Every board, every CEO has been there. No matter what the size of your company.
An NGO comes after you – for the right or the wrong reasons.
A journalist publishes an article. The content: inconvenient truths, or equally inconvenient fake news.
Minority activist investors are cooking up a storm.
Unions reckon that yours of all companies will be in the focus of their attention.
Or simpler:
The staff churn in your company is way above average. And no one seems to know why.
Sick days go through the roof, and work does not get done. And nothing seems to change it.
Head of departments undermining each other vying for that upcoming role. While undermining the companies bottom line.
In all cases the effects are similar if not to say equal: nerves lay black. Motivation goes through the floor. Openly or passive aggressive behaviour is on the rise. Stress becomes tangible.
And with it: people’s exasperation about what should be done, but doesn’t.
Fear starts creeping in, and people are retracting into their trenches. Ready to hit back if they are attacked. Or at very least ready to defend themselves.
Conversations and discussion about what to do, resemble a ping pong of opinions without ever getting to any concrete results. At each meeting, people only ever listen as far as until they’re prepared for a (counter) argument.
Yes, I have been there. Done that. Been part of that.
In the room with NGOs, with adverse board members, or a difficult chair. With individuals that see themselves as a victim sitting across from those that feel they are blamed for and have to defend their (occasionally very good) reason for decisions.
Indeed. Been there, done that. Not much to write home about.
With exception of: There were times I was not a party in the conflict. Instead I was assigned the (ungrateful?) task of figuring out how to resolve it, build bridges, and ‘get stuff done’. Not just once, but a few times.
What initially was a ‘process by gut feeling’ (aka ‘winging it’), over time – with trial and error – turned into something more structured. Still not perfect – it never will be, there is always room for improvement – but a flight-by-instrument rather than a blind adventure.
The following section is my first try at illustrating, verbalising, a process that for me has become a reasonably stringent and structured approach of how I facilitate working through such situations.
The steps I use, and what their intention is.
With the hope of it being as useful to others as it is and was to me.
Note: the process is simple if not to say simplistic. The practice of it – notably in the eye of a storm – is a different issue. It is a process that is mentally taxing, and tied to significant time investment to ensure the factual ground work is in place.
6 Simple Steps for: Knowledge Sharing, Collaboration, Behaviour Change
Step 1 (preparation):
Stakeholders – Who and Why?
Who are the different stakeholders that are both impacting and affected by what’s going on?
Those that are affected by what’s going on. And those affecting action.
Not just the vocal lot. But those other silent ones too. Especially the silent ones.
Spend time to understand the stakeholder landscape. Talk to representatives. Understand why some of them are silent. Find those that are interested in finding A Solution. Bring them to the table. Make sure they have a voice.
Step 2 (investigation):
Building expertise. And: What are the key ‘pillars of dissent’?
This will likely go above and beyond what is in the news, the campaigns.
What underlying values are voiced in the attacks and the disagreement, if not explicitly then implicitly? What are the fears and anxieties of the constituencies that come together around the table? What are the key question they ask themselves?
What are their hidden agendas?
What amongst all that is, or could be, a ‘lowest common denominator’?
Something that they genuinely have in common?
A common base is the point of departure to build trust, and the foundations of a productive outcome.
Note: The facilitator plays a key role in this phase. S/He must understand the depth of each side and their arguments. The political and personal stakes at play. And also the business implications of demands from either side in the different facets. The facilitator has to be or become a topical expert – always able to differentiate facts from assumptions, political agenda from value judgements – all the while ensuring that this expertise is never called on for decisions.
Then ask again: In what way can those common foundations, the lowest common denominator, be elicited from all the different constituents around the table?
Step 3 (administration):
Ensure agreement on basic rules of interaction
These typically entail:
- Agreement on meeting process: Agenda items and contributions during meeting(s)
- Agreement on timeline PRIOR to meetings, of possible deliverables, agenda drafts etc.
- Minutes being recorded. Outcomes being documented.
- Rules of Confidentiality: such as the Chatham House rule or similar.
- Rules of Interaction: Clear agenda (with parking lot if needed); no-butting-in rule; incremental improvement rule (‘Yes AND’ … instead of ‘yes but’)
- Calling the shots: call it out if rules are not adhered to. Or repeatedly broken. The individual or organisation will have to leave for the remainder of the session.
- Consensus primacy: it is not a competition. Win-loose situation are not a viable result for progress. Consensus must be sought at each step. However small the individual step may be.
Step 4 (allocating time and meeting priorities):
Structure the meetings clearly. And stick to the structure.
The agenda plays a key role in this process.
Structuring it well, and sticking to it, keeping unexpected items to a minimum, helps to lower stress levels of participants as they know when ‘their’ turn is.
Agenda items and their priorities may even be identified by anonymous voting prior to the meeting, with the proposed items being identified as critical during research and review in Step 2.
This does not mean to brush new challenges under the carpet. To the contrary. They will be recorded (‘parked’) and will be brought back explicitly in a next session. Postponed is not (ever!) abandoned.
Step 5 (the face-to-face):
‘Bracket’ the main agenda by ‘bringing to’ and ‘taking home’ rounds
- Welcome; reconfirm agenda items; timing of breaks; H&S announcements.
- ‘Bringing to’ round: At the beginning of each meeting session
- Name and organisation. What challenges (related to the topic) are they facing in their organisation?
- Main agenda points: for each discussion point
- Practical Case study or studies illustrating different views
- Facilitated discussion
- Summary by facilitator
- Summary of consensus points
- 1 short round of feedback to consensus points (important: incremental statements; ‘yes, and’.)
- Overall summary by facilitator.
- Review of parking lot items. Possibly ask for prioritisation of these by attendees.
- Summary of overall consensus items, however small.
- ‘Taking home’ round: At the end of each meeting.
- What has drawn your particular attention today? What will be your next step (related to the topics discussed) when going back into the organisation, between now and the next meeting?
- Thank yous and good byes.
- Ensure there is sufficient time in the room booking for people to mingle and have personal conversations. Consider having refreshments at hand for this purpose.
Step 6 (digesting, evaluating):
Minutes are more than just a written record.
There are of course a written record of outcomes, key arguments, insights gained, agreements and consensus decisions.
Minutes are however also an opportunity to review and analyse what has remained unsaid. They are a way to continue the process of trust building and consensus finding.
Choosing language carefully, and ensuring fair representation and levelled documentation of what has happened during the meeting is important.
Minutes are further the point of departure for the facilitator to seek repeat discussion with those that seemed less happy with the outcome and investigate what may have remained unsaid and poison the process forward.
This step overlaps with Step 1 for the next round. Because this overall process is a virtuous spiral. We come back to the beginning. But with a little bit more insight, with a small bit of progress achieved. Just to continue the cycle for a few more rounds.
The Why of the Process
The above are the 6 steps I usually structure any such process.
Of course there are variations. And sometimes the atmosphere in the room is dense to say the least.
But Why this approach?
The process intends to ensure that each person in the room knows what their role constitutes, that they are and feel valued and recognised in their expertise, contribution and sharing; and that all constituents are presented with both challenges and(!) opportunities.
Language, rules and process is such that participants are at eye level.
There is no voting on decisions. All decisions are a priori taken through consensus1 agreement.
And decisions, once achieved in consensus, are in principle not revisited unless (sic!) again the participants agree in consensus that this is required.
Let me underline once more: the process is simple if not to say simplistic. The practice of it – notably in the eye of a storm – is a different issue. It is a process that is mentally taxing, and tied to significant time investment to ensure the factual ground work is in place. It requires that the facilitator question his/her own bias constantly. And it needs resolution in the face of rare, but occasionally arising, non-collaborative individuals or organisations.
But not only does it work. Consensus decision usually trigger fast operational implementation.
The whole effort does speed real life impact and implementation up – significantly. Because at that point, it truly is only about ‘getting the (agreed) job done’.
1 Consensus is defined as, at a minimum, “no objections” or as being able to “live with” an outcome, perhaps in light of how it fits into a larger whole. One person or entity may not prevent the larger group from achieving agreement by simply objecting. When a member in a conversation disagrees with a consensus proposal, he or she or their organisation is expected to justify their interest-based objection and obliged to work constructively to ensure that their interests are met while also allowing the proposal to realize its potential as intended by its proponents.
