I Guess Training Works!

From: a Recent Workshop Attendee

Mike,

I had to go into a meeting that we were struggling with come basic concepts (basic to me anyways). Before the meeting I put together a POP. I shared the Process with the guy who was to deliver the material so he knew the way I would drive out the meeting. I shared the Purpose and Outcomes with the attendees, and I clarified and ratified it with them. They appeared very subdued, so I imagined (see I am learning) they were thinking “who is this jackass bringing this nonsense to us.”

What happened was, the meeting started on time, we got to the point, we stayed on topic, we got back to topic if someone started to get into details that weren’t part of our purpose, and we finished in 45 minutes, what has been taking us hours and hours to try to clarify and understand particular knowledge areas.

I followed up with two of them, one after the meeting and the other at the end of the day. The first guy I asked if he thought the meeting flowed better than in the past. His response was “F*** Ya, the content was straight forward.” The second person shared it with me without asking. She said “it was so easy to stay focused when we knew exactly what we were to cover, nothing more, nothing less.”

I think the reason they seemed subdued to me was that they were focused, understood why they were there and were not anxious that it was going to be a firing range with no order.

Actually, you added 1.5 hours to my day as well since I was asked to go to a meeting and one manager from my client was adamant that I attend. I continued to ask what the purpose was since it was very unclear. He continued to try to persuade me to go so I said, let’s ask another manager who was invited what the purpose was. They both contradticted each other. In fact the organizer of the meeting had a different idea of what the meeting was about. I said, I would be more than willing to go if I was assured that they could clearly tell me what the purpose was and that I could contribute not only to the purpose but the deliverables that were to come out of the meeting. They told me not to attend the meeting. All of them later (after the meeting) came to me at the end of the day and said it was good that I didn’t go because the group focused on something else completely.

So there you go Bud. You just made me 18% more efficient plus more affective with my team. So thanks Mike for sharing those skills with me. I am looking forward to continue to work on them. Sorry for the long winded email but I wanted to share this with you.

Andy

Understanding the Crowd Before Intervening

Recently I spoke on one of my teleworkshops about dealing with resistance (see my website for a list of teleworkshops that I facilitate). I reviewed particular strategies on bringing 'anonymity' in the discussion when 'being the one to state the resistance' may be a CLM (career limiting move) or could potentially provoke others. Methods used include breaking people up in to small groups to remove the 'large' group feeling, or having people write ideas on post-its and tossing them into the middle of the table. One of the participants wrote back the response below as follow-up to the teleworkshop, which I think we must always keep in mind when using an intervention technique …

"Sorry [Michael], one thing for us here at our company (not sure how relevant it is to your other regular participants) is thinking about context. Facilitating a bunch of mid level managers vs. front line employees vs. execs is a very different thing. So for example, I would never ask an exec to use voting dots or throwing cards in a pile to read out, so I would have to find other more strategic or sophisticated ways to engage them and get their input. I think understanding your crowd and what's going to work or not work for them is really important.

Angie
P.S. thanks Angie for letting us post this!

Meeting Tools and Processes Forum

Everyone, I'm asking for some input. We're considering the creation of a free, members-only site where you can download meeting process designs or tools, leave feedback and provide your own facilitation stories or suggestions.

We'd happily post your tools for downloading and moderate chats on facilitation best practices in order to develop our community of facilitators.

Is this something that interests you, or that you can see yourself using?

Feel free to either leave a comment here or email Suzanne

The Magic of Facilitation - Just When …

I thought that the group I first trained had left feeling that this 'facilitation thing is for the birds'. I once again have experienced the magic of fate showing me otherwise.

The Feedback from the initial session was okay. But okay for me rarely cuts it. And by the way, I had the chance to see the participants put the learning in to practice and my lord you would have thought they had never attended the class! The next facilitators were sitting down, they were constantly giving their opinions and showing their bias. And, most of the ideas getting of the flipchart were theirs! I left feeling like I created a monster rather than helping this group move foward. So, asta la vista, let's move on to a new client.

Two years later … what's this? The client's calling me back now asking me to design and coordinate a whole bunch of meetings using the people I had trained 2 years previously. Needless to say I was somewhat resistant to help, but part of me was hopeful based on them having come back to seek support. With only a little initial coaching, the folks who facilitated did a pretty darn good job considering how much time had gone by since the last training. They were standing this time, asking probing questions, merging and linking ideas together and intervening with 1 or 2 difficult personalities. What a turn of events!

So what did I learn?

Never assume that because people don't 'immediately' demo a skill that it's not going to happen at a later date. Also, continue to believe that what we have to offer as facilitators is a good thing and that when people truly see the need, they have all the potential to stand up and take charge of the skill.

Impact of Not Understanding Expectations

Recently conducted a team/planning intervention for a team with the results being less than I expected. On reflection, I did the necessary upfront scoping (one on one telephone interviews, team survey) followed by an analysis of needs. Put together the 1-day format which required defining team interpersonal and operational norms in the a.m. and planning in the P.M.

The results: the group attained the outcomes, but during an informal round-robin at the end some folks admitted that they were hoping for more planning time rather than teaming time. Results on the form varied from good -met my expectations (majority) to very good - exceeded my expectations. Now, I have to admit that the scores were good, however I got the sense that the client may have expected more on the 'planning' side. So what could I have done better? What was in my control?

In reviewing my process, there were some things I didn't do (yet I train all of my students to do this!). First, I should have ratified the 'outcomes' with the group. The agenda had been sent to them 2 days before the event (various reasons for this) which gave them little time pre-session to respond. I also didn't check out their 'expectations' for the day as I was concerned that time was tight. I might have heard upfront that the 'planning' was more of a priority than defining their operational guidelines (though in the long run, these too are important to planning). Knowing this would have led to a process adjustment, therefore lending more time to the 'planning' part of the discussion. Doing interim checks during the session to determine if the process was working for them would have helped too, though we did make some tweaks as issues came up.

Let me know if you have any further observations? This is part of my continuous learning objective!

See you in Regina!

Calling all meeting leaders:

I'll be in Regina June 23-24 leading a workshop on running more collaborative and productive meetings: Regina Public Workshop

Mention that you heard about the workshop from my blog and we'll give you a 10% discount. Call Suzanne at 1-888-465-9494 (416-465-9494).

Making Meetings POP!

Recently, I've been using this acronym for what I believe is are critical components for making meetings work especially in the prep phase. I call it the POP method and it stands for Purpose (why we're here), Outcomes (what we're here to achieve) and Process (how we're going to achieve the outcomes and, ultimately, the purpose for the meeting). Though it's simple in form I've been amazed how many people have left my training workshops saying the 'POP' methodology will be huge for helping to make their meetings more effective.

I always used to just focus on 'purpose' and 'process' however when I added 'outcomes' I noticed how easier it was to help my clients define the the meeting purpose. As well, knowing the outcomes helps to consolidate the goals for the meeting therefore making my process steps easier to ascertain. I like 'outcomes' better than 'objectives' as outcomes can be framed as if the resulting learning already happened. Compared to objectives, outcomes seem to be more tangible and less 'future state'.

I was wondering if any facilitators that read this blog see the POP method as critical to their meeting prep? To what extent to you focus on 'outcomes' as compared to 'meeting objectives'? When you scope with the client does knowing the outcomes make your process development easier?

Facilitation Challenges and Solutions

New facilitators often find these two challenges tough to navigate and ask for ideas to handle them better next time. Here are some of my solutions to these situations, but I'd like to hear your suggestions and experiences.

Challenge One
I’m a subject matter expert in my department (i.e. marketing), but the only person who knows how to facilitate. Any ideas to help me handle this dual role?

My Suggestions:

• Ask questions to get people to think more broadly or more specifically. Be careful not to add too many ‘leading’ questions (i.e. should we be thinking about technology as a means to deliver our service?) as this may come across as manipulative. Rather, ask ‘what other methods of service delivery are similar
  companies using?”


• Have someone else represent your opinion that you know has similar beliefs, ideas, etc.


• Identify your area of expertise early in planning stages; agree on when and how to share it; restate this at the start of the meeting especially if there are any members present that weren’t involved at the planning stage.


• Design the agenda so that content-sharing sessions are clearly segregated from facilitated group discussions.


• If an unexpected need for your expertise arises, clearly state “I’m stepping out of the facilitator role to offer expert advice on … “ (emphasize this with a shift in posture from inviting to authoritative, step away from the flipchart). Repeat when stepping back in to the facilitator role.


• Always be clear whether you’re sharing an expert opinion (open to debate) versus non-negotiable input (mandated policy)


• State your opinion upfront and acknowledge your bias but remind the group that the meeting’s purpose is to generate/ decide on the BEST ideas; put on facilitator hat and have the group challenge you if they detect bias


• Pre-meeting, gather and collect all ideas (including yours) and email these to the group to consider for a facilitated idea prioritization session

How would you handle this challenge? Any comments on my suggestions?

Challenge Two
I’m facilitating an upcoming meeting with both senior and junior level staff. Many of the staff are new, and kudos to management for wanting to involve them in process improvement ideas. However, my concern is that ‘rank’ will impede the level of candor on the part of staff. What can I do?

P.S. I have a performance review with my boss next week and seriously don’t want to risk a CLM (career limiting move) with this upcoming meeting!

My Suggestion

I tried this recently with a group and it appeared to really have a positive impact on them. I asked the group, ‘is it possible that being candid today could be a struggle due to different status levels present?’ Many of the staff shook their head up and down instead of saying yes, which already indicated a lack of desire in being verbal.
I then said ‘OK, so would it be helpful if we left our status at the door?’ Again, most people shook their heads up and down.

I had everyone then write their full name and status on a ‘Hi my name is …’ sticker and place it on their shirt.

I then asked everyone to go to the entry door where I had posted a flipchart labeled ‘Name & Status’ (I had prepped this pre-meeting in anticipation of this problem). I asked them to remove their sticker and place it on the flipchart and return to their seat.

I said, ‘now that we’ve left our status at the door what additional guidelines could we follow that would help everyone feel more free to speak their minds? What came up were norms such as:

‘what’s said here stays here’
‘everyone gets a chance to speak their minds’
‘ there’s no such thing as a bad idea during brainstorming’

I also asked the group permission to intervene if anyone broke the guidelines and they all agreed.

The good news is that following the symbolic gesture of leaving status at the door and the voicing of guidelines, dialogue appeared to be candid and flowed much better. Feedback following the meeting indicated that people were going to use the same methods in their own meetings!

How would you handle this challenge? Any comments on my suggestions?

I'm happy to provide suggestions to your specific facilitation challenges, so feel to ask for advice in a comment.

Applying Negotiation Tips to Win:Lose Facilitations

Just recently read a short article written by Kim Shiffman and posted in the Canadian Business Magazine entitled 6 Steps to Creating a Win-Win.

There were some words of wisdom captured in this article that we as meeting leaders need to apply even though the article was geared to being in the position of negotiator.

All too often we are faced with decison-making where the group has split in to cliques or sub-groups locked in to position and an 'us' versus 'them' mentality. Shiffman reminds us that there are some clear guidelines for helping people move out of "substance-relationship tension." His suggestions focus on tips from Patrick McWhinney (Insight Partners, Boston) who offers six top guidelines to help navigate this tension without sacrificing either substance or relationships.

I've taken the guidelines and added some of my own 'process' suggestions that are relevant when a third party person (i.e. facilitator) is used to intervene:

1. First and foremost is thinking about the process or meeting structure that we want to facilitate a group through in helping them negotiate their issues. Having structured conversations enable clarity and build of dialogue in a way that makes sense to all parties.
2. Helping folks speak to interests rather than positions - what it is that they 'need' versus 'want'. The key to uncovering underlying interests and what might meet them is ensuring both parties are actively listening to one another and seeking alternative solutions (sometimes out of the box) that might meet the other party's interests. To ensure active listening it's important that the group defines concrete behaviors before the dialogue commences (i.e. one person speaks at a time, we occasionally paraphrase back what the other party states, etc.). These behaviours then become the 'norms' that the facilitator can referee.
3. Helping the parties search for unexploited opportunities - thinking out of the box. Asking questions like "what ideas or actions could be taken that might help the other party, but not tax your resources?"
4. That when solutions or offers are put forward that parties provide 'proof of fair treatment' so that offers are seen to be justifiable in light of what others have been offered.
5. It's important that upfront both parties agree that the relationship between them is critical and that the facilitation is geared to deriving a win:win. Without this commitment both parties may fall back in to seeking what they want versus need.
6. Finally we want to caution both parties to avoid threats that could stalemate discussion.

What other ideas do you have for building win:win discussions in light of polarized dialogue?

See me on CBC!

Hi everyone,

If you haven't seen my short stint on CBC: Sunday Morning, here it is.

I was sought out by CBC to discuss some controversial research regarding group decision-making but they decided to just talk about what generally makes meetings work and the 5 most important elements to running an effective meeting.

Facilitator Beware!

Recently did a facilitation for a client whom I've worked with for years and once again I fell in to the pitfall of facilitator hell not trusting my gut instinct! The client who connected with me was not the 'primary' client or decision-maker but rather the go-between for me and her boss. I was very clear from the outstart that I needed to connect with the primary client and was assured that this would happen. Having to deal with the go-between also increased from one to two people. In the end the primary declined from meeting with me and I therefore ended up going through 5 iterations of the meeting design which was approved by the primary. How it was explained by the go-betweens is not clear.

Besides the meeting design, the facilitation was critical yet only designated for 2 hours with incredible outcomes to fulfill. I knew to some extent I was setting myself up for failure, but I trusted in the integrity of the client to support me fully. On the day of the facilitation the primary client ends up walking in late to the meeting and we are immediately forced to begin. At one point during the facilitation I do a process check to see how the client is doing (who by the way is on his Blackberry looking at messages) and he turns to me stating 'he's lost'. When asked 'what is making you lost?" he provided little input leaving he rest of the participants and myself included guessing. Though the objectives for the meeting were actually achieved, the primary decided not to hire me again.

So what did I learn???
Trust my gut - when the primary refused or delayed meeting me I should have told the go-between that I can't do the facilitation unless I meet with him - AND stick to my guns!
During this meeting I would ensure that what the client wants is what he's getting so as to avoid 5 iterations of a meeting process design! Also, I would have negotiated with the primary, roles and responsibilities (i.e. no use of tech during the meeting and if she breaks a rule is it okay for me to intervene? I felt reluctant to intervene with her during the meeting as it would have put her on the spot and I hadn't built any rapport with her yet)?!
Finally, not take on a job where the objectives are outlandish and possibility for failure is so close you can almost taste it!

Facilitating Virtual Teams

More and more I'm hearing from folks about the inherent difficulties in facilitating virtual teams. When I start to question what they're doing I'm amazed at how everything they know as facilitators gets thrown out the window when it comes to speaking to someone via phone instead of face-to-face! I'm wondering why? I think that because the person isn't in front of us and we're missing out on all of those visual cues that we get sort of freaked out - forgetting how important the 'auditory' cues are in helping us make distinctions in degree of buy-in. PLUS facilitators forget the importance of structuring the meeting like using simple rules like:

1. starting your name before contributing
2. recording on a sheet using a '√' every time a person speaks so we know who's participating and how often
3. directly calling on people to comment rather than waiting for them to respond
4. having members paraphrase and/or embellish on other member's statements as to avoid people NOT listening or validating other's comments

Taking Responsibility and the Importance of Purpose for Making Meetings Work!

Welcome to Making Meetings Work!

This blog will be dedicated (at least at this point) to sharing best (and worst) techniques for facilitating ALL kinds of meetings. This is your chance to share with others, best practices for running effective meetings, or nightmare stories that will help us avoid sins of the past. With 17 years of facilitating under my belt my hope is to provide my very own best practices and ideas for running wildly successful meetings. What I'm hoping from my fellow bloggers is to be critiqued and/or validated. To share stories, tools, techniques and processes that help all of us be better meeting leaders.

To start off this blog I'd like to recognize a few things about meetings – most organizational meetings suck big time yet few meeting participants or leaders are willing to do anything about it!? Yeah, yeah I know some of us exist in a resistant top-down structure, or we have idiotic management who know nothing about empowerment and building collaborative culture, but where does the essence of change begin in creating successful meetings? Well to be frank, it's got to be grassroots and it begins of course with us – each one of us taking accountability for running good meetings.

Why you, why me?

Well once we notice or become aware of something in a meeting that isn't working ("how come we keep on going off-topic?" "Why is Joe always folding in to what other members say?") we're therefore at a choice point to, at minimum, bring it to everyone's consciousness, or continue to say nothing. I know that just being conscious does not necessarily mean we can do anything about it, but it does mean that we have a choice to find out:
a. is this also bothering other people?
b. so what can we do about it?

Awareness enables choice. I know this is soooo obvious, however time and time again I keep on seeing the same mistakes being made at different meetings with people consciously doing little to make any changes. The question is why aren't we choosing to do something about changing our meeting when we know something is not working?

I believe that answer somewhat lies in the observation that many of us would rather stay in our fur lined ruts doing nothing different for fear of change, repercussions or having to put in some rigor (or time or energy) to change our meeting behaviors and lord knows I got enough on my plate right to now that could easily qualify as a two person job!!!

Yet, what's the outcome of doing nothing? Wasted time, lost $$$'s, frustration, and declining job satisfaction. Count the number of people around your table at the next meeting multiplied by the per hour salary they make times the number of hours for the meeting. Then multiply that figure by the percentage of time wasted and you'll get the dollars being lost to ineffective meetings that could have otherwise been attributed to value added, bottom-line generating activities.

Yeah we can blame it on management, culture, crappy teams but seriously the only change that we can control is the changes that we bring forth to a meeting. So let's talk about what can be changed to create more successful meetings. I believe the best ideas are those that are simple and practical but isn't going to demand and arm and leg of our time!

(Note: My experiences really only speak to Western culture, however I really want to investigate meeting practices in other cultures. What's different or the same? How can we manage virtual cross-cultural meetings when expectations for leading the meeting and interpersonal norms may be so different?)

In defining best practices in meeting management I want to refer to the more 'stable' elements of meetings that if we were to embrace would actually help to create more successful, collaborative discussions. For me the first and foremost is that ALL meetings require 'structure'. Creating structure is the primary role of a meeting leader, meeting facilitator or Chair. Its purpose is enable meeting participants to engage in brainstorming, decision-making, strategizing, problem-solving, etc. without them having to worry about ‘are we discussing this logically? Are we on topic? Are we achieving our intended outcomes? Are we talking respectfully to one another?’

However it is virtually impossible to structure a discussion until we understand 'why' we're having the discussion in the first place. The 'why' refers to understanding the purpose or goal of the meeting. We can't fully understand or articulate the purpose until we get clarity as to the tangible, concrete outcomes that the meeting needs to achieve.

The purpose is our ultimate destination, the outcomes are the 'what' we want to achieve in getting to our destination. Once we understand purpose and outcomes we can then define the structure or steps required to achieve the purpose and process. Without clearly defining the meeting's purpose we may run the risk of creating an agenda that totally misses out on why people think they're attending the meeting. This could result in meeting attendees not participating, tuning out, or coming across as wanting to push their own agendas. So to avoid this potential meeting pitfall get clarity as to the overall purpose of a meeting and, the purpose of each agenda topic that will ultimately help the group achieve its purpose and outcomes.

What are your thoughts on defining purpose? Is it possible to enter a meeting without clearly defining purpose and outcomes? What are success or failure stories you can share? What about meetings keeps you up at night or allows you to sleep contently?

Michael