Posts Tagged ‘meetings’

Circle of Questions

Facilitation | Posted by Doc
Feb 15 2009

The Circle of Questions is a technique I learned from Agile Retrospectives by Diana Larsen and Esther Derby. It’s a book well worth reading if you facilitate any kind of group , not just Agile Retrospectives.

In this activity, the group sits in a circle, and going around the circle, each person takes a turn asking a question to the person on their immediate left. The question can be about anything they like (barring anything offensive or attacking), but it’s helpful to focus on something relevant to this group and its history/activities. The person to the left answers the question to the best of their ability, and then they ask the person to their left any other question (or the same question if they feel they’d like a better answer). This continues until the allotted time is up, or until you have gone around the entire circle twice, whichever comes last. Make sure you go around the complete circle: if some people in the group get more turns to ask or answer a question than others, it can send the wrong message.

[This write-up courtesy of John Wilger]

Variations:

  • After the first time around, reverse direction
  • After the first time around, have every second person get up and change places
  • Go around more than twice

Tags: , , , , ,
11 Comments »

You don’t know me…

Coping and Communicating, Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 14 2009

Okay – the song lyrics won’t get out of my head. I love that Michael Buble is singing all these “oldies”.

You give your hand to me
Then you say hello
I can hardly speak
My heart is beating so
And anyone can tell
You think you know me well
But you don’t know me

? Ah – well – I’ve mentioned that we all live in our own heads. Our understanding of the world, including the people in it, is all internal. So when I say “I know…” what I really mean is “I believe…”

There is no knowing, especially when it comes to others. The only things we can “know” are others’ , because it’s the only thing we can see/experience directly. Even so, our experience/vision is colored and filtered by our own brains and our past experience, our current emotions, and so forth. There are times when my “reality” is entirely generated within my own head.

What does that mean? It means, first of all, that I must question all my about other people. Especially when I say things like “you were angry” or ” I know what you meant”. After all, I can’t really know these things, now can I?

Rather I can say “I think you were angry” or “I wonder if you were angry” or “Did you mean…?”

I’m back, once again, to the work of Patterson et al in Crucial Conversations. Because what I think I know is really my story – what I tell myself as a result of experiencing your behavior.

Lest you think I’m only talking about personal , let me assure you once again that this applies to all relationships. It applies when I’m in with people I hardly know (“What a jerk!”), when I’m having a conversation with a co-worker (“Why is she always…?”), or having coffee with a close friend (“He must be angry with me.”). All we know of each other is behavior – the observable stuff.

And what we think we know is really our of what happened.

I know that there have been many times when my wife and I have been in the same place at the same time, and remembered things differently. Everything from our first meeting (I say her outfit was mustard colored, she says it was greenish) to a conversation we had yesterday.

In police work, it’s ironic that so much weight is placed on eye witnesses, given the evidence that eye witnesses are incredibly unreliable. Consider the implications: all of us are unreliable when it comes to what we believe we saw or heard, and yet we generally remain convinced that we are right – that what we remember is reality, truth.

I’m with Descartes – the only thing I know for sure is that there is some entity doing the thinking (cogito ergo sum – I think, therefore I am). Everything else is subject to reasonable, rational doubt.

The next time you find yourself saying “Oh, I know her, and what she meant was…”, stop, think, and perhaps phrase it as a question or as a guess.

“I wonder if…”

“Do you think…”

“If it were me, I would mean…”

And then, ASK.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 12 2009
hoarderMotto: The more I have, the more important I am.
: Controlling information gives me power and makes me important.
: Doles out information in little bits, controlling the flow. Waits to be asked before sharing.
Characteristics: Quiet, selfish, frightened, insecure, terse

The Hoarder is all about control of information. She believes that it’s all that gives her an edge, makes her important, in a world that seems hostile and highly competitive. She rarely shares without being directly asked, because it’s only her control of information that maintains her sense of position and power.

This is not to say that Hoarders are actually powerful. Their power – such as it is – is illusory and mostly perceived only by the Hoarder. Others frequently see the Hoarder as obstructionist, frustrating, and self-serving.

Since Hoarders are naturally insecure and suffering from self-image issues, dealing with them requires putting aside your emotional reactions and biases toward this kind of behavior, and encouraging them through recognition and appreciation.

As with most of the antipatterns, the people who exhibit Hoarder tendencies can be either moderate or pathological.  That is, some do it out of habit, rather than a psychological need to be in control. These folks will probably respond readily when either encouraged or when having it privately explained to them. Note that I said “explained to them” not “confronted”. Confrontation implies attack and hostility, at least to some degree, and those are rarely useful.

The pathological, however, as with most of the antipatterns, are outside the scope of your ability or as a or coworker or friend to deal with. Please be careful in these circumstances. It’s not your job to deal with pathologies – issues that are deep and tightly held.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 10 2009
coworkerMotto: Succeeding together is better than failing individually.
: Two heads – or three or four – are better than one, and the group is more important than the individual.
: Frequently takes on facilitative /activities, looks for ways to cooperate and collaborate with others.
Characteristics: Patient, team-focused, non-combative, conciliatory

The Co-Worker* believes that the best results are achieved by cooperation, collaboration, and putting the group/team above the individual.

What I like about the Co-Worker is that they are very much like a . They believe in teamwork, collaboration, cooperation, dialogue… There’s nothing quite so good as having a Co-Worker or two in a meeting to make the ’s life that much easier.

You’ll recognize the Co-Worker as the person who seems to always step in and say “I can see both of your points of view. How can we bring this to some kind of compromise or conclusion?”

Co-Workers rarely seek their own aggrandizement – they work for the group, and will put in as much effort as it takes to see the group succeed. They will frequently take on action items at the end of the meeting, and will seek others to work with in most cases.

* I was going to call this one Collaborator – as in one who labors with others – but was afraid that too many people would take the negative definition of that word – like traitor. English does have its challenges.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Being right

Coping and Communicating, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 09 2009

I’ve touched on this before (and may again ;) ), but wanted to give it some dedicated attention.

It comes up all the time, especially for those of us who have strong opinions, tend to be competitive, and focus on what we think is important to us: being right.

I’ll start with the simplest question: how important is it to be right?

I hear it all the time: “We had a fight because he/she wouldn’t accept that I was right!” Or “the meeting dragged on and on because they couldn’t see that I was right!”  Or “I’d rather be right and have my !”

Sigh.

Why is “right” so important?

I say this as someone who was a pro at knowing that I was “right”.  And all of those years of fighting with people to try to get them to admit that I was right makes me very sad.

What’s the value of being “right”? Does it make the world better? Does it make a relationship better?  Does it make a conversation better? In what way does it make anything better?

Talking to my wife, which I do every day ;) , I realized that every time I insisted on being right I drove a wedge between us. Why? Because if I was right, then she must have been wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong,… Needless to say, that didn’t make her feel good.

“You always have to be right! You’re always trying to make me feel stupid!” And I’m sure that she wasn’t the only one who felt that way. After all, I always had to be right with everyone else, too.

And you know what? I have to admit that she wasn’t altogether wrong. ;)

More recently, I began to realize what was really important: our relationship. Treating her with respect, listening to her, actually thinking about what she said (as opposed to “how can I prove that what she just said is wrong?”), and allowing for the possibility that there’s more than one “right.”

While I’m using my relationship and communications with my wife as the example for this, it’s really about all . And I think you know that I believe that any time you have a conversation, that’s part of a relationship, no matter how brief it might be. This applies to personal and professional . It applies in business and conversations over lunch.

Showing respect is more important than being right.

Maintaining a relationship is more important than being right.

Sharing and collaborating is more important than being right.

Allowing for multiple valid views of right is more important than having the one right.

In fact, I think that being right is pretty far down the list of important things.

Tags: , , , , ,
7 Comments »

Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 09 2009
ZealotMotto: The force of my convictions makes me right!
: If you understand what I’m saying, then you must agree with me. My conviction is my strength.
: Speaks with passion and fervor, acting in the sincere belief that she is right and that if she pursues the topic long enough, others must see the rightness of her argument and agree with her.
Characteristics: Passionate, articulate, determined, argumentative, zealous

The Zealot (sometimes known as The Missionary) believes strongly, even passionately, in whatever they believe in. No half-measures for them.

They are willing to argue, fight, persuade, convince, and argue some more to win you over to their point of view. This means that they have the tendency to dominate a discussion, in their passion for what they know to be true/right.

This has the effect of taking over a meeting so that it is entirely focused on the Zealot’s issue. Which suits the Zealot just fine, but does not contribute to the group’s overall success.

It is important to realize that the Zealot is thoroughly well-intentioned, believing that they are serving you/the group by convincing anyone and everyone of the rightness of their view. They have nothing but good intentions, in fact. You might find yourself having the opportunity to ask “the question” (see I feel sad) from Crucial Conversations.

Dealing with this requires the strength to choose when to cut off a conversation (The Facilitation Four-Step), offer to either park it or consider it done, and keep the group moving forward. Challenging, but relatively straightforward.  This also requires the support of the other participants, which is usually forthcoming.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

The Facilitation Four-Step(tm)

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 04 2009

As I was preparing to deliver the workshops this week, I realized that I do have a simple system for dealing with many of the behaviors. For the sake of discussion, I’m calling it the Four-Step(tm).

What I realized was that I have done the same things over and over, without ever consciously identifying what I was doing.

Here it is:

  1. Interrupt
  2. Ask
  3. Redirect
  4. Commit

Interrupt

When I recognize that a destructive or non-collaborative is occurring, the first step is to interrupt it. Always act with respect – that is, it doesn’t matter how I might feel about the person or the , I should always treat people with respect.

Interruption is as simple as “excuse me”.

Professor Moriarty whispering to the woman next to her? “Excuse me.” Gently, respectfully, but clearly. Just enough to get their attention.

Gladiator engaging in combat? “Excuse me.”

Superhero comforting someone? “Excuse me.”

Ask

The next step is to ask if it’s okay to do something else. Like “Do you mind holding onto that thought for a minute?” or “Is it okay if we come back to that in a little bit?”

It’s important that the Ask make it clear that we aren’t ignoring or diminishing what they’re saying. Rather we want to communicate that it is important, but that something else must take priority at the moment.

Implicit in the Ask can be both the redirect and the commitment. So, for instance, the ask might be…

Redirect

“Would you mind holding that thought? I’d like to allow Jane to finish her thought.”

“Is it okay if we come back to that after Mark has a chance to say something?”

The redirect is turning attention away from the “offender” and onto someone else. The someone else is frequently one of two types of participants: someone who is shy and withdrawn or just quiet; or the “victim” of the “offender’s” behavior. It breaks the pattern, shifts the group’s energy, and still shows respect for the offender.

Commit

If you’ve been reading carefully, you’ll have noticed that in each case, the question also included the Commit.

“Is it okay if we come back to that after Mark has a chance to say something?” is one example.

If the Commit is not explicly included in the Ask and Redirect, then I add it.

“Would you mind holding that thought? I’d like to allow Jane to finish her thought. Then we’ll come back to you. Is that okay?”

This technique has worked quite successfully for me for many years.

Simple, clear, respectful, and paying attention to what’s important to and for the group.


Tags: , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: The Qualifier

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 04 2009
qualifierMotto: Better safe than sorry.
: If I don’t assert it, you can’t challenge me for it. And if you do, I can always backpedal.
: Qualifies statements with words/phrases like “sort of”, “kind of”, “about”, “just”, “basically”, “actually”
Characteristics: Tentative, somewhat defensive, somewhat insecure

While this is an , it’s a subtle one. After all, how damaging or destructive can it be to say “I kind of think that…”

This applies both in group participation and in presentation. The qualifiers – kind of, sort of, about, just, basically, actually – take away from the value of what is being said.

And, as I said, it’s subtle. The subtlety is that when I say “I sort of think you should do X”, it comes across as uncertain. First, that puts everything else I say into doubt, since I sound like I’m not really sure. Second, my listeners are subconsciously taking what I’ve said from an assertion – I think you should – to a question – Do you think you should – which also shifts the .

Of course, what the qualifiers also do is leave me an out. If challenged, I can say “Well, I didn’t say you should, I said I kind of think you should.”

Why leave an out? Why not commit?

In a group dialogue, it is important to recognize that the value of each contribution is affected by the words we use and the way we say things.

Don’t qualify unless there’s a very good reason to qualify.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

ITARC Atlanta

Events, Facilitation, Open Space | Posted by Doc
Feb 04 2009

My next scheduled event is ITARC Atlanta February 25 – 27. I’ll be doing double-duty, both facilitating an and presenting my session on Patterns and Antipatterns.

ITARC Atlanta website

Tags: , ,
No Comments »

Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius)

Facilitation, Musings | Posted by Doc
Feb 02 2009
professor_moriartyMotto: The end, if it’s what I want, justifies any means.
: I can, and will, utilize any tool or stratagem to achieve my goals. I’m entitled to do so because I’m smarter and cleverer and it’s what I want.
: Manipulates, uses loaded language, conspires, convinces, distracts, distorts
Characteristics: Insidious, manipulative, conspiratorial, superficially open and honest

This may be one of my least favorite antipatterns, because it’s so destructive, while trying to wear the guise of constructive and collaborative. The Evil Genius is the one who’s whispering to others, who catches others alone during breaks, who speaks against one to another, who proposes antagonistic ideas and tries to make them sound constructive, and so on.

It does go on and on.

It’s frequently hard to spot the Evil Genius, because they mask their insidious manipulation so well.

And their manipulations are destructive, because they violate all the principles of collaboration.

“If I can get this one to side with me against that one, then I’ll weaken the entire group so that I can achieve my ends.”

And they frequently delude themselves into thinking that they are working for the good of the group.

Frankly, I have trouble imagining someone acting in this as a . And if they were, I can’t imagine that they’d be open and honest enough to own up to it and change.

This one is hard to deal with, because they are so good at being deceitful and duplicitous.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
6 Comments »