PLB Blog page

Facilitation plus

04/11/2009

I've been doing quite a lot of my Facilitation Plus© workshop lately. This is a 4 day workshop that introduces people to the theory and principles and allows 2 full days of practice sessions for people to master the skills and get lots of feedback from me and their colleagues.

The participants of these workshops are in-house professions who have volunteered or been identified to provide facilitation services to increase collaboration across departments and partner organisations. Although they are excited and motivated by the challenge of facilitation, they often report frustration about the lack of willingness to collaborate on the part of some groups and the resultant 'failure' or these meetings.

When we discuss the barriers to collaboration, my clients have no end of them. They appear to be a common theme with these and other people I meet in our Geneva Facilitator Network so I thought I'd capture some of the concerns and ideas that have generated.

Organisational Barriers

People are frequently brought together for a low level organisational issue that is the symptom rather than the cause of a problem. They then become frustrated and lose focus because the group needs to address issues over which they personally have no power or influence. Unfortunately the barriers to collaboration sit high up the level of the organisation. It is cold comfort to people involved in these meetings that the barriers are often accidental and usually the by product of customary ways of doing things.

So, what can we as facilitators do to help organisations and groups to collaborate more effectively. Because when groups do work well together the most amazing successes can result. I've organised the guidelines into two parts: the higher level organisational issues and the immediate 'operational' issues occurring within an actual meeting.

Guidelines for organisational projects

Organizational collaboration requires a systems approach. Any project must consider the highest level of authority and decision making required to implement recommendations or action plans. This high level support must be made explicit at the outset and must be manifested in the work of the group. How to do that:

1. Get everyone in the room. Make sure that everyone who has an interest in the topic, has relevant information about it, and who will be affected by the decisions of the group is represented.
2. Get the highest level of authority required for the project. If this person cannot be involved for the entire project, have them open up the kick-off meeting and to publically announce commitment to the outcomes and the implementation of the group's recommendations. Keep them updated and keep them involved.
3. Clarify decision making authorities and make sure the group has the required level to address the issues it identifies as critical to the outcome.
4. Clarify the relative power struggles in the organisation. Some divisions are better funded and may have more power and influence in the organisation than others. How will this manifest itself in the project and how will it be handled?
5. Make sure that realistic resources are allocated to the meeting - not just finances for organising and running the meetings in terms of venue, travel, refreshments and materials. Ensure that the people identified to be part of the project or task force are allocated the time to take part in all meetings and to produce any work required of them by the team.
6. Ensure that requisite experts are available - go beyond the self promoted expert and look outside of the group or the organisation. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of such experts to avoid misunderstandings and conflict.
7. Hold meetings only when a face to face encounter brings value and progresses your process. Do not convene meetings to simply share information or present status reports. Do this electronically through documents and templates.
8. Make sure that all meetings are professionally run with agendas, process, decision making procedures and concrete outcomes. Treat virtual meetings the same as a face to face. There is no excuse for not having an agenda for a virtual meeting.
9. Formalise the presentation of the recommendations of the group both as a deliverable document and also as a process to all who have an interest or will be affected by the decisions.
10. Organise a clear exit strategy for the group. Recognise and celebrate success.

Operational Meeting

Once meetings have been convened and the people are in the room, there is still no guarantee that collaboration will magically occur. Some of the common barriers the collaboration will include:

• Reluctance to communicate with people they do not know well and may not trust
• Fear of the 'shoot the messenger' syndrome - whistle blowers have a tendency to get shot or have short careers, so some people with important information tend to be silent
• The 'tall poppy syndrome' - people who stand up above others with bright ideas or changes to the system will lose their heads. Even more evident in traditional cultures and organisations, where people will keep their heads down, figuratively and literally.
• Ego, some people don?t want to be involved in a discussion that they cannot control and so will withhold their contributions or worse may work to destabilise or take over the group
• No one sufficiently important around so they keep ideas to themselves until there is a more prestigious audience - Knowledge is power
• People don't want to embarrass the boss, or their peers so they keep quiet (especially in Asia)
• You're not sure that the information is correct, so just in case, keep it to themselves so they don't lose "face"
• People are intimidated by senior representatives of the organisation.
• Unwillingness to address the 'elephant' - the major unspoken taboo
• The boss or others will only steal the idea, so people are reluctant to share
• People don't trust the process and don't believe it will be transparent and democratic.
• Decision making has not been clarified and do not believe their contributions will be seriously considered and therefore make a difference
• People are unfamiliar with collaborative processes and feel uncomfortable in anything but plenary discussions.

Guidelines for collaborative meetings

1. Contract with the 'sponsor' (the highest level manager authorising the meeting and interested in its outcomes) to set the 'boundaries of the project'. Make sure that critical topics are within its 'sphere of influence'.
2. Clarify the decision making processes: is the meeting
   • truly collaborative with its outcomes and recommendations being accepted as is, or
   • will the manager take the recommendations under advisement and decide him or herself, or
   • truly collaborative with its outcomes and recommendations being accepted as is, or
3. Establish team charter if the team is to meet over a period a time. For a one time meeting establish clear ground rules and code of conduct.
4. Invest time at the beginning to build rapport among the group
5. Encourage openness and transparency. Unless there are genuine concerns for fears of retribution accept no anonymous items. It is best if inputs are owned by the original contributor. This is essential to control the quality of contributions and to provide rebuttal opportunity if needed. The author's identity is often a good guide to the value and importance of an item.
6. Use methods that demonstrate the collaborative and collegiate culture you are trying to establish.
7. Encourage the group to address whatever 'elephants' may be hindering progress
8. Be ready to intervene on the part of members who are dismissed or disrespected or seem to be threatened by more senior members. In some cultures this may require a gender balance approach
9. Clarify the role of Subject Matter Experts: Will they contribute as a regular member of the group or simply provide unbiased input for consideration. Be aware of inappropriate influence of SME on the discussions of the group
10. Provide opportunities for brainstorming sessions where ideas can be explored and people might be more willing to expose half-formed ideas to a wider audience. Go beyond traditional brainstorming to allow for building on ideas. Try methods such as 'Six Hats' etc to encourage developing ideas that have possibility. The group might decide to allow a sub-group to further explore an idea generated in such a way before presenting it to a wider audience.

New Web site

21/05/2009

I'm excited about the launch of my new website and want to thank the designers at INFORM2.com for their great work and patience in working with such a non technical client. I am delighted with the results. It is intended to help people understand what PLB Consulting does and can offer to existing and new clients. It gives you a description of the many courses we already offer around the world and, past and current clients have promised to share stories of how they have used some of the learnings. I will also be sharing the great collection of photographs that we make of all of our trainings and facilitations. Check it out and let me know if you have any comments or suggestions for enhancements.

The web site is also a great opportunity to share my continuous learnings with a broader audience than I have contact with in the 'physical world'. I'm constantly being asked when I will write a book of my experiences. This is a longer term project, so the blog will give me an immediate opportunity to share the insights gained from so many wonderful people I have the privilege to work with every week.

The last two weeks I have been completely involved in two training of training workshops which we call Train with the Brain in Mind: Design and Deliver Great Learning Programmes. I have had the honour of working with a group of great people from a number of international organisations working in fields as diverse as leadership, grant management and policy development for HIV/AIDS programmes, statelessness, migration management, project writing and induction programmes. You can imagine the lively discussions we?ve had in applying brain friendly rules to adult learning in such a wide range of intellectual and also geographical contexts. A topic of lively discussion in all the workshops is the one about the Facilitator /Trainer role. It is important for us to explore these two terms as they are often used synonymously in many organisations, and it is obvious that many people do not fully grasp the true distinction between the terms. The confusion is expounded by the fact that the brief resource people receive from their sponsors is equally ambiguous.

In the 'Train with the Brain' workshop, groups are asked to define the terms and to clarify the distinctive difference between the two. A major contentious point in the debates is the belief that a person cannot facilitate a meeting in which they are not an expert. This is not a bipolar discussion; several considerations are explored, but two of the main questions that emerge are "What is facilitation?" And, "What is your role as a subject matter expert (SME)?" Now quite rightly there are many factors to consider when trying to clarify the appropriate role that you should play when invited to 'present' at a seminar, conference or workshop. Some of them will include:

• The actual brief that you have received - it may be made clear that people are expecting a presentation from you as an SME. They are waiting for what you have to say because of your expertise or reputation or the organisation you represent
• The format and tone of the conference - sometimes there is a structured format. You might even receive standard templates for presentations and you may be stuck with a large theatre style conference room
• The expectations and profiles of the participants - I have spoken at several facilitation conferences and at our own Geneva Facilitator Network meetings and the dilemma is always 'How do I provide new info or techniques in a facilitative way' Sometimes there is new information to be shared which people do not have
• The geographic location - some cultures have more formal expectations of expert conferences than others. It easy to generalise and say that in Africa, Easter Europe and Asia people have more formal and traditional expectations for expert input. However I have worked personally in many countries in those regions and worked with clients in many more and while this certainly has an element of truth, the reality is we have successfully designed and delivered non traditional, lively and engaging sessions all around the world.
• The expected output of the session or workshop - information, plans, tools, templates,...

For many of my clients the expected output or impact of their interventions is that local bodies - governments, institutions, communities, - have to think about how to apply the knowledge they receive when they return home.

Now this last point contributes to the confusion that some people have about their role. When a person is asked to facilitate a meeting for the purposes of group decision making, the role is easy to define. In the true sense of professional facilitation, (my reference here is the International Association of Facilitators of which I am a member and also a certified facilitator), the facilitator is neutral to the subject matter and to the substantive outcome of the meeting. So the Facilitator is the expert in the process, but not the expert of the content. Their belief set is that the group has the information, intelligence and wisdom to arrive at a consensus decision, and the facilitator?s role is to provide a process in which that discussion can happen. In this role the facilitator does not have to be an expert in the content; although many clients feel more comfortable if they believe you know their business and their context. When this is the case the challenge is to remain neutral and to avoid advising or consulting.

The big challenge arises when the person is invited as both the subject matter expert, example in 'statelessness' or migration or appropriate HIV diagnostics and access to treatments, and is then expected to 'facilitate' either a discussion - usually again from their 'expert' position or to help the group reflect on how to implement new knowledge. With such sensitive topics, governments and communities usually don't appreciate being told what to do, but may appreciate an opportunity to explore potential solutions with peers. At the same time they expect the subject matter expert ( SME) to provide input and perspective.

A model that has evolved through these workshops shows the Professional Trainer/Presenter adopting skills on a continuum that moves from 100% presentation to 100% facilitation. The model does not attempt to distinguish between a trainer and facilitator, but rather attempts to illustrate when a professional trainer or SME in a professional workshop or conference needs to assess the appropriate appoach by understanding the knowledge or experience level of the audience in order to demonstrate more 'teacher input style' or adopt a more 'facilitative style'. The choice of the appropriate role depends on the amount of knowledge and experience you assess or perceive to be in the room. When knowledge is low then it is appropriate to present it. There is nothing more frustrating than being asked about information about which you know very little. Most adult learners will avoid the humiliation of offering a 'wrong' answer. When knowledge or experience is high, it is usually more appropriate to have a group reflect on that knowledge and contribute to the discussion. The presenter need then only fill in the obvious gaps.

You can see from the model that at the centre of the diagram is the learner role. One of the most important roles you can play is that of someone open to and ready to learn from every experience. This keeps us humble and at the same time allows us to stay on top of the game.

The great fun following this discussion is in identifying a wide variety of methods and techniques appropriate to the group, topic and expected outcomes. But this is the subject of several blogs to follow... Happy learning and have serious fun!