POSTS

6 Potent Ways to Facilitate Meeting Conflict Response and Manage Conflict

by Facilitation Expert | Dec 18, 2014 | Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict, Meeting Support

Facilitators must understand and manage meeting conflicts. Therefore, we must first understand our own internal conflict so that we are prepared to serve others. Critically, we should view our meeting conflict response as both a challenge and an opportunity.

Meetings are expensive and mitigating conflict provides one of the absolute best reasons for meetings. However, conflict also comes from the situation, and from you.

Don’t Run from Internal Conflict

Conflict Response to Situational Factors

Internal conflict is fear, and all people have fears. However, when we allow these fears to control us, we lose our ability to perform. Therefore, the first step is to understand our fears. Once we do, we can control them and begin to manage conflict. Because fears never go away—you simply learn to acknowledge or contain them. Learn to control fears. Below are some typical facilitator fears:

Being too “mechanical”
Challenges and attacks
How much responsibility to take
Inability to persuade, motivate
Looking like a beginner
Losing control — asserting control
Making mistakes or failing
People with problems
Public speaking
The unknown
Wanting to be liked, approved of
Wanting to give advice or ideas
What to do about silence

Fly In Formation

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

External Conflict

Conflict in your group is natural and not necessarily bad when responsibly managed. Hence, you must channel conflict into productivity. Managed well, conflict leads to expanded information exchange, surfaced rationales, more options, and better group decisions that enable change. Managed poorly, conflict destroys. Effectively managed, conflict leads to positive transformation. However, if left festering in the hallways, conflict leads to chaos.

Conflict provides one of the best reasons for justifying the time and expense of a face-to-face meeting because it cannot be properly resolved with mail, attachments, and messaging. Because society places negative values on conflict at home and at school, we are not taught collaborative problem-solving skills. Therefore, let’s consider the external sources of conflict, barriers you will encounter, and responses that are proven effective.

Facilitative leaders can channel conflict into productivity. For example, look at the U.S. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.[1]

Conflict Response

Recognizing the Need for Meeting Conflict Response

Recognize that conflict exists particularly when you sense resistance from the group. Therefore, if your intuition tells you that something is not right, you would be wise to listen to the symptoms:

Challenges and attacks
Silence and withdrawal
Emergence of people with problems
Tardiness and punctuality problems
Sabotage attempts at the project, process, or facilitator

Sources of Conflict

Primary sources of conflict in a typical workshop include the following. However, keep in mind that the two leading indicators are tenure (i.e., how long somebody has been around) and when their jobs, titles, or reporting situation is at risk of being changed:

Competition—feeling out of control or the need to control
Fears—participant fears as well as facilitator fears
Habits—accustomed to disagreeing or arguing, cultural
Listening filters—age, background
Misinformation—rumors, especially about change
Participants’ problems—out of control, unable to excel or bond
Poorly defined objectives—misunderstanding of expectations
Priorities—similar values, but varying priorities
Semantics—understanding of words and intent
Situations—business process improvement, restructuring, reorganizations, automating
Thinking styles—vertical/ horizontal
Ways participants view others—biases, heuristics, prejudices

Barriers to Meeting Conflict Response

The following barriers inhibit your ability to manage conflict:

Ability or willingness to listen—yours and theirs
Copper or fiber (online meetings)—inability to challenge participants in person
Fears—yours and theirs
Group norms—culture such as “we don’t discuss that here”
Image—inability to save face
Lack of skill—a weak or poorly trained facilitator
Learned responses—Our past is hard to unlearn
Time—consensus is seldom achieved quickly
Vulnerability—real or perceived threats

Paradigm Challenges

Paradigms are established accepted norms, patterns of behavior, or shared sets of assumptions. They are models that establish boundaries or rules for success. Therefore, paradigms present structural barriers to creativity based on psychological, cultural, and environmental factors. Examples include:

Flow charts, diagrams, and other conventions that people get comfortable with when presenting information that they rely on habitually (e.g., swim lanes).
Stereotypes about men and women and their roles in business, family, and society
Where people sit in meetings, when in person—once they find a seat it becomes “their seat” for the rest of the meeting, or meetings if the seat associates with their own desired level of position or power (could be high or low, and a seat up front or far back)

Groupthink

As creatures of habit, we blindly subscribe to our cultural paradigms, unknowingly allowing our biases and prejudices to affect our decision-making, and readily falling prey to groupthink. There is power in large numbers, but not necessarily an increase in quality. For example, voting reflects a method of groupthink decision-making. However, the winner is not necessarily a better decision, it only reflects a bigger number.

Challenge Both

When people raise objectives, discover the cause of the objection. By challenging participants, you convert their subject matter bias into its objective nature. What causes the objection and what is the measurement of the cause? The chili is too spicy (subjective) and may be converted into 1,400 Scoville units (objective).

Ask about ‘Paradigm Shift’—“What is impossible today, but if made possible . . . What would you do differently?”
Consider using Edward de Bono’s Thinking Hats (pg 216) where you impose perspectives such as the different tactics that might be taken by a monastery contrasted with an organized crime syndicate.[3]
Force the group to look at a familiar idea or scenario in a new way by changing their perspective. Shifting perspectives frequently helps ‘shake’ paradigms.
Have a few tools in your hip pocket, usually visual or riddle-based. Build a tool kit for immediate help and prepare a hip pocket set of Tools and procedures for the unexpected.

Anger and Some Other Stuff

How well do you personally respond to conflict? To effectively facilitate conflict, you must keep the situation constructive and . . .

Build a tool kit for immediate help and prepare a hip pocket set of Tools and procedures for the unexpected.
Know how to communicate acceptance by promoting integral thinking, a ‘Yes AND attitude’ not ‘Yes BUT . . .’

Anger—One letter short of Danger

Realize that anger is as normal as any other emotion. We expect or want things to be different or better. Most people direct their anger at those who have some control over them. However, anger can be healthy and is different from hostility, which is not healthy. Anger is often used to hide other feelings such as hurt or disappointment. Therefore, learn how to deal with anger in others and in yourself. Remain cautious, however, because the term ‘anger’ is only one letter ‘d’ short of the term ‘danger.’

When dealing with others’ anger:

Acknowledge and affirm the participant’s beliefs.
Encourage the participant to talk about the reasons for their anger. This helps diffuse the anger.
Let the participant vent before trying to explain or apologize.
Use nonjudgmental active listening. This lets the participant know that you care.

When dealing with your own anger:

Acknowledge and accept the anger. Do not deny it or it will resurface at the wrong time.
Deal with the problem that caused the anger as quickly as practical. However, do not make decisions when your anger is in control.
Take a break, whether in person or online. Take a walk and reprogram yourself.

Six Actions for Your Meeting Conflict Response

How do you respond to managing conflict? To effectively facilitate a conflict situation, you must keep conflict constructive and . . .

Understand anger—dealing with yours and theirs.
Know how to communicate acceptance—to promote open communications.
Understand consensus—it is not compromised.
Prepare properly—know if it is coming.
Build a tool kit (see MGRUSH Facilitative Leadership Tools for immediate help and develop a hip pocket set of tools in preparation for the unexpected)—build teams and diffuse problems.
Challenge—When people raise objectives, discover the cause of the objection. With active listening and proper leadership, the objection can be converted into a criterion. What causes the objection and what is the unit of measurement of the cause?

______

[1] The penalty for a Federal Mediator who violates neutrality is prison.

^[2] Saj-Nicole, Joni and Damon, Beyer “How to Pick a Good Fight,” Harvard Business Review, December 2009, pg 50.

[3] De Bono, Edward “Six Thinking Hats,” https://www.amazon.com/Six-Thinking-Hats-Edward-Bono/dp/0316178314/

______

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 every day during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

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

Meeting Announcement Considerations Prior to Shipping a Pre-Read

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 23, 2014 | Leadership Skills, Meeting Support

Before you send a meeting or workshop pre-read to participants, consider a formal meeting announcement rather than an informal calendar invite. If accepted, follow up the announcement with the invite, and then your pre-read package.

Meeting Announcement

While all of the following is not necessary, put yourself in the position of the participant. Therefore, ask yourself, “Would I be interested in knowing this _______?” Clearly, if the answer is ‘yes’, then consider putting it in your meeting announcement.

Therefore, some considerations include:

Meeting facilitator contact information; including perhaps:
- Easy to cut and paste email
- URL for business group or division
- Primary telephone
- Mobile telephone
- URL for SharePoint or workgroup folder
Meeting logistics; including perhaps:
- Date of meeting
- Time of meeting
- Duration of meeting
- Location of meeting (including a map if part of a large campus setting). Plus any hints about best access such as elevator banks to take or avoid
Meeting participants; including perhaps:
- List of attendees
- Alternatively, consider adding their contact information as well
- Items that should or should NOT be brought with them
- Request for questions they would like answered during the meeting
Meeting rationale; including:
- Purpose and scope of the meeting (50 words or less)
- Statement of meeting deliverables (i.e., output) or desired outcome
- DRAFT agenda items (knowing some minor changes may occur)
- Other miscellanies particular to your situation

While these considerations may appear burdensome, they are truly optimal. You can remove or subtract as you deem fit, but always make adjustments from the point of view of the participants, rather than what will make your life easier.

______

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

Neuroeconomics and Neurofacilitation: Rational Decisions Maximize Utility

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 9, 2014 | Decision Making, Prioritizing

World scientists strive to map activity in the human brain. Presumably, a map of neural activity will shed light on how the brain works and how choices get made.

Concurrently, there has been an upsurge in related fields seeking to understand human nature and behavior. One focus on change: neuro accounting, neuroeconomics, neurotics, neurofinance, neuro leadership, neurolinguistics, neuro management, neuromarketing, and now . . .neurofacilitation.

Neuroeconomics♦ developed over 50 research groups around the world, “exploring the brain processes that underlie decision-making.” Economics focuses on how people make choices, especially when they cannot get everything they want. Traditional theory asserts that rational decision-making maximizes utility, satisfaction, or well-being. Yet daily, people and groups generate sub-optimal decisions, so the question remains—why?

Science continues to advance our understanding of decision-making. Look no further for proof than proximity. Scientists now know where in the brain choosing occurs. They understand where preferences reside, and how choices happen physically. While they learn to model ‘how we choose our underwear” (or how monkeys choose their juice), we professional facilitators must be held accountable for mapping how complex group decisions are made. Business meetings could be referred to as a neural net of decision-making.

Traceability

Maintaining a diligent trail of challenge and documentation provides a benchmark to support neurofacilitation. Group decisions require traceability. Take any decision back to your supervisor, executive sponsor, or steering team and they will immediately respond with “Why?” Why did your group make the decision they made?

Data sets are making it much easier to make more informed decisions. Teo cites three relevant examples related to individual decision-making:

1) Electronic road pricing that helps predict the changing demographics, vehicle types, and density of traffic.

2) In New York City data is available on every taxicab: whether they are occupied or empty, when patrons are waiting (or not), the size of the tips, etc.

3) Equity stock selections where information abounds on whom, when, how much, etc.

Yet there is no comparable example offered to shed light on the most important decisions being made that affect all of humanity, not solely one individual. For example, should we go to war, fire a missile, build a new nuclear plant, construct a new highway (or conduct road repair), approve a major project, hire a key executive, etc..

Professional facilitators ought to sensitize themselves to the importance of neurofacilitation; i.e., challenging the underlying rationale and carefully documenting the support behind all of the options, not only the final choice. You may never want to see the term ‘neurofacilitation’ again, but you know that it oversimplifies the true nature and complexity of group decision-making, and how groups or teams define “utility.”

~~~~~~~

♦ Cited by Anna Teo (The Business Times, 01/03/13),

______

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

Consensus does NOT Mean that Participants are Going to be “Happy”

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 2, 2014 | Decision Making, Managing Conflict, Prioritizing

A facilitator should typically avoid the term “happy”.

Our effort guides a group to a common or shared understanding that they can support and not lose any sleep over—something they can “live with.” Consensus does NOT mean that they are going to end up “happy.”

Look closely at the difference in meaning between the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’. The ‘object’ is that outside of us that is being perceived. The ‘subject’ is the perceiver. In business, we frequently use the term ‘objective’ as something we intend to accomplish or realize. We use the term ‘subject’ when we are referring to meeting participants, or ‘subject matter experts’.

Subject matter experts, aka SMEs, express their preferences, requirements, needs, priorities, likes, dislikes, etc. about ‘objects’ or things outside of their immediate control. Two people eating chili for example may disagree on the chili’s level of spiciness. What is really hot to one person may be tepid to another. They are experiencing separate realities; they are reacting differently to the same object (the spiciness of the chili).

Scoville Units

No amount of argument will get them to agree on whether the chili is too spicy or not. Clearly, to one, it is, while to the other it is not. They are both right from their subjective points of view. The wrong approach would be to encourage them to meet halfway and call the chili semi-spicy. That would be like suggesting one with their left foot in a pail of hot water and their right foot in a pail of freezing water should on average, be comfortable.

Objectify the Subjective

Therefore a world-class facilitator strives to ‘objectify’ the subjective. Meaning, that they strive to find a common ground between both parties to which both parties agree without compromise. In the case of spiciness, we might be able to get both parties to agree that the chili is neither hot nor tepid, rather they might agree that it measures 3,000 Scoville units (i.e., the measure of pungency or the amount of capsaicin that makes peppers ‘hot’). The truly objective rating of the spiciness does not make either participant “happy” but it does give them a common ground about which they can argue for more or less in the specific, rather than the general.

While one may argue for more ‘heat’ and another argues for less ‘heat’ we can now more effectively facilitate precisely what is meant by heat, and wisely offer options such as offering two or three types of chili.

We are seeking agreement or consensus rather than making participants “happy” so please be careful when using the term, or similar terms that are “qualitative” by description but can be made “quantitative” through strong challenge, clear definitions, and excellent facilitation.

______

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

Establishing Common Purpose Provides the Secret to Building Consensus

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 25, 2014 | Meeting Support, Meeting Tools

Always remember, to ask WHY before WHAT before HOW when you want to lead a group of people to shared understanding.

Success begins with developing common ground as to WHY a group has come together to plan, analyze, or design. Use of our Purpose Tool quickly builds an integrated viewpoint that coalesces the intent and purpose behind anything—from a large organization to a small product or process. Appealing to WHY something exists leads to meaningful suggestions about WHAT to do to support the purpose.

Common Purpose

Create clear deliverables before your meeting, but start your meeting either building or confirming the purpose of the object of your deliverables. For example, if creating a simple decision about a gift for someone, determine the purpose of the gift first. Next prompt for gift ideas and decision criteria. Some in the group may be serious while others could treat the gift as a “gag” (i.e., comedic relief). Best to reach an understanding about the purpose of the gift before launching into gift ideas.

Support the Purpose

Contrasting the abstract with the concrete yields insight into the simple difference between WHAT and HOW. WHAT groups may need includes decisions, plans, and amplified understanding. Any discussion about deliverables such as decisions, plans, and prioritization should always appeal to WHAT is required to support WHY the common purpose exists and align with WHY it is important.

Likewise, detailed design and HOW things get done may also appeal to WHY it exists. In a safety-sensitive culture, for example, the risk of injury and potential damage to health, safety, or environment must be reconciled with WHY something exists. To prevent 100 percent risk abatement may be too expensive, so strive to reduce as much potential injury as common sense, timing, and budget allow.

______

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

Challenge the Status Quo, such as “We don’t do things that way around here.”

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 18, 2014 | Managing Conflict, Meeting Support

Those of you familiar with the MGRUSH curriculum remember the challenge of the “bookworm” exercise that only one or two participants get correct per year.

Here is another similar, quickly run challenge to test groups resistant to change or inclined to simply “vote on things.” Remember, Challenge the Status Quo.

Framing

Keeping Groups Mentally Sharp

Answer

Add an “A” tablet to the mix. Now you have two full tablets of each, not knowing which is “A” and which is “B”. Cut each tablet in half without mixing the halves. Then take one-half of each of the four tablets. The remainder will also provide the proper dosage for another treatment (e.g., tomorrow).

Application

Use our “bookworm” problem, this “medicine” example, or similar “tests” to stir things up, especially with groups that become too complacent. Remember as well to remind your participants shouting “We don’t do things that way around here.” That WHAT they do may rarely change, but HOW they do it changes constantly, whether they realize it or not.

Other participants are given an understanding of the value of stimulating thinking processes throughout the day. Creative thinking is the key to breakthrough, and innovation is a primary driver of profit.

______

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

Nonverbal Expressions: How to (Not) Gesture while Facilitating

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 11, 2014 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills

Nonverbal expressions, like words (see Facilitate Meaning, Not Words), connote multiple messages.

After you finish this article, you will be strongly tempted to embrace the MGRUSH recommendations. Keep your elbows tucked in, your hands below your heart, and keep them open, facing up. Some would call this approach, keeping your hands to yourself.

For example, extending the index and little fingers upward, with a fist, shaped like a “V” (with the middle and ring fingers tucked down into the palm, along with the thumb) can signify victory or good luck in the Americas. The same non-beral gesture represents a vulgar insult in Italy.

A single thumb up, commonly used to express “all right” in the United States, counts as the number one in Germany, the number five in Japan, and is seen as a vulgar insult in Afghanistan, among other places (akin to the middle finger prone upward in the United States).

Scuba divers universally acknowledge the clasping of the thumb and index finger into a circle (or, “AOK”) as the buddy signal that all is fine. The circle will be perceived as a vulgar insult in Russia and Italy. However, it signifies “pay me” in Japan and displays a sense of “worthless” in France.

Yes or No?

Even a simple nod of the head from side to side typically signifies “no” or “I’m not in agreement” in the United States. However, it may signify “yes” or “no problem” in India and elsewhere. The slight vertical nod of the head up and down signifies “I’m OK with it” in the United States. But it may signify “no” or “I don’t see it” in Greece and elsewhere.

While nonverbal cues are intended to simplify understanding, it is rather apparent that they can obfuscate consensus in a multicultural setting. As with everything, context is critical to understanding, and the role of the facilitator is to police context on behalf of the participants—so be careful, and keep your hands to yourself.

______

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

Related articles

Change Your Thoughts, Change Your Life (mgrush.com/blog)
Five Reasons to Hold a Facilitated Session (mgrush.com/blog)
Facilitate Meaning, Not Words (mgrush.com/blog)

What to Do About the Seven Deadly Sins of Facilitating (in alphabetical order):

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 4, 2014 | Leadership Skills, Meeting Support

You’ve heard plenty about what to do, but the Seven Deadly Sins of Facilitating also suggest what NOT to do.

The following are real, powerful, and sequenced alphabetically.

Assuming:

Simply because the facilitator hears what was said does not imply everyone heard what was said. The key to active listening is thorough reflection. Whether it’s audio (i.e., spoken) or visual (i.e., written down), the facilitator’s role is to ensure common understanding, not assume that common understanding exists simply because something was spoken.

Modifiers:

Deadly Sins of Facilitating

Nouns and verbs are a facilitator’s friend. Modifiers such as adjectives and adverbs cause dissent. For example, we may all be eating the same bowl of chili, but it may be both hot (i.e., spicy) and not so hot to different people, both correct in their assessment. Most arguments are caused by how spicy the chili is, not by whether or not it is chili.

Neutrality (or lack thereof):

A session leader who offers content and judgment appears to the participants to have the “answer”. They will go quiet as they listen to what the leader believes to be true, comparing and contrasting the espoused point of view with their own truth. In the role of facilitator, do not offer up or evaluate content during the session.

Plurality:

Ask one question at a time. Do not try to facilitate more than one issue at once. Close it out before moving on to the next issue. Most groups will succeed if they are facilitated to a position where the issue is clear and properly managed, one issue at a time.

Precision:

Prefer substance to style. Avoid impersonal pronouns such as it, this, and those. Speak clearly and substitute words like “bunch” or “lots” for consultese like “plethora.” Strive to speak in a manner that would be understood by your grandmothers.

Processing:

Session leaders who analyze the content fill their minds with analysis that places a large stress on their ability to hear what others are saying. Analyzing participant input makes it very difficult to provide a comprehensive reflection of what was said.

Unprepared:

There is no secret or “silver bullet” to effective facilitation if the session leader shows up ill-prepared. Aside from active listening, with a strong emphasis on reflection, there aren’t any skills to help a facilitator during a session who shows up unprepared.

______

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

A Simple Planning Agenda for Agreeing on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

by Facilitation Expert | Aug 28, 2014 | Analysis Methods, Planning Approach

Any type of descriptive or prescriptive plan, process, or series of activities can then be illustrated with a simple process flow diagram. A process flow diagram describes WHO does WHAT by WHEN, in support of some agreed-upon purpose. Therefore, here is a simple method you can use as your planning agenda.

Rationale for Agreeing on a Simple Planning Agenda

Groups have a tendency to forget activities or events that occur less frequently, particularly infrequent or irregular activities that support planning and control. The following helps to squeeze out potential and costly omissions.

Your Simple Planning Agenda for Agreeing on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

You may consider using this simple agenda with a brief discussion of the supporting method that follows:

Introduction
Purpose of __________ (topic, sphere, or business area)
Activities
(NOTE: Take each “thing” from the purpose statement above and ask—“What do you do with this thing ?”—forcing “Verb-Noun”)
Sequencing
(NOTE: Test for omissions using the Plan ➺ Acquire ➺ Operate ➺ Control prompting)
Value-Add
(NOTE: e.g., SIPOC)
Swimlanes
(NOTE: e.g., process flow diagram)
Wrap

A Planning Agenda Method Builds Agreement on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

The MGRUSH Professional Facilitative Leadership manual provides additional developmental support on the steps below.

Determine the business purpose of the planning area, product feature, process topic, or functional sphere. Use the “Purpose is to . . . So that . . . “ tool.
Next, use the brainstorming method—List. Label the top of the flip chart with “VERB-NOUN” and ask the group to identify all the activities required to support the business purpose created in the prior step. Enforce the capture as verb-noun pairings only.
Use the Plan➠Acquire➠Operate➠Control life cycle prompt to stimulate discussion about missing activities.
Demand at least one to two planning, one to two acquiring, bunches of operating, and at least one to two controlling activities for each business topic.
After identifying the various activities, convert the verb-noun pairings into “use cases” or some form of input-process-output. Build one use case for each pairing.
Continue assigning SIPOC tables to sub-teams. SIPOC stands for the Source of the input, Input(s) required to complete the activity, Process (i.e., our activity), Output resulting from the activity, and Customer or client of the output. Demonstrate one or two in entirety with the whole group and then separate the participants into two or three groups.
For each activity (i.e., verb-noun pairing), build a narrative statement that captures the purpose of the activity (i.e., WHY) and HOW it is being performed, then:
- Identify the specific outputs or what changes as a result of having completed the activity.
- Link each output with the customer or client of each; i.e., who is using each output.
- Next, identify the inputs required to support the activity.
- Finally, identify the sources for each input.

Illustrative SIPOC: Planning Agenda Yielding WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

Summary of steps to be included in this sequence

An illustrative SIPOC chart is shown below based on a mountain climbing metaphor. The focal verb-noun pairing is “pack supplies”.

First, identify the activity (i.e., process) and its purpose and discuss WHY it is performed.
Next, detail HOW it is or should be performed.
List the outputs from the completed activity.
Link the outputs to the respective clients or customers.
List the inputs needed to complete the activity.
Identify the source(s) for each of the inputs.

Planning Agenda Success Keys for Agreeing on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

Therefore, to build a clear definition of “requirements”, provide a visual illustration or template. Additionally,

Have the group pre-build all the potential sources and customers of the process and code them so that when you build the SIPOC tables, the group can refer to the code letter/ number instead of the full name (thus substantially speeding up the method). As you discover new sources or customers, simply add them.
Learn to ‘shut up’ after asking questions and seek to understand rather than be understood.
Write down participant responses immediately and fully.
Provide visual feedback, preferably through modeling.
Advance from activity identification to the inputs and outputs required to support the activity; then associate each with its sources and clients (SIPOC).
Separate the WHAT (i.e., abstract) from the HOW (i.e., concrete).

______

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

Sign the Charter for Compassion and Consider Becoming a Supporting Member

by Facilitation Expert | Aug 14, 2014 | Leadership Skills, Meeting Support

Charter for Compassion

Ultimately, consensus-building requires intuition and a higher self to overcome the selfishness of physical and emotional demands.

We became signatories with over 100,000 other people who have “Liked” the Charter for Compassion. We encourage you to do the same.

For a quick and light reading, take a look at what they are aspiring towards Charter Members. Use the hot links embedded in this post to seek out further support and involvement on your behalf or the behalf of your organization.

The Charter for Compassion is a document that transcends religious, ideological, and national differences. Supported by leading thinkers from many traditions, the Charter calls on people to activate the Golden Rule around the world.

Text of the Charter for Compassion:

The Charter has been translated into over 30 languages.

______

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

Facilitating ‘Genetic’ Differences: Similar Values with Different Priorities

by Facilitation Expert | Jul 17, 2014 | Communication Skills, Decision Making, Prioritizing

Most meeting participants embrace a set of similar values with different priorities. The difference lies in their relative strength, or ranking of the values.

Participants’ rankings however are not static. Their ranking changes based on their perspective at the moment.

Hiring Characteristics as an Example

When selecting, interviewing, and hiring associates, most human relations experts would agree that five of the core characteristics that are sought in new hires include (listed alphabetically):

Capacity (mental)
Integrity (moral)
Knowledge and Experience (physical)
Motivation (emotional)
Understanding (intellectual)

Traditional Prioritization

Facilitating Different Priorities

Frequently, Knowledge and Experience filter out and disqualify potential hiring candidates. Next Understanding, typically reflected by educational degrees, may be used to filter more desirable from less desirable candidates. Next, Capacity is tested, frequently using actual test instruments about personality, cognitivity, and comprehension. Integrity is then considered, including perhaps, background checks to verify information and uncover undisclosed facts. Finally, Motivation is considered, but generally accepted, since it is assumed that those seeking employment are motivated by monetary gain, at minimum. Arranged in a sequence of priority, the characteristics line up as follows:

Knowledge and Experience (physical)
Understanding (intellectual)
Capacity (mental)
Integrity (moral)
Motivation (emotional)

Potential Prioritization

Pretend you own the company, however. Contrary to the prioritization above, you would probably embrace the following prioritization when hiring a new employee:

Integrity; because without integrity, all other actions are suspect at best, and dangerous at worst.
Motivation; because without motivation, all other actions (or inactions) may be shallow.
Capacity; because without mental capacity, actions may be blind.
Understanding; because without understanding actions are impotent.
Knowledge and Experience; Lastly without the attributes above, actions are misdirected or useless.

Note with the re-prioritization above, the complete reversal from Experience as number one to least important as number five. Participants with a bias toward the Traditional Prioritization will conflict, and make building consensus challenging when confronted by participants using the Potential Prioritization, or some other variation.

As a facilitator, what can you do about it? We discuss the proper sequence for building consensus around conflicting prioritization in other articles, The Three Steps to Conflict Resolution: Appeal to Purpose, Active Listening, and Enterprise Objectives.

______

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

The FUD Factor: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt Amplify Fear, but People Change Anyway

by Facilitation Expert | Jun 26, 2014 | Managing Conflict, Meeting Support

Paradigms

Paradigms are established accepted norms, patterns of behavior, or a shared set of assumptions. Shaking them causes fear, uncertainty, and doubt; also known as the FUD Factor. Paradigms provide models that establish boundaries or rules for success. Paradigms may present structural barriers to creativity based on psychological, cultural, and environmental factors. Examples include:

Flow charts, diagrams, and other conventions for presenting information (e.g., swim lane diagrams)
More Similarities Than Differences
Stereotypes about men and women and their roles in business, family, and society
Where people sit in meetings—once they find a seat it becomes their seat for the rest of the meeting

Not All Bad

There are many more paradigms in life. Paradigms are not bad unless they become barriers to progress. People either understand paradigms or risk being left behind. What is impossible with one paradigm is easy with another—because “I didn’t know any better.” When paradigms change, everyone starts over.

Changing Paradigms

To cause groups to challenge and possibly modify their paradigms, do the following:

Ask the “Paradigm Shift” question—“What is impossible today, but if made possible . . . What would you do?”
Force the group to look at a familiar object or idea in a new way.
Use the “Five-year Old” routine—ask—“But why?” frequently, or until the group thoroughly discusses an issue, its assumptions, and implications.
Develop a clear problem statement or use a problem such as the example provided below).

Getzels, J.W., Problem-finding and the inventiveness of solutions,  Journal of Creative Behavior, 1975, 9(1), pp 12-18.

Shifting perspectives will frequently help “shake” paradigms. Consider using Edward de Bono’s Thinking Hats or imposing some other perspective or comparison such as:

A monastery compared to the “mafia”
Steve Jobs compared to Bill Gates
Ant colony compared to a penal colony
A weather system compared to a gambling system
Mother Teresa of Calcutta compared to Genghis Khan
Etcetera

FUD Factor: People DO Change

Research by Dyer (2007), has proven that people do change. There is a quantum shift of values after twenty to thirty years of life.

Change occurs across both men and women, although their before and after values remain different. The shifts shown below occur after a relatively significant change in maturity, such as we find today with “empty nesters” or people who find themselves no longer hosting others, in particular, their children.

Note the implications for a facilitated session with people coming from all four categories shown below.

The FUD Factor: Men and Women Do Change

______

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

The Way People Think Affects How You Intervene to Build Consensus

by Facilitation Expert | Jun 19, 2014 | Managing Conflict, Meeting Support

Differences — People think differently.

As session leader, you empower participants and their ability to understand and communicate with each other. Additionally, you enable them to think creatively about their business. Hence, the following two subjects deal with the way people think—horizontal/ vertical thinking and paradigms.

People Also Learn Differently

Horizontal/ Vertical

Participants in a workshop argue over a seemingly simple issue. Consequently, two people hear the same thing and react as if they were in different meetings. Why? Because people interpret information differently. Meanwhile, there are many theories about how people process information.

One theory states that the two spheres of the brain, the right and the left, govern our thinking with right brain or left brain thinking.

However, another theory that explains the differences more clearly is Communicoding. This theory states that there are two modes of thinking for processing information, vertical and horizontal. These two modes of thinking may have a difficult time communicating with each other because the way that each perceives the world is different. What are they?

Vertical Thinker

A vertical thinker is often described as very logical, organized, and detail-oriented. Therefore, vertical thinkers:

Easily discern the immediate dynamics of a problem.
Identify specific details and relate issues to reality.
Know what can be accomplished within a given time.
See barriers and obstacles to be removed.
Take the likely paths to reach results.
Work well in structured environments.

The vertical thinker’s main characteristic is that they find differences. Vertical thinkers can decompose something and design something new from the pieces. They work from exclusion.

Horizontal Thinker

A horizontal thinker is often described as far-sighted, innovative, and conceptual. Therefore, horizontal thinkers:

Easily discern the underlying dynamics of a problem.
Identify contextual details—relating issues to a larger perspective.
Know what impact can be achieved within a given context.
See possibilities and benefits to strive for.
Take the unlikely paths to reach results.
Work well in unstructured environments.

Horizontal thinkers’ main characteristic is that they find similarities. They are able to find the common thread—to make new associations among unrelated items. They work from inclusion.

To Identify

As a facilitator, you cannot change the way people think—and never label participants. You do help the participants in a workshop learn to hear each other and to better understand their communication challenges. Clues that thinking differences are causing problems are:

One person argues about the problems while another is focused on the benefits.
One person trying to get to the details while the other is trying to focus on the ideas.
People use the same words yet meaning something different or arguing as if they are saying something different.
Using different words that seem to be saying the same thing.

To Fix

When you hear communication problems consider the following:

Capture what each person is saying—write it on the flip charts without putting their names by the ideas.
Draw pictures using visual aids, flip charts, and models. By using visual support or other exercises, participants learn about their business.
Get the group to see both similarities and differences.
Move the focus of the group away from people and onto the  issue(s) at hand.
Summarize both similarities and differences and get the group to decide what to do with them or move along to the next step.

Register for a class or forward this to someone who should. MGRUSH‘s professional facilitation curriculum focuses on practicing methodology. Each student thoroughly practices and rehearses tools before class concludes. While some call this immersion, we call it the road to building impactful facilitation skills.

______

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

Do NOT Lead Another Workshop Without These Four Workshop Documents

by Facilitation Expert | Jun 12, 2014 | Leadership Skills, Meeting Support

There are four workshop documents each facilitator must provide or ensure:

Pre-Read
Annotated Agenda
Slide Deck
Output Notes (Deliverables)

Workshop Documents — Pre-Read

Your participants need to show up at your workshop prepared and ready to contribute. Do not assume they will. Lead them. Provide them with a compelling pre-read. First of all, the pre-read should include at least the components shown below. If your pre-read is a large document, provide a personalized cover letter asking each subject matter expert to focus on topics and pages that you have highlighted. Consequently, your courtesy encourages them the obligation to take time to read their parts.

One of Four Workshop Documents: Participants’ Package, (Pre-read)

Workshop Purpose, Scope, Deliverables, and Simple Agenda

EVERY meeting, even a fifty-minute session, needs to have an articulate purpose, boundaries (i.e., scope), and either well-codified outputs or a generally described outcome document. The deliverables (or output/ outcome) describe what DONE looks like when the session ends. A description of the deliverables describes ‘DONE’ and what the group delivers during the meeting. The agenda, hopefully structured (NOT simply a ‘discussion’; a term closely related to ‘percussion’ and ‘concussion’), shows the group how it is going to get to the deliverable or the end of the session.

Questions to be Addressed

Since you want your participants to show up prepared, help them. Agree in advance (optimally through private interviews) on what questions ought to be raised during their session and have them prepare responses before the meeting begins. Confirm with them the validity of the questions and obtain their feedback about questions they may wish to add, deemed important, and perhaps missing from your original list of questions. Consider the most important reason for meetings—building consensual answers to questions important to the group.

Mission, Value, and Vision

When arguments arise, active listening should be used first to avoid people, who unknowingly, may be in violent agreement with each other. When active listening fails, sometimes due to the stubbornness of participants, an appeal must be made to WHY the meeting is being held. Because no one wants more meetings. They only want results that accelerate projects and activities that occur after the meeting. To reconcile arguments, be prepared to appeal to the objectives of the project/ product, program, business unit, or enterprise that your meeting supports.

Glossary of Terms

You cannot afford to allow arguments about the meaning of terms you use and build into your preparatory efforts. For example, some consider Goals as fuzzy statements and Objectives are SMART. To others, the opposite is true. For some people, Mission is why they show up and Vision is where they are going. To others, it is the opposite. Standardize your operational definitions, share them, and enforce consistent use and interpretation.

Space for Participants’ Note-taking

As a kind gesture, provide some extra space for them to take notes. It will be appreciated.

Workshop Documents — Your Personal, Annotated Agenda

Your detailed methods should be built as if you were there visualizing every step in advance. Include breakout teams, team names and members, and CEOs (i.e., Chief Easel Operators), but most importantly, detail how you will analyze their input (i.e., the second activity of Brainstorming). Our typical annotated agenda runs 20 pages long, even for a three-hour session.

Workshop Documents — Slide Deck

Provide the participants copies of the slides you use, and do not forget to include operational definitions. You don’t need our help here since this is what you do best; i.e., create decks.

Workshop Documents — Output Notes

Your effort to create a solid pre-read, annotated agenda, and slide deck makes meeting notes a snap. Simply drop in the content developed during the meeting alongside the content provided by your pre-read, annotated agenda, and slides. As a result, you are ready to call it good. Congratulations on completing your four essential meeting documents.

______

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

Three Types of Persuasion for Individuals to Embrace Organizational Goals

by Facilitation Expert | May 29, 2014 | Communication Skills, Meeting Support

Meeting and workshop participants by definition ought to be participatory. To get and stay involved, subject matter experts (i.e., SMEs or participants) need motivation to both show up (or attend) and to actively contribute over the course of a meeting.

The role of facilitator or session leader mandates the need to link value from their participation to the greater good, and in return HOW the individuals will benefit, also known as persuasion.

Avoid a Gun to the Head as Motivation

The three classic forms of persuasion include:

Internalization (indicative of the will or the WHY of a meeting),
Identification (indicative of the wisdom or the WHAT of a meeting), and
Forced Compliance (indicative of the activity or the HOW of a meeting)

Persuasion via Internalization

The most powerful, long-lasting, and effective form of motivation occurs when their meeting contributions result in personal gain. To internalize suggests an individual that can associate their input with the meeting output. And the meeting output ultimately generates a return on their investment of time and energy.

When the facilitator can demonstrate that the meeting output (i.e., deliverable) demonstrably affects the quality of life of a participant, how much money they will make, who they will work for, who will work for them, or equally powerful factors, they have internalized the need for participation.

Participants who can link the group goal back to their own lives, such as developing a line of sight toward some extrinsic gain such as increased income or a more balanced workload, view their existing competencies and potential contributions as a validation of their time and energy. To the extent that their contributions positively impact the deliverable, their participation in meetings increases dramatically.

The facilitator ought to make clear the value of their contributions and strive to quantify the financial risk if the meeting fails. Typically risk may be expressed in financial units (e.g., dollars) or labor values (i.e., FTE or full-time equivalent). If the facilitator cannot link individual contributions to some measurable value, meeting participation will likely be dominated by the participants who can internalize the value of their contributions, at the expense of other participants who remain less clear about how they will be impacted by the meeting deliverable. One could view internalization as the ability to apply SMART principles by quantifying value and creating valid objectives for subject matter experts.

Persuasion via Identification

A less effective and less sustaining form of motivation or persuasion develops from a fuzzier or qualitative form of motivation. In modern society, the analogy is advertising. To the extent that participants identify with meeting goals, the more likely they contribute. They also make their contribution more frequent and robust.

Charismatic session leaders can frequently persuade with their personality styles because participants can identify with their passion and exuberance. Identification represents an extrinsic form of motivation, rather than the intrinsic form obtained through internalization.

Successful persuasion occurs when the larger group (e.g., the entire organization) links back to the smaller team (i.e., meeting participants). When the team is viewed as successful by the organization, they are also viewed as successful individuals. Participants feel or believe that the organization will positively view their personal competencies based on the performance of the team.

Persuasion via Forced Compliance

A valid analogy to understand forced compliance develops when one views a “gun to their head.” In other words, do it or you will be harmed. Forced Compliance best describes the motivation of most people attending “staff” meetings. They really don’t want to go, but risk penalty or even termination if they fail to appear.

While a powerful motivator to attend, forced compliance does little to increase participation. In fact, most people with a gun to their head will say or contribute little. Strive to avoid this form of motivation, because if it is required to get people to attend, most likely the meeting is not necessary in the first place.

Leaders who rely on forced compliance are not thinking clearly. They need to revisit internalization and establish a line of sight for the participants so that each participant can approximate the true value of their attendance and contributions.

______

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

Group Decision-Making: Focus on Strategic, Operational, OR Tactical Issues

by Facilitation Expert | May 22, 2014 | Planning Approach, Prioritizing

Scope creep wreaks havoc on projects and group decision-making. Meetings also spin out of control because the leader allows the co-mingling of strategic, operational, AND tactical issues. Each deserves a different approach, preparation, and decision-making. Do NOT allow your meetings to jump back and forth between different issue types.

Many people spend a large portion of the workday attending meetings. Strive to understand the clear purpose of the meeting and what it needs to deliver. All meetings have an effect on group decision-making, or they should not be held. While many meetings appear innocuous, such as staff meetings, people take their learnings and make new decisions based on new information. All meetings should impact group decision-making and the power of choice.

Group Decision-making and Strategy (Planning) Issues

Control Decision-making Method

The input of a strategy session makes clear WHY something is important and the output becomes WHAT we are going to do about it. Most planning sessions are “strategic” to the needs of the group attending because the output is WHO does WHAT.

Most academic approaches strongly encourage a TO-WS (SWOT) analysis to lead to a consensual understanding of WHAT a group of people needs to do to reach their goals (fuzzy) and objectives (SMART). A thorough TO-WS (SWOT) analysis takes hours, not minutes.

Do NOT allow for a discussion of strategic issues during operational updates and other meetings that are organized primarily to share information. Take the strategy issues that arise, document them clearly, and set them aside for discussion during a true planning session when enough time is allowed to digest complex topics.

Likewise, do NOT allow the group to dive into too many details if you are completing strategy or analysis work. Keep the discussion in the abstract (e.g., accelerate vehicle). If the discussion becomes too concrete (e.g., foot on the pedal), you risk incomplete planning or analysis. Do not allow discussions about HOW activities will be performed when the purpose of the meeting is to establish WHAT needs to be done (e.g., acceleration).

Group Decision-making and Operational (Analysis) Issues

Problem-solving might be separated into problems requiring immediate attention and long-range problems that require a complex and perhaps cultural change. Most “immediate” problems focus on satisfying stakeholders at the expense of the supplier or supply chain. Long-term problems lack a sense of urgency resulting in lengthy discussions that remain on topic but lead to shallow or unclear deliverables. The structure provides help for analysis meetings.

Most operational support meetings lack structure. Problem-solving provides a decent example. Participants frequently commit the bias of “solving”. They jump from the problem to the solution and skip the critical step of analysis. For example, if we jump from symptoms to cures, there is a likelihood we will miss something. If however, we structure the meeting to understand all of the possible causes of the symptom and focus discussion on the cause and not the symptom, we will not likely miss something significant. In requirements gathering for example, “poor requirements” are not typically gathered as wrong requirements; rather, they are “poor” because of the things we missed.

Group Decision-making and Tactical (Design) Issues

When pushed into the concrete details of staffing, purchasing, or other work methods, separate the decision criteria from the options. Groups are capable of making higher quality decisions than the smartest person in the group because:

Representing diverse stakeholder interests generates more robust criteria
By using diverse subject matter experts, we increase the likelihood that their understanding of causal relationships (i.e., cause and effect) will be captured,
Groups create more options than aggregating individuals and more options are directly linked to higher quality decisions.

Group Decision-making and Leadership Role

Do not forget to understand your role, style, and relationship when using groups to support decision-making. When you intend to advocate for a specific decision, have someone else facilitate the session. If you are untrained professionally, and the issue is complicated, complex, or politically charged, someone else should facilitate it. If you begin as the facilitator, but someone else emerges as commanding group respect (typically because they exude neutrality), consider turning the session over to them.

Be prudent, no one wants more meetings. They only want results.

______

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

Facilitating Cultural Shift from Group Orientation to Shared Project Team Values

by Facilitation Expert | May 8, 2014 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills, Meeting Support

We have argued for years that unclear speaking (or writing) is indicative of unclear thinking and will impact shared project team values.

For example, most people do not distinguish between the meaning of a “group” or a “team.” Conversely, we find the difference so important, that it could represent the difference between “life” and “death.” Note the following impact on shared project team values.

Groups of people assemble. Teams get assembled.

With groups, members strive to arrive at a deliverable that satisfies each member. Therefore, people define “satisfaction” with respect to their individual interests. The primary challenge is building a deliverable (or decision) that satisfies the interests of all members who are acting on their own as individuals (or potentially as representatives of larger stakeholder interests). Individual reactions vary, even when attending a concert together and hoping to be satisfied by the music or entertainment.

Pushing in the Same Direction

The presence of teams suggests an overriding shared goal that sits independent of the interests of the individual members. With high-functioning teams, members emphasize the importance of the shared goal and make their personal interests subservient to the shared goal. Successful teams share a reaction, typically positive in nature. They will push or pull in the same direction to support a common cause.

Distinguishing Attributes

Some of the variables you need to consider when optimizing facilitated methods for teams include understanding the following questions:

How effective and trusted has group decision-making been in the past for the organization?
How much effort has been invested in understanding the quality of decision-making?
To what extent will the formal leader of the team share the same or similar perspective?
How much do the individuals share perspectives or derive from a similar level within the organization?
To what extent does the culture promulgate distributed decision-making, where individuals are trusted to take a course of action that supports both the organization and the individual?
To what extent is the group an actual unit in the organizational structure (e.g., reporting to the same leadership) or diversely representing many functional or geographic areas?

Be Conscious

As a leader stress the difference between groups and teams. Expect high performance, or you might not get it. Answer the questions above to support your selection of tools along the MGRUSH decision-making continuum that best serve your team and organizational situation.

______

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

A Blueprint When Building Consensus Around All Types of Decision-Making

by Facilitation Expert | May 1, 2014 | Decision Making, Meeting Structure, Meeting Tools, Prioritizing

After reviewing some material about the optimal methodology (i.e., approach) for distribution planning, related to an ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) project, it became quickly evident that the expert’s recommendation followed the core principles for building consensus.

The three indisputable components when building consensus around decision-making building include:

Purpose (or, intent)
Options
Criteria

Since not all criteria are of equal value, the author suggested weighting the criterion, referred to as “service outputs.” Even when you make a simple decision about buying new underwear, you consider the purpose (e.g.; workout, daily, formalwear, etc.), your options (typically stuff on the shelf at the store), and your criteria (i.e.; style, price, size, etc.). Not surprisingly, you also weigh the criteria, as size is probably the most important criterion, followed closely by price. All three components add value when building consensus.

In their model, they suggest the following:

Identify which channels you are seeking to penetrate
Isolate the most important segments within each channel
Identify their “service outputs” and then to . . .

List clearly
Rank
Prioritize
Eliminate

By arraying your options against your decision criteria, you can display decisions on a single page. We call the visual array a decision matrix. Compare your options to your criteria.

Consensus Building – Decision Support Matrix

CAUTION

Do not ask a close-ended question such as “Does this criteria affect this option?” Rather, ask the open-ended question that yields a powerful visual; namely, “To what extent does this criterion impact this option (i.e., High, Low, or Medium). It’s easier to build consensual understanding when taking a non-narrative approach as shown below.

The example suggests the important attributes sought when hiring domestic staff for a wealthy household. Note for example that “Reputation” is less important when hiring a new Gardener than when hiring someone for Day Care support of the children. Again, note that “Creativity” is more important when hiring a chef than when hiring Cleaning Support. The group can easily evaluate the importance of the options by the extent they are supported by the criteria. The group can also see the relative importance of an individual criterion by evaluating its impact across all of the options.

Remember, the secret is to ask the open-ended question, “To what extent . . .” Additionally, since the example is a simple, “plain vanilla” illustration, modify it to your own situation, and consider using the Bookend tool to force-fit an even distribution of Highs, Lows, and Moderates across the options or within each option. See the link that follows for further explanation on the use of Bookends.

By the way, some of the criteria used in the distribution channels example might include:

Adaptability (e.g., to economic upheaval, competitive forces, etc.)
Effectiveness (e.g., return on investment, market share, etc.)
Efficiency (e.g., expense to revenue, cost of doing business, etc.)
Quality (e.g., customer satisfaction, on-time performance, etc.)

______

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

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

Related articles

Basic Facilitation Skills: #2 How To Facilitate Consensual Prioritization with a Decision Matrix

Beware of the Overconfidence Effect With Subject Matter Experts and be Prepared to Challenge

by Facilitation Expert | Apr 17, 2014 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills

You and I have been victims of numerous false, urban legends. So please beware of the overconfidence effect among subject matter experts. For example:

The Great Wall of China is NOT visible from outer space
You use a lot more than ten percent of your brain
Relatively speaking, it’s much safer to take candy from strangers than from family members. Statistically, family members are more likely than strangers to poison others.

Cognitive biases receive much press because they negatively impact decision quality. Subject matter experts (i.e., SMEs) are frequent victims of an “availability” bias that causes them to exhibit an overconfidence effect — and they may be wrong. Challenge the overconfidence effect of your subject matter experts with a “hip-pocket” tool, something you carry with you at all times.

Background

When delivered face-to-face, people treat information as more credible and will more likely refer to it. Participants are frequently impressed by the charisma of the deliverer rather than the value of the information.

Subject matter experts tend to overestimate their contributions that are produced jointly with others. Thus, they overestimate the importance of their contributions and close themselves off from the possibility of other “right” answers.

For example, two people eating the same bowl of chili will react differently. One may claim the chili is “hot” (i.e., spicy) while the other claims it is “not”. Both are right, so we might appeal to Scoville Units to “objectify” their claims.

Solution

Be prepared to demonstrate that SMEs may have “an” answer, but not the only answer. Humble overconfident subject matter experts with a host of “hip-pocket” challenges. Demonstrate that their answer may be sub-optimal (or even wrong) and that voting is a poor method of decision-making. The Bookworm’s Travels, one of our personal favorites, represents one of hundreds of similar exercises used to shake paradigms.

Solve the question yourself. You will need to write us for the correct answer but we can assure you that the correct answer is not “23.” Keep in mind that these are English books, written from left to right, and stacked in proper sequence, from Volume One through Volume Four, vertically.

Test Overconfident Subject Matter Experts with a Bookworm’s Travels

______

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

It Is NOT What is in it for me? Rather, What do you need or want from me?

by Facilitation Expert | Apr 10, 2014 | Facilitation Skills, Meeting Support

Meeting participant preparation differs high-performance groups from normal or underperforming groups. Many people attend sessions with concern over What is in it for me.

Meeting participant preparation suggests that is neither the right attitude nor the right question. What they should ask is “What do you need or want from me (so that we can get done faster)?” What you should be encouraging is participant preparation.

Meeting Participant Preparation — What Do You Need from Me?

As a facilitator or session leader, it is virtually impossible to shift their attitude at the start of a meeting. To cause a shift in participant thinking, attitude, and behavior requires clear and two-way communication before the meeting begins.

Meeting Participant Preparation — What Does DONE Look Like!

Most meetings (at least the good ones) typically result in Action Plans and agreed-upon roles and responsibilities for making things happen. We expect to hold the participants accountable for their follow-up and get them involved before the meeting starts to understand and agree to the Purpose, Scope, Deliverables, and Simple Agenda for the meeting.

As the facilitator, you should expect participants to show up prepared. It is your responsibility to define “prepared.” How can participants arrive prepared if they do not know the purpose of the meeting before it starts? How can participants stay focused and complete on time if they do not understand the scope of the meeting (as discrete from the scope of the project the meeting may be supporting)? What can you do to get your participants prepared faster? Do they know “what done looks like (i.e., deliverable)”? How can participants agree to follow-up assignments if they are not permitted to provide their input, clarifications, and calibrations about HOW they are going to get done on time (i.e., the Agenda)?

Meeting Participant Preparation — If It Was Simple, We Wouldn’t Meet

Ultimately the reason for most meetings and workshops is that we need consensual answers to relatively complex questions. If the questions are simple, typically we do not need a meeting nor are there consensual challenges. Knowing that effective meetings develop consensual answers to questions and problems, the session leader must prepare and know in advance of the meeting, the questions that need to be answered.

Once developed and understood, do not hide the questions to be asked in a meeting. Share them in advance. Since select subject matter experts (i.e., participants) likely provide input on questions that are ‘closer to home.’ You can highlight the questions on an individual basis and explain to each participant that you expect them to think in advance about their responses. Explain that when the questions(s) are asked that you have highlighted, they need to take the lead. You expect them to take the lead and be among the first to offer up their subject matter expertise.

It’s not easy to run a successful meeting. That is why many meetings fail or frail. Your job is to make sure the meeting or workshop is off and running the moment you start. The only way to ensure that level of productivity is to prepare your participants in advance.

______

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

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

A practical, comprehensive guide to designing and running meetings that result in less time wasted, more collaborative decision-making, and measurably improved business outcomes. Order today!

Live Online or On-site | Facilitation Training to Fit Your Needs

MG RUSH offers a variety of training options, from monthly LIVE ONLINE facilitation trainings, to Public IN-PERSON classes and PRIVATE CUSTOMIZED TRAINING to fit you or your organization’s needs.

Be Kind, Not Nice

A conversation with Terrence Metz

Qualify Now

Students who successfully complete our 452 Professional or 301 Fundamentals earn IIBA CDUs (and/or FAC CLPs, SAVE CVS PDUs, and CEUs).

5 Basic Facilitation Skills

YouTube.com/MGRushFacilitation

The Facilitation Store is open…

Browse our catalogue for meeting tools and solutions: posters, break timers, white papers, agendas and more. If there’s something you’re looking for and can’t find – let us know!

Member IAF

Sign up now for Facilitation Best Practices Monthly Digest

Buy us a cup of coffee

Change or Die: The Business Process Improvement Manual

Facilitators must understand and manage meeting conflicts. Therefore, we must first understand our own internal conflict so that we are prepared to serve others. Critically, we should view our meeting conflict response as both a challenge and an opportunity.

Don’t Run from Internal Conflict

Fly In Formation

External Conflict

Recognizing the Need for Meeting Conflict Response

Sources of Conflict

Barriers to Meeting Conflict Response

Paradigm Challenges

Groupthink

Challenge Both

Anger and Some Other Stuff

Anger—One letter short of Danger

When dealing with others’ anger:

When dealing with your own anger:

Six Actions for Your Meeting Conflict Response

______

______

Before you send a meeting or workshop pre-read to participants, consider a formal meeting announcement rather than an informal calendar invite. If accepted, follow up the announcement with the invite, and then your pre-read package.

Therefore, some considerations include:

______

World scientists strive to map activity in the human brain. Presumably, a map of neural activity will shed light on how the brain works and how choices get made.

Traceability

______

A facilitator should typically avoid the term “happy”.

Objectify the Subjective

______

Always remember, to ask WHY before WHAT before HOW when you want to lead a group of people to shared understanding.

Support the Purpose

______

Those of you familiar with the MGRUSH curriculum remember the challenge of the “bookworm” exercise that only one or two participants get correct per year.

Answer

Application

______

Nonverbal expressions, like words (see Facilitate Meaning, Not Words), connote multiple messages.

Yes or No?

______

You’ve heard plenty about what to do, but the Seven Deadly Sins of Facilitating also suggest what NOT to do.

Assuming:

Modifiers:

Neutrality (or lack thereof):

Plurality:

Precision:

Processing:

Unprepared:

______

Rationale for Agreeing on a Simple Planning Agenda

Your Simple Planning Agenda for Agreeing on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

A Planning Agenda Method Builds Agreement on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

Summary of steps to be included in this sequence

Planning Agenda Success Keys for Agreeing on WHO Does WHAT by WHEN

______

Ultimately, consensus-building requires intuition and a higher self to overcome the selfishness of physical and emotional demands.

Text of the Charter for Compassion:

The Charter has been translated into over 30 languages.

______

Most meeting participants embrace a set of similar values with different priorities. The difference lies in their relative strength, or ranking of the values.

Hiring Characteristics as an Example

Traditional Prioritization

Potential Prioritization

______

Paradigms

Not All Bad

Changing Paradigms

FUD Factor: People DO Change

______

Differences — People think differently.

Horizontal/ Vertical

Vertical Thinker

Horizontal Thinker

To Identify

To Fix

______

There are four workshop documents each facilitator must provide or ensure:

Workshop Documents — Pre-Read

Workshop Purpose, Scope, Deliverables, and Simple Agenda

Questions to be Addressed

Mission, Value, and Vision

Glossary of Terms

Space for Participants’ Note-taking

Workshop Documents — Your Personal, Annotated Agenda