Monday, August 25, 2014

You know you're a group facilitator if:

The popularity of my post, "You know you're a storyteller if ..." inspired me to work on this one.

Eighteen ways to know if you're a group facilitation expert:
  1. You have three different colored markers and masking tape in your briefcase.
  2. You can thoughtfully distinguish between facilitating learning, facilitating group development, and facilitating collaborative problem solving and decision making. Other uses of "facilitating" make you groan.
  3. You wonder, when you're invited to a meeting, if their facilitator will be as good as you.
  4. You wonder, when you're invited to a meeting, if they really just want you to facilitate.
  5. You wonder, when you're invited to a meeting, if they will let you facilitate.
  6. When invited to a meeting you ask about its purpose, what's on the agenda, what decisions are to be made, if all the people necessary to make a decision will be present, if sufficient time has been scheduled, and if they're really inviting you so you'll facilitate.
  7. Your hands have multi-colored splotches.
  8. You can explain the history of the term "brainstorming" and lament how it is misused.
  9. People ask how you manage to remember everyone's name.
  10. You have a particular technique for ripping off a sheet of flip chart paper so it doesn't leave behind a residual shred of paper at the perforation.
  11. You can explain Brainstorming, Nominal Group Technique, Technology of Participation, Future Search, Appreciative Inquiry, Open Space Technology, and World Cafe.
  12. Several books on your shelf have "meeting," "group," and/or "facilitation," "facilitator," "facilitating," or "facilitative" in their titles.
  13. You believe in the inherent value of the individual and the collective wisdom of the group.
  14. You strive to help the group make the best use of the contributions of each of its members.
  15. You set aside your personal opinions and support the group's right to make its own choices.
  16. You believe that collaborative and cooperative interaction builds consensus and produces meaningful outcomes.
  17. No one understands what you do for a living.
  18. You are right now thinking of another way "you know you're a group facilitator if ..." What is it?

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

What we need is ...! What you need is ...!

Felt, observed, and real needs

I think it is useful to understand the distinction between felt needs, observed needs, and real needs (a distinction Ward Goodenough made in his 1963 book, Cooperation in Change) and aspire to find and increase their overlap.

Felt needs are the needs identified by the members of a community (or any collaborative group). Felt needs are identified based on the information available to the members, however incomplete and inaccurate that information might be, and how the members interpret that information in the context of their own experiences and predispositions.

Observed needs are the needs identified by the change agent (outsider, leader, facilitator, donor, etc.). They might be the same as the members’ felt needs – or not. Change agents identify observed needs based on the information available to them, however incomplete and inaccurate that information might be, and how they interpret that information in the context of their own experiences and predispositions.

Real needs are the needs that could be determined by an omniscient being. Real needs would be identified based on perfect information – information that is complete and accurate – interpreted in the context of all reality without bias.

Neither the members’ felt needs nor the change agent’s observed needs should be presumed to be the real needs. Together, members and change agents should aspire to better identify the real needs, but all the while exercising doubt, learning from others and keeping their minds open to new understandings and insights.


Goodenough, Ward (1963). Cooperation in change. Chapter 3: Wants and Needs, pp. 49-60. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Saturday, March 15, 2014

Words We Use: Groups, Meetings, Facilitation, Collaboration

Wow! I wish the Google Books Ngram Viewer was around when I wrote my essay, Group Facilitation’s “Golden Age”, in which I tracked a few measures of growth and development in the world of group facilitation. Here are a few simple examples of readily available Ngram analyses.

Note: Apparently the Ngram Viewer graphs are not visible in Internet Explorer. Try Firefox or Chrome.

The following graph shows that, in Google's corpus of English books published between 1800 and 2008, the term "group effectiveness" first appeared in 1898; its frequency peaked in 1974. "Meeting management" and "group facilitation" first appeared in 1920 and 1921 respectively and seem to have recently plateaued. "Group facilitator" first appeared in 1947, "workshop facilitator" in 1969, and "meeting facilitator" in 1976, all still increasing in use. "Group process," which first appeared in 1894, is in such greater usage that I decided to show it on a separate graph.

The terms that appear in the title of this blog occur much more frequently. All were already in use in 1800. I find it interesting that use of "communication" dropped between 1860 and 1930 while use of the terms "consensus" and "collaboration" grew. Also interesting is that of the latter two terms, "consensus" was more widely used except between 1914 and 1972, when "collaboration" was more widely used. Most noticeable is the bump in use of "collaboration" from 1938 to 1948 when, I suppose, it was used in the context of "collaboration with the enemy."

For more information about the underlying data and how to perform this analysis visit the Google Books Ngram Viewer. Please let me know if you find some interesting results.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Consensus and Authority in a Hierarchy: A Proposal


How can consensus work in a hierarchical organization? Wouldn't consensus undermine the authority of the superior?

I have encountered this question in organizations with a strong hierarchical structure. The person in the superior position has the formal decision-making authority and is held accountable for the decisions made. And yet, I do not think consensus decision making and hierarchy are incompatible. I have attempted to lay out how consensus can actually work in a hierarchical organization. Although these rules are somewhat tedious, please bear with me and share your thoughts.
  1. If the Head is not a member of the group, then the group strives to reach agreement on a recommendation that is presented to the Head. It is useful if the Head has agreed in advance to fully consider the recommendation of the group and understand its reasoning.

  2. If the Head is a member of the group, and if the group reaches full agreement, then the Head's decision is the same as everyone else's. The Head's authority is upheld in the consensus. For this to work, the Head must be a full participant in the consensus building process.

  3. If consensus is reached, and some of the members are not in full agreement but nonetheless willing to support the decision, then:

    1. If the Head is in full agreement with the consensus decision, the Head's authority is upheld in the consensus.

    2. If the Head is one of those not in full agreement with the consensus decision, the Head has the discretion to ask the group to reconsider the issues, clearly taking the Head's concerns into account (an option available to any member of a consensus-based decision-making group) or adopt a decision other than the consensus decision.

  4. If consensus has not been reached, and there is either agreement by the group that a decision must be made at this time, or there is an external constraint that requires a decision at this time, then the Head has the discretion to make the decision.

So what do you think? Does this sufficiently address both consensus-building and maintain hierarchical authority? Are there any loose ends?

Thursday, January 9, 2014

Collective Intelligence, June 10-12, 2014 MIT


Call for Papers:

Collective Intelligence 2014
MIT, Cambridge, MA
June 10-12, 2014
www.collectiveintelligence2014.org

This interdisciplinary conference seeks to bring together researchers from a variety of fields relevant to understanding and designing collective intelligence of many types.
Topics of interest include but are not limited to:

  • human computation
  • social computing
  • crowdsourcing
  • wisdom of crowds (e.g., prediction markets)
  • group memory and extended cognition
  • collective decision making and problem-solving
  • participatory and deliberative democracy
  • animal collective behavior
  • organizational design
  • public policy design (e.g., regulatory reform)
  • ethics of collective intelligence (e.g., "digital sweatshops")
  • computational models of group search and optimization
  • emergence and evolution of intelligence
  • new technologies for making groups smarter
More …

Sunday, October 20, 2013

The New Vulcan Mind Meld


Listening Instead of Telling, Hans Heesterbeek’s excellent blog post, inspired me to write a long-planned essay on the importance and practice of listening. But then I came across the following letter from Mr. Spock, precipitated by a recent controversy in New York State. What you would add or change to Mr. Spock’s advice? Please comment below.

An open letter from Spock to State Education Department Commissioner John King

Stardate 2456583

Dear Commissioner King

Your recent experience at the public forum on New York State’s Common Core Standards, where you faced a barrage of shouted, angry criticism, is an example of righteous efforts – on both sides – escalating beyond what is good.

What was at the core of this unfortunate situation? I believe your eminent linguist, S. I. Hayakawa, was insightful when he said, “Underlying virtually all our attempts to bring agreement is the assumption that agreement is brought about by changing other people’s minds.” Instead, the basis for building effective solutions comes from understanding each other.

As a Vulcan, my long-instilled training and lifetime practice in logic divorced from emotion has enabled me to find the meaning in what people say without reacting to how they said it. It enables me to explore all aspects of a situation without the distorting bias of my own assumptions. While this method has served me well, there is none more fully effective for understanding others than the Vulcan Mind Meld. It enables me to enter the mind of another, to join our minds.

As you may know, even among Vulcans, this method requires great skill that comes from years of intentional training and practice. Nonetheless, I would like to recommend to you and your fellow humans a method of similar potential, accessible to all. Outlined below, I call it The New Vulcan Mind Meld.
  • Start by telling yourself you want to understand and learn from the other person. Make a conscious effort to understand, not just what they are saying, but where they are coming from, their understanding of the world, and how their ideas all come together to make sense for them. Not so you can find a flaw in their faith or reasoning, not so you can find a leverage point to change their thinking, but so you can understand and learn from them. You might try the Vulcan prescription, “My mind to your mind, my thoughts to your thoughts,” or perhaps the Spanish proverb, “Every head is a world.”

  • Even when you believe you understand someone or something, exercise some doubt. Consider that your understanding may still be incorrect or incomplete. This will enable you to keep an open mind and to continue to learn. If you really want to understand something, you can’t believe it. Invoke the Talmudic teaching, “Teach your tongue to say ‘I don’t know.’”

  • Enrich your understanding by learning from people with different backgrounds and perspectives. Singular points of view and simple explanations are easy to understand and the solutions they yield are easy to implement. But that doesn’t make them right or good. Learn and appreciate the complexity of your world. As it says in your Sayings of the Fathers, “Who is wise? One who learns from every person.”

  • Answering someone’s question assumes you understood it. It is not necessary or even useful that you answer every question. It is more important that you clarify and understand the question and why it makes a difference to the person who asked it. Find the commonalities, not just the differences. In my experience with humans, I have found too often that the few differences among you far overshadow the many things you have in common. (An example of this, which I’m told humans find humorous, is given by Emo Phillips.)

  • Find a teacher, a guide, a person who is expert in this method of communication. Because it is so different from your prevailing norms, it will help to have someone who can steward this method, especially when you are working in groups. This individual will not take a position, favor one party over another, or be concerned about the outcome. Rather, their role will be only to facilitate the process.
I suspect that adversarial, polarized, divisive, exclusionary, competitive ways of working have a tenacious hold on your species. Nonetheless, and all the more, you must try to work together. With the sad recognition that yours is not the only situation on earth that warrants this advice, please share this letter widely and develop its ideas more fully.

With sincere appreciation for the delights and difficulties of human communication,
Live long and prosper.

Spock

Sunday, October 13, 2013

The Meaning of Wilderness

The debate in New York's Adirondack Mountains region had become increasingly polarized; interpersonal and interorganizational relationships had deteriorated. The Public Conversations Project convened a group of about 20 environmentalists, developers, forest industry people, sportsmen, and others with diverse views. The aim of the dialogue was to have individuals, however polarized their viewpoints, come together for two days as people, rather than as parties or positions, and understand each other. People were to attend voluntarily as individuals, not as representatives of organizations or constituencies.

Given the potential volatility of the meeting they were asked to explicitly agree to a set of ground rules detailed in the invitational letter. One of the ground rules stated “… avoid making negative attributions not only about those in the room, but also those not present.” This was especially important in this case because some attendees at previous dialogues in this region had verbally attacked others.

Well into the meeting, the conversation turned to the topic of wilderness and its implications for the future of the region. Some participants expressed the view that wilderness areas did not contribute to the regional economy and were not valued by residents. Others felt that wilderness areas were essential to maintaining the environmental and economic character of the region. One individual, Jeff, asserted, “the people who support wilderness areas are outsiders, they don't live here; local residents who have to make their living here don't see any value in wilderness.” In response, Betty claimed, “I know hundreds of residents who support wilderness!” To which Jeff snapped, “I don't think you even have a hundred friends!"

As facilitator I interrupted abruptly and alerted the group to this violation of ground rules. I physically turned to John, who was sitting away from the fray and asked him, “what comes to mind when you think of wilderness?” He replied, “Pristine, untouched lands where one can observe nature on its own terms.” I asked if anyone had a different interpretation. From across the room another participant said, “I had in mind what it says in the Adirondack Park Agency law, that a wilderness area is a designated area in which motor vehicles are not permitted; there can be trails and lean-tos, just no motor vehicles.”

I turned back to Betty and asked her which definition she had in mind when she said she knew hundreds of residents who supported wilderness. “The definition in the law,” she replied. Then I asked Jeff, and he replied, “the pristine wilderness.” I followed up with him and asked, “do you think that residents support the designation of areas in which no motor vehicles are allowed?” “Yes,” he replied. I paused and then remarked, “So hurtful words were spoken because there were different meanings in use for the same term.” I paused for a long time, resisting the temptation to ask Jeff if he wanted to apologize, and hoping that he would, but none was forthcoming.

I felt good that I intervened immediately before there was any escalation in this potentially volatile situation. Also, I felt I had done an outstanding job in diagnosing a potential source of miscommunication, the meaning attached to the word wilderness, and I turned out to be correct. Nonetheless I felt that I failed to adequately address the basic violation of the ground rule, nor did I help the group deal with it emotionally. In a way, by dealing with the conflict substantively I undermined the ability of the group to deal with it interpersonally.

Professor Russell Martin drilled into me as an undergraduate, “meanings are in people not in words.” When there is conflict ascertain if it is genuine, or based on miscommunication. If the conflict involves the use of a particular word or phrase, define it; to avoid the misconceptions that are created when multiple meanings are inferred from the same word, stop using the word and instead use its longer definitions.

© 2000 Sandor Schuman. Permission is granted to use or adapt this story so long as the title above is used and attribution is given to the author. For suggestions on how to use stories like this in training workshops, see my post on Stop Action Storytelling.