So imagine my surprise when I get to a client that has one person filling the roles of Product Owner, Business Analyst, and QA. In fact, this organization does not do formal QA nor have a QA role.

Oh my!

Add into the mix the fact that this individual is on multiple projects in these roles, and it could be a recipe for disaster.

Fortunately, he’s excited about agile, is really absorbing the ideas quickly, and is willing to put in the effort to make it all happen.

As we’re moving forward, he’s learning. It was really interesting to hear him say the other day “If I had understood this better when we started, I would have written these stories differently.”

To which I replied “Then write them differently now!”

It’s fascinating to see things changing rapidly, and to see the team absorbing the lessons and moving forward quickly.

One aspect of this is in Mingle. We’re using Mingle, in case that wasn’t clear. The Project Manager, who is very junior, excels at process and organization. So she’s taking to Mingle very quickly (notice how I resisted the urge to use some trite metaphor?). Between one day and the next, I noticed all sorts of new cards, new views, and a reorganization of the cards into releases.

Still, back to the PM/BA/QA guy, I see this as one of the biggest risks for the project. We’ve been working hard on getting them to understand what “done” means for a card, and he is a bottleneck and single point of failure.

I can’t wait to see how this story unfolds!

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Looking forward (0)
• Yo! Pass the potatoes! (3)
• With Blame Goes Guilt (3)
• Whole Agile (2)
• What’s in it for them? (0)

Her challenge is this: some software has been developed, and the users are extremely unhappy. I know this was done by an agile team, so I wondered how they’d gotten to this point.

I asked what seemed the most obvious question: “Was there a product owner representing the users?” While the answer was yes, it seems that this “product owner” hadn’t spoken with the users, and therefore the team hadn’t engaged with them. No user experience or interaction design, as far as I could find out. No input from the users on what they need from the software, how they’ll use it, or what it means to them day to day.

My colleague’s question was “I’ve been asked to facilitate a meeting that includes the users, the product owner, the Director, a user experience expert, and one or two others. How do we make this work so it’s not just a bitch session?”

Good question.  Before I get to what I suggested, let me share another incident that also came up today.

A different colleague called me to ask about a similar situation. Well, similar in that there’s a group of people who are being negative. And similar in that my colleague wants to figure out how to bring these people together and generate some positive action and attitude.

He wanted my suggestions.

The short answer to both of them has three parts: figure out where we are, look forward, and give them a sense of ownership.

Sound too easy?  Too trite?  Too mushytouchyfeely?

Maybe it does, but it’s not.

In the book Agile Retrospectives, Diana Larsen and Esther Derby have organized the activities that they offer for agile team retrospectives according to type of goal. One of the types of goals is data gathering. From my perspective, data gathering is the backward-looking activity that allows a team to look forward. While I’m a forward-looking kind of guy, I firmly believe that sometimes you have to know where you are to know how to go from here.

Yes, I said “know where you are,” not “know where you’ve been.”

Where I am may be unhappy, dissatisfied, frustrated, elated, anxious, anticipatory, angry, concerned, confused,… Whatever it is, I like to get it out on the table, give it a name, and stare it straight in the eye.

After all, if my goal is for things to get better, I have to know better than what.

Now that I know where we are, I can ask the BIG question: how do we make it better? It doesn’t matter if it’s software, teamwork, family, ergonomics, or pretty much anything else. What does matter is the “we!” How do WE make it better?

That little word is so important. My approach in these situations is to figure out where we are (issues, challenges, frustrations, whatever), look at what might be done to improve the situation, and then share the ownership.

I find too many people who believe that they have to take ownership of making things better for others – their staff, their team, their family. Unfortunately, starting from the best of intentions, they end up disempowering the people they’re trying to help.

Whereas if I ask “How are you/we going to make this better?” I put the opportunity, commitment, passion, and responsibility where it belongs – with the people who have the largest investment in seeing the situation change.

And, at the same time, make it a challenge. Not “tell me what to do to fix it” but “tell me what you’re going to do to fix it, and where you need my help.”

Look around, look forward, and give them the opportunity.

Simple, right?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Facilitation Pattern: Guide (aka Sherpa) (1)

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?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns: Curious George (2)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Infantile (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)

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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Conclusion Jumper (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)

“At times the individual members of a group need to express their own points of view. At other times, the same people want to narrow their differences and aim the discussion toward closure. These two sets of processes will be referred to as ‘divergent thinking’ and ‘convergent thinking.’”

Accepting Kaner’s words and work, we would consider this to be a natural occurrence in groups, but only when there is a skilled facilitator or leader present to ensure that divergence turns into convergence. And it is clear that it is essential that divergent thinking make that shift into convergent thinking in order for the group to reach some kind of decision.

A leader will emerge

This reminds me of something I learned in my Master’s Degree work years ago. My professor was Joe Luft, co-creator of the Johari window with Harry Ingham (get it? Joe-Harry => Johari). The Johari window is a model of relationships and communications that has been widely accepted. During a class on group dynamics, Joe made a statement that has stuck with me for thirty years: in any group, regardless of who is nominally in charge, a leader will emerge. That is, while there may be someone there in the group who is given the title or responsibility to be the “leader,” inevitably someone (and it may be that same person), will emerge to guide, direct, lead the group.

Leading or allowing someone else to lead

As a facilitator, you may be expected to be the “leader” and turn divergence into convergence. Or you may be expected to recognize when a member of the group steps up (overtly or simply through behavior) to demonstrate effective leadership, guiding the group from divergence to convergence. This ability to recognize that members of the group are stepping into key roles is an essential skill for a facilitator.

It is not always the facilitator’s responsibility/job to do everything. Sometimes it is the job of the facilitator to sit back and let the group go forward on its own.

So it is with convergence. There comes a point when, as a facilitator – or even as a member of the group – that you recognize that the turn must be made. If it is not happening on its own, then it is up to you to take some action. That action is not standing up and saying “Okay – enough divergent thinking, get on with the convergent thinking!” Rather, you are expected to have the skills to help and guide the group toward convergence.

Tactics that come to mind include:

• “I see that there is some disagreement here. Let’s see what we can do to find some commonality.”
• Sometimes, I suggest that two advocates of opposing views each take on the other’s position and argue it.

Rather than having me try to explain it all to you, I’ll suggest that you read Kaner’s work. There are lots of good diagrams, along with the words.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Faciliation Pattern: Sherlock Holmes (0)

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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)

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,…

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker (0)

Motto

What’s not so obvious is that Dominators are not always egocentric or glory loving or outgoing. Frequently, Dominators have learned that the only way that they can get people to hear what they have to say, and to make their points, is by steamrolling everyone else. Outside of meetings/discussions, they may be timid or quiet. but get them into a meeting, and they will just take over.

Okay – there are also Dominators who do it because they do love to be the center of everyone’s attention. For these Dominators – the ones you probably thought of first – it’s not so much which point they make as that they make a point by overwhelming everyone else’s defenses. Their joy comes from the act and experience of being dominant.

Dominators have found that if they speak more loudly than everyone else, everyone else will be quiet and listen to them.

Dominators have found that by the force of their presence (similar to the Gladiator) they can achieve their goals.  But distinct from the Gladiator, the Dominator doesn’t want us to fight back. The Dominator achieves victory by shutting everyone else down.

The Dominator is happy when we say “Okay – whatever you say” as a sign of capitulation.  They’re happiest when we say “Oh, you’re SO right!” as a sign of recognition of their rightness, along with capitulation.

To deal with a Dominator, you have to break their pattern. This is hard, because they’re relentless.

Techniques that either involve the group without discussion (Starfish, Timeline) or that enforce a structure that gives everyone equal time and attention (Circle of Questions, The Margolis Wheel).

Note that Robert Chambers, in Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities, has an exercise he calls Dominator (pages 168-9), which he describes thus: “A lively activity to heighten awareness of verbal and non-verbal dominant and submissive behaviour and of the effects of physical position on relationships.”

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)
• Facilitation Pattern: Co-Worker (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)

Motto

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 responsibility as a facilitator 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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)

Motto

What I like about the Co-Worker is that they are very much like a facilitator. 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 facilitator’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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)

Motto

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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Conclusion Jumper (0)

Motto

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 antipattern as a facilitator. 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.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Conclusion Jumper (0)
• It’s All About You, and It’s Not About You (5)
• It’s All About Me (2)

Motto

When you go to a meeting, which occupies you: Telling? Or asking?

Like Curious George, Sherlock Holmes is interested in gathering information through asking questions. Unlike Curious George, Sherlock Holmes also collects evidence, relates what he’s learned and gathered, and drives toward conclusions.

Sherlock Holmes, the fictional character, was known for his use of deductive reasoning. Using deductive reasoning, we move from the general to the specific. We collect evidence and knowledge, and then use that evidence and knowledge to reach conclusions.

Holmes was also known for employing abductive reasoning, along with deductive reasoning. One description of abductive reasoning is “creating new rules to explain new observations”.

The facilitator’s role is to use her skills in data gathering, abduction, and deduction to guide the participants. As noted repeatedly, it is not the facilitator’s role to offer the conclusions, although that happens from time to time. It is the facilitator’s role to use these skills to guide and teach.

As is no doubt becoming clear, many of these patterns and antipatterns overlap in various ways. That is, they are not mutually exclusive.

Coming up? Dr. Moriarty, The Evil Genius!

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Pattern: Guide (aka Sherpa) (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)

Motto

Why? Because they wanted to finish what they had to say. They didn’t care that I was impatient to move on, that I thought I knew what they were going to say and where they were going, that I thought I was smart  – they wanted a show of respect.

Yup – Conclusion Jumpers are generally disrespectful. What their behavior says is “I’m smart, I’m fast, and what you have to say is less important than my desire to show my smarts and move things forward.” Who is that about? Them – the Jumper – not me.

If you are a facilitator, even if only for one meeting, then your responsibility is to be patient, listen, ask questions – not interrupt, nor assume that you know what someone means or what they’re going to say. Your responsibility is to encourage all parties to listen to all parties – if you don’t do it, then they will learn that they don’t have to.

In fact, part of your responsibility is to teach everyone present about respect and patience and listening.

I seem to have used the word resonsibility a lot in this post, don’t I?

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Superhero (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Orator (3)

There are many pitfalls (think of the word literally, as well as figuratively) in meeting with and talking with others. In the role of Guide/Sherpa, the facilitator’s responsibilities include steering the group around the pitfalls, helping them to avoid the known dangers and recognize the signs of upcoming trouble.

In many ways, the Guide is also a teacher, as through his behavior, the Guide teaches the group what signs to look for.

Can a participant be a Guide? Of course.

One of the key factors in participatory/collaborative events of all kinds is attitude.

Do you ask “What am I going to get out of this?” or “What am I going to put into this?”

Simple wisdoms:

• To give is to receive.
• To teach is to learn.
• Sometimes asking is telling/teaching.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Faciliation Pattern: Sherlock Holmes (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)

Motto

Nope.

As hard as it is, I tell everyone I train in facilitation that they must be prepared to leave their biases, opinions, and tendency toward rescuing people and situations outside.

When you rescue people or a situation, others don’t learn – well, they learn to depend on you to do it for them. It’s like the toddlers who always whine and reach up to be carried, because they’ve always been carried, so they always expect to be carried, so they don’t learn to get around well on their own.

As with most of the Patterns & Antipatterns I’ll be talking about, this applies equally to the facilitator and the participants. As a member of the group, if you keep providing solutions, others will start to pull back and let you do it all. While you might feel good as the superhero, you’re disempowering the team, and teaching them that it’s okay not to participate/contribute.

Don’t be a Superhero.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Facilitation Antipattern: Professor Moriarty (aka Evil Genius) (6)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Hoarder (0)
• Facililtation Antipattern: Zealot (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: The Qualifier (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Dominator (0)