How To Facilitate Vague Indicators into SMART Measures and Criteria

How To Facilitate Vague Indicators into SMART Measures and Criteria

by | Sep 7, 2023 | Decision Making, Meeting Structure, Meeting Tools, Prioritizing

Meeting participants don’t argue about verbs and nouns, they argue about modifiers. Modifiers include adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions. For example…

Facilitating the transformation of vague indicators into SMART (Specific, Measurable, Adjustable, Relevant, Time-based) measures and criteria is crucial for turning abstract ideas into actionable outcomes. When participants in a meeting debate modifiers—adjectives, adverbs, and prepositions—they’re often grappling with the subjective elements of goals, such as the difference between completing a task “well” or “quickly.” The key to moving from subjective to objective is identifying clear, quantifiable measures.

 

SMART Measures and CriteriaEdwards Deming provided the original acronym and definition of SMART as specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-based. 

At MGRUSH we frequently change the “A” to adjustable as explained later. Finding the specific and measurable represents the most common challenge when creating SMART measures or objectives. Finding the unit of measurement quickly shifts arguments from the subjective to the objective.

Use the following question to build consensus around SMART measures (objective) rather than fuzzy goals (subjective).

“What is the unit of measurement for (insert modifier)?”

Transition from Subjective to Objective

To transition from subjective discussions to objective, actionable plans, employ a powerful question to pinpoint SMART measures: “What is the unit of measurement for [insert modifier]?” This question shifts focus from abstract descriptors to concrete, quantifiable terms, facilitating consensus on specific, measurable objectives.

Understand the different types of criteria

There is no universally accepted definition of terms used to describe measures. The history of SMART criteria reflects CSF, CTQ, FMA, KPI, NCT, OKR, TQM, and others. 

There are differences of course. For example, with Six Sigma, SMART criteria are frequently referred to as CTQ, or Critical to Quality measurements. CTQ might substitute the following questions for the SMART test:

    1. Specifically, stated with upper and lower specification limits?
    2. Is it directional so that we can objectively determine whether it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?
    3. To what extent is it linked to specific customer needs connected to the objectives of the project?

We won’t bother you with additional explanations (such as OKR) since they all represent measures of success (or failure). As the process policeman, however, facilitators must control the operational definitions. Use whatever terms work for your culture, but aspire for consistency and do not permit arguments about the definitions of terms you use in the meeting purpose, meeting scope, and meeting deliverables.

The purpose of all SMART measures is to identify WHAT an organization will measure as it reaches toward its future vision. Measures enable a group to shape and define the most appropriate strategies, activities, or tactics (i.e., WHAT to do to reach the vision). SMART measures are particularly helpful since they are objective and non-biased by perception. Understand the next two measurement types that follow to effectively facilitate consensus.

Defined Measures: Objectives, Goals, and Considerations♦

  • A measure is a standard unit used to express the size, amount, or degree of something. An objective is a desired position reached or achieved by some activity at a specific time. Objectives provide measurable performance [ ≣ ].
  • A goal is a directional statement that may remain fuzzy or subjectively measurable [ ☁ ].
  • A consideration is an important management issue, constraint, or concern that will affect reaching the objectives [ ✓ ].
♦ NOTE: Some consulting firms define them exactly the opposite. There is NO universal standard or answer. We are agnostic but must consistently apply one definition or the other(s). Please be consistent within your culture.

To Facilitate from Vague Indicators into SMART Measures and Criteria

Use Ideation to develop candidate measures: Describe the rules of Ideation in Brainstorming. Capture their candidates and consider the voice of the customer or customer types. Focus on potential measures that overlap or share a common purpose.

 

When the group exhausts its list of candidates, review each candidate and separate them into potential categories by coding them as shown above: objectives [ ≣ ], goals [ ☁ ], and considerations [ ✓ ]. Review potential objectives [ ≣ ] and make them SMART by first determining the unit of measurement. Do not show the SMART definition however until after you have captured the raw/ draft input. Consider using break-out teams to convert raw input into final SMART objectives:

  • Specific,
  • Measurable,
  • Adjustable [and challenging],
  • Relevant [and achievable], and
  • Time-based).

Next, separately list and fully define remaining non-SMART goals (subjective) and other important considerations (binary).

 

The facilitator must challenge participants to make their thinking visible.

 

Again, when someone uses a modifier, take over the conversation, isolate the modifier, and challenge it with the same question:

 

“What is the unit of measurement for (insert modifier)?”

 

Always focus on identifying WHAT is being measured before allowing arguments on HOW to measure it. WHAT unit or units of measurement do we typically use to agree that the job qualifies as well done? For example, if the job is to create a Facebook advertisement that will run for five days, the unit of measurement that defines well might be the number of clicks the advertisement receives in that five-day period. One hundred or more clicks may equal well done, while less than that, not so well done. To measure what determines quickly, we might turn to a calendar and agree on a completion date(s). Do not hesitate, time permitting, to facilitate multiple measures for quickness.

Converting Vague Indicators into SMART Objectives

Gauges, potentiometers, and dials help us zero in on specific and measurable aspects. The gas gauge indicates available gallons (or liters) of fuel.  Much like pressure gauges rely on PSI or kPa while temperature gauges depend on Fahrenheit or Celsius. The unit of measurement provides an objective reference point on which everyone must agree. We have found that once people can envision a gauge, you make it easier for them to isolate a potentially SMART objective. If they are unable to dial up or dial down a specific unit, they do not have SMART objectives or criteria. They have become stuck with something fuzzy and subjective.

We may still argue whether we have ‘enough’ gas to reach our destination, but few can now argue that we have approximately X.x gallons remaining because gauges provide real-time feedback. The refining method also focuses on other factors that contribute to fuel consumption such as weight, headwind, etc. One at a time, you can lead participants to meaningful actions that everyone can own (e.g., roll up the windows, turn off the air-conditioning, etc.).

 

Be a stickler for specificity

 

Once they’ve agreed on the unit of measurement, get their agreement on where the data is found or created. You do not want people arguing in future sessions about different numbers coming from different reports. We go so far as to demand the report number and even the page, column, and row intersection.

For example, if we are measuring productivity by millions of barrels of oil, then isolate the Report Name/ Number and the row and the column as well. You want to make it easy for your great-grandmother to complete the calculation (given the right information) and derive the same answer as your team. If so, they identified a truly objective standard that everyone will support.

 

Modifiers Are Vague Indicators of SMART Objectives or Criteria

Modifiers Are Vague Indicators of SMART Objectives or Criteria

 

Discover the Conditions that Fail to Yield SMART Objectives

Once participants reach an agreement about the unit of measurement and source of the data, lead a richer discussion about thresholds. For example, how much ‘stuff’ puts us in the Green Zone? When do we enter the Yellow zone? What characteristics toggle us into the Red Zone? Further, refine your objectives with a sense of timing such as duration or frequency. And be prepared to record the conditions, because there is usually more than one right answer. Your questions should avoid being close-ended. Rather, be prepared to ask . . .

“Under what conditions (insert zones or values)?” or

“(insert zones or values) conditions occur BECAUSE . . .”

. . . differing viewpoints may co-exist. We have found that combining crisp meeting design with facilitators that carefully control context, pre-empts discussion about factors that are NOT relevant. Strive to build ranges rather than to target a single value. No one can predict future factors with certainty. However, explaining WHY behind the best case, worst case, and most likely case will make it much easier to build consensus.

 

Probabilities consist of commonly held assumptions, beliefs, and outlooks about some future state or condition. Forward-looking deliverables such as five-year plans and shaping curves rely exclusively on the concept of probabilities since no future state is certain.

 

How can a facilitator help resolve arguments around conflicting probabilities, particularly when evidence supports multiple outcomes? Create ranges and not fixed numbers.

Scenario Planning Creates Ranges

Stormy Skies Scenario

Stormy Skies Scenario

Strive to avoid building one set of “answers”. Rather, build multiple answers and at minimum three. Facilitate common understanding around three to five scenarios:

Sunny Skies

Dare your participants to think positively. Ask them to relieve themselves from concerns about risks and other exogenous factors. Build and agree on the “best likely” scenario, akin to sunny skies and clear sailing. Don’t allow impediments or other negative throttles. While probabilistically unlikely, the sunny skies scenario provides a bookend, number, or set of numbers that would unlikely ever be exceeded.

Stormy Skies

Take your participants in the opposite direction. Allow for every conceivable catastrophe or injurious situation. Try to fall short of “bankruptcy” or “going out of business” but relent if your participant makes an urgent claim that complete “death” is one possible outcome.

Partly Sunny Skies

Having built the two prior scenarios, take a closer look at the Sunny Skies scenario and toggle some of the less likely occurrences. Strive to make this view and set of numbers positive, but not extreme. If necessary, use the PowerBalls tool to rank the importance of assumptions and toggle the most important drivers, leaving others untouched.

Partly Cloudy Skies

With our bookend approach, move in the opposite direction by taking a closer look at the Stormy Skies scenario. Toggle some of its less likely occurrences. Here you want to lead to a set of negative numbers, but not in the extreme. Have them study past performance and downturns for reliable percentages. Again, if necessary, use PowerBalls to rank the impact of assumptions. Only toggle the most impactful, leaving the others untouched.

Probable Skies

Take your scenarios and sets of numbers to drive consensus around the most likely scenario. Force participants to defend their arguments. Appeal to the prioritized lists of assumptions and revisit the prioritization results if necessary. Begin to listen and note the most extreme numbers being suggested as “most likely” because they can help establish the final range.

Refining analysis takes the final range and establishes targets and thresholds for on-target performance (e.g., green lights), cautionary performance (e.g., yellow lights), and intervention performance (e.g., red lights).

 

The value of a facilitator is rarely greater than when serving as a referee for future conditions.

The facilitator’s role is pivotal in steering discussions from abstract debates over modifiers to the establishment of clear, actionable SMART objectives. By insisting on specificity, managing scenario planning, and refining assumptions, facilitators can guide groups to consensus on measures that are not only precise but also universally understood and agreed upon within the group. This structured approach ensures that objectives are not just well-defined but also aligned with the organization’s strategic vision and capable of guiding effective action.

_____

Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH focuses on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools and methods daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite meeting tools.

Go to the Training Store to access proven, in-house resources, including full agendas, break timers, and templates. Finally, take a few seconds to buy us a cup of coffee and please SHARE with others.

We dare you to embrace the will, wisdom, and activities of a modern leader. #facilitationtraining #MEETING DESIGN

______

With Bookmarks no longer a feature in WordPress, we need to append the following for your benefit and reference

Don’t Just Start Meetings, LAUNCH Them in 5 Minutes or Less

Don’t Just Start Meetings, LAUNCH Them in 5 Minutes or Less

by | Aug 22, 2023 | Meeting Agendas, Meeting Structure

Successful meetings and workshops comprise three essential phases: a beginning, a middle, and an end. Yet, meetings often fail because leaders ignore the importance of one or more of these.

In this Best Practices article, we’ll focus on phase one, the beginning, or meeting introduction, by detailing seven consecutive activities that, easily mastered, ensure stronger meeting and workshop launches. Here is a link to four activities to command a professional wrap.

Start with the End in Mind

An effective meeting introduction relies on the leadership consciousness that knows what the result looks like. Yet describing the results of a successful meeting is not enough. The name for each agenda step needs to describe its result or deliverable. Remember, the objective for each agenda step or activity is an object—a noun. You cannot deliver a verb. Agenda steps are best described by answering the question, “What does DONE look like?”

We begin by detailing seven activities that you should command for every Launch (Introduction). In a separate Best Practices article you will find a detailed explanation of four activities that you should command for every Review and Wrap (Conclusion).

Launching — Your Meeting Introduction

Your launch sets the tone, confirms roles, clarifies boundaries (scope), and describes what results will be generated during the session. A meeting launch should last no longer than 5 minutes (excluding icebreakers or other special activities such as an executive kickoff or a product or project update).

Transfer Ownership

Make sure that your participants understand that this meeting has a clear purpose and impact. Use the integrative and plural first person of ‘we’ or ‘us’ and avoid the singular ‘I’ so that you begin to transfer responsibility and ownership to the participants who need to own the results.

Visual Confirmation

Before you start your meeting, have your in-person or online room set up to visually display the meeting purpose, meeting scope, and meeting deliverables. If you cannot simplify each statement into 25 words or less (for each), then you are not ready to launch your session. In particular, if you do not know what the deliverable looks like, then you do not know what success looks like, or when you will be DONE.

Display the meeting purpose, scope, and deliverable on a slide, screen, whiteboard, handheld artifact, or large Post-it® paper. Additionally, display the agenda and ground rules appropriate to your politics and situation. Use the following seven activities in sequence to launch every session, even a 50-minute meeting. Your meeting introduction is not an appropriate time to experiment. These seven activities (plus occasional Kick-off), in this sequence, have been stress-tested and proven to be most effective, assuring a clear and compelling launch.

Seven Meeting Launch Activities

Seven Meeting Launch Activities

 

Seven Meeting Introduction (Launch) Activities

ONE — Roles and Impact

Introduce yourself in the role of facilitator as neutral and unbiased. Stress their roles of participants as equals. Remind them to leave egos and titles in the hallway. Stipulate how much money or time (FTP)[♠] is wasted or at risk if the meeting and thus the organization, product, or project fails. Complete this activity within 30 seconds. Avoid using the word “I” after this activity. It is tough to drop the ego but remain conscious whenever you use the first person singular. Complete this first activity within 30 seconds.

Time is Short, Let's Begin

Time is Short, Let’s Begin

TWO — Meeting Purpose

Describe the meeting purpose, either on large-format paper, a handout, or a screen. Stress again that this session is important because… and seek audible confirmation from your participants. Frequently, for this first request, put your hands to your ears while saying “I can’t hear you” to force a louder audible response. Professional facilitators constantly strive to shift “airtime” to their participants, and participants’ vocal affirmation transfers ownership.

THREE — Meeting Scope

Describe the meeting scope, either on large-format paper, a handout, or a screen. The meeting scope is either the entire organization, department, product, or project, or part of them, but never more. Again, secure an audible assent from your participants that builds consensus and transfers ownership.

FOUR — Meeting Deliverable

Describe what DONE looks like by using your prepared statement. After securing audible assent here, you will have facilitated audible agreement three times within two minutes. If participants cannot agree on the meeting purpose, meeting scope, and meeting deliverables, then your agenda is at risk, and you have a more serious problem to address.

NOTE: This meeting purpose, scope, and deliverable should be provided to participants before the meeting as part of an invitation, pre-read, or read ahead. The prepared statements should not change at this point. If they do, the meeting may be challenged, and the agenda may no longer be valid. I have been asked to modify the scope a few times, but it was always sharpening and not broadening the prepared statement ( Who knew that Greenland and part of Iceland are in North America?).

I frequently put hands to my ears while saying “Can’t hear you” to force a louder audible response. Professional facilitators constantly strive to shift “airtime” to their participants, and their vocal affirmation transfers ownership.Be particularly careful to describe what DONE looks like (the deliverable). After securing audible assent here, you will have facilitated consensus three times within two minutes. 

FIVE — Housekeeping

Explain that housekeeping or “administrivia” is any noise that might be causing a distraction. You want to clear participants’ heads from thinking about themselves, especially their creature comforts. For brief meetings, you might include where to locate emergency exits, fire extinguishers, lavatories, or coffee and tea. For workshops and longer meetings, you would also cover the frequency of breaks, break times for responding to emails, lunch arrangements, and any other “noise” that might prevent participants from staying focused. You may also conduct Icebreakers here, or after presenting the Ground Rules described as the seventh activity below.

SIX — Meeting Agenda

Describe each Agenda Step, including the reason for the sequence of the Agenda Steps and flow. Explain how the Agenda Steps relate to one another. Do not read them. Rather, explain why the Agenda Steps help us get DONE and why they are listed in the sequence provided. Link Agenda Steps back to the deliverable so that participants see how completing each Agenda Step helps us get DONE.

Fully explaining the Agenda Steps helps groups move out of “storming,” Stage 1 of the group life cycle. Again, do not read the Agenda Steps —explain them! Optimally, use a nonprofessional analogy to explain your Agenda Steps.[♣] You have heard that a picture is worth a thousand words; well, an analogy is worth a thousand pictures (and a story is worth a thousand analogies).

SEVEN — Ground Rules

Share appropriate Ground Rules. Most importantly, explain why they are being used. Supplement your narrative posting of Ground Rules with audiovisual support, including humorous clips, but keep it brief. After presenting your essential Ground Rules, solicit any additional ones from the group, if desired.

Explain each ground rule (not more than nine). For professional meetings, we treat ‘speaking up’ in a meeting, NOT as an opportunity, rather as an obligation. After all, they are being paid to be there. We stress that “consensus” does not mean that we’ll make everybody happy, rather we will find an answer that everyone can support. See the MGRUSH alumni site for some other examples and audio-visual support.

Optional or Occasional (Eighth) Activities

  • Have everyone introduce themselves by providing a structured Icebreaker. Complete Icebreakers before moving out of your Launch agenda step. If you expect Icebreakers to take up a significant amount of time, more than a half-hour, consider sequencing this activity sooner and move it up to the fifth activity (“Housekeeping”). 
  • Product owners and project managers or sponsors may provide updates about progress or changes that have occurred. Have them remain brief by sticking to the vital information affecting the participants. Do not let them go too far “into the weeds,” providing details that bore everyone else. Keep them focused on WHAT has transpired (abstract), not HOW it is being done (concrete).
  • You may need to conduct a review of open items from prior meetings. Preferably, have the product or project manager or sponsor read open items and share a status update while you document or record participants’ comments if needed.
  • For multiple-day workshops, consider mounting a Plus-Delta in the back of the roofer participants to comment and request during the meeting. You don’t want to find out on the last day there is something you may have fixed on day one.

Kick-off During a Meeting Introduction

Do not modify the sequence of the seven activities for your meeting introduction sequence except, for any executive sponsor contributions. As soon as the sponsor enters the room, if the meeting has begun, stop and introduce that person. If the sponsor is present at the start, introduce him or her immediately. Have the sponsor up front and out of the room as soon as possible or practical, preferably without letting them sit down. If the sponsor insists on staying, seat him or her in the back or on the side as an observer, unless the sponsor is going to be an equal participant, like everyone else.

For a kick-off, have your executive sponsor explain the importance of participants’ contributions and what management intends to accomplish. Consider a quick project update. However, do not allow the update or executive sponsor to take more than five minutes. Your meeting is not a mini-Town Hall meeting (unless it actually is).

NOTE: For multiple-day workshops, cover the same items at the start of subsequent days (except kick-off). Additionally, review content built or agreed upon the day(s) before and how it relates to progress made in the agenda.

The Meeting Middle

After your meeting Introduction, the agenda steps between the Introduction and Wrap comprise the middle steps. Hundreds of our other Best Practices articles focus on what you can do between the introduction and wrap to plan, decide, and prioritize issues. 

The Meeting Wrap

We also provide a detailed article that provides a structured approach to your meeting Wrap. See “Use a Professional Meeting Wrap-Up Because Most Meetings Don’t End, They Stop” for a quick but thorough explanation of four activities to manage at the conclusion of your meetings and workshops.

Daniel Pink, in his book “When” claims that the Wrap represents the most important part of any meeting because the Wrap is the “taste you leave in someone’s mouth out in the hallway” where your participants should sound like they were in the same meeting together.

NOTE: In a separate Best Practices article you will find detailed explanation of four activities that you should command for every Review and Wrap (Conclusion).

_______

[♠] FTP represents Full Time Person or Full-time equivalent (FTE), frequently viewed as around 2,000 hours per year.

[♣] For an example, see the section “Explanation via Analogy” in the Planning Approach (Chapter 6) of Meetings That Get Results.

______

Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.

Go to the Facilitation Training Store to access proven, in-house resources, including fully annotated agendas, break timers, and templates. Finally, take a few seconds to buy us a cup of coffee and please SHARE with others.

In conclusion, we dare you to embrace the will, wisdom, and activities that amplify a facilitative leader. #facilitationtraining #MEETING DESIGN

______

With Bookmarks no longer a feature in WordPress, we need to append the following for your benefit and reference

Decision Quality Focuses on ‘WHAT’ is Right, NOT ‘WHO’ is Right

Decision Quality Focuses on ‘WHAT’ is Right, NOT ‘WHO’ is Right

by | Aug 8, 2023 | Meeting Structure

Decision-making frequently considers fuzzy information, fuzzy implications, and fuzzy thinking.  To reduce fuzziness, and improve decision quality, lead your group to focus on What is right, NOT Who is right.

By structuring your questions and meeting design, you minimize the risk of decisions made that are no more than educated gambles.

Fuzzy - Focus on What is Right, NOT Who is Right

Decision Quality Results from Focusing On What is Right, NOT Who is Right

Some organizations rely on advocacy. As issues surface, people take sides[1]. Some participants win — while others lose. By depersonalizing the input required to support a decision, you create a win-win situation. In “majority win” cultures, the most powerful arguments do not necessarily win. Rather, the most persuasive and charismatic ‘champions’ are frequently victorious. Effective facilitation and structured meeting design mitigate risks associated with poor decision quality. After all, nobody is smarter than everybody[2].

Daniel Kahneman has proven that most people decide and then they justify their decision. A structured approach forces participants to delay their decision until available evidence has been provided. Unfortunately for most, once participants have decided, much of their deliberation focuses on finding support to justify their position. Structured facilitation can stop, or at least delay, premature decision-making. Tremendous risks arise if you don’t strive to identify the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Adjustable, Relevant, and Time-based) support that improves decision quality. We hope that you value and aspire to avoid the DUMB response (Dull, Ubiquitous, Myopic, and Broad).

Some meetings even lead to anger, resentment, or jealousy that can sabotage decisions and cultures. Reverse the flow of poor decision quality by first building consensus around the purpose of the decision. Next, develop and expose available options (actions). Then force the development of decision criteria based on evidence: facts, truths, and examples that support the claims. The structured approach helps groups focus one step at a time. Finally, have a method or tool(s) prepared for comparing the options against the criteria that support the originally stated purpose.

Structured Tools Focus on What is Right

For example, do you plan on using PowerBalls, Perceptual Map, Decision Matrix, Scorecard, etc.– or some combination thereof? Scrub (cleanse or clarify) that evidence to ensure clarity and shared understanding, so that the logic and arguments no longer belong to one person. Rather rationale for the decision quality becomes owned by the entire group. Visually displaying the comparison of the various options and supporting criteria additionally helps to depersonalize the analysis.

While many methods use a projected software tool, there are advantages to paper and whiteboards that include the transfer of ownership. The presenter or facilitator usually ends up owning PowerPoint®-type slides, regardless of group comments. If you create and visually display participant content with markers, the group retains ownership and not the keyboard operator.

Remember the 3-Question Approach when scrubbing:

  1. To what extent is the input clear and understood?
  2. What critical or substantive input appears to be missing?
  3. Will the participants support the input or does something need to be eliminated?

Professional facilitators understand the challenge and importance of focus. Groups cannot move coherently to consensus when starting from ‘many to many.’  With sharp questions, a group can be led from ‘one to many.’  The Content Management tool manages the transformation from the abstract to the concrete, from the WHY to the WHAT to the HOW. Note that a single fact (WHAT) can lead to multiple Implications (SO WHAT). Each Implication can lead to many Recommendations. And there is no way to focus a discussion from many facts to many recommendations effectively. However, the ‘many-to-many’ headache describes most unstructured meetings being held right now.

By structuring your decision-making, you minimize the personal bias that lowers decision quality. With focus, you eliminate much of the scope creep in meetings that results in wasted time. You may have heard that a ‘meeting’ is where minutes are kept and hours are lost. As a session leader, you can minimize confusion using a structure that documents the entire process. Therefore, all the participants can own it at the end.

Speed of Decision-making | When Quality Not Enough

According to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey,

“Power is no longer simply the sum of capability and capacity but now, disproportionately, it includes speed—speed of action but especially speed of decision-making.” (source: WSJ, Voices on the Future)

Speed of Decision-making

Race Against Time: Speed of Decision-making

For any consensual and well-informed decision, please embrace at least seven agenda steps to ensure speed of decision-making:

  • Introduction
  • Purpose of (the scope or object of the situation)
  • Options
  • Criteria
  • Decision
  • Testing
  • Review and wrap

Seven Agenda Steps Ensure Speed of Decision-making

Do not forget to begin with the purpose of the object of the decision. If not, you risk combative participants with competing purposes. Always begin with WHY the decision is valuable or important before you begin your analysis of WHAT decision appears best.

Do not forget the rules of ideation when capturing options — no discussion, high energy, etc. Set the options aside and immediately develop an understanding of the decision criteria. General Dempsey added that:

“Countering the need for speed is often the paralyzing volumes of information, which often create an illusion of control and optimal decision making.”

Here is why we rely on subject matter experts, to translate the volumes of information, into the most important factors.

Prepare in advance how you plan to scrub the criteria and what tool is most appropriate for your situation. In our MG RUSH Professional Facilitative Leadership workshops, we consider various tools that galvanize consensus around decisions including:

Technique to Ensure Speed of Decision-making

Throughout the decision step in your agenda, get the group to first deselect and agree to eliminate or delete sub-optimal options, thus reducing the number of viable options. The origin of the word ‘decide’ means to cut off,  and that increases the likelihood that your group will focus on the best candidates. NEVER allow any tool to make your decision for you, but do allow tools to help you de-select.

For testing, take the decision and compare it with the purpose developed in the second step of the agenda. Determine “to what extent” the tentative decision supports that purpose. If the harmony is strong, the meeting is over. If there are disconnects, revisit both the purpose statement and tentative decision with questions about clarity, omissions, and deletions, until you have developed a decision that the participants can “live with” meaning they will support it and not lose sleep over it, even if it is not their ‘favorite.’

What is Right by Others

Although Aldous Huxley with first attributed with saying . . .

“It isn’t who is right, but what is right that counts.”

. . . we imagine others have said something similar, in various languages, long before the 20th century. After all, the risk of poor group decisions in the past frequently resulted in death.

Karl Albrecht[3], a pioneer of the structured-inquiry method, said it best:

“As we trade in the ‘who is right’ mind-set for the ‘what is right’ mind-set. We make our organizations collectively more intelligent and more capable of meeting the changing demands of the business environment.”

~~~~~~~

[1] Note the Type One Thinking in Daniel Kahneman’s book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”

[2] Look at James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom of Crowds”

[3] See www.KarlAlbrecht.com

______

Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.

Go to the Facilitation Training Store to access proven, in-house resources, including fully annotated agendas, break timers, and templates. Finally, take a few seconds to buy us a cup of coffee and please SHARE with others.

In conclusion, we dare you to embrace the will, wisdom, and activities that amplify a facilitative leader. #facilitationtraining #MEETING DESIGN

______

With Bookmarks no longer a feature in WordPress, we need to append the following for your benefit and reference

Proven Methods for Managing Any and All Meeting Conflicts

Proven Methods for Managing Any and All Meeting Conflicts

by | Jun 13, 2023 | Communication Skills, Facilitation Skills, Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict, Meeting Tools

No method anywhere can show you how to facilitate a resolution for ALL meeting conflicts.

Proven Methods for Managing Conflict in Meetings and Workshops

Sometimes, people or parties refuse to agree simply because they dislike each other.

Sometimes, people or parties refuse to agree simply because they dislike each other. Yet while you may not be able to resolve all meeting conflicts, you can learn to manage all meeting conflicts. Below you will find four proven activities for managing conflicts in any group session or workshop.

Meeting conflicts present a serious distraction. Wisely, the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) aspires for facilitators to:

•    “Help individuals identify and review underlying assumptions.

•    Recognize conflict and its role within group learning/maturity.

•    Provide a safe environment for conflict to surface.

•    Manage disruptive group behavior.

•    Support the group through the resolution of conflict.”

Four Proven Activities For Managing Meeting Conflicts

Fortunately, you can rely on this four-step method to manage ALL meeting conflicts:

1.    Document consensual purpose.

2.    Secure evidence in support of the purpose.

3.    Align with the level of support for the objectives of the product, project, program, department, business unit, and enterprise.

4.    Assemble documentation, then escalate.

I.  Document consensual purpose

The burden on facilitators demands building consensus around the purpose of the decision and what the decision supports. You cannot afford to have a moving target if you want to build consensus. Make your group’s integrated purpose clear and concise. Use our Purpose Tool as a quick and effective means of galvanizing consensual purpose. When captured in writing, you supply instant visual feedback to all of your participants.

2.  Secure evidence in support of the purpose

Most office professionals have been exposed to the concept of active listening. Distinguished from passive listening because active listening demands that the listener provide reflection and confirmation of what the speaker said. Reflecting the reasons to support the statement and WHY the evidence to support the purpose remains more important. Frequently understanding WHY requires additional challenge and reflection. Other participants may hear WHAT was said but they also need to understand WHY the claim was made, and under what conditions the claim remains valid.

Effective facilitators make participants’ thinking visible by challenging them with one word—“Because?” Consensus is not built around symptoms. Rather, consensus gets established around causes. Getting everyone to understand under what conditions certain claims may be valid can ease misunderstanding. Sometimes people are in violent agreement with each other but are doing a poor job of listening. A good facilitator provides robust reflection, not only on what was said but under what conditions the assertions hold true. Fortify your active listening with a comprehensive reflection of BOTH what was said and why it was said.

Active listening includes four separate activities:
  1. Establish contact with the speaker, eye contact ensures the speaker is engaged,
  2. Absorb what the speaker presents so that you can advance the group’s understanding of the participant’s contribution,
  3. Reflect on what was said to ensure the speaker understands what was offered up, but more importantly, REFLECT WHY their contribution claims to be valid as it relates to the question they were answering (frequently it is best to provide their reflection in writing whether on a whiteboard, large Post-It® paper, or on the screen), and
  4. Confirm that their content, as reflected, is complete and correct.

Meeting participants do not necessarily listen or even hear what other participants say. Some people fail to listen to themselves. Reflection provides an essential part of effective, active listening. But do not forget to confirm that your reflections are clear, complete, and correct.

3.  Align with the level of support for the objectives of the product, project, program, department, business unit, and enterprise

Sometimes people understand each other and yet continue to disagree. Most arguments about future conditions cannot be proven one way or another. Learn to appeal to the objectives of the project or initiative your meeting supports. If needed, go further and appeal to the organizational values, as to which argument better harmonizes and supports the organization.

After two or more competing arguments have been clarified, and fully documented, ask the group to compare the positions by asking them to what extent each supports the organizational objectives; specifically:

  • Project or product: To what extent does each position support the overall project (or product) objectives?
  • Program or department: To what extent does each position support the program (or departmental) objectives (i.e., the reasons for approving the project or product)?
  • Business unit: To what extent does each position support the business unit objectives (i.e., what would the executive sponsor say)?
  • Enterprise or organization: To what extent does each position support the enterprise objectives (i.e., what would the chief executive officer say)?

In some company cultures, for example, safety is critical, and if one position can be viewed as ‘riskier,’ it loses. If necessary, look at the argument from the perspective of the executive sponsors or even the enterprise. If the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) attended the meeting, what would they say, and more importantly, WHY?

Appealing to objectives reconciles some disagreements, but not all of them. Use our holarchy to present a visual illustration of harmonizing objectives (available as a poster at https://mgrush.com/shop/product-category/posters/).

4.  Assemble documentation, then escalate

Sometimes participants do not agree with each other based on irrational or irreconcilable terms. When the three steps above, in sequence, do not drive consensual resolution, prepare to escalate. Take the documented positions back to the executive sponsor, product owner, steering team, decision review board, or other authority for their decision.

First, carefully and fully document both positions (arguments) with their supporting claims, evidence, and examples. Then take the conflict off-line, back to the executive sponsor. Explain the method you followed above and provide them with a set of documentation. Tell them the group has reached an impasse and needs their help. Ask them to decide. More importantly, capture their rationale so that their reasons can be brought back to team members and fortify them to be more effective in subsequent decision-making situations.

Executives will also Appeal to Objectives, asking questions like:

  • Why did we approve this product, project, or initiative?
  • What were we trying to accomplish?
  • How does this initiative serve as a foundation for our strategy and future planning?

Executive sponsors, product owners, steering teams, decision review boards, and other authorities supply better insight than team members because the authorities are more intimate with plans, shaping curves, and transitional and transformational efforts underway designed to ensure that your organization reaches its vision. When they share their understanding with you and your group, you empower your group to make higher-quality decisions in future meetings. No facilitator can build consensus around every issue, but having a method to follow provides the assurance that you have done your best.

Proven Methods for Managing Conflict in Meetings and Workshops

Fortunately, you can rely on four proven activities for managing meeting conflicts

Don’t Run

Meeting conflicts reflect emotions that, when harnessed, enable innovative change. A facilitator sees conflict in a workshop as coming from the group and coming from within. We must understand our own internal conflict so that we can better serve others. A meeting without conflict is a boring meeting, and we’ve seen truly little value derived from predictable and unexciting meetings, sessions, and workshops.

Internal Conflict

Internal conflict drives fear. All people possess fears. When we allow these fears to control us, we lose our ability to perform. First, we must understand our fears. Once we do, then we can control them. Fears never go away—you simply learn to control your fears.

Once you identify your personal fears, you can find ways to make them work to your advantage. Adrenaline gives you an edge. Remember that the butterflies in your stomach will always be there. You don’t want to remove them. You want to teach them to fly in formation.

Summary

Resolving conflict begins by understanding, clarifying, and confirming the purpose of the object of discussion and argument. When that appeal fails, active listening coupled with extensive challenges will structure the discussion. Appeals are determined by the extent to which the purpose and objectives will be supported by the decision, especially the product, project, departmental, program, business unit, and enterprise objectives.

______

Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.

Go to the Facilitation Training Store to access proven, in-house resources, including fully annotated agendas, break timers, and templates. Finally, take a few seconds to buy us a cup of coffee and please SHARE with others.

In conclusion, we dare you to embrace the will, wisdom, and activities that amplify a facilitative leader. #facilitationtraining #MEETING DESIGN

______

With Bookmarks no longer a feature in WordPress, we need to append the following for your benefit and reference

How To Develop Questions that Lead to Better Meetings (Three Proven Methods Including the Perspectives Tool)

How To Develop Questions that Lead to Better Meetings (Three Proven Methods Including the Perspectives Tool)

by | Mar 23, 2023 | Facilitation Skills, Meeting Support, Meeting Tools

We’ve spoken about the power of questions. But while you know the right questions (in the right order) can lead to answers that stimulate learning, the exchange of ideas, and fuel innovation and performance improvement–HOW do you develop these questions?

Below we offer up three proven methods for developing questions that include conversations, brainstorming, and changing perspectives. Questions, that when applied properly, ensure Meetings That Get Results.

CONVERSATIONS

How To Develop Questions that Lead to Better Meetings (Three Proven Methods)

The quickest and simplest method of developing questions relies on having conversations with others, especially your meeting participants.  Develop a list of questions that all stakeholders would like to answer by asking them what questions they would like to answer. Our conversations are considered CONFIDENTIAL so that no one is at risk when ‘speaking their mind.’ 

Use the following set of stress-tested questions to use during conversations with potential workshop participants, before the session. They are open-ended, precise, and optimally sequenced.

    • “What do you expect from the session?”
    • “What will make the workshop a complete failure?”
    • “What should the output look like?”
    • “What problems do you foresee?”
    • “Who should attend the workshop? Who should not? Why?”
    • “What is going to be our biggest obstacle?”
    • “What questions do you think we should answer?”
    • “What should I have asked that I didn’t ask?”

Example

During our preparation phase, we conducted conversations with meeting participants from a nationally recognized and respected client. After the conversations concluded and duplications were eliminated we developed a list of 39 discrete questions participants were hoping to answer throughout a two-day workshop.

By working with the executive sponsor (e.g., product owner), we developed nine distinct questions that needed to be answered during the workshop, in addition to standard activities like Introduction, Updates, and Conclusion. By distributing a Participant’s Package in advance, we were able to manage expectations. We shared the final questions that would be addressed while letting them know that other questions they raised would not be answered within the two-day timeframe.

The driving question for the session was to determine what could be done to improve client penetration. But we viewed that question as too broad and difficult to answer. The answers would be unstructured and difficult to prevent scope creep. Yet, from conversations in advance, we began to sense how ‘improving client penetration” (Y) was a function of many (Xs).

Nine Stakeholder-Driven Questions

Here are nine of the major questions that our conversations yielded:

  1. What can we do to improve insights on where clients need to improve? In response, what steps should both we and they take?
  2. What can we do to improve the quality of our presentation deck as a pre-read, presentation support, or as a stand-alone, leave-behind document?
  3. What can we do to improve client engagement and satisfaction during our presentation of insights and recommendations?
  4. What should we do to demonstrate the impact of improvements in customer experience on business results for individual clients?
  5. What is required to illustrate the impact of customer experience on stockholder value?
  6. What needs to be done to develop an approach for prioritizing clients with the highest potential for additional sales?
  7. What might a model of client interaction look like before, during, and after the presentation?
  8. What model might create thought leadership content for multi-channel distribution that identifies urgent and pervasive issues, risks/rewards of not taking/ taking action, and solutions?
  9. What should we do to create written stories that increase the perception of our expertise and solutions?

BRAINSTORMING FOR QUESTIONS

Hal Gregerson, Executive Director of the MIT Leadership Center and co-author of “The Innovator’s DNA” and four other books has his clients focus on questions for breakthrough insights.

“Brainstorming for questions rather than answers makes it easier to push past cognitive biases and venture into uncharted territory.”

Staging

Gregerson suggests a straightforward three-step approach that supports the tri-part approach we’ve always advised; i.e., diverge, analyze, and converge. Once a challenge has been identified and articulated, he suggests setting the stage with a heterogeneous group that offers unique perspectives.

Ideating

Leverage the various perspectives using at least two of our Ground Rules of Ideation, namely high energy and no discussion. Stress the latter to provide highly effective facilitation. Do NOT be the first one to violate the rule of no discussion by asking for clarification or additional information when you are in the listing or ideation mode. 

Don’t forget to enforce the rules for all other participants as well. Stick to verbatim for the time being, that will probably not exceed six to eight minutes. Enforce participant contributions to come in the form of questions and prohibit answers and ALL discussion during this step. Do not permit framing or justifying the questions during the ideation mode. Strictly enforce contributions that are provided exclusively as questions.

Encouraging

Experience shows that not all questions offer equal value, therefore encourage participants with principles such as:

  • Suggest divergent thinking by assigning different perspectives (more on this in the next section)
  • Ask for open-ended questions keeping in mind that shorter may be better, but eventually understand that complex questions will yield richer insight than simple questions
  • Encourage speculative questions (e.g., What might be?”) rather than simple descriptive questions (e.g., “What’s working?”)
  • Strive for evidence-based angles meaning facts, examples, and objective characteristics rather than accusatory or based on WHO rather than WHAT
  • Remove fear and any sense of reprisal, providing permission to speak freely

Analyzing

Facilitative tools that help sharpen the questions rely on challenging participants to make their thinking clear. Consider the Five WHYs and SCAMPER as immediate and appropriate challenges.

Keep your challenges focused on the WHY, WHAT, and HOW by de-emphasizing or prohibiting input about WHO, WHEN, and WHERE. Generously challenge modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs with the two best challenge questions:

  • What is the unit of measurement of ________________ ?
  • To what extent does ______________________________ ?

Consider multiple rounds by using the Perspectives approach explained in the next section. Remember that when a group is in the ideation phase, it is important to elicit ideas from all members of the group.  Additionally, consider using break-out groups and mixing them up from round to round.

Testing

Here are some questions you might ask yourself as you develop powerful questions. They are modified from research done by the Public Conversations Project, a group that helps create constructive dialogue on divisive public issues (Adapted from Sally Ann Roth Public Conversations Project c. 1998)

  • Is this question genuine—a question to which we don’t know the answer? 
  • To what extent is this question relevant to the real work of the people who will be exploring it? 
  • What assumptions or beliefs are reflected in the way this question is worded? 
  • To what extent is this question likely to invite fresh thinking/ feeling? Is it familiar enough to be recognizable and relevant—yet different enough to demand a new response? 
  • To what extent will this question generate hope, imagination, engagement, creative action, and new possibilities rather than increase a focus on past problems and obstacles?
  • What “work” do we want this question to do? What type of conversation, meanings, and feelings will be evoked by those exploring it? 
  • To what extent does this question leave room for new and different questions to be raised as the initial question is explored?

CHANGE PERSPECTIVES

In addition to Conversations and Brainstorming, Change Perspectives to develop sharper questions. To prevent or refine questions that are too broad (e.g., “How do we solve global hunger?”), carefully manage the scope of the question. We can more easily develop solutions for hunger among children in coastal Somalia than addressing all of humanity at once. The following is based on the Perspectives Tool found in Chapter Eight of Meetings that Get Results.

Perspectives Tool 

This approach to building questions is remarkably powerful and severely underused. When you ask your participants to “walk in someone else’s shoes” by embracing a new perspective, you stimulate participants to change their point of view. More perspectives create more ideas, and more ideas drive decision quality. 

The inputs provided by shifting perspectives are not necessarily definitive. By challenging and exploring them, we can surface questions and problems that were not previously considered. 

You may ask individuals or Breakout Teams (Chapter 6) to take on new perspectives. I’ve personally witnessed remarkable success using two specific Breakout Teams: monasteries and organized crime (it can be like night and day). I’m also aware of alumni who love contrasting the Apple, Linux, and Microsoft perspectives.

BREAK OUT TEAMS PERSPECTIVES 
  • WW_D: What Would pastedGraphic.pngDo? Insert analogs of famous people, organizations, or teams. Ask, “What questions would be asked from the perspective of ?” (fill in the blank using one of the items found later in this section). 
  • Use Breakout Teams to develop questions contrasted with other specific points of view, such as the following: 
      • A college or university compared with the military-industrial complex 
      • A monastery compared with the Mafia or organized crime
      • Bill Gates (or Microsoft) compared with Steve Jobs (or Apple)
      • Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Sergey Brin (Google), or Mark Zuckerberg (Meta)
      • Genghis Khan (warlike) compared with Mohandas Gandhi (peaceful)
    • Or create your own based on driving forces in your situation, such as antifragile technology (gets stronger), ants (collaborative), Drake or Lizzo (unrepresented voices), or weather (unpredictable yet returns to homeostasis) 

NOTE: Use any of the perspectives suggested or make up your perspectives to help participants focus their input from a specific point of view. 

INDIVIDUAL (OR TEAM PERSPECTIVES)

The 6-M’s, 7-P’s, or 5-S’s are frequently used as the main “bones” in an Ishikawa diagram. Take and choose from among the following 30 perspectives that are most germane and compelling to your situation to develop sharper questions, namely, what should be asked from each perspective? Take only the most pertinent perspectives related to your situation. For example, asking about machines may be irrelevant to a policy consulting firm, or packaging irrelevant to an organization that provides only services.

The 6-M’s perspectives: 
    • Machines
    • Manpower
    • Materials
    • Measurements
    • Methods
    • Mother Nature 
The 7-P’s perspectives: 
    • Packaging
    • Place
    • Policies
    • Positioning
    • Price
    • Procedure
    • Promotion
The 5-S’s perspectives:
    • Safety
    • Skills
    • Suppliers
    • Surroundings
    • Systems
Perspectives (trends) from the World Future Society
  • Demographic perspectives:
      • Family composition
      • Public health issues
      • Specific population groups (and so on)
  • Economic perspectives: 
      • Business 
      • Careers 
      • Finance 
      • Management 
      • Employment (and so on)
  • Environmental perspectives: 
      • Ecosystems 
      • Habitats 
      • Resources 
      • Species (and so on)
  • Governmental perspectives: 
      • Laws 
      • Politics 
      • Public policy 
      • World affairs (and so on)
  • Societal perspectives: 
      • Culture 
      • Education 
      • Leisure 
      • Lifestyle 
      • Religion 
      • Values (and so on)
  • Technological perspectives: 
      • Discoveries and effects 
      • Innovation and effects 
      • Science and effects (and so on) 
Six value or utility lever perspectives: 
  • Convenience
  • Customer productivity
  • Environmental friendliness
  • Fun and image
  • Risk
  • Simplicity

By shaping your questions around the most appropriate of these 37 Perspectives, you are assured of narrowing scope creep and minimizing wasted time in your meetings.

______

Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.

Go to the Facilitation Training Store to access proven, in-house resources, including fully annotated agendas, break timers, and templates. Finally, take a few seconds to buy us a cup of coffee and please SHARE with others.

In conclusion, we dare you to embrace the will, wisdom, and activities that amplify a facilitative leader. #facilitationtraining #MEETING DESIGN

______

With Bookmarks no longer a feature in WordPress, we need to append the following for your benefit and reference