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.

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!

Meeting Design 101: Keeping Rotation Simple

Recently a workshop grad from our Facilitating with Ease workshop emailed to ask a simple way to rotate meeting participants. This can be a tricky meeting moment where the meeting design can appear too complex or pervasive for participants, so keeping instructions simple is crucial.

Typically groups are rotated around a room for purposes of:

• Getting them to input on multiple issues/topics


• Bringing some physical movement to the meeting process so people aren't just sitting all the time


• Get a chance to discuss ideas amongst a smaller, sub-group of the larger group so that shyer people may feel more open to be candid

Method One: The Clock Rotation
People are divided into sub-groups by numbering them off according to the number of topics being discussed. So if the group must brainstorm or debate five different issues I create 5 sub-groups. Each sub-group is assigned to a flipchart with the written issue or topic. The sub-group is given 10 - 20 minutes to discuss and jot down their ideas. Following this I begin to rotate the groups clockwise from one flipchart to the next. The first rotation is always given less time as the original group probably captured most of the common ideas. The second rotation gets a little less time and so on to jot down their ideas. Rules when arriving to the next flipchart are as follows:

1. when arriving to the new flipchart please review all current ideas. If you have questions about anything written go to the previous group and have them provide clarity


2. you cannot eliminate another group's ideas but rather embellish on their ideas or add new ideas below theirs

Sometimes if the ideas are complex I'll have one person stay back from the previous group during a rotation. This person overviews what was written on the flipchart and addresses any questions for clarification. They then move ahead to join their group at the new flipchart. When they arrive, one of their team mates quickly debriefs them.

Method Two: I Choose
Instead of Method One where we tell people the group they're going to be in, with this method people choose which flipchart they go to. The only catch is that only a specific number of people are allowed per topic group. For example, if there are 10 topics and 40 people, I only allow a max of 5 - 6 people per topic group. If people arrive at their topic group and the it's maxed out I then ask them what their second choice would have been and to go there. People are asked to choose their topic group by these criteria. You either...

• have a lot of expertise with this topic and understanding of what's required and/or


• you're passionate about this topic and/or


• you're interested in this topic

People go to their chosen topic and are given 10 - 20 minutes to discuss ideas. Following this I then ask the group to now to another topic which meets the criteria. We continue to do this for 3 - 4 rounds. The same rules apply when arriving at the new topic flipchart:

1. when arriving to the new flipchart please review all current ideas. If you have questions about anything written go to the previous group and have them provide clarity


2. you cannot eliminate another group's ideas but rather embellish on their ideas or add new ideas below theirs

Hope this helps everyone who has trouble with group rotation!

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.