.

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.

.