PROFESSIONAL FACILITATION:
When Is It "Right" For Your Meeting?
Abstract
A skilled, professional Facilitator can add significant value to the
outcomes of business meetings. The Facilitator helps a group move through
the necessary progression of awareness, discovery, conflict/resolution,
focus, and consensus. Often, the existing ‘natural leader’* of the group
is not able to provide this type of facilitation. This article explains
the role of the professional Facilitator, and provides the means for
determining when a professional Facilitator is the most practical and
cost-effective choice for a meeting.
* Most groups already have a formal leader (per organization chart),
or an informal leader (a generally accepted ombudsman or spokesperson).
In this article, both of these kinds of leadership are included in the
term, ‘natural leader’.
The Eternal Meeting
Meetings are a major consumer of time and money in the business world, and
within civic, social, and church organizations. A conservative estimate
for the ‘direct cost’ of a business meeting today is about $50/hour, per
attendee. Then, there are the ‘opportunity costs’… the value of what
could have been done, had the meeting not been held. Worst of all, as
many can attest from personal experience, far too many meetings prove
to be only marginally productive.
Despite their many shortcomings, meetings are still the most prevalent
type of what are known as ‘group processes’. This is because meetings (good
ones, at least) are arguably the best tools available for identifying
opportunities and problems…and for building group consensus on what to
do about them. The very essence of doing business lies in
responding to opportunities. Hence, our love-hate relationship with
meetings: can’t live with them, can’t live without them!
Meetings, it would seem, will be here for an eternity.
Evolution of Group Processes
Autocracy
Over the first half of the 20th Century, group processes were most often
based on authoritarian means of making decisions. This was an
understandable vestige of leadership grown from military rootstock. This
is autocracy. The leader might simply say to the group, “This is my
decision. Get to work.”
Democracy
A few decades ago (with a new generation of leadership), many
organizations began casting off the autocratic group process, in favor of
a more enlightened means of making decisions by majority rule. This is
democracy. The leader might say to the group, “ Let’s identify the
options, take a vote, then get to work on the majority decision.”
Consensus
More recently, organizations have begun to exploit the value of
decision-making by consensus. To reach consensus, the group takes
on an identity of its own and its own sense of accountability. Such a
group might say, “Let’s make a decision that embodies the most
essential needs of each member, take ownership of that decision, then
get to work.” It is important to understand that this is not to say
that everybody gets everything they WANT. It is only
required that the consensus embody the essential elements that each member
really NEEDS.
Global Culture
Organizations have been moving from a culture of ‘dependence’ (autocracy),
to ‘independence’ (democracy), and on to ‘interdependence’
(consensus). This is an insidious outgrowth of economic and cultural
globalization. Consensus will continue to become more essential as
cultural boundaries must be crossed with increasing frequency.
Natural Law
For those who remember their physics lessons, think of this transition as
being analogous to moving from ‘unstable’, to ‘metastable’, to ‘stable’
equilibrium. Movement toward a state of stable equilibrium can be
hastened or slowed, but never stopped.
Old Paradigms Die Hard
To an autocratic decision-maker, “reaching consensus” sounds too much like
relinquishing one’s leadership prerogatives to their constituency. To the
democratic decision-maker, “reaching consensus” sounds like a good notion,
but probably too time-consuming, or simply unattainable. If consensus is
to be reached, these old paradigms must be challenged.
Why Use a Professional Facilitator?
In an ‘old-paradigm’ meeting, there are two parties to the group process:
the participants and the leader (customarily the group’s natural
leader). Sometimes, sub-groups are broken out to perform special tasks and
report back to the plenary session. This is a tried-and-true formula.
There are instances where running a meeting according to one of these more
traditional autocratic or democratic models is still appropriate.
Reaching consensus under the old ground rules, however, could prove
difficult…if not impossible.
Bringing a group to consensus is best achieved by the addition of a
third party to the meeting…a leader who is not the natural leader
of the group, perhaps not even a member.
Enter the skilled, professional Facilitator. The professional
Facilitator operates on these foundational premises:
- Any leader who cannot tap into the collective wisdom, vision, and
energy of their group may as well be working alone.
- Consensus is fuel for action. There is incredible energy in a group
that is empowered by its own consensus on plans and actions. It’s
called, ‘buy-in’.
- Consensus CAN be reached. It is not a myth. It is
called, ‘win-win’.
- A decision reached by consensus is the only kind that will result in
a sustainable state of affairs over the long term (the stable
equilibrium).
- Decisions reached by means other than consensus may address
short-term (e.g., crisis) needs, but will demand an unsustainable
amount of energy to maintain over the long term (the unstable or
metastable equilibrium).
- To reach consensus in a facilitated meeting, the entire group agrees
to surrender control to the meeting process. As a consequence,
there is no ‘boss’, so it is essential that the Facilitator step into
the void, performing much like a shepherd. Trust is essential.
- Observing a culture of consensus over a prolonged period of time
will develop more effective groups…groups that think and work more like
teams than fragile alliances.
When Is Professional Facilitation Appropriate?
Of course, not every meeting is a candidate for professional
facilitation. A manager’s staff meeting, for example, is a ‘family’
affair, with straightforward exchange of information about the conduct of
daily business.
Not every circumstance is as clear-cut as the preceding example, so here
are some guidelines to help determine when a professional Facilitator is
the most practical and cost-effective choice. Bear in mind that the
focus of the meeting is not the deciding factor. Any meeting topic or
objective can be accommodated.
Select a professional Facilitator when…
- There will be 5-30 participants (especially if the group includes
multiple functions), and the meeting is expected to last for 1
hour or more.
- Both the group members and the leader(s) need to be free to fully
engage in the proceedings of the meeting.
- The cost of a meeting that fails to deliver expected outcomes
would be substantial (>$5,000 is a good benchmark).
- Personal agendas/perspectives of the meeting participants are
expected to be divergent, or controversial issues are likely to
arise…with conflict being a distinct possibility. The natural leader of
the group may find it safer to be out of the line-of-fire, using the
Facilitator as an effective (and welcome) lightening rod.
- The group must be free to share information and views openly, and
engage in an unconstrained process of discovery…but the natural leader
of the group would introduce bias, if they were to lead the meeting.
- The natural leader of a group is likely to have difficulty with
temporarily relinquishing their position of power as the decision-maker,
or the group may not be able to set aside its deference to that
authority. Having the Facilitator present to become the focal point of
the process (rather than the natural leader) can relieve this tension.
- The ‘natural leader’ of the group is not trained in the ‘soft’
skills necessary to pick up, and appropriately respond to, the host of
intangible cues that surface during the meeting.
- There is a possibility that the meeting may abruptly take a bad
turn. Recovery may depend upon being able to put the ‘sins’ (real or
imagined) on the head of the Facilitator…who is subsequently driven out
into the wilderness. By doing so, the existing relationships within the
group can be salvaged, and another group process approach tried.
Closing Advice
- Select a Facilitator who appears to easily and quickly develop
rapport.
- Don’t hesitate to reveal the culture of the organization to the
Facilitator and admit them to that culture.
- Engage the natural leaders of the group as early as possible in the
advance planning of the meeting, but prepare them to take lower-profile
roles in the meeting itself.
- Trust the meeting process.
- Be willing to accept vulnerability…for individuals and for the
group…as part of the meeting process.
- Be prepared for surprises. The group may turn up some unpleasant old
baggage, but that same group is capable of accomplishments that none of
its members could imagine. This is synergy.
- Have reasonable expectations of the outcomes. The outcomes of the
meeting cannot be everything to everyone. The
measure of success is: “The group can live with this outcome, and use it
to accomplish the next objective(s).” This is consensus.
© 2001-2005, Consensus
Consulting. All rights reserved.
|
