Dealing with Venting

Recently there was a post on 'how to deal with a moan fest' via my IAF discussion group. There were some interesting posts and after having read a few of them and adding my own experience I'd like to share with you some possible process suggestions:

1. Properly acknowledge the complaints right from the start.

2. Be aware thought that sometimes people don’t know when to stop venting. So after listening to someone for a few minutes, letting them know they have been heard by paraphrasing back what you heard, asking clarifying questions and/or scribing down their concerns, you may sense that the individual/ group may naturally shift to speaking about a solution. However, sometimes this doesn’t happen so it may be helpful to:

a. invite the person to shift to a "solution", by asking them what it is, that they DO want, or …

b. use Appreciative Inquiry to get to the solutions, for example:

i. Q: Imagine you fell asleep tonight and all of the challenges disappeared by magic, what would be the first tiny signs that that the miracle had happened?

ii. Q: If you had a magic wand, how would you want it to be. When/where does this happen already... or, even just a little bit?

iii. Q: On a scale of 1 - 10, where do you stand right now with 10 being the perfect situation. (And when the group responds 3 because they are feeling so low, follow up with). What gets you even that high? What's already working for you? What would get you one point higher?

iv. Q: Was there a time when you were able to bring about massive change despite the odds? What was going on? What did it take to get the change to happen?

3. If people need more safety in order to be candid, break them up in to pairs. Have the pairs then report out during a large group plenary.

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?