Marsha Acker

Agile Team Facilitation: Maintaining Neutrality

ROI Is in Improved Trust and Collective Intelligence Within the Team

This post is the 2nd in a series that dives into the Cornerstones of the Agile Team Facilitation Stance.

This element, Maintaining Neutrality, being the toughest to embrace and employ, is where we’ll begin. Ready?

The Maintaining Neutrality Concept

In its simplest terms, the role of a facilitator in a collaborative meeting is to bring an objective and unbiased view to a group process – so that all voices can be heard and that the team can access its collective intelligence.

One of the best ways to achieve this is for a facilitator to maintain neutrality by owning the process, of the meeting and let the participants own the content or topic.

That sounds easy, doesn’t it?

In theory, it is easy. It’s dead simple.

In practice? No. Not easy.

Most agile teams have someone who steps into the role of facilitator to help guide the group through practices like team start-up, retrospectives, release planning, iteration planning, etc.

Because this person is often part of the team, in some way, they likely have an opinion about what the team is doing. This can make it difficult, but not impossible, to actively achieve and maintain neutrality during the course of a meeting where the person acting as the facilitator has an opinion on the topic or content being discussed.

The cornerstones in the facilitation stance. See the first post in the series.

**Why You’d Want To Maintain Neutrality**

True neutrality builds trust within the group.

It’s the subtle reflection to a team that they have the wisdom needed to find the right solution or path.

Neutrality is free from judgment about good or bad, right or wrong. And there is an openness in neutrality that makes room for more than one truth and more than one solution.

So, with more trust within a team, comes more effectiveness, better solutions…and more options.

With more trust, comes more confidence for each member in the group as a whole. With more trust comes improved solutions, velocity, and an ease and eagerness to continue the momentum.

Facilitators: a Part of The Team, Yet Apart From The Team

Team leaders or agile coaches are often part of the team, in some way.

On occasion, they may even have a stake in the outcome of the meeting.

This is at the heart of what makes maintaining neutrality difficult.

Neutrality offers the gift of “not knowing” and being able to take a different perspective, to see another way, to dance in the space of not knowing.

As a Facilitator’s Work Is Different

Presence and awareness for the way the group is proceeding through the agenda or problem at hand is the facilitator’s domain.

In many groups, a leader may, instead, get caught up in offering solutions to the content being presented, rather than staying curious and asking questions of the group.

Why Does This Happen?

There’s a myth, based in fear, about being perceived as not contributing value in the facilitator position. Often unspoken, there’s a belief in many individuals that they can only bring value to a group by contributing verbally or sharing their opinions or suggestions on the topic.

Some individuals equate neutrality with passivity.

Neither of These Fear-Based Beliefs Are True

The work of a facilitator or leader is different. It’s active, but the active attention is on asking questions and trusting the group to provide their answers. You’re also watching for hidden dynamics in the group and you’re more focused on inquiring, staying with curiosity and inviting participants to dig deeper for more and better of themselves.

An Example

A facilitator has just taken the group through an exercise. There are large sheets, scribed with details and feedback from the exercise, hanging on the wall. Everyone takes a breath and reviews all of the content on the sheets.

The Facilitator’s Immediate Instinct?

Perhaps it is to summarize what she sees, which comes from a place of knowing, instead of a place of inquiry.

Helpful?

Perhaps – as a content owner, but the facilitator is the process owner.

A neutral tack would be to ask: “What do you see?”

Subtle? Yes.
Powerful? Definitely.

Shifting your focus from the topic or content, or what the group is working on, to the process, or how the group is working.

The value you bring is in owning the process and in holding the space so the group can do its best work.

Minding The Inherent Power in Leading

Teams can be greatly influenced by a slight comment or over-attention to one idea over another. When you’re trying to pay attention to the content in the process, there’s a danger you’re missing what is happening inside of the process.

Fully standing in the space of neutrality says to a group “I’m your ‘sherpa.’ I’ll guide you up this mountain, there is a specific process we will follow. And in the end, you’ll get to do the work.”

What else? You may not be entirely sure you can maintain neutrality in your group. But given the payoff of improved group trust, that shouldn’t stop you from trying it out.

From The Field

Having taught facilitation to many leaders and coaches, this is the one guiding principle, where I notice the most immediate resistance and push back.

It gets right at the heart of how we traditionally feel we add value in a conversation. It can also be greatly influenced by the culture in the organization and how people are rewarded. This is also the principle that most everyone will say to me at the end of a three-day course ‘I never realized how important or valuable it is to be a neutral facilitator – but I totally get it now’.

Offering advice or jumping too quickly to problem-solving for a team increases their dependence on a facilitator. It sends a subtle and unstated message that says “I don’t think you’re capable of this…”. Over time, it undermines the confidence of the team to access and voice their collective intelligence.

Maintaining neutrality is about putting your own ego aside. We can easily fall into a trap of believing that the only way to provide value to a team is to problem solve for them.

My First Time as a Facilitator

The first time I facilitated a group of 25 people I was scared to death. My fears were about wanting to be prepared, wanting the meeting to go well, wanting to provide value, wanting to show my expertise.

I could probably continue that list of fears, but you might notice the theme of my fears were all about me. So I spent quite a bit of my preparation time mapping out a detailed plan, having a back-up plan for every possible event, and doing my homework on the topic so I was knowledgeable about some of the issues that might come up as questions (so I could have an answer).

I have been practicing facilitation for 22 years. I have strong beliefs in the power of collective intelligence and the benefits of not letting my own opinions get in the way of being able to hear the collective voice of the group and yet there are still times when I want someone else to hold the process so I can fully be in the content.

Favorite Exercise

You can easily provide contrast and share the work of facilitation by rotating other team members into the role of owning the process.

By rotating, each person will notice the need to pay attention to so many different things:

Individual dynamics
System dynamics
Interpersonal communications
Watching for who are stepping forward to participate and who are withdrawing, or stepping back
Group awareness
The difference between what’s being said, and what isn’t.
Looking for signs & indicators that we just bumped into the elephant in the room – are we really ignoring that?

These are the subtle yet critical elements, the work, a facilitator maintains in order to hold the space for their group. So the group can focus deeply on the content and dig for their solutions with more trust.

	Internal Assumptions and Beliefs	Practices
Maintain Neutrality	I am active and engaged (not passive) I own the process, they own the content I add value by reflecting back to the group what’s actually happening I am open minded and see value in all voices Polarities in opinions offer opportunities to find common ground I am vested in helping the group achieve their desired outcomes Critique about the group process is not a critique about who I am	Say what you see, in a factual, non-judgmental way Take a systems perspective Bridge competing ideas Listen for the 2% common ground Offer ideas with no attachment to the outcome Inquire by asking powerful questions Seek to understand and deepen the group’s understanding
Not Neutral – Driving your Content	I am valuable because of my superior capability, experience, or insight The group will make the wrong decision if I don’t add my experience I can’t facilitate because I am too biased and have too much at stake My value is determined by my ability to add value to these discussions Neutrality means to be passive, so if I can’t offer my opinion, I won’t say anything	Using your positional authority of leading the meeting to contribute your idea Commenting positively on contributions made by some and not by others Disregarding input from those who don’t align with your thinking Allowing your design to reinforce biases (i.e., only hearing from those who like to talk) Over contributing content

Starting the Practice:

In a collaborative meeting, try on 100% content-neutral facilitation.

No matter what’s being said or presented, you step into your own leadership of the process, not the content. You are clear about the outcomes for the meeting and your focus remains on HOW the group is working.

It’s the participants who own the content, the suggestions, solutions and decisions.

Another strategy is to partner with another facilitator, not on your team, to co-design and co-lead the session. It’s a great way to learn facilitation and have someone who can see places where you might have slipped out of neutrality.

After the meeting, get feedback from your team on the impact the meeting had on them individually and their overall objectives. You can ask them to write the answers to these on a card as they are leaving the room or create a quick web-based survey after the session.

You might ask questions like:

Overall, how did the meeting go?
Did the team accomplish the outcomes it needed?
What was effective about the meeting process? (not content)
What was not being discussed in the meeting, but maybe needed to be?

Developing the Practice:

There’s a natural progression, an unfolding, in developing your own version of neutrality. The key to developing neutrality is building your self-awareness and self-management about how you show up in leading a meeting.

Consider using the same tools you utilize in leading a group and ask questions of yourself. And have patience; developing this practice is like building a muscle. You will grow and improve over time.

In a collaborative meeting, when a desire to jump in arises, ask yourself

Why do I want to offer content?
Am I trying to elevate my position in the group?
Do I have a different perspective? If so, can you inquire from the group if anyone has a different perspective?
What could be a consequence of jumping out of the process and into the content?

Another great practice is journaling and self-reflection after a meeting. Make notes of where you wanted to jump out of the process and over to content. What was behind that desire? When do you get triggered by topics or patterns in how the group works? What biases do you bring to the team you are working with?

Mastering the Practice:

Again, more questions than answers in mastering the practice. Consider documenting the following answers for your organization:

How would you define your stance on neutrality?
What are the circumstances where you might provide content?
How do you provide the content so it’s clear to both you and the team that you are stepping out of neutrality?
When might you hand a process over to someone else in the meeting?

Can You Ever Get “Good Enough” To Hold Both Roles?

It depends on the complexity and the importance of the meeting, overall. There are times & places where you can do both, hold both roles.

One group I work with, over time, they’ve gone to full neutrality and are now moving closer to center – each team member is finding their own version of what neutrality means and when they offer their opinion or perspective. As you grow the practice, you’ll find a natural cadence and volume for how much content you may bring in vs. owning the process & maintaining 100% neutrality.

No matter what balance you find, always be clear about boundaries of the hats you are wearing and be sure to make it transparent for both you and the team.

No matter what, going forward, it’s the organic development of what works best for the group/organization at hand is what will bring each participant to a deeper level of trust in the group.

That deeper level of trust is where traction & buy-in lives with all participants in a team.

And we’re rooting for you to get there.

In the next post we’ll cover the cornerstone of Standing in the Storm. Be sure to stay tuned here or on LinkedIn so you won’t miss it.

Keys to Unlocking the Wisdom of the Group – Ben’s Experience

Keys to Unlocking the Wisdom of the Group – Lisa’s Experience

Diagnosing and Changing Stuck Patterns in Teams

Deja Vu or Patterns?

Do you ever find yourself in the middle of a conversation having a “Groundhog Day” moment, thinking that you’ve already had this conversation before?

As human beings, we’re good at patterns; they get created by the habits we have. Some habits are conscious (we know we’re doing them), while others are unconscious (we’re not aware of what we’re doing or the impact it’s having on others).

A Personal Example of a Stuck Pattern

When my daughter, Lauren, was very young, we had what I call a “Groundhog Day” conversation, and it would typically happen whenever we were getting ready to go somewhere that Lauren didn’t want to go.

Our conversation would generally go something like this:

Me: Do you have your shoes on?

Lauren: No.

Me: Well, we’re getting ready to leave in 10 minutes. You need to get your shoes on.

Lauren: OK.

After about 5 minutes, I would come back to check whether Lauren had put her shoes on.

Me: Are your shoes on?

Lauren: No.

Me: Well, what have you been doing?

Lauren: I’m playing.

Me: Well, go get your shoes on.

Lauren: OK.

And then here I am, getting ready to walk out the door, and I turn around to see there are still no shoes on her feet. This was our pattern of conversation every morning. We would go round and round like this.

In the structural pattern of this conversation, I was making a move and Lauren was making a follow by simply saying OK. But the reality is that she had no intention of putting her shoes on because it just wasn’t that important to her to do so. In this way, her action was a follow, but what was really happening was a covert oppose.

A Model for Noticing Patterns

Why is it important to notice patterns? David Kantor has studied conversational patterns in face-to-face communication for over 30 years, from which he developed the theory of Structural Dynamics. What emerged from his studies is a universal theory of face-to-face communications.

Through his research, Kantor found that 1) the structure of the conversation determines performance, and 2) there are two realities present in the room when people are speaking: one is visible and one invisible. This means that by determining the structure of the conversation, you can begin noticing the patterns in structural terms, rather than the emotional story that goes along with them. By reading the room from a structural perspective, you can actually pinpoint where you or your team may be stuck and shift the pattern to make the conversation more productive.

The Four Actions of Effective Conversation

Let’s focus on action modes, or what Kantor calls the Four Player Model. According to this model, all conversation between individuals can be coded into one of four actions:

Move: A move initiates an idea, action or direction in communication for getting the conversation started. You can think of this as setting the flow of the conversation in a particular direction.
Follow: A follow continues the direction (or flow) of the conversation, and in doing so, it supports a move. A follow does not always mean agreement; sometimes it can further inquire about a move.
Oppose: An oppose challenges or disagrees with the idea, action or course of the discussion. It pushes back, corrects and/or offers an alternative perspective.
Bystand: A bystand notices what’s happening and articulates that awareness (without moral judgment). It adds a neutral perspective for the good of the team, plus it helps the team see what’s happening and how they’re operating. You can also bystand yourself by telling the team how you’re feeling, what you’re curious about, or something else you see in yourself.

In order to be in an effective dialogue, all four actions must be present and active, meaning that someone is actively bringing those actions into the conversation. What happens when conversations become ineffective is that there is often one or more actions that are missing from the conversation.

Naming the Pattern

There are four common patterns that emerge in groups when one or more actions are missing. By being able to see and name a pattern, you’re giving the team information that allows them to be more aware of the pattern so they can take action to change it. A simple way to do this is to give a quick introduction of the four-player model to your team, then name the pattern that you’re observing.

Now, let’s look at some common stuck patterns within teams.

Serial Moves

Serial moves create lots of different energy in different directions. Part of this pattern is that many topics and ideas are placed on the table. Say today’s meeting is about the budget, but someone pipes in and mentions that next week’s picnic planning still isn’t resolved, and then someone else adds that the pothole out front should really be fixed before people show up for the company event.

With all of these topics on the table, there’s no real follow in the conversation. No topics have been closed out before new ones have been opened. This creates a lot of energy that can feel incomplete like there is little progress being made and no forward momentum.

You’ll know this pattern has emerged when you leave a meeting and think, what did we actually do in there? Sure, all kinds of things were discussed, but you walked away without any action or a clear understanding of what decision was made.

Courteous Compliance

With courteous compliance, there is a lot of follow (similar to groupthink). When someone who is really strong puts new topics on the table and offers up solutions, there’s often little resistance. Instead, the action is completed because teams follow a move put forward by someone.

This happens for a couple of different reasons. Some might value harmonious workplaces and think of their coworkers as a family (especially in family-run businesses). Therefore, they want to maintain the peace and keep the workplace happy.

Other companies have a real respect for hierarchy. When the leader has made a move, teams will go with it because nobody wants to challenge what the leader has to say. They follow along because they think it’s their job to do so, rather than to move or oppose. It could also mean that it’s not safe to offer opposing viewpoints in that system. Team members can become disempowered in this environment and believe that complying is part of their job, especially when there is lots of clear hierarchy.

Point-Counterpoint

Also known as advocacy, point-counterpoint means advocating for one’s point of view over someone else’s. The energy here can have an “I’m right, you’re wrong” feeling to it, or that someone’s playing Devil’s Advocate because they think it adds depth to the conversation.

A more effective way to bring the opposition into the room is to find the 2% you can agree with if only to align with the value someone is speaking from and be specific about what is being opposed. This allows for a new move to be put on the table. It creates a structure that builds on the idea, instead of tearing it down.

Ultimately, the problem is this: groups need a clear and effective oppose in the conversation. The most helpful oppose are those that identify the specific things you are aligned with AND the specific things you are not in agreement with. Critique just for the sake of offering criticism without an offer of what to do instead isn’t helpful and may even result in the person being labeled as difficult, which prevents forward movement rather than promoting it.

Covert Opposition

Covert opposition emerges when you agree to something you really intend to oppose. Say someone asks you to go to lunch, and you don’t really want to go to lunch, but to be agreeable, you go anyway. Or you suggest something different, like going to get ice cream. Either way, you’re not admitting that you don’t want to go to lunch. Instead, you make another move, which is a covert way of opposing.

The challenge in communication happens when we’re not bringing all of the clear actions into the conversation. Is lunch really all that important? Probably not, but reviewing the new product strategy is. For whatever reason, if you don’t feel you can voice your opposition, you either follow or make another move. With both actions, you don’t clearly articulate what you dislike or oppose regarding the strategy.

There’s something missing from that conversation. For both individuals and teams, it’s important to create a space where people feel safe to disagree or bring candor into the conversation. (Basically, to voice their opinions without fear of getting fired.)

If there are unproductive patterns, you might notice these common experiences:

You disagree with the direction the group has decided to go, but find that you’re holding back from saying something.
You might think you offered your opinion, but you feel as if it were dismissed or not heard.

Changing the Pattern

Remember the story of my daughter and me? Once I caught sight of the structure of our pattern, I could take action. One of the things I did to change our pattern was to create a way for her to make a move that I could follow, which is more empowering than just being told to do something.

Here’s how our new conversation would go:

Me: What are you doing? (Move)

Lauren: Building a house out of legos. (Follow)

Me: Ah, I love how colorful it looks! (Follow)

Me: It’s 7:50 and your school bus will be here in 10 min. (Bystand) What do you need to do to finish getting ready? (Move)

Lauren: I need my backpack and shoes. (Follow) I’ll go get them and then come back to my legos if I have time. (Move)

Me: That sounds like a great idea! (Follow)

Today, Lauren has a “Get Ready to Leave” chart that she drew herself and it has check marks to track what’s been done and what’s left to do in order to be ready to leave the house.

I share this story because it’s a really simple example of how we individually bring actions to a conversation that can cause a pattern to form. As simple as it sounds this was a frustrating conversation for both of us each morning. Some patterns might be useful, while others may get in our way of getting to the real conversation. As soon as we identify patterns, our first thoughts can be about the other person and what they need to change. But since we can’t change others, the first place to start is with ourselves.

The point of this story wasn’t to change my daughter. Rather, the work for me was to change how I acted, the part that I contributed to our stuck pattern by changing the way I approached the conversation.

Leaders Go First

As a leader, be looking for patterns in the conversation that are no longer supporting the team and then look for a way to restore any missing actions to balance the team’s collective actions.

It’s more than just shifting the conversation in the moment. While that can be helpful, the deeper question is: what’s creating this pattern? If the opposition is absent from the team, what kind of environment has been created where oppose is not valued? How might you, as the leader, be making it unsafe to oppose? If new moves are made as a kind of covert opposition, then how can you inquire about a clear opposition? When you specifically ask for it, this makes it safer for people to voice.

Simply changing action in the room doesn’t make it sustainable. This only changes it for the moment. So how do you change it on an ongoing basis? Start by determining the action that’s missing most from the conversation, then either bring that action yourself or ask for it from the group.

Here’s the hard truth: you cannot do this for others until you have done it for yourself. With that in mind, here are some reflection questions to get you started:

What’s the action that you use most often?
How does it vary between different groups or in different situations?
When might you overuse this action? Is it a stuck action for you? What might be underneath your stuck action?
What’s one different action that you could bring to the situation that might shift your conversation?

Want more information? Check out Reading the Room: Group Dynamics for Coaches and Leaders by David Kantor.

What To Do When Change Requires a New Operating System

Change Can be Overwhelming

Have you ever faced the challenge of leading or championing a change that felt overwhelming? Where the gap between what life is like today and what you envision is so wide and vast that you are not sure where to start?

If you’ve spent any time around technology companies (and most businesses today are in the technology business*), you will most likely hear something about being more adaptable and agile in the way technology is developed, the way teams are led, and the way individuals are provided growth and development opportunities. In some companies, doing things in an agile manner – that places the customer first, delivers value every time, values collaboration, and makes feedback an integral part of pivots and adaption as a way of life – is not something they need to transform or become. They “get it.” Leaders support it. Teams execute on it and are rewarded for it.

But for some organizations, the road to being more agile is a bit more challenging because it fundamentally requires a different operating system.

Three Organizational Operating Systems

In his theory of Structural Dynamics, David Kantor identifies three types of operating systems that emerge in any human social system where information is being transferred. They are Open, Closed and Random. Think of these like the operating system on your computer: they are the norms, rules, and beliefs that shape and govern behavior within a system.

Here is a quick overview of each of the three systems:

Open System is oriented toward the collective. A belief here might be “hearing every voice is valuable and people will support what they help to create.” Leadership manages towards what’s best for the system, rather than what’s best for the individual. It’s okay to offer dissenting views and to speak candidly, even to those with power. Authority and power are shared.

Random System is the place of innovation, autonomy and freedom. Random systems can create, invent and make decisions in varying ways and at varying levels. A belief here might be “allowing autonomy for choices and decisions reveals new solutions that we never knew possible.” The focus in the random system is more on individuals, while authority and power are shared.

Closed System is the place of order and rules as well as predictability and efficiency. A belief here might be “order, roles and responsibilities – and a clear process for making decisions – are required to get things done.” The focus in the closed system is on the leader. You may see deference to power for decisions.

Why You Need a Balanced System

One system is not better than another. Like anything, each system has its advantages and its dark side (when overused). The overuse of an open system could lead to a lack of clear decision-making or fatigue of group process. Overuse of random system can feel chaotic and exhausting or cause innovation burnout. Overuse of a closed system can shut down new ideas and input that may be valuable.

While agile values align more with the beliefs in an open system, it does not mean that there is no room for both closed and random inside an agile organization. In fact, it is quite the opposite: organizations need a balance of all three systems. The balance may look different in each, but where organizations get into trouble is when there is a value judgment placed on one system over the other two.

For example, a startup company that operates 90% in a random system can have great success initially. But as the organization grows, there will be a need for some aspects of a closed system. An example may be putting some definition or structure around roles and responsibilities to provide guidance and help people make decisions. Putting a process in place is a closed system thing to do, but doing it in a way that informs decisions, rather than becoming a checklist, honors the random system preferences.

Another example would be a large organization that has existed for many years with much success in a closed system. The system is designed to support and reward authority; clear and structured decision-making; and defined rules and processes. But what happens when the external environment changes around that company and they need to be able to adapt more to customer needs? Their journey to becoming more agile will look and feel very different. They will need to address loosening their grip on formal processes. They may really struggle with a transformation to agile, as the agile values and principles are more similar to an open system.

Organizations can get themselves into trouble when they operate predominantly within one system. When closed is predominant, there is a value judgment placed on open and random as not being worthwhile. It is assumed that non-closed systems will not get results. This leads to overuse of one system.

Think of each system like knobs on equalizer: you need a mix of all three, depending on the situation. In the examples above, the goal is not to completely turn off one and turn up another. Instead, the goal is to balance the levels so that each system is heard.

In this way, you can create conversations where people in the organization can identify when the system is not serving them any longer and start from there.

Navigating Change Through The Operating System Lens

So what’s next? How do you work with change when the change you are proposing is different from the system that is in place?

A key tenet of the field of organization development is to “meet them where they are,” regardless of the system they are working in. Here are some ways to do just that:

Start by identifying your current system. How would you characterize it? How can you work with it?

Ask key questions. What aspect of your current system is not working for you right now? Where does it create challenges? In what ways is the operating system not serving the organization?

Help the organization see that the change they are asking for is different from the current system. How might this influence decisions to pursue change?

Find ways to honor the current operating system while incorporating aspects of another system. What can be preserved from the current system to show that not everything needs to change?

Help individual leaders expand their tolerance for different systems. How can they look at things differently without requiring a whole lot of initial change?

———–

*If you lead a company today, chances are you lead a technology business. Last February, the Wall Street Journal renamed its Marketplace section to Business and Technology. It’s a pretty accurate reflection of how influential and important technology is to business today.