The Art of Creative, Facilitative
Association Leadership
Anyone can
(and everyone should)
make facilitative contributions.
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects
@jcufaude • [email protected]
@jcufaude
What would make it easier for …
Use formats that draw out
to extroverted learners as
well as people oriented to
introversion or reflection.
• Select an ambassador.
• Answer the questions on p. 2,
making sure you are inclusive
of individuals’ opinions.
• 11 minutes. Watch the time.
@jcufaude
@jcufaude
Learning and growth
result from a mix of
challenge and support.
—Nevitt Sanford
Ambassador Visits
4 minutes to share highlights and get reactions.
Welcome Home Debrief
2 minutes to share reactions.
weaving community perspectives
@jcufaude
What might challenge
individuals in a strategy
session or meeting?
Facilitation Consideration
@jcufaude
The
people
Individual and
group behavior
B = f (p,e)
Kurt Lewin
theirs
meeting
The
environment
People
Considerations
Change voicers, if not voters
Plan for those involved
Environment
Considerations
Let outcomes drive logistics
Design space, agenda, & formats
Facilitation Consideration
@jcufaude
Midwesterner
Only child
Biz owner/consultant
Caucasian male
Urban dweller
Cusper: GenX/Boomer
What lenses/roles/perspectives
influence how you make meaning
of the world around us?
“We don’t have to let go of what we believe,
but we do need to be curious about what
someone else believes.”
Margaret Wheatley
@jcufaude
feedback from others
Known to others
Unknown to self
public
blind spot
Unknown to others
Known to self
what you disclose
•
•
•
•
•
•
@jcufaude
private
discovery
Making connections
and helping make meaning.
@jcufaude
Managing (or balancing) content and
process and ideas and action.
Leading vs.
facilitating
a meeting
Providing leadership without taking the reins while
generally operating from a position of restraint.
@jcufaude
Building the capacity
of individuals and groups
to accomplish more …
@jcufaude
Helping surface the unacknowledged or
invisible beliefs, thoughts, patterns, etc.
@jcufaude
@jcufaude
Common
Situations
page 5
Helping create a safe climate ….
Go stand by the # matching the
situation you’d like to discuss.
Select a reporter.
For the one situation you’ve
chosen to discuss with others in
your group possible facilitation
tactics to manage the situation.
You have 5 minutes.
@jcufaude
@jcufaude
•
Have I observed long enough
to make a reliable diagnosis?
•
Is what’s happening a problem?
•
What are the consequences
of not intervening?
•
Is it my role to intervene
as I am thinking?
3. Help move leaders out of their comfort zone
and help them think more innovatively.
•
Do I have the skills to do so?
4. Deal with differences among clusters” of
individuals (volunteers, members, staff,
etc.) who don’t seem to agree.
Deciding Whether To Intervene
@jcufaude
“Becoming a facilitative leader
means changing how you think
in order to change the
consequences you help create.”
— Roger Schwarz, The Skilled Facilitator
@jcufaude
1. Engage and value input from everyone
but get to a solution more quickly.
2. Politely lead the group away from someone
who is bullying or dominating discussion.
@jcufaude
NAW AEC Facilitation Case Studies: Practical Tips
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • [email protected] • @jcufaude
Facilitation Case #1:
Engage and value input from everyone, but get to a solution more quickly.
This facilitation case has two dynamics to address: (1) engaging and valuing everyoneʼs input, and
(2) getting to a solution more quickly.
By facilitating each of those activities (gathering input, making a decision) in separate segments, you
are likely to achieve the desired result. What two often happens is that both are occurring somewhat
simultaneously: some people are discussing while others are moving into deciding. As a result
progress on either is unsatisfactory.
To maximize input from each participant:
o
o
o
o
Ensure the question or issue is framed correctly and understood by all.
Allow time for individuals (particularly introverts) to reflect on the question or issue and form
an opinion.
Do a “go around”, allowing each person to succinctly share his/her opinion or to pass if they
have no contribution they want to make. Do not let people question or respond to what others
share; simply gather opinions and then open it up for discussion. Set s time limit for this
stage (Letʼs take 15 minutes to quickly gather everyoneʼs perspective on this question. That
allows a maximum of one minute per person. “
Visually capturing each personʼs contributions could then allow for common themes to be
clustered. If you want to do this, you can have each person write down his/her thoughts (one
specific thought per index card) and then post them. Participants could then work
collaboratively to cluster like comments. This is referred to as nominal group processing.
Group decision-making is difficult when the group has not reached consensus on the criteria that
should be used to make their decision. Absent shared criteria, individuals apply their own and this
can produce differences and debate. The more significant the decision, the more important it is to
first help the group develop a few key criteria they will all use to evaluate options and to select from
them.
Finally, if possible and desirable, the input could b gathered in advance through a short survey and
the actual time together (in person or on a call) could then be used exclusively for discussion and
decision-making.
NAW AEC Facilitation Case Studies: Practical Tips
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • [email protected] • @jcufaude
Facilitation Case #2:
Politely lead the group away from someone who is bullying or dominating discussion.
Letʼs separate bullying from dominating. Dominating is simply taking up more airtime compared to
other participants. Itʼs primarily a clock management and equality of participation issue. Bullying is
more of a tone/respect for other issue as bullying can occur even if an individual isnʼt commenting
very frequently if the tone of any comments being made is aggressive in nature.
The tendency in dealing with dominant participants is to focus on how to get them to be quiet. Doing
so can be awkward and uncomfortable. Instead, reframe this challenge as: How can I increase the
under-participation of others in this discussion? Doing so might lead you to say one or more of the
following:
o
o
o
o
o
Iʼd love to hear from some folks we havenʼt heard from yet today (very open-ended).
I know several of you have experience with this issue that we havenʼt heard from yet, could
we get ______ (share names) to offer some of your thoughts? (more directed)
Iʼd love to hear from ________ (share names) on this topic. (even more directed)
Before anyone speaks twice on this topic, letʼs make sure everyone gets a chance to speak
once.
_______ (names of people dominating discussion) have been doing all the heavy lifting here.
Letʼs hear from some other folks for a change.
Some individuals feel challenged when they arte unexpectedly called on individually to share their
thoughts. The more open-ended statements listed above are meant to shine a spotlight in their
general direction without causing that discomfort, but sometimes individuals need to be singled out.
When doing so, you might state upfront that they can pass if they donʼt have anything to share or to
feel free to build on what others have already stated.
When someone is bullying, it is important to go back to any ground rules or agreements the groups
has made to guide the conversation and to use them to shift the tone of how individuals are speaking
to each other: “We established that we want to be respectful of each otherʼs different opinions today,
and Iʼm feeling like we may be straying from that a bit. Letʼs make sure we are using a respectful
tone as we move forward.”
Thatʼs a fairly restrained intervention. Sometimes the bullying person needs to be addressed more
assertively and told that he needs to speak in a more appropriate manner. Itʼs best when peers can
address each other that way, “Bob, Iʼm happy to listen to your opinion, but not when you speak to me
in a way that I find to be so condescending.” If that doesnʼt occur, you as the facilitator may need to
be the one to call attention to the tone. If you donʼt want to do it in real-time, you might call for a quick
break and decide whether or not to address the individual(s) during it.
NAW AEC Facilitation Case Studies: Practical Tips
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • [email protected] • @jcufaude
Facilitation Case #3:
Help move leaders out of their comfort zone and help them think more innovatively.
Are the leaders able, but not willing? Willing, but not able? Both? Neither? Answering these
questions is usually a good place to start.
If the leaders are willing, but not able to step out of their comfort zone, you need to help build their
capacity for thinking differently.
If they are able, but not willing, you need to focus on helping them understand the need to think
differently, the benefits for doing so and the consequences for not doing so.
In either instance you might look to include more participants in the discussion who bring to the group
whatever capacity or confidence the other individuals are lacking. If thatʼs not possible, here are a
few options:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Help individuals identify a personal or professional example from their own experience that
reflects the shift in thinking you want them to make. You can then connect this to the
association discussion you want to have.
Broaden participants thinking of what might be possible and/or desirable: this can be done
through field research, sharing examples from other organizations or industries, involving
them in interviewing key resources, reviewing articles offering alternative approaches, etc.
Use the approach advocated by Business Innovatory Factory founder Saul Kaplan (@skap5):
Think Big, Start Small, and Scale Fast. Focusing the initial steps on small wins reduces the
risk that many shy away from when thinking big.
Honor their pragmatism, but get them in action with this key facilitation question: Whatʼs the
biggest step forward we can commit to without reservation right now? Discussions often
become all or nothing, so use your facilitation to instead get a commitment that can then be
revisited and built upon in a future gathering.
Facilitate the reality you perceive: “What would we need to do collectively in order for you to
feel more comfortable and confident in thinking at a more strategic or innovative level? What
support do you need?”
Help the group think through the possible consequences if they donʼt engage in this more “out
of the box” thinking. This sometimes convinces them of the need to let go of their discomfort.
Engage the group is some bold thinking not tied to the specific association issues on a
random topic where they have no real stake. This allows them to have the conversation more
comfortably and you can then help them apply that same thinking/comfort to the real issue at
hand.
When individuals speak at a tactical/micro level, you can restate their opinion and connecting
it to the possible macro/strategic level: “Susan, your specific idea sounds like it would be a
good incremental step toward a broader strategy of ______. Am I hearing that correctly?”
Instead of trying to get them to think in a way that is not natural, let them enter the
conversation on their own terms and you can then elevate it with how you respond.
NAW AEC Facilitation Case Studies: Practical Tips
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • [email protected] • @jcufaude
Facilitation Case #4:
Deal with differences among clusters” of individuals (volunteers, members, staff, etc.) who
donʼt seem to agree.
First, this is a natural phenomenon. People who have different functional roles or relationships will
often filter the same circumstances through very different lenses. The goal when this issue surfaces
is to ensure each clusterʼs perspective is heard and understood by others and that any decision
reached reflects the different perspectives as much as possible.
Some facilitators will achieve this by forming small groups with individuals from each cluster
represented in each group. The thinking here is to let these differences surface in small groups
where each individual can be heard and can respond intimately to othersʼ differences. Facilitated
large group discussion usually follows.
Others will have each cluster form its own group and quickly identify the 2-3 key things it wants other
clusters to understand about their perspective. These are then reported out and a large group
discussion is facilitated.
Both can be effective. Which you select may reflect how much time you have available, the energy of
the group, what approach the room set might best support, or other factors.
The key for the large group discussion is to focus on areas of common ground among the different
perspectives. Individuals often focus on the differences which can make reaching a decision more
challenging, so facilitators want to do the opposition: “I know we still have a few key differences to
sort out, but am I correct that we have agreement that A, B, and C are all acceptable to everyone.”
A few favorite facilitation resources
Facilitation: Providing Opportunities for Learning
by Trevor Bentley
An incredibly unique resource that is now out of print (but can
still be bought used on Amazon.com), Bentley's book moves
between description of an actual facilitation with a group and
narrative about the facilitation approach and choices he adopts.
It's about as close to fishbowling an actual facilitation as you
can get in printed form.
Bentley deeply believes that facilitators should generally
operate from a position of restraint, not overly managing a
group, and one of the many useful models he offers is a Facilitation Spectrum that illustrates
the myriad of choices a facilitator has available to select form when contemplating intervening
with a group. His philosophy, approach, and technique indeed show us how we can make
groups and conversations a safe place for individual and collective growth.
Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making
by Sam Kaner, et al
Simply put, this is one of the most invaluable resources you can
have to guide you through how to work with groups to help them
reach a decision, in terms of both content and a process. Most
importantly the values, tools, and techniques explored will help
groups achieve sustainable agreements, not just make a
decision in the moment that will unlikely be implemented after
the conversation.
Kaner and his colleagues describe the dynamics associated
with group decision-making, highlighting the important shift from divergent to convergent
thinking and the "groan zone" that has to be traveled between the two, one of the most
challenging spaces for a facilitator to help a group navigate. The book is chock-full with
insightful narrative of facilitation values and beliefs complemented by very useful sections
outlining common facilitation techniques and even case studies of group decision-making in
action. Check out a preview of the much of book's content via Google Books.
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • @jcufaude • [email protected]
Gamestorming
by Dave Gray, Sunni Brown, and James Macanufo
Gray is the founder of Xplane, the visual thinking company, one of
the first firms to create infographics for complex concepts and
stories. His work fits nicely with Dan Roam's writing in The Back
of the Napkin. Subtitled as "A Playbook for Innovators,
Rulebreakers, and Changemakers," the book defines
gamestorming as "about creating game worlds specifically to
explore and examine business challenges, to improve
collaboration, and to generate novel insights about the way the
world works and what kids of possibilities we might find there."
While some of the more than 80 activities outlined in the book are definitely games, I'd suggest
more of them could be described as exercises or activities, an important distinction given the
potentially negative connotation (unjustified in my opinion) some associate with the game label.
Some of the activities have been excerpted on the Go Gamestorming website.
The Skilled Facilitator
by Roger Schwarz
Schwarz is perhaps one of the better known facilitation trainers,
and this new and revised book is an excellent guidebook not only
for facilitators, but also trainers and consultants. What I
particularly appreciate about this book is that it takes a systems
perspective for the work of facilitation, acknowledging that any
action a facilitator takes can affect a group in multiple ways that
have multiple consequences.
His method, the Skilled Facilitator Approach, is anchored in four
core values: valid information, free and informed choice, internal
commitment, and compassion. The behaviors, techniques, and tools offered in the book reflect
these values. Schwarz is particularly effective in dissecting the considerations involved in
diagnosing a group's needs and determining if, when, and how to intervene as a result.
Jeffrey Cufaude, Idea Architects • @jcufaude • [email protected]