Behind the scenes: A facilitator’s dilemma

I have written recently on a topic that I have plenty of experience with. Infighting, or a sense of competition between teams in the workplace, and how either a facilitator, or a group leader, can work to resolve it.

But here’s the thing. Even though I’ve got lots of helpful answers for those facing this morale-dampening corporate squabbling, these types of situations can be pretty stubborn to solve.

And even though I like to think I’m pretty good at what I do, I don’t always have all the answers.

When it comes to opposing positions, things aren’t always black and white. And even professional consensus-builders like me don’t get a pass.

Here’s a recent example that has led me to follow all my own advice – and hey, I’ll admit, it’s tough work with no easy answer. Here’s the scenario:

I was recently paired with a professional consultant to tackle a project for a valued client.

Because of the very different nature of what we both do, we almost immediately had a clash of approaches.

listen

It makes sense: a consultant is hired to bring the answer to the table.

Meanwhile, a facilitator’s job is to bring the answer out from the group of participants.

A consultant formulates opinions and shares their work, a facilitator discerns the opinions of the group.

A consultant provides content, the facilitator provides process. A consultant is hired for what they know, a facilitator is hired to help the group bring forward what they know.

So, she and I continue to go back and forth on how we want to run our joint session. Her job is to offer her insights and gain the approval of the group and mine is to discover what the group thinks and enable them to agree with each other.

Honestly, I am not entirely sure how we will resolve our distinct approaches.  And please stay tuned to hear how it ended up.

But I will tell you, in the meantime, it has reminded me that when you’re coming at a problem or opportunity from different mindsets, even if both have some willingness to compromise, the final outcome may not look like what you wanted or hoped it would be going in.

Why can’t we all just get along? Easy tips for building stronger teams

What’s the cost of infighting?

I recently wrote about the damage that infighting, or an “us versus them” mentality can bring to organizations. When groups aren’t getting along – or see themselves as competing with other departments or team members – it can drain productivity, dampen morale and lead to a lasting sense of bad blood between the opposing groups.

Why look to facilitation?

Part of what I do as a professional facilitator is to resolve old hurts, engineer a better sense of collective understanding and ultimately, build stronger teams.

Whether it’s a more general goal, like helping groups work better together, or a specific one – like putting together a strategic plan – leaders can use a similar process to reconcile perceived differences.

These are tried and true ways of building bridges, and often start with a simple clearing of the air and bringing misunderstandings – or different understandings – into the open.

Who needs this?

If you’re a leader, or work alongside a group that is having trouble coming to consensus, there are a few methods you can try to help bring everyone back onto a similar page.

josh-calabrese-236920-unsplash

Try these tips – pulled straight from my facilitator handbook – to help reduce siloed thinking and find unity even among widely varying opinions.

It makes a world of difference – and here’s how you can try it easily, yourself, from the comfort of your own meeting room.

  • Get it all out

Ask everyone to tell you (or the group) everything they know about the subject. What are all the known facts about a topic or subject? Get everyone’s perspective, even when they are at odds. Then ask what is exciting? Concerning? Where are they feeling positive?  Negative?  Where is information missing? What else might they need to know?

  • Use active listening

You can borrow some of the specific exercises I <outline here>, or, more informally, you can simply give people on your team five minutes to talk about their perspective without interruption. Everyone just listens. Then let someone with an opposing or different perspective talk for five minutes, uninterrupted. If there’s a party with a third perspective, ask them to speak for five minutes, without interruption. By doing that, you can help give a sense that there is a space for all perspectives to sit around the table.

When all the sides have been heard (without interruption), ask the group to summarize their understanding of each perspective and confirm with the speakers that their perspectives have been correctly heard. In this manner, the group affirms its understanding of the various perspectives.

Often, I find the people that talk the fastest, the loudest, the most passionately, the ones with the most vehemence, often haven’t felt heard. They hang on to a position because they’re desperate for someone to simply hear them say it.  You can easily ease this by simply allowing them to fully hold court and present their view and understanding of an issue.

  • Focus on commonalitieshidde-rensink-156982-unsplash

If you’re finding teams or individuals are working at cross-purposes, try to find a common interest. Is there any common ground they can agree on? What are they worried about? What’s at risk? What are the implications if they don’t get the answer they’re looking for? What are some alternatives?

If you’re able to move towards common ground, even, say, making a joint recommendation from a shared position, then you start to move away from gridlock.

  • Reframe “rightness” and “wrongness”

Is being wrong so bad?

In her book, Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error, Katheryn Shultz writes that when you open your mind to other opinions than your own, when you stop laser-focusing on being right, you can enable a whole new level of learning, brainstorming, problem solving and creativity.

But it’s tough! As she points out, since grade school, we’ve all been conditioned to try and get the best marks, find the right answer. And if we’re wrong, we’re diminished. We feel embarrassed, ashamed, rejected.

Yet, she contends, when you get a “right answer,” you’re simply affirming something you already know – and where’s the growth it that?

Only when you explore wrongness can you truly grow and learn something new.

With this in mind, try to encourage a mindset during group discussions that that nothing participants say is wrong. This will help create movement in the room – when that fear is reduced and when people find themselves more comfortable sharing ideas from all different viewpoints – and listening to those who they might usually not.

5) Think like a facilitator

If you’re facing a situation where your team members are really stuck – and you find yourself in the middle – don’t be afraid to say it. It’s not unusual for me to observe an impasse during a group discussion and share that observation with the group. I will ask the group if they see it differently.  And then I will ask the group for ideas on how to move forward: maybe everyone needs a break, maybe everyone wants to continue to hack away at the problem, or maybe we can shift tracks and tackle another issue and return to the sticky issue later.

When in doubt, I always put it back to the group, so they understand where they are at in the process, and so that the group has the opportunity to identify what they need in order to find their way back to a productive place.

I’ll be honest, there used to be a time when I felt that I was failing to “own the meeting” when I turned the decision back to the group (i.e. how could I run the meeting if I didn’t have all the answers?). Now I understand that I never owned the meeting in the first place, the group did. My job was – and is – to help the group decide what it wanted… And, in a lot of cases, this is a leader’s role too. If this scenario sounds familiar, I encourage you to take a moment, forget about ownership, and think more about consensus – like a facilitator!

Us versus them: How facilitation can help pull back siloed thinking in the workplace

Polarized thinking, or the idea that there are good guys and bad guys, winners and losers, in every situation, is a common thing I see among teams in all different types of organizations.

When working through a planning or decision-making process, an all too often side effect of passionate professional minds – coupled with limited time and resources – can be fierce loyalty with one “side.”

Too often in a professional setting, teams of colleagues can form into camps, seeing themselves as the heroes, fighting the ‘right’ fight at the expense of another group that’s working towards different goals.

The cause

What causes this sense of “us versus them” in the corporate world? It’s human nature to bond with those who you work closely with – especially if they think the same as you.

The symptoms

chris-chow-1133102-unsplash

But problems begin to emerge when you start aligning too tightly with your own team to the point where you close your mind to the opinions of others and maybe even treat them a threat to your own objectives.

Power struggles often hatch when employees or team members feel like they’re competing: for scarce resources, for pride, power, prestige, time, ownership, budget, headcount… you name it.

The prognosis

The concept that in order to be right, someone else has to be wrong, or that we’re too busy to check with others, or that ignoring others means we don’t have to take them into account, can be a damaging one.

A division of teams into separate silos can lead to inefficiencies, lost productivity, slumping morale, duplication of efforts, confusion of responsibilities, and more.

At its best, a misaligned organization squanders time, skills and talks ‘past each other’, and at its worst, can lead to a toxic work environment, leaving people feeling like their fighting for their lives or being unfairly targeted.

What’s the cure?

Professional facilitators like me are trained to help people listen, hear and understand each other. It sounds straightforward, but when a team’s reputation or an individual’s career prospects are on the line, (as they might perceive it), it’s easy to let the basics of considerate, authentic two-way communication fall by the wayside.

Fortunately, there are plenty of tools that facilitators can use that work as a powerful antidote to the “us versus them” mentality. See this in your organization? Here’s how a facilitator might help restore balance.

annie-spratt-604131-unsplash

  1. Constructive listening

Participants in my sessions have told me time and time again that this technique is surprisingly useful.

I ask two people to sit with one another at a table, desk, on a bench, etc. I ask one to talk about their opinion, or the issue at hand. For two minutes straight they just talk, and the other person does nothing but listen. (They can take notes, but are encouraged not to respond in any way.) Then, flip it. For another two minutes the other person speaks and the first speaker just listens.

In a larger group session, I mix the partners up and start the two-minutes listening/two-minutes speaking exercise again. Now, that’s four minutes, six minutes, eight, that you’ve just listened to someone else.

Sound easy right? In fact, it feels quite unusual at first – to not offer response or ask follow up questions. But, even so, I encourage you to take the time and make the space to try this, as prescribed, and see what comes up.

  1. Asking the right questions

Another technique I love is called the Interview Matrix. In this exercise, there are four, straightforward, but unique questions that are posed. The questions are open enough that anyone can respond. Every person is assigned one of the four questions and is given note paper to record the responses of those answering their question. Through a round-robin process, each person will receive three answers to their question, and will also respond to the other three questions (six rounds if you’re doing the math – three rounds as a listener and three rounds as a respondent). Generally, I allot about five minutes per round.

Again, with this exercise, you are creating a situation where people must listen. Sure, they may have objections, questions, frustrations running inside their heads, and that’s OK! At very least, everyone gets the opportunity to put their stakes on the table, and have their voice heard. After that, a discussion can be had, where everyone is starting with the same information. A common response at the end of this exercise is “I heard so many different perspectives.”

  1. Good cop, bad cop

Ritual dissent is a similar active listening exercise that I often use. Here, a person presents an idea (related to the task, question or issue at hand) to a small group of people.  In the first round, the group that was presented to is instructed to only give negative feedback. The presenter then tweaks his/her proposal and moves on to another small group to present it again. This time, listeners are instructed to only give positive feedback to their presenter.

This is a way for the presenters to hear input they might never otherwise hear (i.e. an ally or team member being forced to consider if there are any downsides to an argument, or a non-supporter having to dig deep to find a bright side to the presenter’s argument). This is just another way to get different types of feedback in the open for consideration.

Real, meaningful change

These exercises are all great for sharing perspectives and generating discussion in a room. And while they are strong steps in the right direction, sometimes the hardest part is getting participants to consider a change on the inside – to consider that their view might not be the right one.

This is where I come in.

The neutral stakeholder

In the book The Third Side, William Yuri talks about the necessity of “cooperating to compete.” He identifies the importance of the third side, people who have a stake in the outcome, but don’t necessarily have a side. These people may enable process, idea sharing, shuttle diplomacy, or clarification as an example.  In my case, I provide the neutral process that allows a group to arrive at an outcome. My purpose is to help the group achieve the best outcome for the group, as decided by the group.

Consensus as the answer

To me, and my fellow professional facilitators, there is no right or wrong answer; rightness is whatever consensus the room reaches. But rather than simply encouraging a mob mentality, or agreeing for the sake of agreement, I consider a successful consensus one that’s arrived at only after everyone had been led through a fair and transparent process where all participants have equal say.

Funny enough, I’m often invited to facilitate group discussions or planning sessions where my client is hoping I can bring over difficult personalities or strongly opinionated naysayers to a certain side. They hire me with the intention of reaching a specific outcome at the end of the day.

I tell that that, in fact, I’m not there to lead the discussion in a certain direction, or manipulate the outcome. I’m there to make sure the group lays their thoughts, ideas and opinions on the table for others to hear, so that a well-informed opinion can be reached – among all.

The result? Even if the group doesn’t land where the client is expecting, they usually tell me they are happy with the group’s decision. They are satisfied because the process was clear and they watched the engagement and support happen along the way. This, they often agree, is more important than the nature of the outcome.

What’s the point?

Having someone leading the discussion who has a strong incentive to find resolution (a.k.a. the neutral facilitator) can be extraordinarily helpful.

This is the person who can focus on bridging understanding, motivating the room to a space where everyone can agree – even if that means ceding some of the power, the prestige, the budget, the headcount – the rightness – that some may be holding on to as the thing that will save them from the punishment of being wrong.

Show me the ROI: Here’s what professional facilitation is really worth

What’s a professionally facilitated session really worth? Can the value be measured or quantified?

I say yes.

Just like any other professional service, professional facilitation offers real value to your team, your projects and your organization.

Though some may brush it off as a feel-good, warm and fuzzy exercise (trust falls, anyone?), in my experience, those who take part in a well-run, facilitated session nearly always take something away. And not just nebulous positivity, but actual, measurable, bottom-line value.

My clients continue to tell me that facilitation offers them numerous intangibles that, much like having a good boss or feeling passionate about your work, are difficult to put a price tag on. But, for those who are looking for a return, the value per dollar can be proved.

So, if you’re trying to determine whether your organization can justify the cost of a single or multi-day session with a facilitator, bring out your own calculator and see what kind of savings you’ll actually be walking away with.

Here are some examples that I have experienced.

Recouping the cost of a bad meeting

In recent years, analysts and professionals have become increasingly frustrated with the tried-and-true traditional boardroom meeting. Volumes have been written about how poorly run meetings waste time, money and goodwill amongst even the keenest staffers.

rawpixel-780494-unsplash

Read enough of articles in this vein, and you might walk away wondering if you should ever host—or attend—another meeting again. (You can find a few more thoughts, from different industries and professionals, here, here, here and here.)

With professional facilitation, you flip that equation.

Instead of being a drain on money and resources, a well-run meeting can in fact offer tangible rewards. Think: a meeting where the real work happens. This is what happens when you hire a facilitator.

Reap returns from employee engagement

As above, researchers continue to demonstrate the benefits of having a well-engaged workforce. Employee engagement—measured by happiness at work, willingness to try new things and understanding how one’s role serves the organization’s greater strategies —has been shown time and again to lead to measurable profits, because employee morale is linked to performance, which is linked to organizational success.

Professionally facilitated sessions or meetings draw heavily on the principles of employee engagement and are designed to leave attendees with a sense of belonging, a strong voice and, yes, a sense of being personally engaged in the process from start to finish.

Time is money – and so is time saved

I had a client who was new to an organization and had inherited a team she characterized as “traumatized.”

She needed to get to know this team, and importantly, she needed to get past the trauma so the team could be productive, quickly.  We hosted a three-hour workshop where the group explored its past and its impacts. My client believes her onboarding and relationship-building with her new team was accelerated by at least two months.

neonbrand-605156-unsplash

She leap-frogged over the common new-leader hurdles, and was able to see problems and opportunities at the organization in a more complete way.

She says this was all thanks to her team’s open and thorough input during our facilitated session, and that it led directly to operational efficiency (not to mention an improved sense of morale!).

For the price of a half-day facilitated session, she told me later she estimated she had gained two months of improved productivity.

Let’s do the math:

According to articles highlighted above, if an average salary is $60,000 (this is was a not-for-profit organization), and eight people were in the room, for three hours, the cost of participant meeting time was $720 (assume 2000 working hours a year). The cost of the manager’s time was another $120 or a cost of $840 cost for meeting participants. Add in the cost of the facilitator at $1,200 and the meeting cost was $2,040.

If productivity, due to improved employee engagement improved by just 10% (i.e. suggesting that $66,000 worth of work would be accomplished annually) the cost of the meeting is recovered in less than two weeks!

(Disclaimer:  I’m not an economist and I am often guilty of bad math!)

Harnessing the power of alignment

I often run an exercise called an historical scan, where the group create as a visual representation of their history-to-date. As they see their highs and lows and the shifts that they have experienced, they explore the implications of their experience. Individual stories merge to become a shared story, a common context emerges and a sense of belonging often results.

This collective understanding is a powerful springboard for planning  for future success.

The impact of stakeholder buy-in

When everyone takes part in a strategic planning session—and actually takes part, not just sits in the back row on their phones—the result is a team-wide, or company-wide, ownership of that strategy. I create space for every participant’s voice which supports both stakeholder engagement along with the time-savings of collective understanding and power of alignment – it’s like a project-accelerating trifecta!

This is an example of going slow to go fast.

The cost of 10 people in a room for eight hours of strategic planning at $40 / hr., plus $3,000 for the facilitator puts this cost of this meeting (not including lunch or meeting space at a hefty $5,500).  Now, subtract the cost of the four meetings with 10 people each for two hours trying to align themselves, which have now been avoided ($3,200), not to mention 15% of everyone’s day reading lengthy email chains for the next month ($48 / person / day for email time= $9,600) now that they have shared understanding, and the cost of a facilitated meeting is recovered many times over, very quickly.

The dividends of risk avoidance (a.k.a. the money you’ll save by doing things right the first time)

If you fail to include a group of stakeholders that are required as part of a formal consultation process, you could potentially find yourself facing missed deadlines, increased project costs, and the addition of scope. Even if not required, missing out on including a stakeholder group’s input could still ding your budget in a big way. My sessions are designed using careful discovery and a nine-step planning tool, help teams and organizations avoid this type of risk up front.

I ask the questions you might’ve forgotten to ask yourselves at the outset!

How to calculate value:

If you take any of the above scenarios and estimate that they represent even 1% of a project’s value (whether by adding performance-enhancing information, improving attitudes/productivity/efficiency/understanding or avoiding a costly missed discovery), the return begins to add up pretty quick. On a $1 million initiative, you’re already representing five figures worth of payback for your time and effort put into organizing a facilitated session.

Ways to sustain the value:

Now that you can start to see some of the value of this type of planning, you can even plan to multiply it! Do this by:

Following up

  • Plan a similar engagement each year (i.e. for annual planning) or schedule a follow up (I recommend at least one, 90 – 120 days following the initial planning) to ensure you’re keeping your promises to yourselves. These can be professionally facilitated or internal, but following a similar style.crissy-jarvis-1316073-unsplash
  • Committing also to regular third-party or internal check-ins for a multi-month or -year project will allow you to keep the conversation going and continue to build listening and analytical skills among team members or participants.

Engaging the next level down

  • If you’ve completed strategic planning or visioning with senior levels, ensure that this work is passed down to the next level of leadership and follow up with those leaders, and their direct reports, to measure understanding and adoption of those ideas.

The multiplier works both ways

The cost of disengagement and productivity loss can be reversed with a facilitated process. And, if you follow up, that gain endures.

But, if no follow up action is taken, not only do you lose the productivity and plans of the day, you reverse the engagement. If you’ve promised yourselves the world and then do nothing, this encourages people to feel worse than possibly even when they started.

 

Keep this in mind as you embark on your next strategic or project planning journey. If you need me, I’ll be close by, ready to offer real impact — to your people and your books.

Leave the cliffhangers to Hollywood. Here’s how to end your meetings on a satisfying note

Catharsis, the final chapter, the end.

Whatever you call it, humans need closure. Whether it’s reading the last chapter of a good book to find out what happens, hearing the punchline of a joke, or making a decision at the end of a strategic planning or business meeting.

That’s right – even in the boardroom, the rules of human nature apply.

Enter the Decisional level of thinking, the final step to the ORID methodology.

In a sense, this is the easiest step of the process. To complete it, you and your participants don’t need to make a big “D” decision, but you do need to bring the conversation to some kind of resolve or conclusion, what I call a small ‘d’ decision. It is often as simple as planning a single next step – like scheduling a follow-up meeting to determine how to put the day’s work into action, or assigning some takeaway actions.

But as small a thing as those seem, they can be surprisingly easy to overlpencilook, especially because they often come during the final minutes of a long session!

Yet, without a final decision to close the session, you risk provoking a sense of futility, frustration or reluctance among you participants. They feel their time has been wasted, are unsatisfied and may never want to take part in another planning session again if this one doesn’t give them that all-important conclusion.

So, make sure you nail the Decisional phase, and you’ll ensure you win supporters – and generate commitment – throughout the room.

Here’s how to do it.

Leave enough time.

The clock is counting down. People have begun gathering their belongings, packing away their laptops, checking their watches and staring at the door.

Maybe the room you booked is about to be taken over by the next group. Or, perhaps you have out of town participants eager to catch their flights.

You can’t hold them back much longer … do you really need to complete this final phase?

Yes!

The Decisional phase is the conclusion to the long, fruitful hours you’ve already invested. Pay it the attention it deserves.

What to do: Take an extra few minutes if you do run over time. I, myself, won’t let my groups leave until we’ve at least created some sort of decision or next step.

Even if you just agree that the conversation isn’t finished and a follow-up discussion is needed.   Briefly summarize what you hope to achieve and you wil have brought the discussion to conclusion.

You can avoid this problem altogether by ensuring throughout your workshop or session that you are constantly checking the schedule to prevent the hours from getting away from you.

Know what you’re deciding on.

If you don’t know what you want to get out of your session, it will be hard to know what the end should look or feel like. So, ensure you carefully and thoughtfully determine the objectives for this discussion.

What to do: Work with your team to define your intention for the meeting, and what success at the end of the day will look like.  Refer back to these when planning the Decisional steps to ensure you’ve met your intention. Are you:

  • Making a decision? (What is our decision?)
  • Putting forward a recommendation? (What is our recommendation?)
  • Ensuring your group is fully informed? (What is your comfort with this topic?)
  • Seeking feedback on a topic? (What else do we need to know?)

Your objective will tell you what your decisional step needs to be.

Design your process fully.

You’ve run through your entire agenda, thought through some difficult dilemmas and agreed what’s wrong or what solutions might work. But if you haven’t included time in your agenda to make some concrete decisions, you risk your intelligence evaporating into thin air. Clues that this has happened sound like “There’s an hour of my life I’m never getting back!”

What to do: Careful planning, again, makes the difference here. Paying attention to the ORID structure (what are the facts, what are the internal/emotional responses, what are the  insights and finally, what next?) makes a tremendous difference. Intentionally planning the part of the meeting where you ask for closure, resolve, what the group has decided, or the next step matters.

This will help you solidify the idea that, after all the brainstorming, ideation and discussion, you are committed to coming away with a result (or perhaps even just a plan on how to create that move the result forward).

Flesh out each preceding stage.

If participants in the room aren’t on the same page, can’t seem to agree on facts, or are stuck in endless ideation, you may have gaps in the Objective, Reflective or Interpretive stages of the discussion.

What to do: If you find yourselves stuck when you go to make a binding decision or agree on a future step, consider returning to a previous stage to make sure you’ve completely explored it. It may be necessary to obtain additional facts, or explore past experiences more, or consider additional alternatives. A clue that this might be the case is when you hear “ I just don’t know enough to make a decision”.

Include the right people in the room.

I’ve been in a situation where groups reached the Decisional stage, and only at that point realized that no one present had actual decision-making power (or, in some cases, budget) to implement any changes.

ladder of involvement
Source: ToP Facilitation, Institute of Cultural Affairs

What to do: Planning, again, at the outset can prevent this problem to ensure your end state is in line with your group’s influence level. If you’ve come too far, rather than letting your work go to waste, consider creating a recommendations report that you can present to the decision-makers, with the supporting rationale. Determining which recommendations you intend to put forward is decisional-level of thinking or identifying the right people that need to be included. That clarity is also decisional level of thinking, which in this case informs your next step.

There is a theory called the “Ladder of Involvement”, which defines what kind of input a group is actually being asked to provide. Be sure at the outset that you’re honest with stakeholders which level of decision making the meeting is asking for.

 

Deciding to decide

People have committed time, ideas, efforts opinions and have worked hard to understand their fellow participants. Ensure that if you’re organizing, or moderating, a strategic planning or feedback session that you’ve included all the important ingredients, from the O to the R to the I and crucially, the D, so that everyone goes home happy. Both your group and your organization will then be able to benefit from real action – not just hours stolen from their busy schedules.

Strategic Planning got you spooked? Part 2

What’s holding you back? Here are the most common barriers to corporate road-mapping — and how to instantly banish them from your boardroom.

Part 2 – Why “10-commandments” style plans just don’t work

Bring those skeletons out of the closet, we’re going to fix them once and for all! Leave the fears behind so you can get back to work on your inspired, executable plan.

(…continued from part 1.)

Fear 5: You’re scared your plan will be a “one-hit” wonder

The problem: Who’s this strategic planning session for anyway? This is the first question your participants are going to ask themselves as they walk in the room. The answer should be: for them. Not just for senior leadership, not just for management, but for everyone who participates. Yet, this can take some convincing, and a properly designed process, to make that true.

rock star

An inclusive process that prioritizes participation is a hugely valuable tool for overcoming apathy, disinterest and a lack of buy-in. People don’t get excited about things they weren’t involved in. And they don’t love being given a ‘to do’ list without any input. (Think about how well that approach works with kids and spouses!)

The solution: Personally, I don’t like the term ‘buy-in’ as it feels vaguely manipulative. And so the answer to the problem is to create inclusive process that encourages genuine contributions and aligns input from everyone involved. To achieve this, the facilitator deploys a series of techniques that contributes to alignment, such as asking teams to contribute their ideas and connect ideas to the company strategy.

The right process will leave everyone feeling included, valued and with a stake in the planning and the outcome. When each individual has been encouraged to put their thoughts and opinions into the mix, they’re then much more likely to internalize the plan – because at that it’s their baby too, not a directive delivered from on high, nor just a list of someone else’s ideas. Even if senior leadership designs the initial strategy, including other layers of management and staff during the validation process should be the next step, to ensure this inclusiveness and investment from all teams.

Fear 6: You’re scared that the plan is un-executable

The problem: We’ve all been there. We get swept up in the excitement of a really good brainstorming session, we’re sketching out amazing cure-all strategies that will transform the world as we know it. But what good is this type of plan if it’s unattainable? How can we be sure a feel-good strategic planning session doesn’t lead to goals that seem outlandish or unrealistic once viewed on our computers in the cold light of Monday morning?

The solution: A great technique for creating a realistic plan is a healthy discussion of obstacles. Some people fear this type of approach, concerned that the conversation dwells on negatives and is inherently destructive.

In fact, a well orchestrated discussion of what holds us in place leads to plans that are grounded in reality and aimed at obstacles. Plans that focus on the desired future state, without also considering the obstacles create a ground hog day experience for the group, where they discuss the same old challenges a year later and the amazing strategies continue to be un-executable.

Another solution is to look at planning as a series of steps, rather than a single event. Once you’ve landed on concrete steps for action, take those ideas back to the organization. Go to small teams for feedback. Ask them to add their own additional insights, and don’t be afraid if new questions come up. Ask them to help you address considerations and questions such as ‘What would this mean for you?” and “How can we bring this to life?”

Once you’ve completed the plan, give control over its implementation to broader employee groups by creating a portfolio of projects. Split goals and objectives into manageable tasks and assign them to appropriate units. Invite team members from these units back to your 90-day follow up session to understand how they are progressing.

Fear 7: You’re scared that this session will produce the same old stuff

xerox 2

The problem: When you begin planning, do you find ghosts of meetings past can come back to haunt you?

Do you hear the same old arguments, barriers, knotty issues continue to rise to the surface, never to find resolution?

If your strategic road-mapping sessions have started to feel like an endless merry-go-round where you continually address the same old stale, stubborn issues, consider adding new activities into the mix.

The solution: You can’t expect something different to emerge if you keep starting with the same ol’ SWOT every time! Get rid of the familiar and try doing something different.

First, involve different people. As above, having a diversity of voices and skill-sets in the room is a powerful way to give you new, fresh and surprising perspectives. It’s a way to change the conversation – often for the better.

Other remedies could include techniques like environmental scans, historical scans, scenario discussions, , tours of unrelated , all to stimulate creativity and shed well-worn mindsets. Get off-site! Go to an unusual location. See how others are solving problems that might look different than your own, but underneath are probably quite similar.

And don’t forget to really dig deep to explore the things that hold you in place. Discovering the deep contradictions in an organization is a doorway to the future.

Fear 8: You’re scared it won’t work

trip.jpgThe problem: You’re worried that the plan, with all the hard work and optimism you invested in it, just isn’t going to move the needle in the way you’d hoped. What if you try something and it fails? Wouldn’t this be the most disappointing outcome of all?

The solution: Although there’s nothing wrong with failure (especially if you learn something from it), you can also try and prevent it in the first place.

Understand that even though your strategic plan might be approved, it still might not be perfect. The key is to check in regularly on the plan’s progress. Ask what is working and what isn’t.  Work to determine what you night need to change to succeed. This will give the sense that the plan is a living document, easily editable once you learn new information. Flexibility is important, using the plan as a strong guiding hand.

Want to learn more about how professional facilitation can transform your next strategic planning session from frightening to fruitful? Reach out to arrange a consultation.

Strategic planning got you spooked?

What’s holding you back? Here are the most common barriers to corporate road-mapping — and how to instantly banish them from your boardroom.

Part 1 – Chaos, crowds and cobwebs – oh my!

Does the thought of undertaking strategic planning give you chills? Are you worried that something might go wrong, or you’re not doing it right?

Don’t worry — you’re not alone.

In fact, I’ve been facilitating strategic planning sessions for more than 10 years and I continue to be surprised by how much hesitancy, fear and dread I encounter around this process.

It seems a poorly run or poorly organized strategic planning is like a bad horror movie that people just can’t get out of their heads.

But, when I hear about some of the sessions that my participants have been part of, this lingering bad taste in their mouth makes perfect sense. Sometimes sessions can go sideways. Sometimes they go nowhere. Or, most damaging of all, sometimes they lead to personal insult to and disengagement among stakeholders.

But that doesn’t mean the participants or the subject matter is to blame – it’s usually the process itself.

Here are a few common strategic planning bugaboos you may recognize – and some easy steps on how to fight back.

Fear 1: You’re scared to include a variety of people

The problem: I often hear from clients that they’re worried if they have a room full of participants representing multiple different business units and roles, the team will end up with too many ideas competing for limited airtime, leading to inefficient and exhausting debate.

Here’s what I say when I hear that: GREAT! The more diversity of thought, the better.

When it comes to strategic planning, thorough discussions are essential. To achieve this, you need more – not fewer – perspectives!

The solution: So how do you prevent a multitude of voices from descending into chaos? The difference is the design of the process, the way the session is run.

A properly trained facilitator (whether internal or third-party), uses consensus-driven methodologies that ensure a clear understanding emerges, that everyone stays on track, and that the outcome works for the participants – and the business.

Remember: everyone has intelligent input to offer when you ask the right questions.

Fear 2: You’re scared that, once complete, the plan will sit on the shelf, never to be referenced again.

The problem: Oftentimes, a group will complete a highly successful strategic planning dusty booksession, and emerge bursting with bright ideas, innovative solutions and ambitious commitments. Yet, when the plan is completed, it quickly gets buried under a pile of urgent paperwork, and is slowly relegated to the bottom drawer of the boss’s desk, never to see the light of day again.

So, the problems you set out to solve, the patterns you wanted to break, and the new way forward you envisioned, never gets off the ground.

There is nothing more disappointing than seeing good work go to waste. But, the good news is, you can easily prevent this frustration with just two simple clicks of your calendar.

The solution: First, choose the first initiative identified in the plan, and schedule it to be planned right away. In fact, try to schedule that kick-off meeting before you even leave the room where the planning has taken place.

Next, schedule one more meeting: a 90-day review. Include all people involved in the initial planning session. Here, ensure participants are prepared to report on what has been accomplished in the past six weeks since the planning ended. This will help reinforce that the work completed is being measured, that it’s important, and that each outcome matters.

It’s even better if this session is facilitated by the same person who led the strategic planning session, so you can bring everyone back into the same atmosphere, energy and mindset as the first.

Fear 3: You’re scared that people will just agree with whoever is leading the meeting.

ringmaster

The problem: It is very difficult to be a subject matter expert, a leader and a facilitator all at the same time.

The solution: When planning a strategic planning session, give the leaders a break. Consider hiring a third-party to take the reins of the session. This will take the pressure off internal stakeholders or meeting leader to act as neutral observers (which can often be nearly impossible!). Bringing in a neutral facilitator also removes the risk of and perception that any one person’s voice gets more weight than another’s. It also  minimizes the chance that participants feel ‘railroaded’ into supporting a certain point of view.  Plus, leaders can listen, fully participate and contribute their wisdom – rather than running the show or feeling like they’re in a room full of .

Fear 4: You’re scared that not everyone ‘gets’ the business (e.g. some people are just too junior to take part).

The problem: Sometimes highly trained or experienced people just don’t think those in other roles “get” what the discussion is about. So, they’re reluctant to bring in people who hold junior positions or have less experience. Yet even though these  different voices and viewpoints may seem unsophisticated or uninformed to one, they’re actually very much important contributors.

The solution: I firmly believe that only by collecting everyone’s wisdom can you get the wisest result.

A trained facilitator can design process which incorporates diversity to create a richer result. The benefit then becomes the enhanced perspective of the participants, the greater commitment to the results from more parts of the organization by involving more voices.

A tool that we often use is a “journey wall” which helps illuminate the history that has come before the current situation, where the group stands today, and what the ideal future state looks like. It can be really helpful to bring in a graphic illustrator to support this process; they can help create an illustration that captures this context and information in a way that’s easy to understand and actually see. As a bonus, then you have a permanent image you can use again and again.

These are just a taste of the common worries that hold people back from conducting a productive and valuable strategic planning session. Stay tuned for more tips coming soon. In the meantime, if you’re looking for a facilitator to help lead you through these, and other, thorny questions, reach out any time.

The importance of Interpretive thinking: Here’s how to dig deep while still staying on track

You been waiting patiently for me to uncover this next level of thinking. It’s familiar and comes easily to most groups. The only problem is, once you let the checkered flag fly on Interpretative thinking, it can be a little to easy to get stuck in an endless loop of synthesis.

Let’s explore how to make the most out of your Interpretive thinking – without running out of fuel before the finish line.

What does the Interpretive level entail?

By this point, you’ve collected a good amount of factual and intuitive information at the Objective and Reflective level of thinking. Without these information-gathering phases, you won’t have all the details you need to start digging deeper into the issues.

And that’s what this level of thinking is all about: connecting the dots between all the information you’ve gathered so far, and discovering the deeper insights. Now is the time to ask the group what it all means.

This is where you start considering the broader implications of the topic or project in questions and its potential impacts, significance and purpose.

You’ve determined X and Y to be relevant, and now you have to ask yourselves aloud, “So what?”

rawpixel-753977-unsplash

This is the last stop before you start making decisions, making it critical in the sequence.

How can it benefit my group or team of stakeholders?

During Interpretive level thinking, you will draw out the significance of information you’ve collected so far. When done properly, Interpretive-level discussions ensure all participants are heard, ultimately giving everyone a greater sense of ownership of the final decision you arrive at.

This level should also prevent others from feeling railroaded into agreeing to a certain conclusion, and that together you’ve thought about all the other people and processes that might be impacted by your actions.

The good news is, you should have no problem encouraging a group to dig into these meanings; in fact, it’s a level that people jump to quickly and easily — we’re all well trained to think at the interpretive level.

Sounds great – how could it go wrong?

Picture this.

You’re sitting in a meeting and you just can’t shake the feeling you’ve been here before.

rawpixel-665388-unsplash

The same familiar faces, sipping from the same coffee mugs, repeating the same arguments you know you’ve heard before. Is it just you, or were you in this exact same meeting, discussing the exact same topic, last week? And last month? And last quarter.

Nope, it’s not your imagination. Welcome to over-interpretation.

When groups get to this level of thinking, it can be easy to get stuck. And that feels frustrating.

As a professional facilitator, I see this “Groundhog Day” syndrome all the time.

There are further red flags that you have entered interpretative thinking no-man’s-land. Maybe there’s a small handful of loud voices that are dominating all others. Maybe the discussion is superficial, avoiding thoughts on the future impacts of a decision or how other stakeholders will be impacted by a project.scott-van-daalen-7183-unsplash

Maybe one team’s conclusions to race ahead are taken as the final decision – even before the discussion happens. If this is the case, it’s time to act.

Recognize these progress-blockers

You will not move forward productively if you find some of these characteristics repeating themselves. If you do notice one of the following, try and reverse it by broadening the group’s thinking with some structure using  thought-provoking questions. Here’s how.

Conversation killer: Combat it with:
Starting with a foregone conclusion or inserting one into the conversation

(e.g. “We have made a decision to go left – who wants to go left?” “We believe this is the best approach, now what?”)

Broaden the conversation and explore the position by asking the question – what are some other options available to us?  What else might we do?  What are some other considerations?
Intellectualizing or abstracting
(e.g.“We need to live into our values and walk the talk, set an example for the industry, be the change we want to see, aim for 110%”)
Bring these high-minded, noble ideas back down to Earth with practical examples. For example: What does living our values look like? What are some things that we might do? What specifically does setting an example look like?
Judging responses as right or wrong

 

If you have an opinion on what someone else is saying, remove your good/bad judgement and seek to clarify meaning instead. For example, “Tell me more about what is behind your thinking?  What would others think? What would be different about how we might do this now, versus what we have done before?  What could we do to make sure it works this time?”
Not getting different perspectives

 

If the same person is doing the talking for the group, or the same opinions are shared without a wider view, ask for other perspectives. “Is there another perspective” or “I’d like to hear from someone else” or “Put yourself in a different stakeholder’s shoes, what might they think about this and how might the issue be perceived?”
Allowing the loudest voice to provide only one alternative

 

Often the person who is most forceful with their assertations will win an argument, or dominate a discussion without much challenge. This makes the meeting feel more like an announcement (where a decision has already been made) rather than a true debate.

As above, consider it your duty to speak up and offer a counterpoint to this single perspective. Ask for other views in a round robin format – ask each person to share their viewpoint. “What do you think?”

Break the group into smaller groups, ask small groups to share their thinking with each other. Then ask the groups to share what they discussed as a small group. This will help get other voices into the conversation.

 

How do you know your Interpretive level of thinking is going well?
You know you’ve arrived at effective Interpretive thinking when you find people on your team:

  • Discussing implications, impacts, alternatives, consequences of a decision or project
  • Having spirited discussions about these lines of inquiry
  • Pushing into the depths of the topic, the “what ifs” and “what’s next”
  • Thinking about how others are affected
  • Discovering what the broader story means to the group or organization

arisa-chattasa-701558-unsplash

When “I level” of thinking is fully explored, people feel like they are looking at the topic comprehensively and really understanding what it means now and what it could mean in the future.

The group feels they have been meaningfully engaged in the conversation, have had opportunity to share their views and feel fully heard. Then, once you move on to the decisional phase, each and every participant is much more likely to support the group’s final outcome.

Good luck with your discussion!

 

 

Stop fearing – and start feeling – your instincts at work.

Here’s how emotions can make a powerful decision-making ally.

When making corporate decisions – when should you consider your gut?

The answer is easy. Always.

Contrary to popular belief, embracing your instincts at work – and, yes, acknowledging your feelings – can lead to more effective decision-making. But, like other levels of thinking, there is a time and a place for this type of articulation.

Read on to learn more about how tapping into your instincts can give you a leg up in corporate planning, strategy, decision making and discussions.

joey-nicotra-510944-unsplash

What are your senses trying to tell you?

How often have you said “I have a gut feeling about…”, “My ‘Spidey senses’ were tingling” or that “Every instinct was screaming at me”?

When you make these statements, you are acknowledging the powerful insights that our emotions offer. These are our instant, instinctual responses to stimulus. They are what we as facilitators call the reflective level of thinking.

When I offer group and strategic facilitation, I use a model called the Technology of Participation TOP® It offers a chronological methodology for clear thinking that we facilitators affectionately refer to as O R I D.

  • O is the objective level of thinking.
  • R is the reflective level of thinking.
  • I is the interpretive level of thinking.
  • D is the decisional level of thinking.

It is surprisingly easy to tap into the reflective level of thinking and insightful and enabling when we do – especially when it comes after the objective (or facts-based) level of thinking and before the interpretive and decisional levels of thinking.

I will go so far as to say it will be a relief to the people in your group to be given an opportunity to share this very essential level of thinking openly. You’ll make better decisions too.

Here’s why.

You tap into your survival-level reaction

The first level of thinking, the objective (O) level is the facts, data, external information that is readily available to us. This is the grounding level information that ensures we have a common starting point in a discussion. Without objective levels of thinking, conversations become fuzzy.  I wrote about this in a previous blog, The Level-Setting Toolkit.

The reflective (R) level of thinking is the next level of thinking. It’s the internal response that we have to objective-level data. Put simply, it is our emotional reaction to things we hear, see, touch, taste, read, and observe.

jared-rice-388246-unsplash

It is an essential level of thinking that originates in our limbic brain, also known as our primitive brain, that is responsible for our fight or flight responses. The limbic brain is what we have relied on for survival for millennia and serves humans well.

In his book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman calls this our “fast brain.” This brain responds very quickly, very instinctively and not simplistically. This brain values memory (reflective) more than experience (objective).

The reflective response associates the objective data to something else, creates an emotional response or conjures up images. In short – it mines our internal responses to give additional context to objective data.

Why do we shy away from emotions?

Curiously, the reflective level of thinking is marginalized in the workplace. We are often uncomfortable with anything emotional and have many methods for shutting down emotional responses.

We label it unprofessional. We ask people to park emotions at the door. We say, “It’s just business, what’s the big deal?” In fact, internal communications are typically asked to steer clear of any language that’s remotely emotional and stick with clinically professional expressions.

As proof of this orientation, I was sharing the ORID model with a group recently, and a participant said “Wouldn’t it just be easier if we skipped the reflective level all together?”

That is a good question — should we skip it?  Absolutely not – and I’ll tell you why.

Why we need the reflective level of thinking?

We must observe and respect the feelings because they keep us out of trouble, they prevent cyclical thinking and they broaden our creativity and decision-making skills.

Our emotional response keeps us safe.

When we miss the reflective level of thinking, we overlook key insights and leave critical information out. For example, if we don’t pay attention to the immediate revulsion we experience at the smell of bad meat, we risk making ourselves sick.

The same is true when making a call in the boardroom. If changing the price of a product is giving you chills (and not the good kind), take that as a red flag that you may need to explore the data and rationale a little closer before making the final call.

Our emotional responses get us unstuck.When groups ignore the reflective level, they often become stuck. You would know this situation if you’ve ever seen it. It looks like silence, polite conversations, dialogue without conviction, big white elephants and simmering anger.

Groups can get caught in a place of subordinated, unarticulated thoughts which can show up in toxic and unproductive places later.

julieann-ragojo-634360-unsplash

Recently, a client invited me to help them with team development activity. They alluded to some past issues that had a new group struggling. The client did not want to explore the past, preferring to focus on the future, which is incredibly rational, normal and feels more productive.

The difficulty for this group is that the emotions were unexplored and had gone underground.

The result? The group was politely professional, engaging in safe dialogue and unable to build the quality of relationships they needed to tackle the sizeable project ahead of them. They were stuck.

Our emotional responses help stimulate higher levels of thinking

In the example above, we would have been far better to dig into the issue and risk some emotional statements in order to move the group forward. A group simply can’t move to higher orders of development, thinking and behaviour if it is stuck at the reflective level.

Importantly, they can’t tap into additional creativity and decision making capacity if their reflective state is buried.

Won’t this lead to messy, emotional chaos?

casey-horner-460825-unsplash
When I teach facilitation skills, students express fear and trepidation at exploring the reflective level of thinking in their work environments. They do not want to ask people how they feel. They fear opening a pandora’s box of chaos.

So, how do we let the reflective level of thinking into our organizations without turning into a sobbing, hysterical, fist shaking mass of humanity? How can we tap into this brilliant and essential level of thinking to enhance and improve our outcomes?

Next time you’re engaging with a team, try this approach.

Alternate positive and negative questions

The best ways to tap into the reflective level of thinking is to ask questions which mine for emotions.

Ask a question that asks for a positive, emotional response and then one that asks for a negative emotional response in your next conversation and see what additional insight emerges. Make sure you ask for both sides of the emotion to get a complete picture.

Here are some examples:

  1. What do you like about that? What do you dislike about that?
  2. What are you optimistic about?  Pessimistic about?
  3. What are you excited about? Worried about?
  4. What are you feeling positive about? Negative about?
  5. What is an association that you are making?
  6. What images are coming to mind for you?
  7. What is a metaphor that captures your thinking right now?

Treat your own deep-seated reactions as a friend, not a foe, next time you’re working in a group setting.

You may be surprised at the productive path it will lead you down.

What success have you found when following your instincts in the workplace? What barriers do you face from doing so? Feel free to share in the comments below.

About Robin Parsons: I’m a certified ToP® facilitator with a decade of experience in business facilitation. I’m here to help your corporate team define problems and solutions, plan clear paths forward on complex projects and fully leverage the expertise in your group. If you’d like to explore what facilitated strategic planning services or group facilitation could look like in your organization, contact me

The level-setting toolkit: How to establish facts before making decisions

The objective, or facts, level of thinking will help you ensure you’re on the same page as your group, leading to better outcomes and time saved.

By Robin Parsons, IAF Certified Professional Facilitator

Years ago, I worked for someone who used to say to me, “Facts are friendly, facts are friendly.” It wasn’t until I jumped more deeply into the study of group facilitation methods that I truly understood what he meant.

The objective level of data (a.k.a. facts) are not just friendly, but the essential starting point for thinking clearly. And in many group settings or situations, clear thinking is exactly what’s needed.

It sounds like a magic recipe for project or group success. And yet it’s so simple it’s often overlooked. We have a bias towards a deeper more analytical mindset, often ignoring the observable data.

Why start by agreeing on the facts?

Have you ever been in a meeting where everyone around the table is shaking their head at an outcome, wondering “How did we miss that?”

This can happen when we make decisions before we’ve considered all sources of data.

Factual data needs to be the starting point to every conversation. It ultimately saves time, produces better outcomes and promotes aligned understanding of even the most complex problem.

Without objective data, we’re doomed to fail

rawpixel-690288-unsplash

Without a solid grounding in the objective level of data, we tend to flounder. We find ourselves going around in circles and struggling to ground ourselves in the present reality. Each person approaches the conversation with a different understanding of the situation which often leads to confusion and the absence of clarity.

What is the objective level?

I want to lay out some scenarios that prove my point and explore the reasons why we’re apt to gloss over it. Often, we’re eager to get to the good stuff (that deeper level of problem-solving) or maybe we feel too pressed for time.

Questions to start with

  • What words did someone actually use?
  • What did phrases did you read in the document?
  • What do you remember seeing? Hearing? Doing?
  • What happened first? Second? Third?
  • Where did the incident occur?
  • When did it happen?
  • Who was there?
  • What do the meeting minutes say our resolution was?
  • What did we capture as an action item?
  • What are the numbers: Dates, times, figures, prices, specs?
  • Even: What colours do you see?

These are a series of questions that I frequently ask participants and students of facilitation alike. It is surprising how difficult it is to get a response to these questions.

The questions are easy and the answers obvious, and yet, people hesitate to offer a response.

They are perplexed. They think it might be a trick question. They can’t figure out why I would ask such simple questions. They think I’m looking for something much deeper or more profound.

But, at the objective level, the answer could be as simple as ‘red’.

Facts, data, sensory information

In facilitator speak, we call these simple questions “objective level questions.” These are the facts. Basic information and sensory inputs. And we use them to begin a conversation aimed at thinking through a topic.

Objective data grounds a conversation

rawpixel-703134-unsplash

It is surprising how often people push back on starting a discussion by confirming the objective level of data. I hear things like:  “Everyone knows that”, “These people are too busy for this”, “We don’t have enough time” or “We all know the process”.

In our time-pressed environments, the time spent ensuring we are uniformly grounded in the facts has become either luxury or superfluous.

Yet, when I walk into a room to do business process work, we start with the current state. It is virtually a guarantee that when the current state goes up on the wall, people will say, “I didn’t know that”, “I had no idea”, or “Seeing it from end to end really helps me understand the situation”.

But, if we interpret too quickly, we may miss important facts

In my experience, groups have a bias towards interpretive thinking, because it’s such an important part of the thinking process. The challenge that emerges with our bias towards interpretive thinking is that we are quickly led towards interpretations without having fully considered all our data points.

In these cases, decisions are made with incomplete data sets.

Objective data brings clarity

There is tremendous power in spending time on the objective information that sometimes seems too simple for words.  It accomplishes a number of things:

1) It ensures that everyone in the room shares a common understanding of the topic

stefan-stefancik-257625-unsplash

It is much easier to move a conversation forward when people in the room are not grappling for facts. Many times, I have seen a meeting chase its tail because participants did not start with the same set of facts. How many times have you seen a discussion start with the correctness of a number?

Until the facts are clear and known by all, the meeting will be circular.

2) It ensures that, if there are different perspectives on a fact, these will surface

This doesn’t mean we’re trying to get at alternate facts, but it does remind us that I can see a 20% gross margin as excellent and someone else can see it is an opportunity for improvement.

Maybe you see the process of using a sticky note to pass information along as efficient and someone else sees it as vintage.

I can see a colour as orange and someone else as tangerine.

3) It reduces anxiety and frustration

mimi-thian-737030-unsplash
Frustration, anxiety, pointed questions, bad decisions and blame often stem from a fuzzy understanding of the objective level of data.

When decisions are made with incomplete data, where one person held a piece of information that another did not, blame and frustration are often the outcome.

Time spent sharing the basic facts contributes to the clarity which allows anxiety and frustration to dissipate.

A group I worked with found itself in a circular situation where there was resistance to exploring current state processes (because everyone knows the process) and frustration because no one knew what the processes were and what came next. There was an overwhelming sense that the problems were too hard to solve.

4) It helps us to challenge our assumptions

One of the most important aspects of spending time on the objective level of data is that it helps us challenge our assumptions and prevent us from relying on past strategies and outcomes that may bias our thinking in a situation.

A former NASA flight director talked how they stave off panic in a crisis situation. The answer? Start with a series of objective questions:

  • What was everything they knew and did not know about the situation at hand?
  • What did the data actually say about the situation at hand?
  • What was the worst thing that could happen as a result of the situation?
  • Did the team have enough information to know for sure and how could they get more information?

Here’s how to bring objective thinking into your next meeting:

  1. Give people in a meeting time to review a document. Ask them to high light or underline key words or phrases.
  2. Once a presentation has been given, ask: What jumped out at you?
  3. Ask someone to read passages from a document or presentation out loud.
  4. Circulate pre-reads with a couple of questions such as: What caught your attention? What ideas did you highlight?
  5. Open a meeting by asking someone to recap the outcomes of a previous meeting.
  6. In a follow up meeting, ask the group what they remember from the previous discussion, what happened first, second and then…

What are some helpful objective level questions you might ask at your next meeting? Share your answers below.

 

About Robin Parsons: I’m a certified professional facilitator and certified ToP® facilitator with 10 years of experience facilitating groups. I can help your group, team or stakeholders solve problems, develop plans, answer questions and clearly understand situations. If you’re looking for strategic planning facilitation, professional group facilitation or process facilitation services, reach out to learn more.