Crowd sourcing is an increasingly trendy concept that is popping up in the world of group dynamics, network development and strategic planning. Elevated to prominence by books with titles like “Here Comes Everybody” and the “Wisdom of Crowds” the concept is that if you get enough people engaged and contributing ideas, unstructured, then breakthrough thinking can occur. Couple the “crowd concept” with social media technology that enables the “viral” spread of the idea and the distributed connection of larger groups, and the result is that even corporate marketing departments like Pepsi see the value in the crowd.

.

So it is no longer uncommon to hear at least one voice in a strategic planning process, suggest that the group “crowd source” a strategy. In this post I’d like to tackle the question of what does it take to facilitate a crowd?

.

Let me back up to the streets. Over the last several months I have worked with several clients where the facilitation processes have had a large group component.   For example, I just completed an intense three month project where I helped a leadership team facilitate the process for a group of 26 professionals from across the state tasked with creating a comprehensive and forward-thinking Health Improvement Plan for the Oregon Health Authority. I also have had two strategic planning clients where assessment work included gathering diverse opinions from a range of program partners, board and staff members, and community volunteers. In one of these projects I aggregated open-ended survey comments from over 100 people. For me, convening groups, creating authentic community engagement, and navigating agreement have been standard operating practices for as I have long been engaged in community development and coalition-building work. So along with other colleagues who came up on the streets of collaboration, I simply smile at the wonderful new-found term of “crowd sourcing.”

.

On the streets of community development and coalition-building, strategy has always been “outsourced” to the community and is not a construct new to crowd sourcing. So while crowd sourcing may be the new lingo, the principles of facilitating crowds remains the same. In my experience, some of the more critical principles of facilitating “crowds” include:

.

Stay Open Early On: As anyone experienced facilitator knows, the messy space of open ideas can be uncomfortable. Indeed, in a recent facilitation process, one frustrated board member interrupted at one point and said, “Can you assure me that when we leave at the end of the day that we will come out of the clouds and stop flitting around?” While being in that open space can be difficult, one of the strengths of crowd sourcing is the very broad opening that it promotes the generation of ideas. In this process, a facilitator needs to be comfortable in the open space and not rush towards narrowing too quickly. Let expansion happen.

.

Recognize When a Crowd is a Crowd: A second principle of facilitating a crowd is to recognize when a crowd is all you have. When the expectation is that large, bold new ideas will emerge out of the collective input of the crowd and those expectations are not met, a facilitator needs to be a mirror to the process and acknowledge the limitations of the convening.

.

The Pepsi Refresh marketing campaign, thinly veiled as corporate giving, is a great relevant example. When the Pepsi Refresh project started, the concept was that by engaging people in voting for, defending and promoting great ideas, the nonprofit world would reap the benefit of innovation and up-start new ideas would come out of the “wise crowds.” Several months later, one just needs to peruse the list of funded projects to see that they range from the mildly innovative to the immediate & tactical (such as building a kindergarten playground and starting an animal food bank). Worthy projects? Absolutely. The cutting edge of social innovation to large-scale social needs? Not so much.

.

Pepsi Refresh has become an exercise, not in “crowd sourcing” but “crowd re-sourcing.” That is to say that those agencies best at mobilizing the time and energy of networks of people to vote (again and again) likely can succeed. In facilitation, a crowd is just a crowd when it is orchestrated engagement meant to influence an outcome. When a facilitator recognizes that s/he is facing a crowd, then s/he is able to adapt the facilitation process to ensure the inclusion and equity in voice, not only of the crowd but the voice of the crowd outliers.

.

Recognize Differential Knowledge: In every large group process I have facilitated, one of the core tasks of facilitation is to draw attention to differential knowledge. I have used this imagination as an illustration of the concept. Imagine a group of 5th grade boys walking back from a field trip when a box falls off of a truck speeding by. The boys bring the box back to the classroom and see that it is labeled “chocolate candy, keep out of direct sunlight.” If these boys were left to their own “crowd sourced” strategy related to that box of chocolates, what do you think the outcome would be? Indeed, there would likely be a super-majority of agreement, if not outright consensus on the course of action to open the box and devour the contents. Now enter a teacher who brings differential knowledge about ethics, the purpose of the contact information label on the box, and even the consequences of consuming pounds of chocolate. Do you think the crowd sourced outcome would be different? While the point is oversimplified, the concept should not be lost. In every crowd there is differential knowledge that needs to be given weight. All ideas are not equal.

.

Seek Community Not Consensus: A final principle is to recognize that the goal of a large group is to find shared understanding and not necessarily consensus. Facilitation for a large group is about engagement that involves creating equity, voice and understanding. If you achieve these three things then often times consensus matters less. On a level playing field where all participants are given voice, community will emerge and, in the context of community, the collective will trump the crowd. When a group is meaningfully engaged through an empowering facilitation process then more authentic outcomes result. I have written elsewhere about the concept of community engagement because such a process is fundamental to the authentic community-building.

.

Taken together, these four principles outline a framework that can assist in facilitating a crowd. Now I recognize that for some, bringing a facilitation process to the concept of crowd sourcing defies some the popular literature on the subject.  It is a flaw of the crowd source construct that creates an artificial either/or dynamic.  It is either “crowd” or “crowd control” with no in between. In the minds of those extolling the virtues of the self-organizing crowd, they believe that crowd control is a bad thing. I contend that a true crowd source process is aligned with (and a cousin of) community organizing, which requires a layer of intelligent design and group process. As with good basic community organizing, a skilled facilitator recognizes the power in the crowd and unleashes the potential of the crowd through a carefully constructed facilitation process.

.

As always your thoughts are welcome.

.

If you were to align models for program planning, strategic planning, instructional design, organizational learning, and knowledge management, it would become apparent that the contour of all these processes includes a similar pathway of gathering information, making connections between information, interpreting information, and acting on information.  Specific to structuring a “learning group” facilitation there is the added dimension of community building. As such a learning group processes needs to be grounded in a participatory framework (more on frameworks) while moving through four phase pathway that looks like this:

Generating:  For most group processes, the first stage of the convening is to help all participants gather and share information.  Whether the information is derived from a structured assessment process in advance of the meeting or is a real-time sharing process, participants need to open the universe of information before moving to understanding and action.  In addition, when you are trying to help nurture a learning community it is critical to build interaction and participation into the generative phase.

Integrating/Interpreting: The second stage of the learning group pathway is to begin to create a share understanding of the connections between information.  As a group starts to move towards learning the process of synthesis begins to take place.  In group settings this is also the stage where participants begin to weave together socially.  In this context, the process of integrating and interpreting is both a constructivist activity and is also a social exercise where transparency, listening and sharing become stated values.

Participatory Meaning:  As the group’s understanding how the information connects together as a whole, the group is then able to start to create meaning out of the information and begin to sort and choose what is relevant and actionable.  In essence, the actions of this stage are prioritizing and narrowing.  Critical to this stage is that the process of narrowing must be grounded in principles of inclusion, voice and democracy.  Without a sense of authentic participation and ownership, the process of collaboration and network weaving is undermined.

Creative Action: The final stage of of the process is moving towards creative action.  This is the point where the group decides “what’s next.”  At the end of the day, all group process requires the facilitator to focus on concrete next steps.  For a learning group process, the next steps must also include discussion of what’s next for the social network weaving.  There needs to be the dual focus on both “where is the group going” and “how will they get there together.”

In talking to my potential client, I suggested that, on the surface, the process of moving from information to action looks like the primary task of most facilitation processes. However, if organizational learning is also a goal for the process, the second layer of “movement” is not just about information but the “movement” of social relationships.  The implication for such a facilitation process is that the facilitator should not only understand how to manage a group process but also understand principles of coalition building, adult leading, empowerment and constuctivist learning.  In a day when the processes networking weaving and organizational learning are, in many ways, more important that creating a product, facilitation becomes a higher order practice that simply “running a good meeting.”

As always, your comments are welcome.

Book for your bookshelf

Nancy Dixon: The Organizational Learning Cycle

.

At the most basic level, any lengthy group process has built in ergonomic and logistical limitations.  In scheduling a day long retreat, my first advice to clients is to recognize that in a typical 8:30-4:30 retreat schedule, you lose productivity during the first, last and middle hours (in addition to losing a bit more time on the edges of scheduled breaks). In addition, participants coming late, leaving early, as well as texting, phone calls, and checking online for sports scores, also contribute to lower productivity.  I often half-jokingly suggest that good coffee at the beginning of the meeting, good food in the middle, and wine & cheese at the end of the meeting can help manage the lower productivity barrier but the reality is that people need down time during a day long process.  Sitting, thinking and being fully engaged in process, has physiological limitations.  With that said, my personal rule of thumb is that there are typically only 5-6 strategic hours during a day-long retreat.  That doesn’t imply that the less productive time can’t be used meaningfully but simply recognizes that there are limitations to the density of thinking that can be extracted out of meeting participants.

A 5-6 strategic hour planning frame of reference drives the content limitations. It is important to think about what can and cannot be realistically achieved in a 5-6 hour window.  More than once, I have had potential clients hope to complete an entire strategic planning process in a one-day retreat.  Unfortunately, a thoughtful strategic plan requires more than 5-6 hours.  For an organization with a strong strategic plan, it may be realistic to create an operational plan for the next year’s activities in a single day but it is not possible to thoughtfully create a strategic plan in the time span of 5-6 hours.  However, at the risk of sounding like a mere curmudgeon, I would like to shift the conversation to what can be achieved in a day long strategic planning process –as I do believe a dedicated day of strategic planning is critical to a strategic planning process.

In short, I believe the positive use of a strategic planning retreat is to link it with the most appropriate stage of the strategic planning process (see here). Without belaboring the point, strategic planning involves anywhere from 4-8 (or 10) steps depending on the model that being followed.  In essence these steps are organized around the stages of: planning, assessing, designing, and launching the plan.  Any of these primary stages can serve as a rich context for a day long strategic planning retreat.

Planning Retreat:  For an organization just embarking on the strategic planning process,  a day long retreat can be used to create a the plan process, build energy for the process, and begin to dream dreams and build a vision.  One approach to a retreat with a planning focus would be to help the staff to think about the positive aspirations and celebrate where they have come using tools like appreciative inquiry  or open space facilitation.

Assessing Retreat:  During a day long retreat organized around assessment it is the opportunity to engage board members and/or staff in assessing the the strategic planning context.  Such a retreat might be organized around reviewing and synthesizing previously gathered data or could be a structured  scenario planning or future search exercise (more here) or a SWOT or SOAR analysis (more here).  The goal of an “assessing retreat” is to create a meaningful understanding of the internal and external environment to inform the strategic plan direction, goals and activities.

Designing Retreat:  A designing retreat is the midpoint of a strategic planning process where assessments are completed and draft goals and strategies may have been developed.  Such a retreat is the opportunity to engage board, staff and/or stakeholders  is the critical work of synthesizing and narrowing ideas into a concrete strategy.  A designing retreat might be organized around  using visual tools (more here) to structure models such as as a a social impact , logic model (more here) or it may be an action planning retreat where teams translate assessment findings intro broad plans -that can be refined following the retreat.

Launch Retreat:  As artists and musicians celebrate milestones (such as the production of a CD or the opening of an art show) by hosting launch parties,  nonprofit agencies would also do well to consider staging a day long retreat at the end of a strategic planning process as a “launch retreat.”  Such a retreat can help orient and focus the organizations board and staff around the new plan and help build momentum for the work ahead.  A launch retreat is an opportunity to breath life into the words on paper.  It offers an environment to both celebrate and motivate.

This list of possibilities is not exhaustive but it makes the point. When considering the use of a facilitator for a strategic planning retreat, be wary of the ones who can promise strategic planning in a day.  While it it possible to run through the steps of a strategic plan in a day, meaningful strategy is the product of a process that requires the thoughtful engagement of a team over time.  There are clear limitations associated with convening a group for a day long strategic planning retreat.  A competent facilitator will help an agency think through the entire strategic planning process and make recommendations that maximize the use of a strategic planning retreat in the context of the overall planning framework.

If we can help you with strategic planning, don’t hesitate to contact us.

In my consulting I have made it a practice to discuss with clients my philosophical approach and the foundational theories that I use to in facilitation.  I find this is often time well spent because it helps to create a shared space for our working relationship. One “shared space” discussion that is important to have with clients is whether the facilitation process is problem-based or solution-based.  In general, I approach performance consulting and facilitation from a solution perspective.    In practice, what that means is that the amount of time needed to define the current situation is way less important than the time spent thinking and acting in the direction of where a client wants to be.  So as a proportion of the overall consulting process, I believe that the time spent in problem identification should be no more than the time required to develop a clear and succinct assessment of the point from which the group or team is starting.  How the group or team got to the starting point rarely matters.  What does matter in the facilitation process is that a group or team is at point A and wants to move forward to point B and a focus on solutions moves the group forward and not backwards.  In this post, I wanted to outline five principles of a solution-focused facilitation process.

.

Start with the solution:  The first step in solution-focused process is, intuitively, to start by defining the solution or range of solutions that need to be considered.  In essence, the solution is the goal that goes far enough upstream to create the performance improvement or change that matters.  For an extensive exploration of a solutions, this step could require a sophisticated process like scenario planning or conversely, it could be as simple as structuring a sequence of inquiry questions. From an appreciative inquiry approach, solutions might be “three wishes” or aspirations of a team and from a performance improvement perspective, the solutions would answer the question of what is the “optimal performance.” Whatever process is used, the point is that when you start from the solution perspective, the group is less likely to get bogged down trying to reverse engineer why the problem exists (a backwards focus)  and instead the group moves forward –and remember that facilitation is first and foremost about forward movement.

.

Create objectives that move you towards the solution:  Once the solution is identified the next step is to identify interim objectives that tell you that you are moving towards the solution. Elsewhere I have written about goals and objectives and in this context it suffices to say that objectives become the  mile-markers that help you know that you are moving towards the solution.

.

Build upon existing practice and experience: The next step in the solution process is to create a shared understanding of how progress is already being made towards the solution. All groups have existing practices and skills that support solutions.  Occasionally, however, I have encountered groups that practice a “collective amnesia” about their practices and experiences.  In these cases, it is important to prompt the group and draw out their existing practices and experiences that support the achievement of the solution.  Simply asking the question, “what is happening within this team and organization that supports the solution?” can change a facilitation process by getting folks to think about their strengths.

.

Resource the Solution:  The fourth step in facilitating from a solution perspective is to spend time developing a resource plan to make sure that the solution can be achieved.  For example, if performance improvement is the solution, then the resources required to help create the performance improvement might include such things as job design, organizational development, staff development, or program support. As with any journey towards a new destination, a team needs both a plan and the resources to carry to plan forward.

.

Document and Monitor the Plan: The fifth step in a solution process is to document and monitor the plan.  While I have written elsewhere about creating workplans and monitoring the progress towards achieving the plan, it never hurts to reinforce the point that that teams and organizations need clear expectations and a roadmap for success.  Further, teams need to be able to network with each other, have access to coaching and mentoring along the way, and have mechanisms for accountability if new solutions are to be achieved.

.

As I reflect on this five-point outline, I think it reads a bit like a “Mechanix Illustrated” for facilitators.  But underneath this step-by-step approach is an underlying philosophy that needs to be attended to.  Often time, facilitators enter an agency as an outside “expert” with a toolbox (or worse –a magician’s hat) to solve the client’s “problems.”  This mechanic’s approach basically says “I can come into your agency and fix your problem in five steps.” Unfortunately, such a facilitation approach is all too common and in the hands of such a mechanic, a solution-focused approach is just a tool.  In reality, solution-focused facilitation is more than a tool and is really about pedagogy.  True solution-focused facilitation is born out of empowerment education and constructivism with both of these foundations asserting that the facilitator is a co-equal learner. Far from a mechanic’s “expert approach”, solution-focused facilitation is about co-creation. So, coming back to the opening line of this post, I want to underscore  that philosophy matters and the facilitator and client need to create a shared space around philosophy.

.

I carry around in my head many truisms from the radical, innovator and philosopher Henry David Thoreau and one statement he penned is, “though I do not believe that a plant will spring up where no seed has been, I have great faith in a seed.  Convince me that you have a seed in there, and I am prepared to expect wonders.” To me, this is the heart and soul of solution-focused facilitation.

.

As always, your comments are welcome.

.

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

Volunteer-based nonprofit boards are typically comprised of diverse representatives from the community who want  to make a contribution to a cause-based organization.  In smaller to mid-sized organizations it  likely that many new board members have not served on a board previously and often have a vague idea of what being a board member means.   In this context, a board orientation is an important “educational” event. Unfortunately, in zeal to adequately train board members, board  orientation sessions can spiral downwards into a mountain of data and presentation slides.  I have personal experience in such a “missed opportunity ” when I once was captive in a board orientation where the trainer actually powered through over eighty slides in an hour.  My butt was numb and my mind even numb-er and needless to say I learned very little  from the session.  So if massive quantity of slides makes a poor board orientation,   how does one facilitate a board orientation that is not a death march through random slide transitions on an overhead screen?  Here are three fundamental principles:

Spend no more than 12-14 “pages” on Board Governance.  Oregon, like many states produces a Guide to Nonprofit Board Service with the entire document spanning only 16 pages (including covers, front matter and a huge amount of white space).  If the State Attorney General’s Office thinks that the concept of governance can be distilled down 12-14 pages of content, then that becomes a good guide for most nonprofit boards. As a general rule, new board members can get the concepts of “duty” and “control” in ten-fifteen minutes of discussion, without having to explain Federal Circulars governing contract management.  Of course, my assumption is that we are talking about a stable nonprofit with a track record of good management practice, fiscal and program controls, and supporting policies and procedures.  Boards governing an agency in transition are another story.

Foster the sense that board members are vital connectors.  A Board orientation needs to emphasize the board members role as a connector. One of the few slides that I have used in board orientation workshops, places the board in between the organization and the community.  The theoretical discussion is simple.  The board has an internal role connecting to the agency mission, vision, staff members and CEO and is responsible for stewarding those connections.  Externally, the board connects to the clients, community and contributors, outwardly representing the agency to these three groups and connecting the interests and needs of the external groups back to the organization. At the recent orientation I attended, one of the practical exercises in making internal connections paired board members in groups of 2 and 3 and had them meet in a roundtable format with staff of the agency who represented the different organizational programs and services.  In an hour’s time, board members connected with each program of the agency and, more importantly, with the agency staff members. Board members reported making vital connections and understanding and praised the short, intense dialogue approach as more meaningful than slide presentations of the same material.

Provide connection to each other.  Another facet of board orientation is to outline the concept of networked governance. I have discussed this concept in another post and increasingly I am convinced that successful boards are those that approach governance as a network.  Fundamental to a network is the concept that relationships matter.  Another node in which board members serve as a connector is in their relationships with each other.  Orientation must provide time for board members to connect less formally.

Orientation is Process. Finally remember that, as with everything based on performance, the orientation of new board members is not an event but a process.  An intentional time set aside for orientation is a way to start embedding concepts into heads (by detailing program data), engaging hearts (connecting board member with passion and mission), and putting tools in hands (reference materials, by-laws, operating procedures).  That’s orientation. The hard work of building relationships, creating meaningful impact and engaging a high performing board is the ongoing work of board development.  This development requires the ongoing facilitation process that cycles and deepens as boards govern in partnership with the CEO, staff, and community.

Anyone can download some board orientation slides off of the web and present a training workshop.  However, bringing facilitation process into a board orientation shifts the framework from training to learning and this deeper pursuit will strengthen the board. Facilitating a nonprofit board is a journey of empowerment and the first steps along the road to success can be found in the strong grounding of the board orientation.

As always, your thoughts are welcome.

References

Creating High Impact Nonprofits

Board Governance as Leadership Summary

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.

.

A traditional organizational development approach to facilitation takes the perspective of “government” thinking.  Government thinking has been used to describe the hierarchical business approach with all that it implies. Government thinking is dominated concepts like hierarchy, centralized decision making, sole authority, dependent relationship, uniform policy, outputs and vertical relationships.  Facilitation, in this context, employs a range of meeting process tools like brainstorming, decision-making, group dynamic, negotiation and mediation.  Often parochial in nature, the primary objective of government thinking is to solicit advice, convince those that work “down-stream,” and ensure negotiated progress toward centralized plans.

At the other end of the spectrum is “governance” thinking that has historically been the domain of community collaboration and community organization.  I started my professional career working in the community tasked with developing coalitions and partnerships. Over the years I have participated in the development of numerous working collaboratives.  In governance thinking the characteristics are almost antithetical to government thinking.  In governance there are multiple “authorities,” decentralized decision-making, negotiation and persuasion, participatory relationships, localized policies and community level outcomes.  The goal of governance is collective and democratic action.

Many facilitators coming through the ranks of corporate human resource, training or organizational development departments who “cut their teeth” on traditional meeting facilitation, planning and/or in labor-management negotiations are likely well versed in government thinking and are masters at operating in this environment.  However it is increasingly important for facilitators to possess the complimenting governance-oriented skills and experience.  Indeed, the sea change that is occurring across all economic sectors (both public and private) is that governance thinking is now no longer the sole domain of community organizers. Government agencies and private sector organizations are embracing governance thinking. More and more companies are interested in the whole, are creating networks, and are operating in a triple bottom line environment –all earmarks of governance thinking. It is my belief that the correlation between the rapid proliferation of networking technologies and the acceleration in governance thinking is no accident.  Technology tools have fundamentally redefined organizational hierarchy.  This shift has also redefined facilitation skills required to be effective in this new systems-environment.

Given the shift to governance thinking, facilitators need to go back to the roots of community-based organizing and immerse themselves in systems-thinking, empowerment education, collaborative technology and adult leaning theory.  In is only with a blended understanding drawing from the principles of governance that facilitators can make significant contributions to performance.  Recently I came across a list of skills in an academic journal related to social work (1) that I adapted as a list of governance-related facilitation skills.  In addition to meeting process skills, governance facilitation requires:

Activation/Enabling Skills: First and foremost strong facilitation understands how to convene (and hold together) stakeholders to address community issues.  In public involvement this might include bringing together government, nonprofit, advocacy groups, faith-based communities, and unaffiliated citizens.  In the private sector this might include bringing not only those up and down the supply chain but external influencers like regulators and consumers.

Framing Skills:  A facilitator must be able to create a focusing frame and values around the issue(s) and facilitate agreements related to roles and responsibilities of players that, when coordinated, move the group towards values-based solutions.   Core to the process of framing both focus and agreement is the ability to think and act from a systems perspective, fostering a whole that is more than the sum of the parts.

Orchestrating/Mobilizing Skills:  This is the skill set that demonstrates the facilitator’s ability to manage the movement towards the milestones, objectives and outcomes.  Facilitation as movement requires expertise in community engagement.

Social Networking Skills: I have written elsewhere of the facilitators need to be able to manage connections and relationships for the process of knowledge creation.  This point is underscored in a governance model where the network is core to success.  This truism is familiar to any facilitator who has come up through the community-side of facilitation.  Making and supporting connections between people and  managing the collective wisdom are often what makes the difference between success and failure.

Synthesizing & Editing  skills:  All facilitation requires the facilitator to have a deep toolbox of strategies that enables him/her to effectively synthesize, edit and transform the process as it unfolds. Such tools supporting this work include such things as mediation, interest-based problem solving, and possibly even strategies that create incentive for progress.

Some have suggested that the shift from government to governance is a revolution.  Others, like me, believe that governance thinking is simply the process of re-imagining and re-discovering our roots in community organizing.  Whether this shift is evolution, revolution or rediscovery matters less than how governance thinking impacts facilitation.  Governance thinking is about creating networks of democratic action.  It is about increasing leverage and effectiveness.  Fundamentally governance is about thinking and working in new ways and is about re-imagining social impact whether it is in the public or private sector and fostering this impact is the heart and soul of facilitation.

References

(1) Frahm, K. A. & Martin, L. L. (2009). From Government to Governance: Implications for Social Work Administration.Administration in Social Work, 33(4), 407-422. doi:10.1080/03643100903173016

(2) Working Wikily

.

Recently I was asked to facilitate a meeting that was designed to be a reflection on the first year of implementing a new strategic plan.  The goal of the meeting was to think about the progress made over the course of the year, discuss the achievements, challenges, and lessons learned so that the management team could create a meaningful operational plan to guide the coming year.  What interested me in this project was the focus on reflection.  As a facilitator, I consider the use of words as important, and I find that reflection is a term that is often used but rarely defined.  On many occasions, reflection is used to describe any discussion that considers what has happened.  But to simply use the term reflection as a moniker for “looking backwards” misses the opportunity inherent in the concept of reflection.

As an educational construct, reflection is more than just looking backwards. There are lots of great books and articles on the academic practice of reflection so this is not a deep exploration of the topic.  However, for the sake of this post, I would define reflection as the process of considering past experiences through our personal worldview and then, based on that process, let the reflection either reinforce or change our perspective. Reflection inserts our personhood in the interpretation and meaning of the past.  Considering this deeper appreciation of the concept of reflection, one can see that facilitating a group to simply looking back at the past year and listing lessons learned is not necessarily engaging in the process of reflection.  Reflection, as a facilitation skill requires the design of a process that is experiential and not only considers what happened, but connects the “what happened” to an internal “what does it mean to me” and “how does it is inform” the forward direction that follows?  So what does facilitating reflection look like in practice?

Let me come back to the meeting I facilitated.  The initial outline I was presented with was to systematically look at four strategy areas of the past year and engage the group in the process of: a) reviewing the strategy, b) considering the supporting data, c) discussing lessons learned, and d) offering course corrections.  Actually it is a great group process outline to cover a wide terrain in a short period of time but it was not quite a process of reflection.  So I modified the process to look like this:

Review of Strategy Plan and Data:  Each of the strategy areas was introduced in the context of what was in the strategic plan, the accomplishments and challenges of the last year and a review of the supporting data.

Reflective Discussion:  The discussion portion of the process shifted from a straightforward consideration of lessons learned and became a reflection based on three questions that included:

1. Related to this strategy area, what about the last year did you appreciate the most and why?
2. Based on what occurred in this strategy area over the last year, what do you aspire to see happen during this next year?
3. What common themes does this collective group conspire to make happen in the context of the next year’s operational plan.

By framing this conversation using evocative words like appreciate, aspire and conspire, the conversation shifted from listing accomplishments and lessons learned to a discussion of “where there was energy,” or “where we can celebrate.” Further, the words appreciate, aspire and conspire were represented on the Process Visual (posted on the wall), not as three sequential questions but as a circle, to encourage iterative processing rather than linear processing.  As a result, the discussion was positive, lively and frank.  More importantly it was personal and aspirational as well as pragmatic.

Listing Key Concepts:  As each strategy area was discussed, themes and ideas spun off naturally and were listed as key concepts that were further blocked into “key implications” for the operational plan.

Summarizing Direction & Corrections:  The final step in the process was do one final reflection activity. After two and a half hours, we had a 4’ x 10’ dry erase board covered with concepts across four strategy areas, with color-coded implications for the operational plan.  The final question asked the group to zoom back to the overall strategic plan and consider one last time, “based on coming out of the first year, where do we need to conspire to make a difference for the coming year?”  As this question was pondered, a short list of critical priorities was drawn out of the group’s personal reflections.  These priorities were then rank-ordered and the evening of work, felt complete.

Rather than serving as a cookbook for “how to facilitation a reflection process,” I simply wanted to use a recent experience to illustrate an approach to facilitating a reflection process.  The point, I am trying to make is that when we use the strategy of reflection then we need to consider carefully how to connect experience with personal thoughts, feelings, and frames of reference.  This approach differs from listing, comparing and prioritizing by engaging an inward thoughtfulness that seeks meaning more than order.  Again, I used group discussion emphasizing evocative questions.  Equally effective could have been pairing participants and asking each to tell stories, drawn from the past year, related to the strategy areas and then reconvening to share stories.  Yet another approach could have been to send each person to different parts of the building for 30 minutes of journaling reflective thoughts and reconvening to share notes.  Whatever the method, from the facilitation skill perspective, reflection needs to be recognized as a theory-based learning construct that is a constructivist process of moving from experience to future direction on a road that goes through our personal and collective perspectives and points of view.  Indeed, the power of reflection lies in that individual and collective pathway of our shard experience.

There is a large body of literature supporting the “how and why” of the coalition development process, community engagement and community organizing (a few of which are listed below) so providing “coalition development 101″ is not my intent..  Instead, the focus in this post is  to provoke thought around the unique skills required to facilitate a community engagement process like a coalition or community advisory group.

I once had a conversation with a distant colleague and we were reminiscing about a mediocre community engagement processes that we both served on.  We were discussing the quality of the facilitators who led the process and we agreed that, while the facilitators ran productive meetings, that meeting facilitation skills were not enough to sustain what was a complex community collaboration process.  As we brainstormed together, we created a list of competencies that the paid facilitators lacked in managing the process.  Taken together the list suggests the requisite skills needed to meaningfully facilitate community engagement processes.

Meeting Facilitation:  Not wanting to throw the proverbial “baby out with the bathwater,” the obvious fact needs to be stated. Having strong meeting process skills comprises the first competency of managing community engagement.  Being able to develop a meaningful vision, mission, goals, objectives, group process, documentation and communication cycle are the foundational skills of any facilitated process.

Consensus Building and Dispute Resolution:  A second skill area required for community engagement involves understanding mediation and interest-based problem-solving.  Facilitation is not the same as mediation, despite the fact that many confluent the two concepts. The ability to separate interests, needs and impartially structure a process that mediates differences is very different than a facilitation skill of ensuring equal voice and participation. Consensus building and dispute resolution lay the foundation for building structures of trust.

Systems-thinking:  I consider systems thinking to be a core facilitation competency in general.  However, in the context of a community engagement processes systems-thinking takes on critical importance.  Specifically, when one is facilitating a community engagement process, it is imperative that the facilitator understands both the “bricks and mortar” infrastructure of the community (i.e., organizations, policy, and governance) but also understands the social infrastructure of the community.  Without an understanding of how systems work, a facilitator engages the community with a truncated depth perception especially when it comes to the critical processes of stakeholder analysis and power analysis.

Empowerment Theory: Community engagement also requires more than a cursory understanding of empowerment educational theories.  Based on the application of the theories of Paulo Freire facilitation becomes the act of empowering the community. True facilitation designs a respectful process that allows individuals to co-create solutions and in the process develop mutual trust, respect and a sense of community.

Participatory Evaluation and Outcome Mapping:  Finally community engagement requires an innate understanding of participatory evaluation theories.  The process of facilitating community engagement is just that — Engagement.  When community engagement is not going well, the root cause is often traced back to a reliance on meeting facilitation skills and focusing on the means and not the end. Understanding participatory evaluation theories give a facilitator a deep appreciation and understanding of the ends-planning rather than means-planning.  Ends-planning influences the process design and often necessitates a re-thinking of traditional facilitation tools.

As I reflect on the list of skills and competencies required to effectively facilitate a community engagement process I realize that the goals of this list are high and it is a rare moment when the task, resources and group allow all of these skills converge.  However, what it is clear that the overriding theme of facilitating community engagement is the paradoxical challenge of giving away control and power in order to accrue back trust, collaboration and process ownership.  Facilitating community empowerment requires not only an understanding of group process but, in the words of a mentor of mine, “group process squared.”  Community engagement takes basic facilitation skills and requires them to be lengthened, deepened and expanded by a social theory multiplier.

Part two of this post will discuss measuring progress in a community engagement process.

Coalition Development Resources

Web Resource (PDF):  Developing Effective Coalitions
Web Resource (PDF): EPA’s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model
Book: The Spirit of the Coalition
Book: Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health

Again, you comments are always welcome.