Stuck in a Parking Lot

I just ran across a great article by Kevin Eikenberry that discusses the misuses of Issue Bins or Parking Lots by meeting facilitators. For anybody not familiar with the tool, I suggest Ingrid Bens's Facilitation at a Glance. Ingrid describes Parking Lots as a means of capturing ideas outside the scope of the current agenda, to return to later on or at the next meeting. Just because an idea is tangential doesn't necessarily mean it warrants no further discussion.

Kevin's article reminds us that even with the best intentions, meeting facilitators can run out of time to address these off-track ideas or, even worse, they may choose on some level to ignore those ideas that don't fit squarely in their agenda.

The Parking Lot becomes a place where ideas go to die.

This is just one example of a meeting facilitation tool that can negatively affect participation levels or bias outcomes. Some other types of tools and respective pitfalls include:

• Questioning: using close-ended questions (instead of open-ended) to manipulate a group down a designated path that they have no interest in following
  
• Surveys: using questions that are vague, or speak to only one aspect of the issue or opportunity, thereby avoiding the 'white elephants'
• Process designs: creating a meeting structure that purposefully takes people to a desired end (i.e. your client's) rather than to where they need to go
• Warm-ups: that don't take into consideration individual abilities and mindsets of the group attending

So, how do we take Kevin's point to heart and identify and use tools that make a difference? One easy reminder is that our tools are supposed to be content-neutral and straightforward for participants (and you the facilitator) to use. We have the ability to modify tools so they fit the needs of the group we're facilitating - rather than fitting the group to the needs of the tool! For example, the Parking Lot should be considered a temporary place to put ideas/issues or opportunities on hold, with the understanding that they will be addressed at the appropriate time during the session. If time runs out, then a plan for dealing with the items in the next session should occur.

Finally, think of tools like cutlery. There are times when a fork and knife just don't cut it (excuse the pun) when eating a drumstick. Likewise, don't haphazardly use a tool because you like it or it's what the client suggested. Rather, use a tool only if makes sense for the process you're leading and helps advance the group in achieving its outcomes.

Thinking critically about tools will save you and the group you're facilitating a lot of wasted effort!

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!

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!