tell you what my experience of facilitation feels like.

At the beginning of an assignment we are all nervous and excited – none of us knows exactly what will happen. Because, the participants are being asked about live business issues directly related to their work.

The participants recognise quickly that what I said we would do, we will indeed do – everyone gets to contribute, disagreements are managed, the most voluble are controlled, they will be honest and we will create something which they deeply identify with.

If you were to peek through the window during one of these sessions, you would be surprised. Groups of people – some standing, some sitting – cluster in front of large boards with brown paper on. There is an unmistakable air of energy and enthusiasm as they work with cards of different colours and shapes.

Everyone is alert, there is lots of noise – it looks likes organised chaos. But you would be looking at an event carefully designed to achieve specific objectives – the most important of which is to make the individuals and the organisation more effective.

Let’s jump to the end of an event. There you will see great relief and celebration that it has worked as promised. Indeed, participants recognise they have achieved more than they have ever achieved before in any conventional meeting: analysis, collaboration and agreement.

But, most important, they have created business plans to which they are all committed and which will make them and their organisation more effective.

What is facilitation?

Facilitation addresses two fundamental issues.

One, managers and management teams need access to up to date, accurate information to make the best decisions. Two, the more you involve people in the analysis of their situation and the subsequent decisions, the more effective will be the implementation of those decisions.

How does this occur? I feel there are five components.

1.  Focus First, the focus of facilitation is live issues – real disputes, business questions, organisational concerns.

2. Output Second, the conclusion of every event results in business plans, action to which all have contributed and to which all are committed. The client creates their own values and future. And the actions agreed are complete and self-sustaining, not reliant on external follow up by me.

3. Planning The more rigorous the planning, the tighter the agenda and the more effective the intervention. Planning involves three stages. First, a thorough analysis of the situation with the sponsor and at least one other senior manager separately.

Many managers feel participation is risky, uncontrollable, inconclusive and time wasting – a bit like a normal meeting you might say. If the most senior manager is not prepared to listen to their colleagues and staff, if they do not have trust in me or the process, I suggest they adopt an alternative approach and without me.

In this first stage I act as an analyst, defining with the client their requirements, agreeing what they want to achieve. For example: rescue a project, formulate a new business strategy, redesign the unit’s processes, improve customer service.

The second stage of planning is design – this is where I become an architect. I define and agree with the client the overall aim and specific objectives. An overall aim is vital to focus people and give clarity to our effort.

I take the overall aim and break it into constituent parts, each part an objective and a corresponding agenda item. This phased approach to a facilitated event means participants recognise how each of their comments contributes and how each agenda item leads to the next. They also recognise how each agenda item then builds towards achieving the overall aim and the ultimate action plans.

The third stage of planning is my personal preparation – liaison with the venue, collecting names and numbers, sending the agendas and briefs to all participants.

4. Approach All contributions are treated equally which means everyone is engaged. An event in which one person, or a small number, dominates does not meet my criteria of a facilitated event.

Through open communication, the real issues are identified and explored – including disagreements – and everyone is involved in developing alternative actions without abandoning their own points of view.

5. Process The event itself is driven by the process, not the facilitator. The more robust the process, the less visible the facilitator. I don’t carry a pen, I just do what the group tells me to do.

CitrixThere are no tables, only chairs. This means there is no territory and no barriers.

I use large boards and the participants write their contributions on cards of different shape and colour – the process is visual. All contributions are visible and readable by everyone all the time. The boards gradually fill the space; they keep the participants focused and remind them of what they have achieved.

I ensure the room has plenty of space so that all the boards remain visible. Having plenty of space also allows small teams to congregate where they like and not interfere with other groups.

BoardAt the start of each agenda item the participants work in small groups to allow maximum airtime for every single person. There is a marvellous moment when they move their chairs, sit knee to knee and then burst into discussion – it sounds like everyone is talking at once. This kind of energy is infectious and self-sustaining.

Once they have finished writing their cards, the next stage is to bring everyone together, in plenary, to share and discuss all the contributions. The process here is to post the cards on the boards and cluster them according to their content. The group then agrees a descriptive heading for each cluster.

The final agenda item of each assignment is for the participants to create an action plan – such as a strategy document, a business plan, improvement projects. Each of one these plans contains key elements such as objectives, owners, resources required, dates and first step.

I say one final thing at the end. I tell them that they must communicate immediately an update to anyone connected to this initiative. When these people come to work tomorrow, they must see some indication of what we have achieved.

Conclusion

My approach has been proved over 25 years in assignments such as organisational strategy, organisational development (BPR, performance management), customer service, public consultations, company mergers, project planning and project reviews.

This has been in many industries, in different countries and in different languages – so I have seen plenty of examples of what works and what does not.

My impression is that the definition of facilitation has been diluted and, as a consequence, the current attitude to facilitation in organisations is tepid. Yet my experience is that it can be a deeply developmental experience for individuals and organisations, a powerful and transformational force.