Just ask any of the growing number of Feng Shui consultants how important your environment is to your effectiveness. I’m sure each of you can remember a time attending an event where something in the environment either supported or hindered your involvement in, or enjoyment of the experience.

According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, any unmet needs at the physical level will supersede all higher order needs. Group process is definitely a higher order event on this hierarchy. And sure enough, if the environment is just right, most people won’t even notice. But if something is off, everyone is likely to be distracted from what you’re trying to accomplish.

So, as facilitators, the environment is a very important, and sometimes forgotten, piece of the puzzle that we must take into consideration whenever we design a group process, meeting, training, etc. 

Here are the key dimensions to examine each time you plan an event

Physical Level. Attend to the physical comfort of your participants by checking your ability to control temperature, noise levels inside (echoes) and outside the room. Is the seating appropriate to your audience? For example, no grammar school desks at an adult meeting. If you use overheads or a white board, can everyone see them with the current seating arrangement? If you plan to break into small groups, is there room to do so? Are chairs and tables arranged in a way that’s appropriate to your purpose? For example, don’t set up the room lecture style (most rooms come set up this way) if you’re trying to facilitate large group interaction. Are you providing food for the event? Consider the timing and duration of the event to determine when, what, and how food should be served. Also consider that serving food or deserts of some kind often get more people to show up (feed them and they will come!), but also consider that depending on what you serve, eating may cause participants to lose their attention afterwards.

Sensory Level. Can everyone be heard from one end of the room to the other? If not, make sure you have sound equipment available and readily accessible to anyone in the room. This may require multiple microphones, or microphone runners. Also, make sure you test the equipment yourself and feel competent using it. How does the room look? Is it clean and uncluttered? Any strange smells that could be distracting? Is the lighting adequate for your purposes? Can it be adjusted to your needs or can you rearrange the seating to make it work? 

Emotional Level. Have you taken into account the “mood” you want to create to support your purpose? Are there certain colors, pictures, sounds, smells that you could use to facilitate a tone conducive for the work to be done? Do you plan to use music? Are the selections appropriate? Can the equipment be placed so that everyone will hear it at a comfortable level?

Action

Look at the environment in your next group meeting. Note how it affects you positively or negatively and jot down at least three things you notice that work or don’t work. I’m interested in hearing what happens for you. Comment below to share your questions, feedback, or experience.

The idea that we create our reality is as old as the ancient Hindu Vedas, which state that Atman (the individual) is Brahman (the cosmos). This suggests that the whole of experience somehow resides in our consciousness, and that it is our consciousness that shapes, attracts, or otherwise brings about what seem to be random events. Today, we have the hologram, DNA, and other scientific models of how the part can contain the whole, so this may be less foreign to our thinking than it was even fifty years ago. The metaphysical principle “As within, so without,” is another way of saying that our reality follows from the prevailing “weather” of our consciousness.

In simple ways we can see that belief is self-fulfilling: if we’re bitter and cynical, we may expect a like response from others, whereas if we are cheerful and generous, we invite this sort of thing in return. But the idea that we are, wittingly or not, creating our reality goes far beyond the psychological self-fulfillment of attitude or perception. We also literally embody intentions, deep structures of the psyche that comprise what we take to be real and that with which we identify, and these structures, exercising a nonlocal effect, ingeniously fulfill pay-offs in ways that defy direct cause-and-effect mapping. These fulfillments show up as synchronicities or “coincidences,” miracles, and moments when destiny seems to reach out and lay its hand on us.

The I that creates reality is not the I that we usually experience ourselves to be, not the I that we see in the mirror. This point can hardly be overstated. Many of us, caught up in new-age formulations of “we create our reality,” have attempted to use affirmations, visualizations, and other consciousness-as-cause techniques to make changes in our experience, only to find ourselves running into walls. Part of the problem is that this I that is willfully attempting to change events is itself not changing; it continues to be willful, and circumstances continue to reflect this willfulness by persisting. The approach is self-defeating.

The I that creates reality does not stand apart from the reality it creates. The reality-creating I is not the separate, willful self. This is a subtle but crucial point. We can’t change reality through personal will, because the very attempt confers the status of reality on the thing it seeks to change. In other words, as long as the will is attempting to make real something that it regards as not real, it has cast its vote wrongly, and secured the very outcome it would overcome. When we create conditions through force of will, the results are unpredictable and often fail to fulfill us. When we allow the re-creation of our consciousness, however, conditions change accordingly. So, our work is always on ourselves.

Unwitting Choice and Radical Responsibility

At first look, the phrase “unwitting choice” may seem self-contradictory, but the contradiction vanishes when we take into account the subtlety and ingenuity of human consciousness. We reach conclusions early in life, sometimes as a result of trauma, and often driven by the will to survive or to be accepted and loved.

For example, we may decide that it is noble to suffer, or to carry all responsibility alone, or that we exist to meet the needs of others and that by doing so, we will have our needs met in return. These stances earn certain payoffs: So, in the examples given, we will find that suffering is ever with us, or that others always seem to expect us to lead and come up with solutions, or that we are continually being taken advantage of or neglected. To be convincing, these things must appear to be happening to us rather than through us. Eventually, we come to believe that we’re seeing “how life is,” but we’re actually catching the boomerangs of hidden choices made long ago and wrapped in a self-induced amnesia.

As long as we hold to these stances, secretly disowning the inner process each moment, the magic trick is convincing, a sleight-of-mind through which cause presents itself as effect, and the creator, as victim. Taking “radical responsibility” for the events of our life-without self-judgment or blame of any kind-is the key to uplifting the self and aligning individual (Particle) consciousness with the miraculous efficiency of the Field.

The idea of radical responsibility is based on the working assumption that, at its deepest levels, Particle consciousness is causative. Taking this sort of responsibility involves looking “through” events to identify themes in our experience, then responding more to these themes than to the circumstances themselves. There may be several “charged” situations at a given time in more than one area, as though the Field wants to get our attention, e.g., conflict at home over finances, something upsetting happening at work, and sudden mechanical problems with the car. The student then scans these seemingly random and discrete situations for a common theme, finding it much the same way that we discover the meaning of a dream. Once the theme is clear, the student takes responsibility for its manifesting, in whatever way intuition indicates, The shift in the student’s consciousness is then complete, and before long, circumstances fall in line with the shifted consciousness.

© Philip Golabuk, 2012, FieldProject.net

Action

Scan your life for themes this week. What did you find? How would you like it to be different? Will you allow yourself to be it?  Share your questions, feedback, or experience below.

One of a facilitators (particularly a new facilitators) greatest fears is the possibility that the group will object to what’s they’re doing or not cooperate with them in some way. 

Challenges may come to you directly through verbal objections: “This process isn’t working”…”Your style isn’t working with our group”…”Why do you keep interupting us?”…etc.

Challenges may also come indirectly through behaviors: Participants are slow to respond to your suggestions, they talk amongst themselves, they are ignoring you, members take over the facilitation role without consent, participants consistently arrive back late from breaks, etc.

Challenges such as these, particularly direct challenges, are not only valid forms of communication from the group, but signs of a mature group that’s strong enough to challenge what they feel isn’t working. Challenges need to be resolved immediately by restating the challenge back to the group, asking for clarification if needed, and checking with the entire group for consensus. 

If the group concurs that something needs to change, ask them to suggest a process or direction they think is appropriate. If their isn’t a strong consensus, you might suggest continuing on the present course to see if things clear up and revisit the issue later in the meeting. If a single participant brought up the issue and doesn’t agree to this, then ask them to make a specific request.

Remember that you are only one member of the group and that you require their support and cooperation to help them reach their goals. If something isn’t working, it’s the entire groups’ responsibility to get to the source of the problem.

Ultimately, it may turn out that you’re not the right facilitator for this group at this time. This is not necessarily a reflection on your abilities, it just may be that your skills or style don’t fit their needs at this time. Elicit any feedback you can from the group and check to see if you can use it in the future to improve. Acknowledge that you’re OK and they’re OK and move on. 

What Do We Do With Facilitator Challenges?

Be Curious and Accepting. If you’re in a group and have received challenges like any of those listed above, an attitude of acceptance and openness is a critical first step. Open curiosity and acceptance of criticism is rarely seen in our culture. This attitude alone is sometimes enough for a breakthrough. From this stance, you and the group will be able to hear and receive information that may help you move forward.

Solicit Feedback. Ask group members for specific perceptions and feedback. Here is some sample language for that:

There have been several challenges to my facilitation at this meeting. I can only fulfill this role with your consent and support. Let’s have a look at what is and isn’t working for each person.

Then go around the room and get input from every participant. If any of the inputs are unclear, ask that they be restated until you understand them and ask one of the members record responses. If next actions aren’t clear by going through this process, make or ask for suggestions in resolving the issues noted.

Action

Reflect on any challenge you’ve received as a facilitator. What have you learned from it? Has what you’ve learned helped you to be a better facilitator? We’d love to hear your perspective on this important subject.  Please share your questions, feedback, or experience on this topic below.

How often to you hear statements like these:

“They can’t be getting any work done over there, they’re always laughing.”
“We don’t have time for play right now, we’ve got work to do!”
“They’re having just too much fun.”

Tell me, how can anyone have too much fun? And personally, I don’t see all that many people having much fun at all anymore, especially in the work environment. But of course not. Why should they? We all know that having fun just doesn’t mesh with getting work done. Now most of us see the fallacy in this statement, yet it is still firmly entrenched in the fabric of our culture. Is it not?

Most of us know that lightheartedness, playfulness, and laughter makes us feel more creative and enthusiastic. We also know that creativity and enthusiasm are qualities highly treasured in progressive workplaces. Perhaps progressive is the key word here. So let’s be progressive. Let’s look at how humor and play are good for our success in work groups.

 Elevate Your Meetings With Humor

 Using Humor With Groups. The following tips on the use of humor in groups were adapted from a book by the 3M Meeting Management Team, Mastering Meetings: Discovering the Hidden Potential of Effective Business Meetings.

When all else fails, lighten up. Injecting a little humor may be all that’s needed to lift a group out of a rut when they get stuck, help put them at ease in times of stress, make bad news easier to accept, or to introduce a sensitive subject. Here’s an example:

Shortly after the breakup of AT&T, the company fielded questions about the consequences of reorganization. A frequent hostile question from the audiences was, “Why are long-distance rates going up?” One speaker gave this reply: “It’s sort of a good news-bad news situation. It’s true that long-distance rates are going up–that’s the bad news. The good news is, the continents are drifting closer together.”

Get them laughing to speed up their process. Humor is avoided in your typical business meetings because many managers believe that it simply wastes time. Humor consultant, Malcolm Kushner suggests the opposite. “The real objective of meetings is to exchange information or solve a problem. If humor contributes to a free flow of information, then it can actually speed things up.”

Humor is a rich source of productivity. Studies have shown that people with a sense of humor “tend to be more creative, less rigid, and more willing to consider and embrace new ideas,” says Kushner. Think about it. Humor occurs naturally during brainstorming sessions. Brainstorming and problem-solving “require a fresh perspective, looking at things from an offbeat angle. So does humor.”

You don’t have to leave them in stitches. According to Michael Iapoce, another humor consultant, you don’t have to be a comedian to use humor in meetings and groups. “Only professional comics need to get big laughs. If you can get people in a meeting to chuckle, they’re grateful. And if your joke or one-liner doesn’t get a laugh, just ignore it.”

Make it relevant. Your humor should be relevant to the situation at hand. Telling a joke or funny story just to get a laugh isn’t usually in the best interest of the group. Here’s an example: When David Kearns, then Chairman and CEO of Xerox Corporation, spoke at a management conference at the University of Chicago in 1986, he began this way:

There’s a story about a Frenchman, a Japanese, and an American who face a firing squad. Each gets one last request. The Frenchman asks to hear The Marseillaise. The Japanese asks to give a lecture on the art of management. The American says, “Shoot me first–I can’t stand one more lecture on Japanese management.”

Kearns went on to say he was not going to speak about Japanese management, but about what Japan might learn from America.

Keep it tasteful. Of course you must refrain from any humor that might in the slightest way be offensive to your particular audience. “Sometimes people are not sure whether a joke is appropriate for a certain group, but they tell it anyway,” says Krushner. “That’s like saying, ‘I’m not sure if this gun is loaded, but I’ll fire it anyway,” Rule of thumb: When in doubt, leave it out.

Know your audience. Different groups may respond to various types of humor in radically different ways. It’s important that you know enough about your groups so that you can be sensitive to how they may respond to the content of your humor. One 3M manager recalls the following disaster:

I spent a great deal of my career in Minnesota and surrounding areas, and people would pick up the Texas inflection in my voice. When I was doing a speech to any large group I could make a joke about Texans or Texas accents as a little opener to warm up, give them a feel for my personality, and a little bit of my background. And it always went really well. I made a speech in Dallas once to about 600 people with the same opening, and I died. I could not recover….That was one of those things you have to learn the hard way.

Wear your personality inside out. In closing, I wanted to share that in my own humble experience, I’ve often inspired the greatest laughter when I least expected it. On these occasions, I believe the secret was that I was just being myself and sharing what I was thinking or feeling in the moment. Authenticity not only brings freshness and lightness to your groups, it can also bring a great deal of humor as well.

Action

Pick a humor tip or two to try out with your groups or in your meetings this week. Let us know how it turns out. And, if you have any stories related to the use of humor in facilitation or in your work that might interest our readers, please post them as well. We’d love to hear from you!  Just share your questions, feedback, or experience on this topic below.

Capitalizing on Strengths. Co-facilitation allows one person to present while the others observe and support their partner. Partners can divide the material in a way that lets them capitalize on individual strengths and have their own moment in the spotlight.

Conserving Energy. Presenting can be tiring both for facilitators and participants. Co-facilitators provide diversity in voices, presentation styles and energy levels which can serve to hold the attention of the group, while giving each facilitator time to shine and time to rest.

Maximizing Diverse Resources. No one, no matter how well educated or skilled, has a talent for or knows everything. Working as a team allows each person to contribute the best of his or her gifts, talents and resources.

Extra Eyes, Ears and Hands. Two facilitators can manage a group better than one. The second person can help gauge participants’ reactions and notice whether people seem to tracking with the process. Co-facilitators can also help hand out materials, assist in monitoring discussions and/or coaching participants in breakout groups. Finally, co-facilitators can monitor and handle problems with the physical environment, latecomers, phone calls, audio-visuals, and other logistical matters.

Providing Mutual Support. Everyone can have an “off” day. Perhaps an activity did not go as planned, or maybe your energy is low or scattered. Co-facilitators bring balance to the team. I find that when one facilitator is off, usually the others will be on. Co-facilitators’ behavior towards one another – if it’s supportive, respectful, and collaborative, serves as a model for the way participants can behave towards each other.

Co-Facilitation Best Practices

While working effectively with other facilitators may just happen naturally, that isn’t always the case. Here are some tips to take into account with working with facilitation partners.

Before the Workshop

• Plan and Document. For a facilitation team to work together seamlessly, more planning and documentation is required than when you’re working alone. Imagine the complexity of a script needed for a one-person monologue versus one required for a three act play with multiple characters. All the characters need to have a way to know when and how they fit into the whole.
• Practice What You Preach. As a co-facilitation team, you are essentially a group working through its process to achieve goals just like you will be helping others do. So get to know each other and do what it takes to build healthy authentic relationships where honest and compassionate feedback is welcomed and differences are worked through in healthy ways. Do this because, the relationship you develop as co-facilitators will comprise, to a large degree, a silent yet tangible teaching to your groups.
• Leverage Strengths, Minimize Weaknesses. Discuss each other’s style of planning and facilitating and share each other’s triggers. Verbalize what you feel your are best at and what you are most challenged by. Discuss how you’d like to work with strengths and weaknesses in the context of the workshop material.
• Test Assumptions. Take time to discuss your views about the workshop topic, especially areas of disagreement, and any assumptions you have about each other.
• Facilitate Your Planning Sessions. Just because your facilitators doesn’t mean you’re immune from the need for facilitation. Even if you only have a two-person team, have one of you facilitate your meetings to make sure you have clear objectives, that you stay on course to achieve them, and that results and action items are documented.
• Handle Logistics. Take about whether, when, and how it is okay to interrupt each other. Decide how to keep track of time. Plan ways to give signals to one another. Strategize about how to stick to the original outline and how to switch gears. Divide facilitation of activities fairly. Agree to how you will share responsibility in preparing and bringing workshop materials and resources. Agree to arrive at the workshop site in time to set up and check-in before the workshop begins. Schedule time after the workshop to debrief.

During the Workshop

• Communicate Liberally. During activities that don’t require constant attention, check-in with one another. Sharing the subtleties of what you see and experience can be invaluable to making course corrections and inspired innovations in the moment. Support and validate one another and use lots of eye contact.
• Facilitator Interventions. Include your co-facilitator even when you are leading an exercise or discussion, by asking, for example: “Do you have anything to add?” Assert yourself if your co-facilitator is talking too much and take the initiative to step in if your co-facilitator misses an opportunity to address something.
• Embrace Mistakes. Actually pointing out a mistake that was made while facilitating can be an invaluable teaching opportunity if the mistake relates to the context of what you’re teaching. The willingness to admit and look at your mistakes also does wonders for bolstering the group’s trust in you, as well as providing wonderful modeling in resilience.

After the Workshop

• Conduct a Debrief. If you can’t meet right after the workshop, schedule a time to debrief before you leave. Listen carefully to one another’s self-evaluation before giving feedback. Discuss what worked well and what did not. Brainstorm what could have been done differently. Name particular behaviors, for example: “When you kept interrupting me, I felt undermined and frustrated”, or “I got the impression that some participants were bored”, instead of “You always interrupt me” or “You were very controlling during the workshop.” Realize the importance and potential difficulty of debriefing a challenging workshop.
• Use Evaluations. Use written evaluations as a reference point to talk about the workshop, and assess your effectiveness as co-facilitators.

Questions from Readers and my Responses

We are a newly formed group of 3 budding facilitators. The biggest challenge I face currently is the designing of a training program. I have observed that when more than one person is involved, they have different flows of thinking and find it difficult to integrate the thinking flows to come to a common design. Since we have a certain understanding level among us, one or the other ends up compromising on his/her design part. We share & talk about it. But somehow, its hard for that person to maintain the energy level after that. To handle this is it wise to have one lead facilitator for each program?

SD: You first challenge about integrating divergent ideas from multiple parties is simply part of the landscape of developing a creative product as a group. Have you heard of the Groan Zone in Sam Kaner’s Diamond Model? First, it’s helpful for everyone to understand that this tension is a natural and expected part of the process. Kind of like labor pains giving birth to something new. If there is no tension, your creation is not likely to be very durable, or shall I say, creative. Just like facilitating any process, it helps to have someone facilitate your creative sessions to assure things keep moving, that everyone is staying on track, being heard, etc. Then simply embrace the delicious challenge of co-creating together!

I’m having a reaction to your compromise comment. It seems to me that in a group of three, most of the time you could find consensus on your issues. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees 100% on every action. But it does mean that everyone expresses themselves to completion so that once a decision is reached, everyone can still get behind the decision. If people are giving in to the point they are losing energy, that makes me suspect that they aren’t fully expressing themselves. This is an issue I would suggest discussing directly among your team to talk about what you can do to work this process so that everyone can remain fully committed. This will be an ongoing exercise as life and humans are dynamic systems!

As to having one lead facilitator for each program, that depends. I like the idea of having multiple facilitators during a session for the reasons mention in this article. However, in my experience, it’s useful to have a lead facilitator for each segment. Someone responsible for leading the design and delivery of that module, while still leaving room for input from other facilitators before, during, and after the process.

How do we ensure same level of commitment by all throughout a program?

SD: There’s no way to ensure anything like that. Levels of commitment will always vary depending on life circumstances, interests, etc. But do what I suggest in my answer above and I think that will help a lot!

Yes. We are aware of the “Groan zone” in the Diamond model & other models & theories on working in group. But as you rightly said we need to start practicing it for ourselves before we preach. How can we assume that we are a different ‘group’ as it’s a group of facilitators and leaders?

I think, we are, at least I am, weighing relationship more & so afraid to hurt others feelings while giving feedback. Also trying to encourage each other & holding back due to the fear that it might discourage the other person. Will work out a way to improve transparency. Rather I prefer to state it in a direct manner.

SD: Giving effective feedback is a critical skill to learn and to teach. And strangely enough, giving honest and direct feedback is often lost among groups inclined toward facilitative/consensus operating norms, and this can be a great disservice to the group. Assuming people are not strong enough to receive feedback is actually disrespectful in a sense. Put yourself at the receiving end and I think you see what I mean.

I’d say that one of the most valuable things to practice as a facilitation group is to disagree and critically debate each other’s ideas. A prerequisite to fully committing yourselves to the learning and growth of your participants, is to realize that you are not your ideas, you are simply the vehicles for their delivery.

ACTION

What has your experience been co-facilitating groups? Are there any tips or responses to the questions above that you’d like to add to this list? Feel free to share your experiences, questions, answers, and feedback below.

There are many ways to make decisions.

Five Popular Decision-Making Models

	Authoritative Model: Information and authority reside with the leader. Appropriate when the leader alone has knowledge related to the decision or when time is critical. Method: The leader controls the decision without input or suggestions from others and holds personal responsibility for the outcome. Concerns: This model is non-participative. Others in the organization may not support the decision and there is a lack of group responsibility for outcomes.
	Majority Decides-Voting Model: Information and authority reside with the leaders and all group members. Appropriate when all group members have knowledge about the decision and formality required. Method: The leader shares control of the decision by allowing the group to vote. The outcome is decided by majority wins. Concerns: Those who disagree with the decision may undermine efforts to implement it.
	Participative Model: Team members have information related to the decision. Authority resides with the leader. Appropriate when the leader must make a decision but needs input or information from others. Method: In the participative model, the leader makes a decision after receiving information and suggestions from other group members. Concerns: While the leader receives input from others, implementers may disagree with the decision. There is also a lack of group responsibility.
	Contributive Model: Information and authority reside with the leader and those who will implement the decision. Appropriate when a small number of individuals will carry out the work for the whole. Method: In contributive decision-making, a leader and key implementers receive input and suggestions from all members of the group, but ultimately, the small group decides the direction to take. Contributive decision-making is similar to the Consensus model but narrows the actually decision-making body to those who will the complete work associated with the decision. Concerns: The contributive decision-making method requires explanation and practice before most groups become comfortable with it.
	Consensus Model: Information and authority resides with the leader and all group members. Appropriate when participation from all group members is important and the decision will impact the group as a whole. Method: Everyone in the group needs to agree and make a decision together. Concerns: Has the potential to be very slow or to hold a group hostage if group members fail to agree.

Action

Get familiar with each of these models and their pro’s and con’s. Then practice employing the most appropriate approach the next time your group needs to make a decision. Share your experiences, questions, or feedback in the comments section below. I’d love to hear from you!

Be a Model of Presence

One of the attractive aspects of facilitation is that you don’t have to do the work for your group. Though sometimes, what you do have to do is a lot harder. One of those things, which I see as the hallmark of an advanced facilitator, is our ability to be truly present with our group. Let’s explore what I mean by being present and why it is important.

To be present, you have to release your attention to the past or the future and invest your full attention in the present moment alone. In this state of mind, paradoxically, you know nothing because your are applying your brain power to fully experiencing what’s happening with and among your group. This is important because very few of us really ever live fully in the present moment. When we do witness someone in this state, it’s powerful and transformative, not only for them but for everyone in their presence. A fully present facilitator serves as the clearest mirror possible for her group, which in turn the group the opportunity to see themselves–their actions, their thoughts, and their feelings at once clearly–which has a way of revealing the best next action with regard to the work they’re assembled themselves to do.

How Do We Practice Presence? 

•  Practice an attitude of gratitude and appreciation. Be grateful for being in a position of group leadership and grateful for the insights that you trust will come in the moment. This element of trust is essential as it allows you to more easily rest in the present. Fear of not knowing what do do thrusts you into the past or future causing you to miss the opportunities available now.
• Notice when you are evaluating or judging what you or others are doing. Again, these are the voices of the past or future that sap our attention. Further, judgments are a reflection of our own unresolved emotional issues. What a wonderful opportunity to take note and to put it aside for later resolution. Simply notice when you are not in the present and gently return to being present. This is an ongoing practice.
• Be gentle with your course corrections. It’s easy to become frustrated when we begin to notice how often we aren’t present. Any frustration or judgment about our ability to be present is another impediment. We all drift in and out of the present. Just notice this with a neutral or even better, a loving attitude, and come back to the now.
• It doesn’t have to make sense. What comes to you to share with your group, or what happens as a result of how you show up in your group as a result of being present with them doesn’t have to make sense to you. You may begin to notice some incredible things unfold or may be surprised by the things you’re compelled to do or so from this place of present moment awareness. Your job is only to trust and act in accordance with the presents of the present. This is its magic working. You don’t have to figure it out, as it is far beyond your capacity to do so.
• Be a facilitator of few words. The less you say the more your presence is felt and the more you’re intuition will show up.
• Give up your need to be a success. A lot of what we do as group leaders, consciously or not, has to do with our desire to be “successful,” in whatever form that happens to take. Being fully present and responding from the present moment will insure the deepest and most pervasive success your group is ready for.
• Just stay with it. At times resistance, both yours and theirs, may show up to tempt you out of the present. This is the time to continue the practice as resistance often is a sign that breakthroughs are around the corner.
• Practice a meditative discipline. Practicing a meditative discipline is the easiest way to be present. Practice strengthens your ability to be in the present with your groups, particularly when things heat up. Mastering presence in the privacy of your own home will be the best gift you can give to yourself and your groups

Action 

Practice being present with your next group. Come prepared as usual, and give up your need to know, say, or do anything to assure some preconceived notion of success. I’m interested in hearing what happened. So please share your comments, experiences, questions, or feedback with all of us below. Also view our video below, How to Stay Present as a GroupLeader that walks you through an exercise in presence.

Finding ways for the conference arena to benefit from facilitative processes

How many conferences have you been to where, like me, you feel inspired but completely overwhelmed with what to do next? My close friend and colleague, Susan Smith, attended a powerful conference where one speaker, an environmental ecologist from Oxford, made the most profound statement of all, from a facilitator’s point of view. He said, “Wow, this conference has many great speakers and with so many provocative ideas. We all go away overwhelmed. Perhaps we should have fewer speakers during one day and spend the other two days forming groups, discussing and figuring out together how we can do something about the issues.”

Susan response? “I jumped to my feet and gave him my applause. Of course, everyone else just looked at me and gave him a quiet nod. Everyone there that I talked to, and I attended with 6 friends, had so many ideas and wanted to discuss them with the others in the audience who also probably had great ideas and experiences. Wouldn’t it have been a great step forward to spend some time with everyone there, with facilitator support, to hammer out action items that we could all do individually or in groups after leaving the conference.”

My discussions with Susan got us thinking that perhaps sending people to “unfacilitated” conferences is as inefficient and ineffective as attending unfacilitated meetings. This inspired a query into my network around this question, “How can we, as facilitators, impact the conference circuit and convince the conference developers of the importance of large and small group facilitation?” A summary of results follows.

General Feedback

• It is a waste of money sending people to “un-facilitated” conferences, as it is in attending un-facilitated meetings.
• Recognize and act on this individually as facilitators. When enough of us implement this concept into our own work, the shift will evolve.
• Participate in any of these activities formally or informally & always let conference planners & Keynotes know about results of such sessions.
• Academic review bodies should require that a certain percentage of academics’ time is spent as a co-participant or just participant (i.e. going to conferences where they are not speakers and still getting reimbursed).

What Facilitators can do Right Now to Impact the Conference Circuit

• Initiate informal discussion groups; send copies of names and notes to participants and conference organizers.
• Suggest that these kinds of groups be formalized at conferences. Suggest that others who take part write the organizers to speak to the value of the informal discussion.
• Contact the speaker of keynotes/breakouts prior to conferences and ask to partner on the idea of facilitated discussions.
• Volunteer to be on conference planning committees, demonstrate how productive and popular the facilitated approach can be.
• Have a blog attached to a conference, post reactions and then even meet up with others who want to discuss important issues further.
• Run chat – like room on breaks with group-ware during conferences.
• Focus on audience-centered design of conferences, as most meetings by design are speaker-centric. Use groupware, visual dialogue sessions, hexagon modeling, small group interventions, skits, songs, etc. so everyone in the room can get into the conversation.
• Ask for time with meeting owner(s): Ask, how will the room be setup? Almost universally they set their keynotes up classroom style. Suggest rounds of 6-8, or 10, and eliminate the classroom seating. When they ask why, discuss the benefits of interactivity and go from there.
• Find out which groups are coming to the local (major city) convention center and send those groups an informational piece about using facilitators. Share Examples of conferencing facilitation in practice
• Survey meeting planners and ask when/how/if they have used facilitators. Use the survey to open dialogue for pitching facilitators.
• Go revenue neutral, no charge to the conference planner if you can use a room free and charge those attending the discussion or networking event.
• Utilize (or create) spaces for participation that allow participants to express themselves at any time during the conference. Graphic facilitators are especially good at putting up walls that encourage participation.
• Offer training to presenters on creating more interactive sessions. Influence the seating arrangement, suggest alternative to typical rows of chairs facing the podium during large group gatherings
• Demonstrate facilitation in the microcosm of your own presentation(s).
• Give workshops on the importance of facilitation at conferences.
• Provide some kind of formal credit or credits towards a specific accreditation.

Examples of how Conferences Can Use Facilitators

• Place 3-5 questions on each table related to the meal’s keynote, assign a table facilitator. Collect emails and send summary of key points to those at the table.
• Conduct hour-long sessions throughout the conference: Beginning: How to get most from conference, Mid-point:
• Discuss topics covered thus far, End: How to use/execute on key points learned.
• Assign teams that meet regularly throughout the conference to talk about what’s being learned and how to take it home. Put people together from similar occupational fields, and limit the group size to eight. Have volunteer facilitator for each team to keep the discussion going and on track.
• Build in facilitated networking sessions. In groups of 15-30, the fewer the better, have each participant make up a flip chart outlining 2 things: Accomplishments that they’re proud of and areas they would like help.
• Combine the world cafe process with download sessions then use open space to get to action in the final afternoon.
• Combine world cafe with a cartoonist (graphic recorder) who can draw a long mural as a story of the learning’s and feedback from the group, the group can see a “record” of their efforts.

Selling Points that Convince Conference Developers to use Facilitation

• Speaker: embeds his/her information when using facilitation. Speaker gets chance to act as consultant during facilitated discussions and is able to respond to additional questions as they arise.
• Facilitation creates space for reflection, consultation/discussion, collaboration and implementation strategies for the central themes of the conference. Lets the audience become a working group to develop applications for information the speaker shared and increases interactivity.
• People are much more inclined to believe their own data, thus provocative questions encourage exploration and to give “space” to develop practical applications in collaboration with others.
• People prefer open forums/workshops where they are actively involved in discussions. People learn more through discussion. Survey data shows that group prefers group interaction to talking heads and speakers.
• Acknowledge that all of the knowledge in the room did not just come from those on the dais, but that everyone has a piece of the wisdom.
• Most conferences have a ton of energy that so often dissipates after a week or so. Information sticks where support system is in place, successful way to digest and solidify the tools and concepts of the workshop.
• Facilitation engages attendees in first hand exercises to experience the concepts.
• Increased networking opportunities. Addresses primary complaint people have about conferences: too much crammed into a short period of time with too little time available for meaningful networking.
• People pay (networking groups, roundtables, mastery groups) for the privilege to talk to each other about leadership, risk, networking…etc.
• Hour to an hour and a half speakers generally stay on the surface and are way too short for anything meaningful to develop. More in-depth learning, longer sessions are very rewarding for all.
• Participant can have an opinion and explore it with others!
• The value of people talking with each other about their shared experiences and working on a shared action plan, rather than just listening to someone tell them what to do, is immeasurable.
• Using facilitators improves conferencing offer, missing some revenue streams by thinking of facilitation as an overhead.

Be Prepared to Overcome Objections, such as:

• Being viewed negatively as a purveyor of “soft skills” or “process driven.”
• Inhibiting the “flow of a meeting,” because of some mental model they have developed about the field of facilitation.
• Unnecessary add-on who might detract from the message the leader or speaker wants to send.
• Creating spaces for people to share views, opinions and healthy debates often seems daunting (easy re-course is to have the standard Conferences).

Examples of Facilitated Conferencing

• Mel Siberman did a wonderful job of this as a keynote presenter at a recent North American Simulation and Gaming Association Conference in Montreal.
• Robert Chambers (Institute of Development Studies, Sussex) often known as the ‘Guru’ of participatory methods, rather than giving a talk–which would have been largely one sided, designed the 5-hour session in a way that allowed participation, group work and large group discussion.

Action

Please implement at least one of the ideas above or share one of your own. Or if you have experience with some of these ideas, please let us know. Share share your experiences, questions, or feedback below.

Part of this problem though can be attributed to our pervasive ignorance of the complexities of facilitating group thought. Most tend to think that the groups they lead, or are part of, should operate just as efficiently as they do individually. This is in fact untrue. Further, the belief in this fallacy by your typical meeting-goer contributes to harsh judgment upon themselves and other participants, leading to apathy, inaction, and the continual self-fulfilling prophecy of meetings that just don’t work.

Shining some light on the complexities of group dynamics and looking at things that typically go wrong in groups can help us better appreciate the challenges and opportunities presented to us whenever we meet collectively.

Why are groups so complicated?

Groups of individuals are far more likely to err than individuals. Groups give reign to
instincts which individuals acting alone are forced to keep in check.
– T.B. Macaulay, English author and statesman –

Complexities of Group Mind

It seems obvious that when a number of individual minds come together, more complexity emerges simply out of the shear increase in the number of inputs, outputs, and interconnections available. There are more ideas in the room, far more for each individual to keep track of, and there are more relationship dynamics present together packaged with their spoken and unspoken assumptions and prejudices.

Because of this increase in complexity, there exist the capacity for synergy to emerge, where the capability of the group exceeds the sum of its parts. But given that groups are more complex and their interactions are often faulty, they are harder to manage. For this reason, synergy rarely emerges by accident. Just as easily, and more often than not, groups tend to drift toward collective incompetence.

George Kieffer, in his book, The Strategy of Meetings, explains this phenomenon beautifully in the following metaphor…

You cannot afford to view meetings as likely in and of themselves to culminate in positive results without a great deal of work. Meetings are inherently risky enterprises, mobs in waiting, more susceptible to passions, pieties, persuasion, and manipulation of all kinds and degrees than are the individuals who participate in them. Meetings begin with the same risk of injury as a motor vehicle containing a steering wheel at each passenger seat.

Therefore, it’s very important to recognize the inherent limitations of group thought, that we elaborate on below, and yet maintain respect and appreciate for both the process and the particular individuals in attendance.

Limitations of Group Mind

Group Amnesia. Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon, in studying the human mind has found that the most that we can hold in short-term memory without forgetting something is six or seven pieces of data. Therefore, a group of people will remember and forget different information at any given time. This validates the ongoing need for real time recording of the inputs, actions, and decisions of your group.

Cognitive Dissonance. People dislike inconsistency and will attempt to eliminate it. When mental conflict occurs because beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information, people will tend to suppress, rationalize, avoid, or oversimplify it away. Know that this phenomenon exists, educate your peers about it, and if you must avoid the complex issues, at least acknowledge you’re doing it and perhaps plan another time to deal with it.

Disassociation from Task. Because group thinking is so difficult, individuals actually tend to disassociate from the task. Yet you may think it’s just you who has drifted and that everyone else is on top of everything being discusses. Not likely! But wanting to refrain from appearing stupid and wanting to be accepted, you go ahead and agree with whatever is on the table. Everyone is missing something…so risk being the fool and speak up!

Lowest Common Denominator and Highest Risk. The most common response of the group mind appears to be this: to reach a conclusion on the stated task, in the safest possible way so as to avoid division, and as quickly as possible, the group finds a consensus based on the lowest common denominator. The result is a compromise that may not solve the problem but does salve feelings and egos.

Lowest Common Level of Stupidity. Drs. David Charney and William Anixter specialize in treatment of anxiety and note that the most common malady, ahead of substance abuse and depression, is the individual’s fear of groups, affecting some 40% of the public to some degree. Convinced that it really is a matter of body chemistry, Victor Palmieri offers an only partially facetious cure. “There is a change in body chemistry, a drop in acuity to the lowest common level of stupidity, so when you see confusion in a meeting the important thing is to get out of the room as quickly as you can before your body chemistry changes!”

Resolving Collective Incompetence

As we have shown, group dynamics are more complex and difficult than individual dynamics. Hence, in any meeting you attend, the participants think less clearly as a group than the sum of the intelligence would suggest and less clearly than any single member may recognize at any particular moment. Group members tend to disassociate from the real task and move toward levels of abstraction. So it behooves us all, group leader and attendees alike to know the sources of collective incompetence and do our best to limit them.

Sources of Collective Incompetence

Miscommunication. Individuals come to a meeting with different abilities, experience, intelligence, language, styles, and body language. Know that miscommunication is inevitable and there’s continual need for clarification. Remedy. Therefore, avoid arguing your own views. Instead present your position and more importantly, your interests, as clearly as you can and listen carefully to others’ reactions, considering them carefully before you press your point.

Outside pressures. A meeting is often the focal point for decisions made elsewhere. Pressures brought to bear on participants from the outside can affect meetings far more than actions within.

Remedy. Don’t assume aspirations of meeting participants are clear. Reverse that presumption. Ask yourself what pressures weigh on your prospective partners.

Different Agenda. Every individual comes into the meeting with his or her own personal agenda to accomplish. And in many forms of meetings, these are very appropriate.

Remedy. But don’t assume that personal agendas align with the stated meeting agenda. Ask yourself what’s behind a criticism or a suggestion.

Insecurities and basic human needs. We tend to go mad in herds, but tend to recover one by one. To suggest change or to question, one must first speak as an individual and expose oneself.

Remedy. Don’t presume understanding and accord merely because no one speaks. There is nearly always a difference of opinion around the table. The most powerful interests in any meeting are the basic human needs of the participants…economic well-being, sense of belonging, need for recognition, and control of one’s life.

Personal Feelings. Personal feelings about fellow participants or about the meeting itself will always distort comments in the meeting and undermine collective thinking.

Remedy. Do your best to separate ideas and opinions from the people presenting them, and aggressively prevent or protect all participants from personal attack.

Competition. A meeting provides a forum for assessing and expressing status within the group, and that will affect the behavior of group members.

Remedy. Accept that this is going on to some extent in any meeting.

Distractions. Every meeting will have distractions from the late arrivals and early departures, to uncomfortable surroundings, to telephone interruptions, poor technical facilities, etc. Even when there are few outside distractions, all participants tend to wander from time to time resulting in a short circuit of the group mind.

Remedy. Presume you are losing some members all of the time and do what you can to limit distractions and keep everyone involved.

Thought displacement and buzz words. This is a particular form of distraction that can strike at any time. A “buzz” word can throw off a line of thought or a glib participant can send out the wrong data or information without anyone noticing.

Remedy. Thought displacement goes with the territory, presume it’s happening throughout the meeting and ask for clarification whenever you notice it.

The Laws of Triviality and Avoidance. “The time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved,” claims Professor Parkinson. Further, the time spent will be in inverse proportion to the complexity or difficulty of the issue: law of avoidance. Complex matters, irrespective of money, tend to be ignored, and simple matters tend to be belabored. People are simply more comfortable discussing what they know rather than what they don’t know. And most people want to demonstrate what they know rather than what they don’t. This means groups avoid the tough questions and concentrate on the easy ones.

Remedy. Expect this tendency in all your meetings and point in out whenever you see it. Offer options to meeting separately to address the tough issues if possible and appropriate.

Personality and Roles. Some personalities simply don’t mix. And irrespective of personalities, individuals naturally take on certain roles depending upon other participants: the facilitator, the disrupter, the complainer, and so on.

Remedy. Just be aware of this…that nearly everyone adopts a role of some kind during a meeting and nearly everyone harbors feelings about the other participants.

Incompetent Members and the Lowest Common Denominator. An incompetent or destructive participant tends can derail a meeting, bringing the whole group to his level. He can force others to respond to peripheral issues and encourage disassociation from the task. Fear of hurting his feelings, disrupting the group further, or reverence for democracy may allow him to take the meeting over. The group tends to defer, dropping to the Lowest Common Denominator.

Remedy. This tendency is counteracted by the facilitator’s imperative…the unflinching control of process.

In Summary. Good intentions are no match for collective incompetence whose sources reside in all meetings. Meeting participants need to know that it takes far more work to accomplish their goals than they think. Remember all of these hurdles when planning and developing your strategy for your next meeting. By understanding these forces and how they’re likely to manifest during the meeting you can devise strategies that will make them work for you, not against you.

Action

What sources of collective incompetence have you noticed most and what have you done about it? Would could you do differently in the future? Please share your experiences, questions, or feedback with us below.

The Dualistic Nature of Values and Internal Value Dynamics

According to John Tropman in his book “Making Meetings Work, he claims that many traditional conflict-management approaches make assumptions that get in the way of possible solutions. One of those assumptions is that individuals are clear about their values. In other words, “they have a well-ordered set of value preferences, so that winning is clear to them.”

Now personally, I can remember many times when I’ve argued a certain point with conviction, only to realize a few minutes, hours, or days later that I could have just as easily taken the opposite view. Often this other view will have been attributed to another value I hold that might not have, at least in that moment, or within that particular context, carried the same weight in my mind as the value that inspired the argument.

Time is Money

This happens to all of us whether we’re conscious of it or not. Each individual has their own internal sets of values that are not always in harmony. For example, most everyone values freedom, right? And most would argue that some level of security is important. But we’ve experienced very clearly over the past few years that increasing levels of security require reduction of some of our freedoms. We value them both, but satisfying one “costs” some of the other. As another example, think “time” and “money.” Those of us who work for a living are intimately aware of this one. Work more and you have more money, but we all know what working more does to our time. Time is money. We value them both but usually have to trade one for the other. These examples could go on and on.

Dualist Values Theory

The dualistic theory of values holds the following premises:

• Most of us hold many values–not just one or two.
• The values we hold conflict with each other. Maximizing one value “costs” another.
• Values we learn come in juxtaposed pairs. Competition and cooperation are a good example. They are not opposites. One can be highly committed to both.

 Recognizing that we have conflicting commitments within ourselves is a key to effective conflict resolution.

Key Conflicting Values in Organizational Culture

Tropman identifies the following nine value pairs that seem to show up continually as conflict themes throughout business cultures.

1. Multipurpose versus “unipurpose.” Unipurpose, such as “bottom line” is all that counts, conflicts with others views that there’s more to it. Things like integrity, customer satisfaction, retention, etc. A unipurpose focus can lead to premature action, while a multipurpose focus can lead to stalled action.

2. Pragmatism versus excellence. A pragmatic focus says “let’s just do it already!” While a focus on excellence wants to wait until it’s near perfect. As with the previous value set, premature or stalled action can result from embracing only one of these values.

3. Status versus class. This value pair reflects the issue of group versus individual gains. Class-oriented results benefit the group or organization as a whole, while status-oriented results benefit individuals on an independent or one-on-one basis.

4. Personal versus organizational purpose. A personal value focus asks the question, “What’s in it for me.” The organizational purpose focus asks, “What’s in it for the company?” These values also need to be balanced to some degree in any good decision.

5. Empirical versus qualitative decision-making bases. This value pair contrasts those who prefer to make decisions based on their “gut” (empirical) with those who “fly by the numbers” (qualitative). Numbers rarely tell the whole story but they do have validity and merit. An intuitive approach is hard to verify and harder to defend if it goes wrong. A blend of these two approaches is usually best.

6. Disposable labor versus intimate concern for labor. This pair contrasts the view that people are just cogs in the organizational machine with the view that employees are just as important as external customers and should be treated with equal respect.

7. Achievement versus equality. This pair is concerned with merit reward as opposed to equal treatment across the board. A simple metaphor might be the philosophies that underlay”capitalism” and “socialism.” Again, another rich source of conflict.

8. Results versus effort. This pair speaks to the challenge of balancing the relationship between results and effort. When results aren’t forthcoming, more effort is required. But how much is too much?

9. Results versus control. This pair speaks to the fact that all managers want results, but some find it difficult to give up the amount of control necessary for those results to occur.

The balancing and managing of these conflicting value pairs is the key to effective decision-making. Each situation will, of course, call for a different weighing of each value in the pair and finding the right balance is more an art than a science. Use the guidelines below to help you manage these value conflicts.
Managing Value Conflicts

Here are three techniques used to manage value conflicts:

Transcendence Recognition. A conflict is composed of at least two elements: 1) The “object” of the conflict, i.e. the external factors. In a conflict between a merit-based versus an across the board pay increase, the proposed merit system is the “object” of the conflict. 2) The “values” held form the “subjective” foundation of the conflict. This is often why trying to change individuals is so difficult, their values aren’t going to change during the course of the conflict. But recognizing and discussing the value pairs in question, and the fact that everyone values both sides to some degree, will take some of the charge out of the conflict and turn it into more of a dilemma faced by the group as a whole, instead of a conflict between the “righteous” and the “heretics.”

Value Finesse. It’s human nature to push back when pushed against. This approach appreciates this tendency by avoiding taking on other’s values head on. Because value commitments are not unitary, that is exclusively held by an individual, we can seek to find where a person has commitments to the subordinate value in a value pair in a given situation is still important to this person in some other area. For example, consider that a manager is dead set against a new policy that increases vacation time because she is a strong advocate of the “disposable labor” value. Finding a place in her life where might have intimate concern for labor might have her take a more balanced view of the situation. Perhaps her teenaged child was employed and taken advantage of by her employer.

In this situation, individuals are not being asked to give up anything but are asked instead to invoke something that is already present within them. They are being asked “in this instance” or “for this purpose” or “at this moment” to also recognize the alternate value in the value pair in question, a value to which they are most likely committed somewhere in their lives at sometime.

Validation. Most everyone has a strong need or at least a desire to “be right.” When it comes to values, this phrase applies to most of us, “We’d rather be right than win.” Put another way, being right is winning. So in the example above, where making a decision based on disposable labor might actually be the “right” decision from a scientific sense, but on this occasion, based on pressures on management to consider working conditions, a decision based on intimate concern must be made. This kind of discussion can lead to a sort of “double” win. Whereas those for the option decided upon wins by getting what they wanted, while the other side can celebrate a “values win” in that their view was validated even though they “lost” in this particular instance.

This approach concedes the complexity of elements present in any given situation and allows several people to win different elements of total picture. This in effect constitutes a win-win even though a decision was made that wasn’t acceptable to both parties. One party wins on value grounds while the other wins on implementation.

In summary, it’s useful to recognize that value conflicts occur “within” people as much as they do “between” people. Almost all values are valued by everyone at some time, in some context, in some situation. Helping people understand the value pairs in play in a given conflict and helping them to see where both of these values are important and need to be balanced in some way can reduce the emotional energy people exert toward one another. This energy can then be collectively applied to solving and implementing solutions based on a value balance appropriate to the given situation.

Action

What was the last time you were in or witnessed a conflict based on one of the value pairs above? Knowing what you know now, how might you have proceeded differently? I’d love to hear from you. Please click on Add Your Comments to share your experiences, questions, or feedback.