.
Back in the mid 1990’s when email listservs were the cutting edge technology and Netscape dominated the web browser market, I was convinced that these new tools would change how we learn both as individuals and as social networks. So I went back to school to pursue a Master’s degree in Educational Technology to learn how, as an educator and system’s change agent, I could leverage technology in my professional life. Now, over a decade later with the staggering advancements in technology, I feel like my masters program was akin to studying the use of slide projectors and rotary dial phones. However, although technology has changed, the basic learning theories that underpin the use of technology have not. What I learned at San Diego State University has not changed. Technology can magnify learning opportunities but the act of learning depends upon content and methodology. Despite all the advances in technology, learning still depends on content, facilitation and process. So considering content and methodology, how can technology can be used to enhance facilitation? I would like to suggest four important technology frameworks that I believe enhance the practice of facilitation.
.
Use of Technology in Assessment - Back in the day when email discussion group were still fairly new, I was managing a national project and needed to gather some formative research for the design of a website that we were planning on building. At the time, I was on an email discussion group of likely users of the website so colleague and I decided to conduct a series of email focus groups by email. The qualitative results were so productive, that we detailed the focus-group methodology in an article that appeared in the journal Performance Improvement. Since that time, I have used technology to conduct other focus groups with similar positive results. With the advent stable “webinar” technologies, the opportunity for collecting qualitative information has expanded even more. In addition, Internet technology can also enhance the collection of more quantitative data as part of the assessment process through the use of any one of the many online survey tools readily available for nominal costs. Collectively, these tools contribute to the front-end process and assessments often associated with facilitation. The advantages that technology brings to the assessment phase are that technology: a) can contribute to effective preplanning, b) can increases time efficiency by allowing for asynchronous work to occur, and c) can also be used as a way to increase social distance for the processing of issues that might be controversial or confrontational.
.
Use of Shared Technology Workspace – A second way that technology can be used to enhance the facilitation process is by using a shared technology workspace. Online collaboration tools are truly coming of age. A Google search for “hosted collaboration software” or “hosted wiki software” will give a startling array of companies offering low or no-cost online collaborative environments. For any facilitation process that extends over time or has a written end product, utilizing a collaborative workspace is an essential facilitation tool. I once was involved in an advisory workgroup that dragged on and on over the course of a year. Often email attachments were unable to be opened, versions of documents were lost and team members missed important communications. I am convinced that if the paid facilitators understood and used technology as a productivity tool that the arduous and ultimately ineffective process would have been shortened by months and would have had more positive outcomes. But the key is not to simply use a collaborative workspace but to understand the careful planning and active management associated with the use of the collaborative environment. The advantages that technology brings to an extended facilitated process are that technology: a) can better coordinate tasks, activities and communication between meetings, b) can help ensure document version control and real time editing, and c) create knowledge libraries to preserve institutional knowledge.
.
Use of Technology in Meetings – While I am not a huge fan to technology-based facilitated meetings, technology can enhance the meeting facilitation process. For example, many teams take real time minutes on laptop that can be reviewed, edited and published at the end of a meeting. Extending this concept, Open Space Technology Conferences, depend on technology to create complex deliverables (like a strategic plan or policy paper) in real time. Smart boards and videoconferencing equipment are other applications of technology to enhance the facilitation process. Even at the lowest end of the technology spectrum, I am no in the habit of using a digital camera to take pictures of dry erase board drawing and notes, before erasing them, and in some cases even taking pictures of chart paper notes as well. Digitizing paper allows for easy storage and retrieval. The advantages that technology brings to meetings are twofold in that technology: a) can enhance the communication process during meetings, and b) can shorten the distance between meeting content and subsequent summaries and deliverables.
.
Use of Technology in the Feedback Loop – The final use of technology as an enhancement to the facilitation process is to use technology to close the feedback loop and evaluate the process. Elsewhere I have written more extensively on this topic, but akin to assessment, technology-based surveys and post assessments can be effective in evaluating facilitated processes.
.
As a facilitator, I almost always use technology to enhance the facilitation process. Technology is a critical and important tool to help groups and teams achieve greater performance. While having studied the use of technology to improve performance may help me use technology effectively. I don’t believe it is an unfair advantage. I am convinced that the accessibility of online technology tools places within the reach of any team tools that can enhance the delivery of content and methodology.
.
.
Recently, I was asking a team for their feedback on the goals and objectives for an approaching meeting and one team member emailed me, “I always get confused by the differences between goals and objectives but here is what I want out of the meeting.” As I read these words I had one of those fleeting thoughts of “If I only had a nickel for every time I have heard that comment, I’d be rich.” Many teams don’t get hung up on the distinction between goals and objectives and meetings seem to work for them. Again, depending on the meeting, some folks can get away with blurring outcomes. However, at other times failing to keep a team focused on goals and objectives as distinct outcomes can be disastrous. I once was on a committee where paid facilitators failed to make the distinction between goals and objectives in a process where such distinguishing was important, strategic and vital to the outcomes In this particular case, the failure to recognize the difference between goals and objectives truncated the vision of the team, caused confusion, and resulted in delays as the team lurched towards the end point without clear guidance. Let me underscore my belief. One of the critical roles of a process facilitator is to help teams clarify the differences between goals and objectives and manage the process in a way that ensures that the team seamlessly navigates between the two. Clarifying goals and objectives is a critical systems thinking competency.
.
A quick Google search will yield dozens of websites detailing the difference between writing goals and objectives and many offer tools and frameworks (like logic models) to help define and operationalize the two concepts as they work in tandem. However, as a way to think informally about goals and objectives, I would like to offer the following working definitions that have served me well over the years.
.
A Goal is the expression of the desire of your team, company, or nonprofit to change the world. Goals are about going far enough upstream to create performance improvement or change that matters.
.
An Objective is the work that is in front of you to help you achieve your goal. Connect the dots between objectives and you start making progress towards your goal.
.
Let me give you an example of how these two ideas work in real life. One of the principles of my consulting practice is to purchase locally and make purchasing decisions that have the lowest environmental impact. As most new businesses, I needed to go through the process of developing the basic identity tools such as letterhead, business cards and other print products. The obvious choice was to print on recycled paper (looking for a high post consumer waste content in the recycled material) and preferably print using non-petroleum based ink. As I sought out a local printer I ended up talking to a couple of printing companies who said that they could accommodate the use of recycled papers and choice of inks. Then I encountered a printer who stopped my in my tracks when he said, “when you ask about recycled paper you are asking the wrong question.” He then proceeded to walk me through the printing workflow from — prepress — to plating — to production and equipment maintenance — and ended up with recycling practices. His bottom line was that choosing recycled paper is a great symbolic act on the part of the consumer but that in reality printing was an energy intensive process that involves many toxic chemicals, paper waste and often inefficient equipment, all of which are costs hidden to the consumer. He then detailed the massive re-engineering that he has taken his company through in order to dramatically decrease their environmental impact not only in terms of saving trees but also in terms decreasing the toxic waste stream, decreasing energy consumption and increasing the health and safety of the work environment. He then said, “your objective might be to purchase recycled business cards but our goal is to save the planet.” In short, not all recycling symbols are created equal and if I get stuck on the objective, I may fail to recognize the goal.
.
This story brings me back to questions I have asked my clients to clarify goals as distinct from objectives. Do you really want to write a job description or do you really need to rethink your entire job classification system? Do you need to write a grant or do you really need to rethink your resource development plan? Do you really need someone to facilitate a meeting or do you need to rethink the performance capacity of your team? In other words, are you going far enough upstream to make a difference?
.
Keeping goals and objectives clear, distinct and separate, helps us be clear that our present activities always keep the larger “world changing” goal in context. Without a systems view, I would be carrying business cards that my not represent any practical meaning in terms of environmental responsibility. In the same way a community-nonprofit or government agency that is content counting social services provided to some client base fails if it is not also working on the larger goal of changing the social and geopolitical context that creates the need for their service in the first place. So goals and objectives matter? Only if you want to change the world.
.
As a facilitator, there will be times when you are confronted with group members who display “problem behaviors” that can impede meeting progress and performance. Such problem behaviors can be wide and varied and some examples might include “hijacking” the meeting the agenda; creating procedural roadblocks to progress or confrontational or bullying communication. At these moments such forceful behaviors have the potential of shaking even the most skilled facilitators. It is at these times, when it is helpful to have a linear model to confront disruptive meeting behaviors.
In the field of health behavior counseling, there is has been a brief protocol developed for clinicians to assess clients for substance use like smoking or excessive drinking. The mnemonic tool is represented as the Five A’s model of counseling. Each of the Five A’s corresponds to a step in the process and includes: 1) Ask about the behavior, 2) Advise the client with a clear message, 3) Assess readiness and barriers to change, 4) Assist in the behavior change process, and 5) Arrange for follow up with the client.
I would like to suggest, that the Five A’s model has application to addressing problem behaviors of an individual in a group. This model can be skillfully used “in the moment” of the meeting, when the problem behaviors are occurring or following the meeting in a more interpersonal setting. The model provides a clear and linear pathway to resolve problem behaviors. So an example of how you might use the Five A’s in a meeting facilitation might look like this:
Ask: “For the last half an hour, I have observed that your comments have not been in support of this project and you have been argumentative in both your tone and word choices. Let me ask you to get in touch with yourself and tell us what you are feeling and what you need so that we can productively move forward.”
Advise: “Thanks for that reflection. What I hear you saying is that you need other tasks or projects to be taken off your plate before you will cooperate on this one. That discussion is not one we can have in the context of this meeting but we can schedule another time to address your personal workplan. For this meeting however, we need to move on more productively discussing the project because if we don’t stay focused on the agenda it could negatively impact our ability to apply for this grant.”
Assess: “Recognizing that we are going to address your workload concerns later, do you think you can suspend your feelings and productively join us in working through this agenda?”
Assist: “Great, I appreciate your willingness to help out during this meeting. As we move forward through this agenda, I will keep your expressed concerns in mind and so that you don’t feel like your concerns are invalidated. Also, if we get stuck again, I can help us through the process.
Arrange: “Finally, at the end of this meeting let’s compare calendars and find a time to meet to discuss your workload.
I hope you get that my point is not to try and teach behavioral counseling in a 500 word blog but is to point out the critical need for having a process manage so-called “problem behaviors” in meetings. How many times have you been in a meeting where problem behaviors are excused by saying, “there goes Bob/Betty again” and then dismissively rolling our eyes?” I have been there and at those points in time meeting productivity grinds to a halt.
As I have suggested elsewhere having the foundation of a solid meeting agenda helps keeps meetings focused and productive. However, agenda’s alone won’t help when an individual or individuals take a meeting hostage by his/her behaviors. In those times a facilitator needs to have the courage to confront disruptive and inappropriate behaviors. The Five A’s model is one framework that can help focus the facilitation and process in order to improve meeting performance.
Further Reading:
This article provides a great overview of how the Five A’s model works in Smoking Cessation. It provides good examples of each step in the model and it is not a big leap to apply the concepts to a facilitation approach using the Five A’s.
This article looks at the challenges of implementing a Five A’s model in clinical practice. It takes a bit of a conceptual leap to translate this research into the practice of facilitation but hang with it a little because there are important conceptual lessons here.
One of the facets of a meeting agenda that is important to the success of a meeting being explicit about the approach and process used to make decisions. Unfortunately, those planning meetings often leave the decision-making approach and process as unspoken and implicit. I have been part of team meetings, ad hoc, and other advisory groups, where there was no clear decision-making process. In those meetings, decision-making seemed to stumble from feeble attempts to gain consensus to, “well, where should we go from here?” to an imposed decision made by the authority figure. Being clear about decision-making approach and process is not something that can happen by default or be left to chance. Decision-making needs to be intentional. So how do we incorporate clear decision-making into meetings?
The first step is to consider the approach for decision-making. At one end of the spectrum are those decisions made by an individual. In these cases, the group process associated with decision is simply advisory. The group has input and might even influence the decision but the decision is owned and made by the individual and not the group. At the other end of the spectrum are those decisions that are made by unanimous agreement of the group. Some might call this a decision by consensus. Setting the bar at the level where everyone must agree to the decision will lengthen the decision-making process. Considering just these two end points, one can see the potential conflict if the decision-making approach is not explicitly defined for (or by) the group. If the group thinks they need to get to unanimity but the group leader perceives the decision resides with him/her, the potential for conflict is high.
In between decision-making by and individual and decision-making by unanimous group agreement, there are a number of other points on the spectrum. Typically the other options reference the “midpoint” of the group. Most common among these are simple majority (one beyond 50%) or some version of a “super-majority” which can be defined as some other interval such as two-thirds or three-fifths. Creating these numerical decision points simplifies the process by making the decision quantitative. The down-side to the quantitative approach is that without adequate processing, numbers can inadvertently create a sense of winners and losers, with the minority voice potentially feeling disenfranchised. This has the potential of undermining the implementation of the decision, especially in those cases where the group is required for the implementation.
One cannot change the fact that decisions are made by the individual or the group or some numerical point between. However, the potential of disenfranchising the minority view has led some groups to layer a relational framework over the decision-making process. Common among these is the conceptual frame of “support, block, or stand aside” In this model and its variations, votes are framed in relationship to how well one can live with the implementation of the decision. Support can range from tepid approval to being a strong supporter of the idea, whereas the concept of blocking indicates a “no vote” and may even be read as the person will actively work against the implementation of the decision. Stand aside may indicate a tepid “yes vote” or may suggest a “no vote” but, unlike blocking, standing aside suggests that the person will ultimately support the decision. In a typical relational framework, a successful vote may require no active blocking votes. This might call for a straw vote along the way and allow for additional processing by those actively blocking the decision. While this process may take longer, the relationship building that occurs prior to the vote strengthens the ultimate power of the vote because all voices are fully heard and vetted.
Once a decision-making rule is defined and clearly articulated to the group, then a supporting process can be established to move the group towards a decision. It is important to recognize that there are a range of tools that can be used. Common tools that can be used include:
- Broad Discussion, Narrowing of Ideas, Prioritizing and Voting.
- Structured problem-solving using a model like IDEAL: Identify the problem, Develop alternatives, Evaluate alternatives, Act on the alternative and Learn from the outcomes
- For more contentious decisions a process might include interest-based negotiation or mediation strategies.
The power of explicit decision-making empowers groups by offering a clear process to move forward. Its presence enhances teams ability to productively make decisions, while the absence of clarity around decision-making can be a barrier to performance improvement.
.
There is an old truism that states, “If the only tool that you have in your toolbox is a hammer then everything starts looking like a nail.” In my experience that least productive meetings are those that apply a hammer to every group process. The typical hammer process is linear. Start large using brainstorming to get all the ideas exposed ==> Narrow the universe by sorting using prioritization, or Delphi rankings ==> Evaluate the remaining options using pros/cons, strength/weaknesses, ==> Decide by consensus or majority vote. Move on.
.
However, several years ago when I doing a foundation-to-roof, green remodel of a gutted house out on the coast of Oregon, I learned to appreciate the need for a large toolbox. On more than one occasion when I used a hammer although a more precision-based tool was needed, it produced outcomes that were mediocre at best. The same is true for meeting facilitation. The concept of “broad – narrow – decide” is a wonderful tool to help your team make decisions, but would be a relatively ineffective technique for resolving conflict or fostering empowerment. So it is important in planning for facilitation, that you consider the outcome being sought and then match the facilitation process to the outcomes.
.
I would like to offer five archetypes of facilitation processes that can be helpful to consider when structuring meeting and group processes.
.
Decision Process: This is the typical “let’s get things done” facilitation that is narrowly described above. Depending on the immediacy of the decisions that need to be made, the facilitation process can be as straight-forward as “broad – narrow – decide” or more complex such as a scenario planning model, a pathway model or analysis model.
.
Generative Process: There are times when the outcome of a meeting in not to end up with a decision but rather involves a shared understanding or an exploration of a topic for the purpose of creation. For example, facilitating a team meeting that has as an outcome a shared sense of vision and mission, might be structured around dialogue techniques or reflection exercises. Generative meetings are process oriented and the outcomes are typically organic in nature.
.
Collaborative Process: A third process archetype is when the outcome of the meeting is to develop collaboration. A collaboration process may have decisions connected to it such as “we will decide if we can collaborate on advocating for policy change,” or “collaborate together to build a mixed use rental housing complex.” However, the overarching meeting focus is creating shared space, expectations and commitments. The strategies to get there might include dialogue, power analysis and asset mapping or at the negotiation end of collaboration might include interest-based problem solving or even structured mediation.
.
Empowerment Process: Often teams talk about empowerment but in reality, empowerment takes time and involves giving up control over the outcomes. Inherent in the concept of empowerment is a people-driven process. The group participants start with dialogue and more importantly listening and internalizing their power to take personal and social action. In that context, the group can better consider and understand the external and internal forces that will confound their change efforts, and move towards action planning based on their self-realization, analysis and power. Strategies for empowerment might include, using empowerment education models, Socratic group process, or as a slight variation an Open Space technology model.
.
Disruptive Process: A final archetype for group facilitative process involves actively challenging the dominant framework. A disruptive dialogue process challenges, questions, and critiques the traditional theoretical perspectives and practices. It is based on the recognition that there is often structural privilege and a power imbalance that perpetuates and institutionalizes oppression, racism, and other forms of injustice. Facilitative strategies that can be disruptive include dialogue, advocacy, organizing, and action research.
.
These five archetypes are not presented to be an exhaustive encyclopedia narrowly defining the universe of group process but are simply a tool to challenge the monochrome decision-making framework that is often applied undifferentiated to every group process. The point being made is that strong facilitation and process recognizes that there is a critical need to match facilitation strategies with the established goals and outcomes of the process.
.
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
GooglePlus