Virtual Meetings

How To Run a Time Efficient Virtual Meeting

One of the most common mistakes people make when planning virtual meetings is allocating time incorrectly.

Hint: the problem is not usually that meetings end early.

Virtual Meeting Time Efficiency Formula

To help you avoid this error, here is a handy formula you can use to calculate how long something will take in a virtual meeting.

How long would this conversation with this group of people take in a face-to-face meeting? Write it down. We’ll call that number n.
Add modifiers to n as follows:

If there is no facilitator, double n before continuing. Then hire or assign a facilitator.
If there are more than 10 people involved (not counting the facilitator):
- For 11-15 people, add 5 minutes to n.
- For 15-20 people, add 10 minutes to n.
- For 21-30 people, add 15 minutes to n.
- For more than 30 people, design pre-work to take care of as much as you can before the meeting, then add 20 minutes to n.
Will you be switching tools during the meeting? For instance, going from screen-sharing to a collaborative sticky note board, Google doc, or similar?
- If so, add 5 minutes for every time you switch to a new tool.
- If the additional tool is new to at least half the group, add another 5 minutes.
- If the additional tool requires participants to log in, add another 2 minutes.
- If the additional tool requires a download or plug-in, add another 5 minutes.
- If you don’t display clear written instructions about how to access and use the tool, add 5 minutes.
Will you be using breakout rooms in this meeting? Add 5 minutes for each time you go into breakouts.
Will the group need to make a major decision during this conversation?
- For groups up to 15, add 10 minutes to propose the decision and check for agreement.
- For groups of 16-20, add 15 minutes to propose the decision and check for agreement.
- For groups over 20, add 15 minutes to propose the decision and check for agreement, and expect a lot of follow-up questions after the meeting.
If the group is very divided about the content of the decision, add another 5-10 minutes to the decision time.
Will you be keeping a Parking Lot, and do you expect more than two Parking Lot issues to come up? If so, add 5-10 minutes to resolve the Parking Lot issues.
Look at the total you have so far. For every 60 minutes, add 5 minutes for stretch breaks. If you’re over two hours total, add another 10 minutes for a sanity break in the middle.
Remember to add 10 minutes up front for people to connect to the meeting and get their audio and video sorted out.
Remember to add 5 minutes at the end of the meeting to review decisions and action steps.

stop watch to keep time in a virtual meeting

How To Implement The Time Efficiency Formula

As an example, let’s look at a group of 14 people who need to brainstorm ideas about their next product launch, select two, and assign research leads to each idea. It would take them 45 minutes to get this done in one focused face-to-face meeting with a facilitator, so n is 45.

Add 5 minutes for the number of people (14): 50 minutes
We’ll use screen sharing and Boardthing (a sticky note tool), so we add 5 minutes: 55 minutes
Boardthing doesn’t require an account or a download, so we don’t need to add any time for that.
Naturally we will create clear, visual instructions for Boardthing and show them before we switch as well as in Boardthing itself, so we don’t have to add 5 minutes for not doing that.
We will be using breakout groups once, so we add 5 minutes: 60 minutes
The group will need to make a major decision, so we add 10 minutes: 70 minutes
The group isn’t particularly deeply divided, so we don’t need to add time for that.
We don’t expect a long Parking Lot, so we don’t need to add time for that.
We add a 5-minute stretch break: 75 minutes
We add 10 minutes at the start for getting settled: 85 minutes
We add 5 minutes at the end to review decisions and actions: 90 minutes

In order to accomplish our objectives in a virtual meeting, we need to set aside 90 minutes, including a 5-minute stretch break.

Planning Ahead Will Save You Time!

By now you’re probably wondering whether this is meant to be satire.

Nope. I’m serious.

This is how long it takes to do real work when you’re not face-to-face. If you plan for it and people are prepared in advance, the meeting will run much smoother.

People will feel great about achieving their objectives in the time they set aside.

And hey, if you’re wrong, you can always end the meeting early.

______________________________________________________________________________

This article originally appeared on Rachel S. Smith’s blog, Digital Visual Facilitation, under “How long does it take to get things done in a virtual meeting?” on November 15, 2016.

Reading the Virtual Room

This is a question I get asked a lot: How do you ‘read the room’ when you’re meeting virtually?

In other words, how can you tell whether people are tracking or checked out, where the group energy is, and when it’s time for a break or some other shift?

My answer: it’s not actually all that different from reading the room in face-to-face settings, although we tend to think it is.

Running A Virtual Meeting

It’s stressful for a skilled in-room facilitator to imagine working without the body language cues that are so familiar and so revealing, I know. But I think we make this harder than it is.

There’s an expectation that because we lose body language, a virtual meeting won’t be as good as being in the room together and that it’s going to be an inferior experience.

But it doesn’t have to be.

Use An Agenda For Your Virtual Meeting

Start with an engaging agenda, where people have things to do that will achieve outcomes they care about.

Let them create, write, draw, discuss, decide.

Give them tools to support doing that work at a distance.

Ask good, thought-provoking questions.

Then get out of the way.

How To Read The Virtual Room

To read the room, look for the same things that you look for in a face-to-face gathering.

The only difference is that instead of ‘body language,’ you’re tuning in more to the tone of voice, evidence of activity, and the clues that you can get from the collaborative tools you’ve selected.

Are people working? Are they digging into the things they need to talk about or build?

Keep tabs on how many different people are participating — just a few, or most, or pretty much everyone? If there’s silence, is it paired with intense creation (generating sticky notes, writing in a document, whatever) or is it paired with a lack of activity?

If it’s the former, there’s no problem; let them work.

Ask Questions To Engage Virtual Participants

On the other hand, if there’s a lot of silence and nothing seems to be happening, that’s a cue that something maybe wrong. If that’s what I notice, I will usually make a neutral observation about it and then simply ask what’s up. That might look like this:

“I’m noticing that it’s been quiet for a couple of minutes and I’m not seeing anything show up on the shared tool we’re using. Is something not working well for you that we can maybe change?”

I have no way of knowing why people aren’t participating unless I ask them.

If I’ve created the right container, there’s enough safety that people can speak up and tell me what’s going on for them. I can then make adjustments as needed to re-engage the group, take a break, or help them tease out whatever issue is causing the block.

Example Responses To Your Question

Here’s a sampling of responses I’ve gotten to that question in the past, to give you an idea of what you might hear:

What are we supposed to be doing, again? (My instructions weren’t clear)
We can’t open/find the collaborative tool (Again, this is on me to get them where they need to be)
We can’t answer this question because we don’t have enough information (Time to reframe the question)
This isn’t the right thing for us to be talking about right now (Let’s find out what the right thing is, and talk about that)
We don’t see how this activity will get us to our outcome (I can briefly explain how I think it will and ask for suggestions that would make it work better for them)
All of us have just gotten an emergency text and we’re looking at our email because there’s a crisis that just came up for our team (Okay, let’s give you space to work through that)

There’s usually a very good reason people aren’t participating, and it’s almost always resolvable. But you won’t know until you ask — which is just as true in a face-to-face meeting as it is in a virtual one. We’re simply used to leaning more on what we see than on what we hear to make that determination.

Let Silence Be Your Friend In A Virtual Meeting

Just remember, silence can be your friend in a virtual setting. It can feel really uncomfortable because you can’t see what people are doing, but it can be a strong signal for change in a group that doesn’t like to speak up or criticize. Be open and inviting so that the group feels they can trust you to fix whatever needs to be fixed, and you’ll find that reading the virtual room isn’t difficult, it’s just different.

______________________________________________________________________________

This article originally appeared on Rachel Smith’s blog, Digital Visual Facilitation, on June 12, 2019.

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.

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.