Advice for Establishing Priorities

The “ committee on staff retention” was charged with studying the issues and making recommendations to the senior management team. What follows is an excerpt from a series of emails with the chair of the committee in which I offered some advice on working with this group. This particular exchange focused on how the committee could select its top priorities from among all of the recommendations developed by its sub-groups.

---

The chair’s email:

I'd like your advice on how to proceed with my committee on staff retention. I'm trying to push the work along and produce a list of recommendations and priorities.

The homework assignment from the last meeting is for each of the subgroups to finish their drafts and build a list of recommendations. Also, each individual is to bring a list of recommendations.

For the next meeting, I would like to bring together all of the recommendations and vote on the top priorities. As a process, I was thinking of asking the subgroups and individuals to submit their lists ahead of time. We could combine these lists in advance and then, at the meeting, use a computer projector to view the results on a screen. We would then use the meeting to revise and finalize our priority recommendations. I haven't figured out the logistics of this yet but it sure seems we'd save a ton of time if we had the lists already combined at the beginning of the meeting. Then we could let folks pick their top three short-term recommendations and their top three long-term recommendations.

What do you recommend we do here? What do you think about asking for the lists ahead of time? Revising during the meeting? Asking for top three short-term and top three long-term recommendations? Did I make any mistakes here? Did I forget anything?

---

My response:

Your ideas are all good. Here are some additional thoughts.

In general, it's unlikely that everyone will do their homework. I've worked for groups that had a very strong “we always do our homework on time” culture, but this is unusual. So be prepared at the meeting to supplement the list of recommendations that were received in advance.

Review and clarify the list of recommendations. This will be the first time everyone is seeing all the recommendations, so you should review them. Further, as written, the recommendations may not be self-evidently clear (even though they were perfectly clear to their authors). To select the “ top three,” each person has to first understand each recommendation. Before voting, ask everyone to examine the complete list of recommendations and ask clarifying questions. A thorough way to do this is to read out loud each recommendation, one at a time, and ask if there are any questions. In addition, ask if there is any disagreement. That is, there might be some objection or reservation about a recommendation, which is a more fundamental issue than its priority.

Conduct preliminary vote. It should be clear why you are asking them to prioritize the recommendations, and how that prioritization will be used. For example, it could be that you're going to include only the top priority recommendations in the report, or it could be that you'll include all of them in the report, presented in priority order, or the executive summary could highlight only the “ Top X Recommendations,” or it could be that you'll highlight the top recommendations in each category.

In selecting the “top three” there's a tendency for people to pick recommendations that were developed by their subgroup, so it's useful to acknowledge this potential bias and ask people to overcome it. Some specific mechanisms you could use are: asking them to pick a number of recommendations that is larger than the number of recommendations they offered, asking them to select no more than X recommendations from their own group's list, or asking them to omit their own group's list altogether and select the highest priorities only from the other groups' lists.

Discuss and clarify the results. After the “ top three” selection, have a thorough discussion and clarification of the results. This is useful, even though you did the previous clarification task. There's nothing like seeing the results of a vote to stimulate questions. Ask people to explain why they voted for things that got low votes. (The one person who voted for something may be the only one who really understands it, and after hearing that explanation, others may choose to switch their votes.) Give people the opportunity to “ lobby” for a particular recommendation, explaining its importance. As group members clarify the recommendations and provide additional information, change or supplement the wording.

Conduct a second vote. As a result of the preceding discussion, it is likely that some people will see the priorities differently and their votes will change. From the start, the group should understand that there will be a preliminary vote, discussion and sharing of additional information, and then a second vote. This is useful because it reduces the attachment that people have to the first vote and makes it easier for them to remain open-minded and change their vote the second time. Once this vote is completed, check to find out if everyone is satisfied that this represents the group's collective sense of the priorities, or if anyone needs something to be changed so that they can genuinely say these are the group's priorities.

Figure out the next steps. It's likely that there are other issues you will have to address, such as exactly how these recommendations will be presented in the report and who will prepare the narrative, and which information should go in the executive summary, body of the report, and appendices. Here are a couple of possible follow-ups.

Ideally, the recommendations should be structured in comparable and complete ways. You can try to get everyone to use the same structure as they initially develop the recommendations in their sub-groups. See an example for providing guidance below. If the recommendations are not complete or consistent, you can fix this during the meeting or afterwards.

There may not be agreement on what are the “ short” and “ long” term recommendations. Be prepared for someone to identify this issue, but you might not need to address it unless it comes up. One option is to fix this afterwards. If there is disagreement on which issues are short- and long-term, you can temporarily treat the task as “identifying the top six issues” and sort out the long and short-term ones later.

Explain your process before it starts. Here's my example for an agenda. I think it is valuable to review this at the start so people have an idea of what you've planned and can make suggestions to improve the process.

1. Review and clarify the list of recommendations.
   
2. Supplement the list with additions.
   
3. Conduct a preliminary vote.
   
4. Discuss and clarify the results.
   
5. Conduct a second vote.
   
6. Identify remaining issues and next steps.
   

As for developing recommendations, here are two slides that I often use to help steer groups toward developing useful recommendations and presenting them in a consistent manner. I don’t know if this particular set of guidelines is right on target for your committee, but I think a clear set of guidelines – and a couple of examples – is very useful.

And here’s a structure that you could use for presenting recommendations. I think it is easier for the reader if all of the recommendations follow the same logic. Given the nature of your committee’s charge, it might not be appropriate to include all of the details suggested by this form. For example, it might be useful to use who to name an organizational unit, but not a specific individual, and it might be premature to specify when, although if there are timing or dependency issues, they could be taken into account.

Better Decisions or Winning the Argument: What is the Purpose of Reasoning?

The “argumentative theory of reasoning” suggests that our human capacity for reasoning has not evolved to find the truth, the most accurate answer, or the best decision. Rather, it proposes that the purpose of reasoning is to win arguments.

In “Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth” (New York Times, June 14, 2011), Patricia Cohen provides a brief overview of the theory. Among other observations, the article notes:

Groups are more likely than individuals to come up with better results … because they will be exposed to the best arguments. … [T]he arguing and assessment skills employed by groups make democratic debate the best form of government for evolutionary reasons, regardless of philosophical or moral rationales. … [R]easoned discussion works best in smaller, cooperative environments rather than in … adversarial system[s], in which partisans seek to score political advantage rather than arrive at consensus.

The full article is worthwhile. It reviews research on reasoning, inference making, argumentation, group reasoning, the confirmation bias, belief formation and perseverance, and decision making. Overall it supports the case for small-group decision making.

“Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory,” by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 57-74, April 2011.

The commentaries that accompany the article – some supportive and some counter – are extremely valuable. Those interested in dialogue and deliberation should look in particular at “Deliberative democracy and epistemic humility” by Kevin Chien-Chang Wu (pp. 93-94).

When to Use an Outside Facilitator

A “frequently asked question” from people who work with groups and teams is, “When should we bring in an outside facilitator instead of someone within the organization?” Several years ago, as part of a book chapter on the role of group facilitation, I wrote a brief assessment guide for this question. It has turned out to be one of my most reprinted articles. If you would like a copy of my recent revision, which appears in Working with Difficult Groups, you can download here.

My Commencement Speech at Mentor University

I heard a number of commencement speeches this graduation season, some good and some – well – they should have been shorter. Reflecting on them I wondered, what makes a good commencement speech, and what would I say if I were asked to be a commencement speaker?

Below is my response, in the form of my speech to the 2011 graduating class at Mentor University. Mentor University is not at real university, but that’s OK, because this isn’t a real commencement speech.

I rise to the podium and proceed as follows:

A good commencement speech should be:

• Wise – providing useful advice and insights into the future;
  
• Entertaining – to amuse the spirits of graduates, family, and friends; and
  
• Short – it's hot, it’s stuffy, there is impending rain, and all anyone really wants is to see their graduate get his or her diploma and then go out to eat.
  

While I aspire to be wise and entertaining, my children have advised me to be short. As I heard Dean Frank Thompson say, “There is no such thing as a bad, short speech.” So I have three things I want to say.

1. Keep learning
   
2. Appreciate feedback
   
3. Ask good questions
   

Here’s the first: Keep Learning.

Now that your schooling is completed, you are prepared to learn. When you learned to drive a car, you first obtained a learner’s permit and then a driver’s license. But the real development of your driving skills, the continuing process of mastering those skills, began after you received that license. So it is with the diploma you receive today – treat it as a license to learn.

To stretch this analogy further, you did not learn to drive alone. At first you had a teacher, but then, license in hand, you were alone behind the wheel. You learned from other drivers. You learned habits from them – ways of interacting – safe and courteous habits, we hope, but also perhaps, ones less so. So too in the world of work. You will learn from others. Be conscious of what you learn and whose habits you acquire. Learn what is right and good.

Here’s the second: Appreciate Feedback.

At the foundation of your continuing education and personal growth is the feedback – positive and negative – that you can receive from those who are close to you. Encourage and benefit from it. Think of it this way – if I hadn't asked my kids for feedback on this presentation, you'd be hearing a longer speech.

And the third: Ask Good Questions.

Whether at a job interview, on the job, or in a meeting, ask good questions. The key to asking good questions is listening. Listen to what others say, and ask about what they meant; clarify before you evaluate. As Moses Maimonides said, “Teach your tongue to say ‘I do not understand.’” People learn more about you from the questions you ask than from the answers you give.

I said I would say three things. I said them. I'm done.

The audience bursts into delighted and rambunctious applause.

Advice for Building a Collaborative

I received an email from a woman who had written a grant proposal to expand an existing program. The funding agency referred her to me. At the risk of this sounding like an advice column, here is an excerpt.

Through the process of applying for the grant, I became interested in opening up the decision making that we do, and otherwise improving our group process to broaden the base of support – and I don't mean only financially. We‘re really seeing a need for it – this is the type of program that we feel can be so very beneficial for a community, and we'd love to see it grow and spread and we'd love to find ways we can facilitate that. We have put tons of time into it, and realize that we simply can't keep it up ourselves – we need to bring others in somehow. We‘re right now in the thick of getting going for this year‘s program. I'd really like to concentrate on the above. Do you have any advice for us?

I'd be glad to help out.

Here are some preliminary suggestions for building a collaborative. I think it is useful to distinguish convening a group (as in getting the group together) from facilitating a group (as in facilitating a meeting). In the convening stage, which is the stage I think you're at now, it's useful to think about four things.

1. Meaning. People will get involved in your collaborative if it has meaning to them. A statement of purpose is useful. Think about creating one as a vehicle for engaging others and inviting them into the collaborative. Be willing to accept their comments and revise the “purpose” accordingly.

2. Understanding. It is important for the participating individuals and organizations to understand each other – their purposes, how they work, their short- and long-term needs, their understanding of important issues and problems. And to have genuine understandings replace misconceptions and presumptions

3. Choices. You mentioned that you want to “open up the decision making that we do.” It might be useful to make a list of the decisions you‘re making, especially those that have an impact on the purpose. Again, think about this as a vehicle for engaging others and inviting them into the collaborative.

4. Relationships. Whose involvement would help accomplish the purpose? For whom would this collaborative be meaningful? Whose expertise and perspective would be valuable in making those decisions? What role would it be useful for them to play in the collaborative?

Meaning is what we want.
Understanding is what we need.
Choices are what we make.
Relationships are what we have.

Where is the Front of the Room

I try to keep up with the discussions on the Internet related to groups, facilitation, and collaboration. One of them is the Professional Facilitators Network on LinkedIn. Of the various topics in that group, I was surprised that the one generating the most responses is When a meeting room has no windows ...

Should I be surprised? In this technological age, should the presence or lack of windows in a meeting room draw so much interest?

At other times, amidst discussions of the best meeting-support software and the best computer projector, I have typically argued that the most important technology for the group is the meeting room. And it is often the least flexible and the most overlooked.

Recently I conducted one of my two-day group facilitation workshops. In preparation, the facility staff asked how I would like the room set up. I said, “Leave it however it was used by the previous group; we’ll set up the room ourselves.”

At the start of the workshop, the participants arrived to find the room a mess. I said, “As group facilitators, we have to take responsibility for the meeting room arrangements. So let’s figure out how we want to set up the room for ourselves.” After some discussion about how many tables we needed the group started to create a “U” shape with the open end towards the projection screen.

“Wait, ” I said. “Where is the front of the room? ”

After some puzzled looks, I explained that I found this a useful way to think about where to show the information that is presented and collected during the meeting and how to position the participants so they can see that information and see and hear each other. Ideally, we would

• minimize the physical distance between each person and every other person,
  
• enable each person to make eye contact with every other person without having to reposition themselves (which means sitting in curved lines is better than straight lines and round tables are better than rectangular ones), and
  
• do the same for each person and the information that is displayed.
  

For this workshop we would be using both the computer projector, which was mounted in the ceiling facing a screen at the narrow end of the room, and a large number of flip chart pages that would be best displayed on the only large section of unobstructed wall on the long side of the room. We prepared the wall with several blank sheets of flip-chart paper and positioned the tables in an L-shape so the participants could see both the wall and the projection screen. In a sense we set up the room with two “fronts,” and would alternate between them, making the best of the meeting space at hand.

As Patricia Tuecke concluded in her chapter, “The Architecture of Participation, ” in The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation , “Space arrangements … can bring a vibrant energy, wholeness, and balance into group deliberations and dialogue by honoring all participants, making it easy for them to hear and see everything, and not letting one position adversely dominate the discussion.”

Selecting and adapting the meeting space is fundamental to effective communication and building interpersonal relationships. What is your approach?

To Share, Perchance to Merge

From the halls of governments addressing shrinking revenues, to the sanctuaries of religious organizations coping with declining congregations, sharing resources and merging organizations is on the agenda.

A colleague from New York’s Oswego County used to joke that the contiguous villages of Sandy Creek and Lacona had not merged because “We could never agree on which volunteer fire company would be named Fire Company Number 1.” While affectionately trivializing the reasons for maintaining the independence of these two small villages this quip reveals an underlying truth: we are often separated by our shared identity.

The more similar we are, the more we strive to distinguish ourselves. Small differences can be magnified and even divide us. Think sibling rivalry; family feud.

Differentiation enables organizations to diversify, specialize, pursue focused aims, develop tailored approaches, and be held intimately accountable by their membership or constituency.

Maintaining multiple organizations with similar or overlapping functions, even though each serves a legitimate special purpose, can be costly. In earlier times, when the costs of transportation and communication were high, geographic distance itself justified multiple organizations or service centers. This is the likely reason why Oswego County has two county seats. Given this area’s history of impassible snowfalls, the 45 mile trip from Redfield to the City of Oswego would be a burden to anyone conducting official county business or making a court appearance, justifying a second county seat in the Village of Pulaski.*

However, geography no longer separates us as it used to. Transportation (by modern highways, roads, and vehicles) and communication (by cell phone, email, instant messaging, websites, and video) link us together in ways that have outstripped our physical and organizational arrangements. Rather than maintaining separate resources – physical, human, and information – for each existing organization, it’s time to reconsider these arrangements in light of modern technology. President Obama recognized this in his State of the Union message when he noted, “the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV.” It’s time to consider arrangements that in the past were not economical or simply not possible.

Perhaps most important is to consider the impact of information technology. It has largely replaced paper-based communication and recordkeeping, and has reduced our need to travel given the availability of audio and video communication, pod casts and web conferences. No longer is travel necessary to work or conduct business with someone.

From a consumer perspective, the receipt of many products and services no longer requires the intervention of an intermediary: we are accustomed to self-service. That goes for supermarkets (what customer today, except in an old movie, hands a list of needed goods to a store clerk who then fetches them from behind the counter), gasoline stations (except in New Jersey, where self-service gasoline stations are prohibited), and many government services: from getting a dog license (using a web-based application) to filing federal income taxes (in 2010, nearly 70 percent of the taxpayers, 100 million people, filed with the IRS electronically). Information technology even lets us choose how we obtain those products and services. We have customized self-service.

Deciding if and how we can share resources or merge requires a willingness to collaborate and suspension of the assumption that it won’t work. It requires information about those organizations and their resources and operations. Again, information shows its central role in how we organize. Information and information technology enable us to manage and use our other resources more effectively, and with potential for economy of scale. Decisions to share or merge are best made when all of the stakeholders participate in the decision-making process.

* P.S. Don’t think I’m picking on Oswego County. Perhaps the villages of Sandy Creek and Lacona should merge. However, years ago they jointly built a single school building that straddles their shared border. They know how to share resources, and perhaps they can take advantage of new technologies to do that more extensively. And perhaps one of the county seats should be closed, but for a county with a history of heavy snowfalls (for example, in early February 2007, this area received over ten feet of snow) perhaps Oswego’s two county seats are warranted. Ultimately, this is a local decision, but the assumptions of the past should be set aside and replaced by the potential application of current technology, a fresh analysis of the economy of scale, and willingness to seek collaborative advantage.