Currently viewing the category: "Facilitation Techniques"

Facilitating Conversations on Collaboration

On By


.

In my last post I asserted that the nonprofit organizations of tomorrow are being born out of the economic crisis of today.  In this current economic turmoil, there are many voices counseling the nonprofit world to increase “collaboration.” Unfortunately, many of these experts are using “collaboration” as euphemism for “merger and acquisition.”  However, unlike the opinions of these non-prophets (pun intended), I believe that the organizational tempering is less about “merger and acquisition” and more about vision, leadership, agility and innovation.  As a new operational model, authentic collaboration  needs to be grounded in sovereignty, aspiration, innovation and brought to life as a concrete operating strategy.  In this post, I wanted to outline what I consider to be the provocative questions that nonprofits (and nonprofit boards) need to consider before pursuing formal collaborations with other agencies.

.

What are we trying to achieve through collaboration?  A first question that informs a discussion of collaboration is the fundamental question of outcome.  The expert perspective that “there are too many nonprofits,” may suffice as an efficiency justification for encouraging collaboration but for the individual agency struggling with the question of collaboration, efficiency is but one variable.  A nonprofit must clearly identify the drivers of collaboration.  The heart of the question is twofold.  First is a consideration of where an agency wants to be compared to where it is now.  In other words, what is the performance gap that needs to be closed?  The second question asks if collaboration is among the best ways to close the gap (systems-thinking knows that there is usually more than one “best way”).

.

I would like to suggest that the question of outcome requires an agency to explore three dimensions of organization practice including its: Operating, Resource, and Social Impact models.  In the resources listed below,  I link to a couple of business planning documents that all discuss these three dimensions of practice.  Such and exploration ideally includes both inquiry and reflection.

.

Resource Model: The current economic crisis sets up the  false dichotomy of a “merge or die” line of thinking.  “Our budget is shrinking, should we merge?” is one way to approach the question.  However, implicit in this approach is a scarcity mentality –namely, that there isn’t enough money to go around.  Illustrating this, I was recently talking to a colleague who made the blanket statement that he would “not encourage any agency to launch ambitious new plans in this economy.”  Scarcity thinking is one way to approach the resource model conversation but such an approach often misses larger conversations.  For example, I know an organization with heavy revenue concentration from stable long-term government grants.  It is also an agency that has a large number of volunteers, whom have never been asked for donations.  In the context of three straight years of government budget cuts, the stability of the organization was incrementally being threatened.  By revisiting the resource model of the agency, the decision was made to a build new revenue stream based on small individual donations. Two years into the plan the organization is on track to reinvent its resource development model.

.

Operating Model: A second inquiry and reflection exercise is to consider an organization’s operating model.  Are services delivered effectively?  Can the system of operations be reconceived?  Such a conversation does not question the program strategy of an agency but looks for operating efficiencies. Conversations might focus, for example, on the value of collaboration to create “back office” efficiencies or the value of sharing space.

.

Social Impact Model: the third conversation that informs the question of “what do we want to achieve?” is the conversation of social impact.  Here a group examines the heart of the organization through the lens of impact.  I can think of more than one nonprofit agency that has reinvented its programs and services to create a larger impact (or the same impact more efficiently).  Here is the greatest need for inquiry and reflection and, in my opinion, it is from this dimension of organizational practice where the best collaborative decisions are made.

.

What are the models of collaboration?  Following inquiry and reflection, an agency needs to explore the various models of collaboration (and inherent philosophies of each).  In another post,  I identified five models of collaboration that serve as a good working outline of models.  (In the resources section below I reference a study documenting eight models). Too often groups think in polar opposites.  Merge and “go it alone” are simply two points on a scale of collaboration.  A thoughtful discussion of other collaborative models will help in articulating a collaboration strategy.

.

What is the due diligence process associated with our collaboration? A third component of the strategic conversation around collaboration is to create a roadmap for exploring a specific collaboration model.  Making process a part of the initial conversation can help an organization get a clear picture of the scope of work, timeline and resources required to support the development of collaborative partnerships.  As with most organizational change efforts, developing collaborative relationships is subject to the old adage of: “fast, cheap, done correctly –chose any two.”   Collaboration, done correctly, takes dedicated resources of time and money and generally the faster you want it to happen the larger the costs.

.

What does the collaboration process look like?  The final component of the collaboration conversation is to be visually clear about what the entire collaboration process looks like.    I have also written before about describing process from the perspective of visual learning.  In mapping out a process of collaboration, creating a visual understanding can assist an organization build a shared image of the change ahead. However, even if an organization chooses not to visually represent the plan, there needs to be a written workplan developed with clear milestones and markers of success along the way.

.

Collaboration exists on many levels in organizations.  As this post is a  follow up to my last post, it is important to recognize that I am referencing collaboration that can fundamentally change the fabric of an organization.  Change that can lead to sharing space, affiliation or even merger is a deep process and is not the equivalent of collaborating with other agencies on a community event.  Embarking on the process of inter-agency collaboration is a major undertaking for any organization and carries with it the weight of seismic organizational change.  Facilitating collaboration requires more than simply running a good meeting and requires the thoughtful attention to inquiry, reflection, and process.

.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

.

Resources:

The Process of Social Entrepreneurship: creating opportunities worthy of serious pursuit

Business Planning for Enduring Social Impact

Models of Collaboration Nonprofit Organizations Working Together

.

Facilitating Nonprofit Strategy in Economic Uncertainty

On By

.

I recently read, yet one more so-called expert advice column promoting the ultimatum of “merge” or “die” as the pathway for many nonprofits. In this iteration, the ultimatum arises out of the knee jerk reaction caused by the recent economic downturn. Citing duplication of service and competition for scarce resources, some foundations, philanthropists and many in the nonprofit consulting industry are becoming almost evangelical about the merger and acquisition strategy for social sector organizations.  For example, the leader of one organization that provides training and support to Oregon nonprofits made the statement that perhaps their agency “should serve as birth control for nonprofits,” adding that there are so many nonprofits and that money is scarce.  I agree that there are a fair number of nonprofits with bad business models and that even many stronger nonprofits have been severely damaged by the economic chaos of the last couple of years.  As I have posted elsewhere, I also agree that collaboration, at some level, is appropriate an appropriate strategic conversation for many nonprofit organizations.   However, having external funding agencies, philanthropists and a consulting industry pressuring nonprofits to either merge or acquire as “birth control” is, at best, narrow and unimaginative and, at worse, self-serving and bullying behavior. We would never think of being as paternalistic to “for profit” companies as we are towards social service agencies.

.

While economic concerns among nonprofits are real and there are duplicative agencies competing for scarce resources, the driver for collaboration can’t be reduced to economics alone.  Economic solvency is a lazy marker for effectiveness or impact and to impose collaboration based on economics alone is misguided. Just as in the private sector, success for social sector agencies is determined by a combination of products or services, leadership, agility and capital.  Designing a facilitation process with nonprofit agencies facing financial challenges should not begin with the condescending assertion that merger is the assumed pathway. Rather, catalytic facilitation includes a multi-dimensional exploration of capital in the context of products or services, leadership, and agility.  I would like to suggest several guiding principles for facilitating such a process.

.

Sovereignty:  In working with any organization, the spirit of sovereignty must be respected and embraced in the change process. Organizations in the midst of fiscal challenges need to be empowered from the strength of their sovereignty. While I believe that empowerment is a foundation of my consulting practice, empowerment becomes the dominant frame in a process might include as an outcome a collaboration that alters an agency’s autonomy.

.

Aspiration: During times of fiscal challenge many organizations default to a “circle the wagon strategy ” where decisions are made from the framework of enduring the financial assault.  Unfortunately, this is precisely when the message of “merge or die” is often introduced from some “sage” consultant. In reality, the most helpful process to an agency is not an ultimatum to merge but is a process that  that focuses on aspirations. Economic challenges should cause an organization to refocus on mission and vision.  Considering the question of “why were we called to exist” can re-energize an organization to positively rethink the foundations of strategy and social impact.  Spending time on the aspirational question of “why” is critical as a precursor to considering any pathway to cope with economic challenges.

.

Catalytic Innovation: I have been doing a fair amount of reading on the concept of “catalytic change” for social service organizations (see a couple resources below).  A key question of this emerging body of literature is “how can we create a strategy that achieves measurable impact?”  Implied in that question is looking for the second and third right answer and thinking bigger. The challenges imposed by economics are really opportunities to rethink “how” the “why” is implemented.  Spending time in the space of “how we get to the why” breeds innovation. The interests of convention, power and assumption that are united to say, “merge or die”  chokes the possibility of  innovation.

.

Alternative Reality: I started out this post lamenting the over-simplistic “merge or die” advice being metered out nonprofits and suggest that agencies in the midst of economic turmoil need to take the opportunity to go deep within their core competencies to find their own solution.  However, in community organizing there is the old saying that “the price of success is a constructive alternative” and so the final step of the reflection and planning process is the creation of a thoughtful alternative plan.  Intentional planning for how an organization will move forward while under economic siege requires leadership, vision and boldness as well as tactical and measurable action plans.

.

The organizations of tomorrow are being born out of the economic challenges of today.  The dominant voices argue that the organizations of tomorrow are those who are merging and acquiring today. I would argue that successful organizations of tomorrow are already visioning tomorrow and allowing the economic challengesof today to temper their core competencies of leadership, agility and innovation as they create their own future.  In this context there is a need for catalytic facilitation and process to help social sector organizations, thoughtfully reflect, plan and move confidently forward to create a more civil society.

.

Resources:

Disruptive Social Change

Catalytic Philanthropy

.

Facilitating Advisory Groups: Labels & Social Contracts

On By

When convening a group, two of the primary tasks of a facilitator are to clearly articulate the label that is applied to the group and to create an appropriate social contract between group members.  The terms “workgroup,” “taskforce,” “coalition” and “advisory group” are labels that are often used loosely and sometimes even used interchangeably. However, each of these labels carries a very different meaning and more importantly a different implied social contract.  My experience (both as a group participant and a facilitator) is that when a group of people are convened as an “advisory group” the front-end work around developing a social contract becomes critical.

Perhaps there are more sophisticated definitions for an advisory group but in general, as the name implies, an advisory group is a collective of participants who are invited because of expertise, representation of constituents, connections, and/or position for the purpose of helping to inform representative decisions.  In their highest use, advisory groups are convened because the increasing complexity of social problems demands broad critical thinking.  In their lowest use, advisory groups are convened to create the illusion of participation and provide political coverage for decisions that need to be made.  In between these two points on the continuum there are likely a number of different points of functioning for advisory groups.  One can readily see that, wherever an advisory group falls on the continuum, the success of the group will be dependent upon the clarity, expectations and social contract negotiated with the group.

Groups convene, partnerships are formed, and collaboration occurs largely because there is a compelling need that transcends the abilities of an individual or single organization.  Adapting from an excellent resource on evaluating collaboratives (see resources below), I would suggest that collaboration occurs in the social sector because: 1) social problems are complex, 2) there are intensive resource pressures, 3) the social net continues to fragment, 4) communities don’t respond well to endemic problems, and 5) change is pervasive, rapid and sweeping.  Implicit in these magnetic forces is the need to network and create shared solutions.

While I have written before that there is a compelling shift towards collaboration and networking, I believe that  there remain organizational challenges and barriers to collaboration.  The polar opposites that make collaboration difficult are such issues as 1) cultures of organizational superiority, 2) single-issue myopia, 3) differing mandates and procedures, and 4) competing/adversary relationships (especially around resources).

In this context, when an advisory group is convened, there is an unspoken orientation towards action and, at times, the internal undercurrent of the barriers that initially undermines trust in the process.  This mix of expectations and barriers is the driving reason to create a social contract for participation. So what does a social contract for an advisory group look like?

Explicit Definition of Advisory:  First and foremost, a facilitator needs to help the parties define the “advisory purpose” of the group.  If there is a “disconnect” between the perceived role of the participants and the intention of the convener, the group progress will be hindered because of the conflicting expectations.  The facilitator needs to ensure that everyone is in agreement to what “advisory” means for the group process. Inherent in this definition is the concept of authority.  In other words, the group needs to be clear what authority is connected with the advice.  For example, if a government agency brings together an advisory group to help prioritize pressing community issues for funding, the participants need to be clear if their advice (in terms of prioritizing) has a direct link to decisions made about funding or if the advisory authority is limited and other constraints could possibly trump their recommendations. Failure to make this expectation clear has the potential to undermine the entire advisory process.

Consideration of Transaction:  A second component of the social contract relates to the transactional or relational nature of the advisory group.  With limited resources, especially time, the convening of an advisory group needs to bring some benefit to the participants other than the potential of free coffee and pasties at the meeting.  This is especially true if the group authority is limited by external constraints.  Profile, status and relationships are often implicit (but not often explicit) transactions that can support an advisory function. However, following authority to influence direction, the transaction that is important to advisory group participation is bringing the “voice” of the community to the process.  Indeed, as the voice of the community is amplified by the collective participation of group members become a community organizing effort even if authority is lacking.  Advisory group participation builds relationships and can be the foundation for future action.

Process Support:  A third characteristic of a social contract for advisory groups is to ensure the process is supported and resourced.  The facilitation of the group must include the supporting structure that is the basis for any meeting facilitation (clear agendas, decision-making process, and minutes).  Additional support includes clear communication during and between meetings and a clear beginning and end point with movement markers in between.

Participant Expectations:  Finally the social contract must define participant expectations.  For an advisory group to be successful expectations that are important include: 1) being honest and open, 2) making contributions to the process, 3) focusing on issues and content, and 4) being a provocateur when needed. In addition, standard meeting ground rules such as respecting others, being on time and following through on agreements and action items need to be in place.

While not essential, the most successful advisory groups I have participated in, codify the social contract in a brief operating procedure.  In the resources below, I link to a handbook for community advisory groups that was developed to guide EPA advisory groups.  While very jargon laden, the document has some sample documents that can serve as models for advisory groups seeking to create a written social contract.

The point that I am trying to make is that unique group structures require unique facilitation approaches.  While coalitions derive power from collective action, advisory groups primarily inform and influence the actions of others.  This is not to judge the importance of one structure over the other but simply points to the unique facilitation needs of advisory groups. It is my belief that advisory groups are a critical component of the civic engagement process and their success is dependent upon the clarity of process and expectations.  Social sector organizations need collective wisdom and advisory groups are one pathway to that wisdom. Skilled facilitation that pays attention to the labels and social contract can help such groups succeed.

Resources

Taylor-Powell, E., Rossing, B., & Geran, J. (1998). Evaluating Collaboratives: Reaching the Potential. Madison: University of Wisconsin-System Board of Regents and University Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension (190 pages pdf).

Community Advisory Group (CAG) Handbook Department of Toxic Substances Control California Environmental Protection Agency

Inquiry as a Facilitation Skill

On By

I have been working on a business-planning project for a client.  As part of the front-end assessment I have been doing a series of in-person and telephone interviews.  The interview structure includes inward conversations with key staff, board members, and volunteers involved with the agency, interviewing the “second circle” of local key stakeholders, and finally, interviewing other organizations nationally that have similar organizational missions. Having just hung up the phone from a 40 minute conversation with a program director in Chicago I am reminded again if the importance of inquiry in the facilitation process.

Inquiry as a facilitation skill is more than asking questions and is an engagement process of discovery.  Asking questions is about interrogation while inquiry is the process used to build understanding.  In my worldview, questions are one dimensional and concerned with answers. Conversely, inquiry is three-dimensional, seeking to 1) discover information, 2) create movement towards aspiration, and 3) fostering relationships. As inquiry is an important facilitation skill, it might be useful to consider a few principles of inquiry.

Between Information and Decisions are Reflection and Interpretation:  One of the frameworks that influenced my thinking about inquiry was developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (see resources below) and is represented in the concept of “focused conversation.”  The focused conversation model suggests moving from information to decisions by making room for reflection and interpretation.  I have written previously about reflection as a facilitation skill and, in short, I believe that reflection is engaging the personal thoughts, feelings, and frames of reference of those being interviewed.  Interpretation furthers the process by seeking meaning and reference.  Bringing reflection and interpretation into inquiry allows for the humanization of information.

Framing Aspirations: A second facet of the inquiry process is drawn from the practice of appreciative inquiry.  One of the fundamental premises of the appreciative inquiry approach is that individuals and groups move in the direction of the questions asked. In other words, if an inquiry is based on a traditional Strength, Weakness, Opportunity and Threat (SWOT) approach, then there is a 50-50 change that the conversation will move in the direction of the weaknesses and threats.  Appreciative inquiry intentionally keeps the focus of questions on positive experiences, aspirational images of the future, and the compelling actions for organizations and communities that move towards transformation. In this way participants are guided through a strengths-based approach to planning.

Dismantling the “Because” Framing aspirations in the inquiry process is not to suggest that inquiry ignores critical uncertainties and barriers but inquiry should always be aware of the “because.”  “Because” often truncates inquiry by creating an impediment to further exploration. So when confronted with “because that approach has failed in the past” or “because the current political environment won’t support that idea,” an inquiry approach dismantles the “because” by going around the “because” barrier.  “Okay, if the current political environment is a barrier, where do you see the levers of change that can change the political environment and how does that influence our next steps?”

Remember the Goal is Understanding:  Finally, for the process of inquiry to be successful, a facilitator needs to remember that the goal in not information but understanding.  Going back to my current work on a business plan, the purpose of my interviews is to discover where the opportunities are, where information converges and diverges and where the positive core of energy is among those responsible for the growth of the organization.  This inquiry process is the first stage of understanding.  Questions alone reveal information.  A process of inquiry brings information to life.

In my experience, the least helpful facilitation is when a facilitator continually asks individuals and groups generic questions like “what do you think” or “tell me what you think should happen next?  Inquiry moves beyond generic questions.  Inquiry is a process that requires forethought, sequence and intentionality.  Questions may provide answers but inquiry provides meaning, relationships and energy.  It is kind of higher order thinking that needs to be at the core of the facilitation process.

Resources:

The Art of the Focused Conversation

Appreciative Inquiry


Facilitating Transitions

On By

.

One question that frequently comes up when potential clients contact me is “When do I need to bring in an outside facilitator?”  If you ask three or ten different facilitators the same question one will get three or ten different answers. Early on in this blog I outlined some heuristics about working with consultants that partially answers this question from my perspective. However, in my interaction with clients,  I am becoming more and more convinced of the key role an external facilitator can play is during periods of transition.  Transitions can be difficult times for teams, companies and agencies. In fact, managing change is one of the key drivers of exploratory calls I receive from potential clients who recognize their need for help. I believe that there are at least five types of transitions where a facilitator can be useful including:

.

Mergers & Acquisitions:  Any organization that has experienced the blending of two organizations can tell you how complicated, emotional and volatile such a process of change is.  By the sheer complexity, a merger or acquisition often includes a team of strategic advisors, lawyers, and a sundry of other consultants (human resource, accounting, real estate, etc).  As part of this change team, a facilitator can bring a “process value” to help manage the complexity.

.

Succession Planning & Leadership Change:  Clearly when the leader of an organization changes, the ripples of that that change reverberate through an entire organization and, often, the extended community.   There is fairly significant body of succession planning literature that can be used to guide succession planning and one of the core principles common to several references is the need for active management of the change.  This management of change is a process of facilitation.  I also suggest that facilitating the transition of leadership may not only be tied to the senior management positions.  There are times when it is a good practice to facilitate change in the “lower ranks” of an organization.  For example, the departure of a highly effective and volunteer coordinator in an organization that is dependent upon volunteer contributions might require the active management of the transition between coordinators to ensure the strength of the volunteer base.

.

Crisis: A third transition where a facilitator can play a stabilizing and moderating role is during periods of crisis.  I have consulted with organizations that have gone through messy human resource crises and one once was hired to direct a project that had been fiscally mismanaged and was reeling from the aftermath of divisive politics. My personal experiences with crisis helped me understand the role that an external and impartial facilitator can play in helping an agency to manage crisis.

.

Shift in Culture: There are times when organization practice changes in a way that creates a shift in organizational culture. For example I once worked with an organization that created a new human resource job classification system to bring uniformity across several distinct business units.  The implementation of the new classification system resulted in some employees being reclassified “upwards” and others reclassified “downwards.”  In addition, the new classification system came with a new annual staff appraisal system.  While the strategic direction and program of the agency remained constant, the shift in organizational practice required the use of a facilitator to assist in the cultural transition to the new system.  Other culture shifts could include such things as the implementation of a new organizational performance management systems, the unionization of a workforce, or even an agency relocation into new space.

.

Change in Strategic Direction: Organizations that are faced with a dramatic change in strategic direction can also benefit from an external facilitator.  In fact, I would say that when strategy is at stake, the entire agency needs to be engaged in the process.  An external facilitator makes that universal engagement possible.  Examples of such strategic change might include an organization experiencing a sudden dramatic increase in revenue such as from a federal stimulus grant (or conversely the sudden lost revenue), an organization undergoing a major re-branding initiative, or organization developing an entirely new strategic or business plan. Each of these scenarios could benefit from the external perspective of a facilitator.

.

While this list of transitions is likely not comprehensive it illustrates a range of issues that potentially require the use of a facilitator to manage the change.  In addition to standard tools a facilitator would bring to the meeting and process management, transitional facilitation requires the facilitator to assume one or more of the following roles:

.

Coordination:  A facilitator can bring to a transition project a coordination role in complex processes of change.  For example, an organizational merger, having an individual tasked with facilitating all the moving parts, frees up senior management to focus on leadership, content and diligence rather than ensuring meeting minutes are copied and distributed in a timely manner or that major meetings are not scheduled on top of each other.

.

Communication:  A second role that a facilitator can play in a transition is to be the communication link, ensuring that all of staff and stakeholders are informed.  Uniquely, a facilitator that is external and impartial can also act as a ground wire, taking some of the charged current out of the communication messages.  Communication might also involve such specific tools as interest-based problem solving or mediation to help keep everyone engaged, open, and transparent.

.

Compassion:  Related to communication, a facilitator might also serve as a reflector of compassion.  Perhaps using tools like Nonviolent Communication techniques, a facilitator can help lead individuals and groups through a process of observing and feeling as well as identifying needs and requests. This humanizing role of facilitation allows space for hearing and for being heard at a relational level.

.

Coaching:  Increasingly, facilitation is also about coaching.  Facilitator as a coach requires a depth of experience and expertise that helps empower individuals and teams in constructive ways. Being a sounding board, reflective mirror, and provocateur can help leaders move through transitional waters.

.

Clarity/compass:  A final role of a transitional facilitator is to weave together the other roles in a way that acts as clarifier and compass to the process.  Far from being  simple GPS system that tells the group when to turn left and right, being a compass requires the facilitator to explore and move through the transition as a guide that is confident of where the group will end up, despite detours taken along the way.

.

In this context, my personal bias comes though once again, that facilitation is not about running good meetings but is fundamentally about performance improvement. Facilitation is fundamentally about managing change and assisting organizations in transition is likely one of the most effective use of a facilitators skills.  Organizations seeking a competitive advantage will do well to consider the strategic use of facilitation and process.

.

As always your feedback is welcome.

.

← Previous Entries Next Entries →