Last week, a client emailed me asking for help with facilitation skills. So, I went to youtube.com thinking I could find some high quality training videos in a jiffy. Nope. I found a lot of folks slinging lingo and jousting with jargon, but I didn’t find anyone who could talk about facilitation without slipping into one of two traps:

1. Drowning me in a blizzard of meaningless buzzwords until the room started to spin. If I’d been near an open window, I’d have jumped. Gleefully.

2. Standing in the front of the room with a marker saying things like, “Yes! Action is doing something - very good!” followed by “That’s it! We need a process to do something. You’d be amazed at how many leaders do not understand the need for process.” It was like day care in hell.

I love facilitating meetings, and I was bored to distraction. I know many of the people in those videos love meeting facilitation and the magic of groups too. What is it that makes us so tongue-tied about this key leadership skill? Why do we either bury it in corpo-speak or find ourselves making ringing proclamations of the obvious. Either way, why do we sound like such nitwits?

Because facilitating a meeting is simple. It’s so simple, it doesn’t seem possible that all that power could come from something so simple. So, we over-complicate it with lofty talk or overstate it’s simplicity with an almost psychotic passion.

Wanting to comes first
The raison d’etre of every meeting to to motivate a group of individuals to join forces to get something done. To be come something more than a collection of individuals. It’s not convincing them. It’s not persuading them. It’s not leading them. It’s not making it happen, because motivating someone else isn’t possible. They must motivate themselves. Motivation comes from wanting to do something. Group motivation comes from individuals connecting with each other - igniting each other until they are a great, roaring bonfire. Without the “want to,” you’ve got nothing. In the case of many meetings, you’ve got quite a bit less than nothing as group members spend time getting over the barren wasteland of meeting after meeting without even a spark.

All of which means that meetings are about letting a group talk themselves into wanting to do what needs to be done. That’s best done by asking for their help figuring out how to do it, then getting out of the way while they ignite each other. You’d best be ignited first, either with excitement or frustration or doubt, it doesn’t much matter which. A group that catches fire turns all of those into fuel.

That’s all for this week. I’m going to keep posting about meetings and groups for the next few weeks. I want to see how long I can write about meetings without using the word “process.” Anyone want to make a bet?

I’ve never forgotten reading about the architect who waited to pave the walkways in an office park until he saw where people walked. He simply paved the paths they created, figuring that they’d choose the most efficient route. And that they’d walk there anyway. I can’t remember his name, but the fact of it made quite an impression on me. I thought the idea of legitimizing where people walked was genius - and much more effective than trying to control their moevments through sidewalks. Now, whenever I see those little footpaths that get worn in the grass, often at the end of a paved pathway, I remember.

I’m reminded of it again everytime a group gets off the agenda and starts arguing about something, passionately, and with fire. I can either wrest them back on to the walkway, I’ve planned, or find a way to put a sidewalk right under their feet which will legitimize their passion and their disagreement. When I have the wit to choose the latter, I’ve got 2 ways to go: The first is to invite everyone to structure their dissent, which I’ll address here; the second involves the skill of resolving impasses, which I’ll cover next week.

Structure the Dissent
This is best used when the whole group is bubbling with dissenting points of view. Your group is ripe for this when several people are straining to speak, and are not building on each other ideas. In fact, they may not be hearing each other at all. Tension is beginning to build and some people are openly frustrated. Here’s what you do:

1. Stop the conversation and say: “Several of you have strong opinions about (your group’s issue goes here). So we can hear what each of you has to say, let’s structure our dissent. Take 60 seconds to gather your thoughts, then we’ll go around the room and hear from each of you in turn. You’ll each have 2 minutes to make the strongest possible case for your point of view, without holding back. The rest of you will be listening. Responding to someone else’s point of view during your 2 minutes is out of bounds. There is no interrupting and no arguing - either advocate your point of view or listen. What questions do you have about this?”

2. Time the preparation period and each of the speakers. Do not allow speakers to go over. Only one person speaks at a time. There is no cross-talk. Do not allow speakers to attack another’s point of view. This is a time for them to advocate their position on it’s merits.

3. At the end of this first round, summarize the areas of agreement. Ask if anyone has been swayed by anything they’ve heard. If not, restate the issue and ask participants to do another round of structured discussion. Time and manage it as before.

4. Again summarize the agreements you heard and ask if anyone has changed their mind as a result of what they’ve heard. Restate the issue/problem and conduct another round.

5. Summarize the points of agreement. By this time, one of two things will have happened. Either they’ll have come to an agreement or a very thoughtful open discussion will erupt and lead naturally to an agreement.

Why does it work?
Open discussion is the default process for most meetings. Unfortunately, in open discussion, the discussion happens before all the information has been revealed, and usually involves the extroverts in the room and those higher on the org. chart. Conflicts become ritualized and stay unexplored and unresolved as everyone seeks to not offend. This is the kind of process that leads to the the deja vu meeting syndrome: because the issues are not surfaced, explored and resolved, you will get to have this meeting again. And again. And again…

A better practice is to get all points of view heard and clearly delineated before discussing them. It’s a lot like eating the peanuts before you chew the gum rather than chewing both at the same time. Structured discussion separates the peanuts from the gum. It encourages listening, rather than simply waiting to talk. It legitimizes and makes welcome stridently different points of view. And, nothing sparks creativity like sharply divergent points of view.

Because of this, structured discussion much more efficient than open discussion, and will get your group to agreement quickly and cleanly, like a hot knife through butter. Even better, the agreement will be solid, well-informed and owned by everyone. Why doesn’t everyone use this, you ask?

I have no idea.

So often we want to convene a group to get the benefit of their expertise and differing points of view. So, we ask them to brainstorm. And, it starts out well. An idea is offered, then another, then 3 more. The next idea that’s offered seems to be a response to one that’s gone before and the the next “idea” is a response to that response, and pretty soon you’ve got an open, unstructured discussion among only a few of those present and it’s going nowhere. Not what you wanted at all.

You’re not alone. Most of the time, brainstorming devolves into exactly this: The extroverts talk to each other, everyone defers (sometimes resentfully) to those with the most status, and the conversation veers off course.

Which is why I almost never use brainstorming with groups. It’s too easily overtaken by group dynamics. The first time it happens, it’s not so bad. By the 5th time, no one in your group really believes that brainstorming will include them and some of them will sit it out. Not what you’d hoped for.

There’s another reason it’s not my first choice: Brainstorming is best used when a creativity is what’s wanted. Most of the time, in most corporations, creativity is the opposite of what’s wanted. What’s wanted is an action that will represent progress without rocking the boat. You can’t trust creativity not the rock the boat. Sometimes it seems as though creativity’s job is to rock the boat.

So what to do? How do you get what’s inside people’s heads out into the room without totally losing control. How do you get them thinking together, hearing the same information the same way, and not simply vying for air time?

Round Robin Does All This

Round robin is the process of choice when you need to hear from everyone and they need to hear from each other. No other process will erase the difference between introverts and extroverts or between levels of status and seniority. No other process enables - insists - that people listen to each other.

It’s simple, it’s easy and, once your group has experienced it, they’ll immediately grasp it’s utility and fairness. Here are the steps, all of which must be adhered to:

1. Pose a specific open-ended question (”what do you think is causing sales to drop off?) rather than a general topic (sales)
2. Set a time limit for the round robin. (10 seconds is a good minimum, 30 seconds is a good maximum. More than 30 seconds each will lead to open discussion.)
3. Give everyone a minute or 2 (time it) to come up with a response or list of responses. This greatly increases the quality of the responses.
4. When you are ready to start, establish a clear, simple order for people to speak in.
5. Ask people to give only one of their answers for each round.
6. Time everyone and cut them off if they go over. They’ll have another chance to speak in the next round. Do this with a sense of play. If everyone goes over, it’s your bad: Extend the time limit and try again.

That’s it. Try it and let me know what you think.

Some mistakes you can only make with a computer. That’s how a draft of this went out well before its time. My apologies. Here’s what I meant to say:

“Give people a fact or idea and you enlighten their minds; tell them a story and you touch their souls” -Hasidic proverb

Lately I’ve been thinking about how disconnected a work team can get while each member is pursuing their separate responsibilities. Nowhere is this more evident than the in an executive’s team of directors. Each director has more to do than they can handle, and oversees a function that is wildly different from and independent of those of their peers. Add distance to this mix and building cohesion gets even more difficult. That’s why staff meetings can become recitations by the boss - tidbits of information, detailed reports from the boardroom - one endless, boring presentation after another. Rather than break down silos and territoriality, these meetings reinforce it.

Let’s face it: These middle and senior management teams have no common work product that they can come together in service of. Saying they all work together to realize the company’s annual goals is too abstract. And, the cost of gathering these groups together for face time necessary to build cohesion is significant.

So, if your group doesn’t realistically work on a common task, how can you build esprit d’corps?

1. Lower your expectations. You’re not failing if your group isn’t going bowling together every Friday night. You’re not getting substandard results because some people work best alone. Teams have been over-hyped and oversold. Instead of thinking your team has to join hands and sing Kumbaya, adopt this standard instead: No injuries, no deaths = a successful team.

2. Treat them like adults. They buy and sell big ticket items, make life and death decisions, balance their own budgets and work within limitations every day. Is it realistic to think they can’t handle the truth about a budget cut, a lay-off or be undone when they hear the word “no?”

3. Suck it up. Rather than swinging wildly between faux-sensus (get them in a room, ask them to come to agreement about something that is a foregone conclusion, but may prove unpopular, and call it “coming to consensus”) and dictatorial emails that infer the decision is someone else’s fault. Instead, notice that these are the same thing: You not owning a decision that is yours to make or announce. Eventually, your group will notice this is a game and they’ll stop playing it.

4. Use processes designed for groups. These make a place for the orderly expression of conflict which enables your group to disagree without becoming disagreeable. They allow you to get exactly the kind of participation and interaction you want out of every meeting. That’s what you want. The road to “teamosity” goes right through the town of conflict and returns there often. Having a clear path to walk ensure you’ll survive the trip. I’ll write more about these in next week’s post.

5.Stories. Tell each other stories about what touches you, what challenges you, what inspires you, what you’ve learned, what you’re grateful for. Tell your story. Tell them the story of the department you’ve always wanted, the vision you hold but need their help realizing, the reason you came to work here, took this particular job. Make yourself visible and vulnerable, then see what happens next.

I have this persistent idea for an icebreaker: Each time you meet, a different person has to bring a story, poem or quote that has touched or changed them. They tell the story, read the poem or quote, then say what it means to them. I’m looking for an on-going group(s) who will be my guinea pig on this. Any takers?

Every year about this time, I have the same problem: I need a great book on building teams through meetings for the Small Group Process Consultation class I teach at Alliant International University.

Every year, I can’t find that book. I own most all the books on meetings, facilitation and teams, and many of them have great, great information. Problem is, not one is what I need: a soup-to-nuts approach to interacting with groups without freaking out. Or freaking them out.

Last year I was in Portland, and I was certain that Powell Books - Mecca for readers - would have what I was seeking. The meetings section was easy to find; I eagerly started looking for the book. Except, every book in the meetings section was on either presentation skills or Robert’s Rules. Huh?

Nothing about equalizing participation, the proper use of groups, or having fun. Nothing about how a good meeting builds a team, and a bad one tears it apart. No practical guidance about the dynamics of groups, the psychological needs of leaders or what it takes to meld all this into a structure that invites magic.

And, isn’t that the whole point of having a meeting? Of working in teams?

I moved to the teams section, thinking maybe the book was there. Nope. There, it was all about how the latest and greatest team model would unlock the potential of your team. Like it was about a secret handshake or the decoder ring you got when you drank the koolaid. Click your heels three times and say “There’s no place like team.”

Not helpful.

I was looking for help explaining the crucial link between meetings and teamwork, which is this: You can’t have one without the other. Saying “team”won’t do it. Saying you’ve got a team without making your meetings team-friendly is like…lying. Becuase every meeting affects the team: The group meeting, the 1:1 meeting, the casual drive-by in the hallway. Which means you’ve got many opportunities to build your team each day, opportunities that add up to much more than what you’ll get from the big annual off-site. It’s such good news, I thought someone might have written about it. Not so far.

This year, I realized who that someone is: me. I’m going to write the book I’ve been wanting to read.  Wish me luck.

This is a contest I just made up. It’s either last night’s Academy Awards show or all the reading I’ve been doing about positive psychology, saying thank-you and filling yer bucket. It could also be the fact that I woke up with the sound of Julie Andrews singing “My Favorite Things” in my head this morning. Seems clear to me that we’re not doing nearly enough to appreciate and recognize those collaborative break-throughs we’ve all experienced. According to the experts, that means we’re leaving a lot of happiness on the table. I say it’s time for a little experiment.

I’m kicking this off with three or my all-time favorite moments. There’s plenty of room for yours in the comments below. Let’s get happy!

The Plate Incident. The scene: A weekly staff meeting where a group of 7 intrepid survivors of a recent organizational bloodletting, struggle to find a new purpose that will attract funding and clients. The manager is showing signs of agitation: if the furrow in her brow gets any deeper, we’ll have a place to put the hamster Oz has been trying to unload.

The manager erupts: “Why is it that every time I speak the rest of you stop talking?” Out of the arctic silence, a single voice quavers: “Because I assume you’ve made a decision, and further discussion is pointless.” Cult-like, we all nod.

“But, that’s not…I don’t always…” The realization breaks over her face like the yolk of a 3-minute egg and she grabs 2 of the paper plates we always have handy. She writes “D” on one and “O” on anther. “I’ll hold up D when I’ve decided and O is when I’m adding my opinion to the conversation.” Which she did from then on. It was just one tiny moment, but the hamster lost her new home, and our team transformed.

The Come to Jesus Meeting. The scene: I’m facilitating a weekly work group meeting to design a structure that will give nurses a voice in decision affecting them. The team is mostly staff nurses.

Word has gotten back to the nursing exec sponsor that a group member has been speaking out of school. Apparently, he’s mis-characterized what team members think of what they’re doing, telling the board of the nurses union that “we all know this is just an exercise management is taking us through.” Watching the nursing exec confront him and admit to feeling betrayed, him admit to speaking those words, and each nurse say “you don’t speak for me” was like watching the wave at a baseball game: slo-mo wonderment. Except I felt much, much fuller.

“You Can Say That?” The scene: An annual care-planning meeting at an eldercare facility. The team is multi-disciplinary, the participation lop-sided. The doctor gives a not-very-inspiring recitation of the treatment plan (meds, vitals, symptoms) and the others, who have much more contact with the patient, say nothing. The meeting feels like the moment before a thunderstorm, when the skies want to erupt, but can’t. In my role as meeting coach, I say: “So far Dr. X has been doing most of the talking. I don’t see how such a one-sided conversation can add up to a care plan, especially when the rest of you have more contact with the patient.” In the stunned silence that follows, the social worker turns to me and says: “You can say that?” It’s the doctor who says “YES.” Now everyone is talking, and leaning forward, their faces alive: The social worker, the nurses aide, the housekeeper. The new aide mentions a chance observation, nothing much, but the room goes silent and the doctor is looking at the aide like a compass tuned to true north. 2 questions later and the treatment and care plans have both changed.

It’s working - as I write, I’m smiling.  I can’t wait to hear about your moments.

The best staff meeting I ever attended was the one where the 7 of us decided to ask to be laid off. It was a sterling example of collaboration and authenticity. We were trying to figure out how to re-invigorate ourselves after our boss’s 100-person department had been re-orged out from under her. We were the remnant without clients, without a budget and without hope.

We’d soldiered on for the last several months, but we were shouting into to a void: no matter how many big binders full of impressive plans and analyses we’d produced, we got no response from prospective clients. We were talking about our lack of success and what else to try, when Rich said: “I’m going to ask to be laid off.”

We all went silent - so silent, you could hear cells dividing.

Rich explains his thinking
Finally someone sputtered: “L-l-l-laid off?” Not the most elegant paraphrase, but it got the job done.

“Yes. Think about it: there’s an excellent severance package right now. We have no budget and can’t get anyone to fund us. We’re going to get laid off, it’s just a matter of when; I’d prefer to be laid off under this package, not the downgraded one that’s sure to follow.”

Several more cells divided as we stared at Rich.

Someone said: “Rich, that’s brilliant.”

And, one by one, the rats began to jump off the sinking ship. It was the most spontaneous, open and personal conversation I’d experienced in a meeting. We talked about what we’d each do when laid off. Rich wanted to go back to school, 2 of us had always wanted to start our own businesses, the other 3 wanted to apply for a different job within the organization, something being laid off would give them time to do.

We all turned to our boss, who hadn’t said a word. She said: “I want to be laid off too - it’s clear to me that this job, and this department are going nowhere. I’ll go talk to my boss after this meeting.” By the end of the day, we had each chosen a lay-off date and signed the necessary papers.

I’ve never forgetten the way our energy built as we told each other more and more of our own truths, brainstorming about possible futures. I’ve experienced that kind of excitement and the thrill of co-creation many times since then, and I do all I can to facilitate it in the teams I work with. That staff meeting is where it all began for me, my first experience of what was possible with a group willing to be both honest and collaborative.

In fact, that’s the only staff meeting I remember in 15 years of attending them.

I bet you’ve got stories too. Tell me - what’s your favorite staff meeting story?

This one is really easy to use - and effective. Here’s the typical scenario: You suggest a course of action Someone else raises an objection to your suggestion. Someone else makes alternate suggestion; again someone makes an objection.

This can go on for hours. Days, even. It’s like Wimbledon, but without the volleying.

Your group begins to lose energy and grows quiet. Over time, they get discouraged. Subtly, at first, camps form: There is the postiive or “proactive” camp, and the naysaying or “reactive” camp. Although these are false divisions, they take on a life of their own. Members of each camp come into your office after the meeting to lobby you. You have a headache and no time for all these meetings about the meeting. You want the ideas expressed in the meeting where everybody can respond to them, not in the meetings about the meeting, which only you can hear.

This is easy and fun to change. The next time someone - anyone - raises an objection in a meeting:

1. interrupt them
2. paraphrase their objection, and
3. ask them to make a suggestion or a proposal. “Got it, Jim, you object because that approach is too slow; what ideas do you have about what will work?” Or, “I’m hearing a lot about what won’t work - I want some proposals about what will work. Let’s hear some suggestions.”

Critical for success:

The interrupting is crucial. Don’t just cut them off though - make sure you understand their point and can paraphrase it back to them. On the other hand, waiting for them to finish may take too long. We’ve all been in the position of having the floor and being unable to utter a cogent sentence. Sometimes being interrupted and correctly paraphrased is a gift. Let the giving begin! Interrupt as politely as you can, but interrupt.

Be clear about why you’re doing this. You are not an ogre. Mostly. They are not stupid and bad. Mostly. You all have some bad habits. You’re all getting stuck on side of the brain that likes to pick at things, rather than the side that likes to create things. No wonder you’re tired!

Steer clear of Robert’s Rules. Just because you use the word “proposal” doesn’t mean you are now moving and amending and voting and have to buy a gavel. Eeuw. You are creating and building on each other’s ideas. If this goes according to plan, you won’t have time for the General Bob’s stuffy language and convoluted procedures.

In no time at all, your team members will be prompting each other in this way. The naysayer camp will evaporate. No one will be allowed to maunder on about why something won’t work. Instead, they’ll already have an idea or suggestion. Your meetings will be lighter, more productive and much more energizing. This single thing will change the energy of your meetings.

“We make all our decisions by consensus.” “We’re a consensus-based organization.” I must hear this from a client a week. When I ask about how consensus is reached, I hear some version of: “We give each idea that’s presented and discussed a thumbs-up, thumbs-down or a thumbs-sideways.” A what? ” A thumbs-sideways - it means ‘maybe.’ Then we count the thumbs. Whichever idea has the most thumbs-up wins. The people who didn’t give that idea a thumbs-up agree to live with the decision.”

Sounds like voting to me. Same process, same outcome: An idea is presented, there is discussion, the majority “wins,” and there is a disaffected minority who agrees to “live with” the decision - until the next chance they get to change it. Which means you’ll get to make this decision again…and again…and again. And that’s pretty much the opposite of a decision made by consensus.

So, if voting isn’t consensus, what is? I think of consensus as a series of small agreements that build to a solid decision. Consensus is bounded by realistic parameters which is what gives it its creative spark. It’s not an open discussion; rather it relies on structure for its tremendous freedom and power. Learning and listening is built into each step. Contention is too. By this I do not mean encounter group-style confessional displays, open weeping or chair-throwing. I mean being willing to be influenced by another’s point of view. I mean speaking honestly and openly and knowing the pleasure of having your point of view heard, understood and responded to. The response may be “yes,” ” I see it diferently,” or “oh yeah, and what about…” When flawlessly executed, consensus trumps group dynamics: it’s more compelling than rank, than being detached, winning or staying a victim. It’s tremendously energizing and the decisions do not have to be made again. Over time, the groups that learn this process become increasingly deft in their decision-making and follow-through.

I think this is the chief difference between consensus and voting. In consensus, there is resolution. The decision sticks because the process is transparently fair and inclusive of all points of view. Because of their constructive contention, the group coheres without slipping into groupthink. Their decision is effectively bulletproofed. Enacting that kind of decision is easy. Commitment from the organization comes more easily too.

It’s easy to see why organizations want to lay claim to consensus: Who wouldn’t want that level of cohesion and commitment?

Still, not every decision merits the time, attention and thoroughness of consensus. Some decisions are best made by voting, disaffected minority and all. Many decisions are better made by a leader who has been informed by her group’s input or feedback. Knowing which approach best suits your situation is the art of decision-making. And accurately labeling your current process - painful though that may be - is a good place to start.