The diagram show below really sums up the entire strategy offered. It comes at the very end of the book, although the disparate elements have been thoroughly discussed and diagrammed previously. In his own summation, Kaner begins:
Sustainable agreements don’t happen in a burst of inspiration; they develop slowly. It takes time and effort for people to build a shared framework of understanding, and groups need different types of support at different points in the process. Facilitators who understand this will vary their technique to match the group’s current dynamics.
The following pages review the Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making. Each page summarizes the significance of one zone of the Diamond, with emphasis on issues that hold particular interest for facilitators.
The “Diamond” is, of course, the diagram I’ve reproduced above; and it’s a really handy mental tool for understanding the process. It was developed by the author Sam Kaner and his colleagues Lenny Lind, Catherine Toldi, Sarah Fisk, and Duane Berger. Refer to it again and again as we go through the following commentary.
Business As Usual
When a new topic comes up for discussion in a group, people normally begin the conversation by proposing obvious solutions to obvious problems. The emotional atmosphere is usually congenial but superficial. People refrain from taking risks that would put them in vulnerable positions. If an idea seems workable, it usually leads to quick agreement. “Sounds good to me,” people say. The facilitator’s main task during this phase is to pay attention to the quality and quantity of each person’s participation. Is everyone engaged? Does everyone seem comfortable with the discussion? If so, great! The facilitator then summarizes the proposals under consideration and helps the group reach agreement quickly.
But suppose some people in the group do not support the proposal -- as indicated by statements like, “I don’t think this will work, but I don’t want to stand in the group’s way.” The facilitator can support the group to see the implication of these comments -- namely, that more thinking would be useful. Then, the facilitator can help them break out of the narrow band of familiar opinions and move their discussion into the Divergent Zone.
Something I like about this is the acknowledgement that not every group decision requires a facilitated process to resolve. In many cases, perhaps most, the group is perfectly capable of making and supporting their own sustainable agreement.
The Divergent Zone
When a facilitator supports a group to move from Business as Usual to the Divergent Zone, the mood changes dramatically. Business as Usual discussions are tedious and stiff; people censor themselves rather than risk being embarrassed by criticism. In contrast, laughter and playfulness are common in the Divergent Zone. So are feelings of curiosity and discovery. (“Whoa,” said one group member to another. “You mean that’s your point of view? I had no idea!”)
What creates such a difference between the two zones? To a large extent, the answer is simple: the attitude of suspended judgment.
Suspended judgment is one of the most important thinking skills facilitators can teach their groups. Facilitators can provide groups with opportunities to experience suspended judgment through formats like brainstorming and go-arounds. By teaching suspended judgment and by modeling it whenever possible, a respectful, supportive facilitator can create a relaxed, open atmosphere that gives people permission to speak freely -- the very essence of divergent thinking.
I can’t stress that last paragraph enough. In referring to the Diamond, the author explicitly says that it can be used as a teaching tool to provide their groups with shared language and shared points of reference, and I think the Divergent Zone is one of the prime times to do that. Having everyone in the group understand that the start of the process relies on everyone’s ability to share thoughts and ideas without the judgment of others should avoid most of the pitfalls that groups typically fall into. In this regard, tools like brainstorming and go-arounds serve not just as ways to get a lot of ideas on the table, but to stake out the territory in which a shared framework of understanding can be built.
The Groan Zone
Once a group has expressed several diverging points of view, the members face a quandary. They often don’t understand each other’s perspectives very well, yet they may not be able to resolve the issue at hand until they do understand each other. This is one of the fundamental problems of working in groups.
Even in groups whose members get along reasonably well, the Groan Zone is agonizing. People have to wrestle with foreign concepts and unfamiliar biases. They have to try to understand other people’s reasoning -- even when that reasoning leads to a conclusion they don’t agree with.
The difficulties are compounded by the fact that many people respond awkwardly to this kind of stress. Under pressure, some people lose their focus and start rambling. Others become short-tempered and rude. Some people feel misunderstood and repeat themselves endlessly. Others get so impatient they’ll agree to anything: “Let’s just get this over with! Now!”
This is the crucial point, the place where facilitators really earn their stripes -- and another place where an awareness by all that the “Groan Zone” is normal and to be expected. The three reactions described above are all too familiar, at least to me. Some lose focus and ramble. Others get short-tempered and rude. Still others repeat the same point over and over again. It’s as if no one can see the forest for the trees. What is a facilitator to do with such open dysfunction?
Many facilitators, especially beginners, think their task is to prevent people from experiencing the pain and frustration groups face in the Groan Zone. This is a mistake. The only way to insulate a group from the Groan Zone is to block them from doing the hard work necessary to build a shared framework of understanding.
What, then, is the facilitator’s task in the Groan Zone? Essentially, the job is to hang in there -- hang in and support people while they struggle to understand each other. Support them to hang in there with each other; support them not to give up and mentally check out.
The facilitator’s tenacity is grounded in a client-centered attitude -- a faith that the wisdom to solve the problems at hand will emerge from the group, as long as people don’t give up trying. It is this attitude that allows a facilitator to tolerate the labor pains of authentic collaboration.
This summary is short on the actual practices that a facilitator can employ in order to do this, but the rest of the book is not. There are several key tactics described that can help groups accomplish the two main tasks that facilitators should help them focus on in the “Groan Zone”: Creating Shared Context and Strengthening Relationships.
Creating Shared Context refers to activities that directly advance mutual understanding. This can be done in a variety of ways: by acquiring shared experiences, by developing shared language, by surfacing background information, and by making efforts to put oneself in the other person’s shoes. In all cases the purpose is to enable people to think from each other’s point of view. The essence of this type of activity is understanding.
Strengthening Relationships refers to activities that support people to get to know each other. It is easier to listen to a person’s thinking when one has experienced that person’s humanity. The essence of this type of activity is interpersonal communication.
Whatever tactic is employed, the goal is to help the group build a shared framework of understanding. In other words, stop the group from talking about solutions to the problem, and start them talking about each other and their experiences.
The Convergent Zone
Once a group has developed a shared framework of understanding, everything feels faster, smoother, easier. The pace of discussion accelerates. People say, “Finally, we’re getting something done!” Confidence runs high during this period. People show up on time and stay until the end of the meeting. Between sessions, work that needs to be done gets done.
The experience of searching for an inclusive solution is stimulating and invigorating. People are surprised to discover how well they seem to understand one another. Members now perceive the group as a team. Years later, many people can still remember the joyful intensity of this phase.
Facilitators play a double role during this period of a group’s work: sometimes teaching and sometimes getting out of the way. It may be crucial for a facilitator to teach participants how to turn an Either/Or problem into a Both/And solution. Often the facilitator is the only one who recognizes that Both/And thinking is even possible. But for much of the time, a facilitator might be reduced to chartwriting and keeping track of time. When this happens, be happy! It means the facilitation is succeeding.
The reference to meetings and sessions raises a point that should not be missed. Frequently, often maybe, facilitation is something that takes place over a series of meetings. Driving all the way through the Diamond in one session is neither common nor desired. People often need time to move from phase to phase, and there are plenty of important tips and tactics to employ as you bring people together for session after session.
Here’s one that really jumped out at me.
Seven Types of Meeting Goals
- Share information;
- Advance the thinking;
- Improve communication;
- Build community;
- Build capacity;
- Make decisions; or
- Obtain input.
That’s well and good. But the key point is that everyone at the meeting has to know what the goal of the meeting is. Otherwise, you risk having it go off the rails. A boss that calls a meeting in order to obtain input or share information, but has subordinates come prepared to advance the thinking or make decisions, is setting everyone up for a very dysfunctional conversation.
Always be clear from the beginning what the goal of each meeting is.
Closure Zone
In the Closure Zone most people are focused. They pay attention to nearly every comment -- and most comments are brief and to the point.
These experiences occur, of course, only when the group knows how the decision will be made. When a group does not have a clear understanding of how they are going to reach closure, the facilitator must look for the earliest opportunity to help the members clarify the decision rules.
The tools for reaching closure might be the single most important set of thinking skills a facilitator can teach a group. The Gradients of Agreement Scale helps members discern the actual degree of support for a proposal. Furthermore, a meta-decision procedure allows a group to use different decision rules for different circumstances.
Overall, when group members grasp the principles and mechanics of reaching closure, their group’s capacity strengthens dramatically.
Two things in there really deserve greater elaboration.
Gradients of Agreement
In many of the decision processes where facilitation can be helpful, giving participants only two choices -- support or reject a proposed solution -- is often limiting and counterproductive. A more granular scale can be extremely helpful in building consensus and advancing towards the best solution. In the gradient described in the book, everyone gets to express up to eight distinct levels of support for an idea:
- Whole-hearted Endorsement - “I really like it.”
- Agreement with a Minor Point of Contention - “Not perfect, but it’s good enough.”
- Support with Reservations - “I can live with it.”
- Abstain - “This issue does not affect me.”
- More Discussion Needed - “I don’t understand the issues well enough yet.”
- Don’t Like But Will Support - “It’s not great, but I don’t want to hold up the group.”
- Serious Disagreement - “I am not on board with this -- don’t count on me.”
- Veto - “I block this proposal.”
When faced with a decision point, the book advocates placing this gradient up on a piece of flipchart paper and letting people mark where they sit on the issue at hand. Doing so allows everyone to see the kind of support behind the issue and where there might be more work to do in order to reach greater consensus.
The more important point, I think, is that there are many situations were “lukewarm” support for an idea is good enough, and the old system of voting things up or down may never allow that level of support to emerge. Especially when the stakes are low, or the time-scale for impact is short, or the solution requires low investment from the group, getting most people to say “I can live with it,” may be all that is needed.
But the opposite is also true. When the stakes are high, the time-scale for impact is long, or the solution requires high investment from the group, you had better make sure most can at least say “Not perfect, but it’s good enough.”
Meta-Decision Procedures
Kaner accurately describes a situation that comes up all the time in groups:
At a certain point in practically every discussion, the person-in-charge has to decide whether to end the discussion and make a decision.
This is the “meta-decision” and having a clearly understood procedure for it is absolutely essential to consensus-based decision making.
To most people who play the role of person-in-charge, this fact is intuitively obvious. They recognize the situation because they deal with it every day. But it is not so obvious to the other participants at a meeting. They often don’t know how to interpret what’s going on. As a result of such confusion, people can become frustrated, angry, and passive…
Fortunately, it is easy to reduce the disparity between the perspective of the person-in-charge and the perspective of the other members. The solution is to show everyone what the person-in-charge is doing. Show a simple diagram like the one drawn above, and explain the options. When the choice point is made explicit, the confusion is removed.
Here’s a transcript of the diagram just referred to:
The Discussion Reaches a Stopping Point
Option A: The person-in-charge decides that the discussion has been adequate. S/he feels ready to bring the issue to closure by making a final decision.
Option B: The person-in-charge decides that important issues still need to be thought through. S/he wants the group to continue the discussion.
This awareness by everyone in the group is extremely important. It puts the appropriate frame on the discussion so that everyone understands their role. The decision will be made by the person-in-charge, as is the decision as to when to make that decision.
The Facilitator’s Four Functions
This helpful guide ends by reinforcing these final four points. In any discussion, it is the job of the facilitator to:
- Encourage full participation
- Promote mutual understanding
- Foster inclusive solutions
- Cultivate shared responsibility
The facilitator’s mission is to support people to do their best thinking. The four functions shown above are the guiding principles for enacting that mission.
Embedded in the four functions are the core values of participatory decision-making. They ground the work of group facilitation. They strengthen individuals. They strengthen the whole group. And they enable groups to tap the deep collective wisdom of their membership to develop intelligent, sane, sustainable agreements.
When we facilitate, we are the “delivery system” for participatory values. We embody them, we express them, we enact them. As such, we are keepers of the flame -- we’re the advocates, the teachers, and the midwives -- for the emergence of inclusive solutions to the world’s toughest problems.
It’s a final reminder, not just of the tactics, but the stakes.
+ + +
This post first appeared on Eric Lanke's blog, an association executive and author. You can follow him on Twitter @ericlanke or contact him at eric.lanke@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment