For this post, I’ll refer to that persona as Vern (since it could be a male or female name).

Vern complains. In fact, Vern seems to be happiest when complaining, which is ironic.

Vern seems to be helpless in frustration, seeing the world as beyond his/her ability to affect and change. The bad things seem to have overwhelming power. The situation always seems to be beyond Vern’s control. And Vern can always find something to complain and be unhappy about.

For a while now, I’ve been saying to people…

Sadly, Vern is too ready to say “I can’t”.

I disagree. I can always do something about it. If I can’t change “it”, then I can change me. I can leave, for instance. Or I can learn to accept things as they are. These are frequently the ends of the spectrum, with various forms of changing me and it in the range in the middle.

However, if Very chooses not to take any of the many choices available, then my follow-up is…

I mean, if you choose not to do anything to change your situation, Vern, then do me the courtesy of not battering me with your frustration, whining, griping, or other expressions that make it clear that you believe that something or someone else is in charge of your life and circumstances.

Take charge of your life, willya Vern?

Check out the line of shirts and mugs with these images and variations.

The Negator may seem to be contributory and helpful at times, as their suggestions come across as helping you to see risks and dangers*. However, this behavior pattern, when exercised to the exclusion of balance, can become seen as the person’s identity, rather than one pattern of behavior among many.

* See Edward De Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats”

At 2pm Central time today, I’ll be doing the first full delivery of the Facilitation Patterns & Antipatterns workshop at the Agile2009 conference.

Yes, I’m excited.

I’ve gotten great response from the folks I’ve told about it.  Hopefully some of them will turn up.

Helpless is only detrimental to a group in the sense that this individual doesn’t contribute fully nor live up to their potential.  Other than that, they may be very positively contributory in discussions and in helping the group move forward.

Chicken Little is not a bad person, by any means. Chicken Little just sees everything as a portent of bad things to come.

Just in case you’re not familiar with the tale of Chicken Little, let me refresh your memory:

The basic premise is that a chicken eats lunch one day, and believes the sky is falling down because an acorn falls on her head. She decides to tell the King, and on her journey meets other animals who join her in the quest. In most retellings, the animals all have rhyming names such as Henny Penny, Cocky Lockey and Goosey Loosey. Finally, they come across Foxy Loxy, a fox who offers the chicken and her friends his help.

Depending on the version, the moral changes. In the “happy ending” version, the moral is not to be a “Chicken”, but to have courage. In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean “do not believe everything you are told”. In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper.

The challenge with Chicken Little is that he/she is believable, has great conviction, is convincing, and generally brings passion to their arguments. While you might not agree or believe at the start, through these attributes, Chicken Little will often persuade others to his/her point of view, thereby stalling or derailing the team.

• Convergence
• Co-Worker
• Dominator
• Zealot
• …and more

I don’t remember if I’ve mentioned that these characters will make their “live” debut when I present my session on Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns at Agile2009. I’ve developed a workshop around these ideas, and I think it will be a lot of fun.

I’m working with a couple of artists to help me develop some training materials for ThoughtWorks Studios. I’ve had one of them develop avatars for a number of the facilitation patterns and antipatterns that I’ve identified.

And for me.

The avatars will find their way into a workshop that I’m developing for delivery at the Agile2009 conference.

All of the artwork will find its way into the training materials, one way or another.

For the workshop, I’m develop playing cards.  My avatars and all of these characters were developed by Mike Ferrin. Here’s a sample:

Take a look at some of the facilitation patterns and antipatterns in this blog, and you’ll meet more of the characters:

• Repetitor
• Curious George
• Superhero
• Guide
• and more!

And here’s an example of one of the pieces that is part of one of our courses:

This piece was done by Brian Goff.

Note that all of this artwork is the property of my employer, ThoughtWorks, and all rights to use are reserved.

Motto

It’s about the subtleties. You know – it’s about the little things. It’s about the stuff that’s not so obvious – the subtleties… the things that others hear in what you say whether you were aware of it or not…

Repetitors are usually articulate. They are able to express themselves. In the positive way, without the unneeded repetitions, a Repetitor would be an Articulate. By repeating themselves, without checking to see whether the listener is understanding, the Repetitor turns a Pattern into an Antipattern.

Dealing with a Repetitor is as simple as a variant on the Facilitation Four-Step: Interrupt, Ask, Redirect, Commit.

Interrupt

“Excuse me, Frank.”

Ask

“Do you mind…”

Redirect

“…if I check in with the others for a moment?”

Commit

“We’ll get right back to what you were saying.”

Action (yes, a 5th step )

“Sue, just so we’re clear, can you tell us what Frank’s point was?”

In this way, I validate that others have heard Frank, check to make sure that they’ve understood Frank, and break the pattern of repetition.

Motto

I was giving a presentation the other day at ITARC Atlanta, and a friend of mine was sitting in the back of the room with his computer open. It was a large room, with about 12 rows of tables and chairs, so my friend was way in the back. Still, I was aware of him working on his computer the whole time I was presenting. I knew he had a presentation the next day, and was probably working on his slides. I suspect that some of the attendees were aware of him working on his computer, and maybe it didn’t bother them. Still…

First of all, it doesn’t matter what the Terrible Tweeter believes about themselves, it’s distracting for others. Seeing/hearing someone typing and reading on some device, while I’m trying to focus on the meeting, is just distracting. Period.

Second, having been guilty of this myself, I can tell you that it’s not possible to give more than one thing appropriate attention, nor to derive real value if you’re not paying attention. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said “would you repeat that, please?” when doing something other than paying attention.

In fact, the Terrible Tweeter is one of the things I love about Open Space Technology. Why? Because folks who attend OS events seem to fully embrace the idea that anyone might not be completely engaged in what’s going on, and also that the spirit of OST allows them to say “what you’re doing is distracting me – would you mind either stopping or doing it elsewhere?” without leading to offense/hurt feelings, most of the time. It’s also entirely acceptable to tweet/blog/whatever within reasonable limits without it being distracting.

Take a look at the tweets that were posted during the recent ALT.NET Seattle Open Space Conference. There was a lot of value there. I have no doubt that some of the attendees were actually updating the event wiki during the sessions.

At most meetings and events, however, this kind of behavior is distracting and detrimental to the goals and purpose of the group.

Be engaged, or be disengaged. Don’t pretend to be one while doing the other.

The Terrible Tweeter is a perfect candidate for the Facilitation Four-Step.

Consider Curious George. Curious George, asking questions and exploring possibilities, helps to stimulate conversation and bring out useful information.

Curious George taken to extremes,  however, becomes an obstacle. His persistent and insistent questioning can become a new antipattern, the Inquisitor. The Inquisitor doesn’t ask questions for the purpose of moving the group’s goals forward. The Inquisitor nails her victim, drilling down, and tenaciously, even insistenlty, digging and digging until the victim gives up in sheer exhaustion. The Inquisitor takes the “five whys” to the point of absurdity, like a four-year-old who – when told that the sky is blue – asks “why” until you want to run screaming.

Even neutrality can be taken too far. While I’ve made it clear that I believe that one of the key attributes of a facilitator is neutrality, nonetheless, there are times when a facilitator must take a position and a stand, when it comes to the good of the group and the process. Failure to take a stand and take action at those times becomes a new antipattern, Wishy-Washy.

I’m convinced that most positive patterns, taken to extremes, can become antipatterns.

Is it possible to go the other way? Are the attributes that define antipattern behaviors capable of being beneficial patterns, when applied in more limited doses?

Part of that convergence came from the higher order patterns IAAM- and IAAM+.

And part comes from my reasonably consistent system of behavior and understanding.

Being a lifelong science fiction fan, it reminds me of the convergence that occurred in Isaac Asimov’s Robots storiesand Foundation series. Two seemingly separate store lines, converging as they evolved.

For me, the whole thing is reaffirming – that these two threads of my thinking and writing are coming together. It’s not really a surprise to me, but I didn’t plan it this way.

I think I’ll start thinking about how the taking-personal-responsibility stuff relates to the facilitation-and-meeting-participation stuff, as I continue forward.

There’ll be more patterns and antipatterns, and also more ways of dealing with them, and more on how our individual behavior and responsibility comes into play.

And no, I’m not comparing myself to Isaac Asimov!

Motto

“Why aren’t you listening to me?” followed by attention-grabbing, self-destructive behavior. The equivalent of rolling around on the floor, screaming and kicking.

We’ve all met an Infantile. Somehow, no matter what the topic, if you don’t listen to them – and, of course, agree with them – somehow things turn personal and emotional. They make it clear that your failure to listen (the way they want you to listen), and your failure to understand (that is, agree), expresses your disrespect for, and even hostility toward them.

Infantiles have never learned proper socialization. They don’t share well, and they’re not usually interested in dialogue. Their focus is on what they want when they want it, or else.  The “or else” is not usually targeted at a single individual. Rather it’s aimed at getting everyone to pay attention to them, and then to give in to their demands because dealing with their behavior is too annoying/painful.

Of course, once they get their way, Infantiles can be most charming and pleasant.

Yup, IAAM- and IAAM+ are the two higher order patterns that I’m talking about.

Isn’t it interesting that these apply in our personal relationships and conversations, and in the world of meetings and facilitation?

Not surprising, though, because we’re always people, and always bring our blessings and our baggage with us, wherever we go and whatever we do.

Also not surprising, I expect, is that I believe that recognizing and taking action to change my beliefs and my behavior in one context will carry over into all others. Regardless of whether it’s how I relate to friends and family, how I participate in meetings, how I behave as a manager, or how I behave as an employee, they’re all tied together at one point: me!

Here’s my challenge to you: look at your own behavior, and ask yourself whether it is IAAM- or IAAM+. Are you focusing on the relationship or are you focusing on your own needs and desires? Are you behaving in a way that benefits others, as well as yourself, or just yourself?

This is difficult. I won’t pretend otherwise. Examining my own behavior, questioning my own motives, and exploring the impact on others is hard.

And worthwhile.

No pain, no gain.

While it’s starting to feel like these antipatterns are all similar, each has some distinguishing characteristics.  The Prima Donna, for instance, might be the most arrogant of them. He feels that he is special, as a virtue of being smarter or more knowledgeable or just because.

The Prima Donna, like a number of the others, dominates the discussion based on what’s most interesting to him. Unlike the Evil Genius, the Prima Donna is not conscious or deliberate about it. He believes that this is what is due him – admiration, freedom to dominate the conversation, and freedom to be petulant if he doesn’t get his way.

The Prima Donna is also unlike the Orator, who actually takes pride in what he believes is his eloquence.

As I think about it more, I see that there is something that ties them all together.

Some of it is attitude. Some of it is behavior.

There’s more than one thing that ties them together.

Do you see it? Do you see the commonalities between the antipatterns that represent higher order patterns?

In part 2 of this post, I’ll talk about it.  For now, I just want to get you thinking, and perhaps commenting, to see if you see what I see.

Motto

The Orator’s self-focus is not malicious. She isn’t trying to dominate or manipulate. She just has a lot to say, and frequently will use ten words where one will do.

The Orator is very pleased with what she has to say and the sound of her own voice, seems to be able to talk endlessly without taking a breath, and rarely leaves an opening for someone else to speak until she’s good and ready.

The damage to the team is similar to many of the other antipatterns, regardless of whether the Orator is the facilitator or a member of the meeting. Her dominance of the proceedings through relentless takeover of the floor causes others to resign their passion, and become reluctant to even try to say something.

Exercises that force a democratic process, like the Circle of Questions or Starfish, are best for dealing with an Orator in the meeting.

If you are the facilitator and you are an Orator, well,…