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.