Facilitation

Rich Understanding & Communication for Rich Results

Heineken’s new viral video has an important message about the role that container building and conversation plays in overcoming barriers and conflicts. Check it out…

Politics in the United States is providing us with a heightened sense of awareness about our differences. But these kinds of exchanges are not new, we’re just lately watching them on bigger screens.

Rich Conversations In The Workplace

How do we adapt and use these kinds of conversations in our workplace, day-to-day? Or for the teams that we serve? With a little proactive work, these are rich and valuable conversations that we can be fostering in our teams as well.

As team leaders or facilitators we’re helping teams daily to navigate conflict by finding the balance between inquiry and advocacy. Heineken’s video demonstrates some useful tools that we’ll break down for you further on in the post.

Let us just say this:

Laying the Groundwork and Engaging in Different Kinds of Conversations Does Take More Time!

The results for the team are richer understanding between team members, higher quality outcomes, and improved velocity.

What would that look like?

The same conversation that keeps happening at each meeting due to the same unresolved conflicts would be eliminated. The habit of not listening and talking past one another? Gone.

How about by talking with and listening to each other, team members will actually achieve the results you know you and your team are capable of producing? It is that satisfaction and achievement that builds momentum inside a group.

If you haven’t seen the video by now, definitely watch it before you move on to help identify how you might prepare your team for these kinds of conversations.

Lay the Groundwork for Rich Communication

Step one:

In order to work with conflict, teams can’t just dive into the deep end of the pool. They need to spend time laying the groundwork. And, to be clear, laying the groundwork is not a one time task; it’s ongoing.

Here are some principles to keep in mind:

Get to know one another as people. We each have dreams, hopes, fears and challenges. When we put labels on people we start to view them as a concept or idea to be debated or defeated. When we take the time to know others as people first, rather than the label we’ve placed on them, it shifts our perspective.

Find Common Ground

When we start by acknowledging the things that we are aligned with, then we can build from there.
When we start from disagreement, it’s harder to find alignment and we become stuck in the back and forth nature of conflict: where one person “must be” right and the other “must be” wrong.
When we can find common ground, even if is just a shared value, there is an energy created from alignment. The alignment can move the conversation forward with more depth and meaning.

Work Together on a Task

When teams come together they need a purpose. Simply put, a common task provides that common ground and creates a feeling of forward progress and achievement that they can attain, and feel together. Resulting in a very positive foundation for a high performing team.

Engage in a conversation

Step 2:

When you lay the groundwork you create an enabling environment that supports more difficult conversations. Here are some principles to think about:

Aim For Dialogue

Dialogue is a specific kind of conversation. It’s ‘in the flow of meaning’ participants actively seek to deepen understanding beyond what they already know. In dialogue there is balance between inquiry and advocacy.

Voice Your Authentic View

In order to be in dialogue, we need to know what’s really true for others. Holding back or filtering what we say does not help to further the conversation. It only gets the group lost in trying to decipher what you’re saying, from what you really intend.

Inquire: Ask Powerful Questions

Powerful questions are short, often start with “What” or “How” and inquire about the other. When we come from a place of ‘knowing’ versus the place of inquiry we miss out on the opportunities to learn and find places of alignment and empathy.

Questions like “What’s it like to be you?” “What’s important about this?” or “What are three things we have in common?” are powerful inquiries!

By focusing on similarities and common tasks to be achieved, it’s easier for team members to remember they are actually on the same team. When the communication is strong and the inquiry level is high, more challenging conversations can be held without dissension and without defensiveness.

Next, Take a Look at Your Team

In order to help you activate these two powerful steps, take a few minutes and identify:

Where do you encounter similar types of conversations, as the video illustrated, at work?
Where do you need a different kind of conversation?
What’s one thing you could do today that might lay the groundwork?
Where does conflict exist in your team?
When conflicts or differences emerge in your team think about how you might apply some lessons from either the Heineken video, or the steps above.

You and your team can build strength and trust when you lay the groundwork and then engage in conversation in an ongoing manner. Breakthroughs and solutions come from better understanding. So do better team results.

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.

What Successful Agile Team Facilitators Know

Successful Collaborative Leadership

In some cultures, it’s a badge of honor to be participating in three virtual calls at the same time, or be multitasking during a meeting, or even be running between meetings.

Yet, behaviors such as these are a reflection of organizational flaws in the way we meet. When you’re trying to collaborate on a project, but you don’t quite have the time to be fully present, it can disrupt the whole group process and cost the team time.

There are many ways we can prevent and correct bad meeting habits, while simultaneously making effective use in the way we come together in an organization. It starts with setting the intention to collaborate. And the good news is that collaboration doesn’t have to take all that much time – it simply requires a little forethought by the Facilitator.

So what does successful collaborative leadership look like, exactly? Here are five things that a facilitator should know before going into a meeting.

Who Does The Meeting Serve?

A meeting should have at least one sponsor (a person or group of people who will be the primary beneficiaries of the outputs of the meeting). Sometimes, this may be the person who asked for the meeting. In a retrospective, the team is often the group who will benefit the most from the output, so they become the “sponsor” of the meeting.

What Does “Success” Look Like?

Before the meeting, interview the sponsor and ask them: What will we have accomplished at the end of this meeting that would make it successful? It’s hard to be successful if there isn’t an agreed upon definition about what success will look like.

In the case of a retrospective, talk with the team or survey them prior to the meeting to find out what they would like to achieve in the meeting. It can help focus your retrospectives and give you different topics to talk about, aside from the typical “what worked” and “what do we want to keep/change.”

Who is Needed At The Meeting?

Not everyone who attends each meeting needs to be there, and not everyone who needs to be there is always there. This can be a source of great frustration for meeting participants and facilitators, and it’s often a source of dysfunctional behavior in the meeting.

Get clear on who needs to attend and confirm their commitment to attend in advance. If these critical people can’t make it, then reschedule the meeting for a time when they can. If others are showing up just to hang out, politely ask them to go because they’re not needed.

How Will We Accomplish The Outcomes?

Successful group meetings don’t just happen. They require some level of process design, depending on the desired purpose and outcomes. If the meeting is a daily standup, then little to no design may be required because it’s a quickly facilitated dialogue.

However, a retrospective to address some challenging team dynamics during the last iteration may require 4-6 hours of planning and design time, on average. It includes:

interviewing the team
crafting an agenda (a series of questions that will be asked of the group)
designing the facilitator script
deciding the group process (brainstorming, mind mapping, facilitating dialogue, etc.) that you will use to reach each desired outcome

This level of planning gives the facilitator and the participants a clear focus on the purpose of the meeting and keeps everyone on track. Without a clear plan, meetings can quickly start to spin into details or unrelated topics and never reach an outcome or decision.

How Will The Plan Adapt to Change?

As Dwight D. Eisenhower said, “Plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

The facilitator’s guide is an excellent tool, but oftentimes, the most valuable part is in the creation. Don’t be so tied to your plan that you can’t adapt to what’s happening real time with your team!

How do you create intentional collaborations? What are some ways you that would help you begin with an end in mind?