RE: Re: Consensus | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com) | |
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:16:49 -0700 (MST) |
One of the pieces of making a large group (more than 10) consensus process function is having a dynamic facilitation approach. For example, a proposal is made to require all members to wear blue underpants. To the surprise of many, during the discussion phase of the meeting, it appears there are several people who are quite passionate about blue underpants. Most people in the group are neutral, some prefer pink. During the discussion phase, Lisa says, I hate blue underpants and will never wear them! the facilitator might feedback to Lisa (when she is finished) wow, you seem to have a lot of energy about this issue, can you tell us more about why you feel as you do? It turns out, that Lisa's problem is actually not the color at all, its that blue never fit right and they run in the wash (which all colored underpants could do). Having helped the group understand Lisa's point blank statement, by asking a clarifying question, the group has more likelihood of processing it. Too often, I have seen passive facilitators let people make declarative opinion statements then leave the group to muddle without understanding the issues behind the statement. Clarifying questioning is simple, effective, and non-threatening if you do with an honest sense of exploration. As a facilitator clarifying and helping people understand each other is a key function. Another place where an involved facilitator can add a huge value is to help the group clarify which ideas, if any, should actually be added to the proposal. One way to do this is to do a fingers poll like this: If you can live with the proposal as it stands show me one finger, if you have questions, issues, or feel something needs to be added, show two fingers. Then you call, 1,2 ,3 fingers and people show either one or two. Then you drill down on the two fingered folks to see what they need. This seems to work best after discussion has occurred. This can also give you a sense of support for the proposal in general. If half the room has two fingers up, you might want to think about an alternative approach. If a proposal has been well discussed and thought out, my observation is usually only a couple of people might have clarifications, issues, or additions that they need. Often people will bring up any number of ideas, but after listening to others, will give up attachment and not insist their idea has to be added to the proposal. Give the group the chance to add or let go helps sort through which ideas are the ones that should be further explored. In a collaboration its not about getting your ideas on line 6 of the proposal, its about being heard and respected. If ideas are fairly considered, but not chosen, that is OK. (Trust and humility are the foundations of consensus process) Another place an active facilitator can add value is to capture feelings in the moment. One simple way to do this is to call a timeout. You then relay back to the group, what you sense, maybe asking it in a question like, I sense some discomfort in the men since the conversation turned to lace underpants, does anybody else feel this or am I off base? Then if the answer is an obvious YES, asking the group for a brief, 5 minute detour to explore this can really help pull the group together. Or not. Depends on the issue, the group, the trust in the facilitator and some other things. Some times these detours are clean and effective, sometimes they go down dark and dangerous alleys which are best avoided. Setting a time limit lets you bail if its unproductive. Oh, look, times up! (Whew!) In large groups it is my observation that an active facilitator can add a lot to the success of a groups collaborative efforts. It is also my observation that sometimes passive facilitation allows problems to get out of hand. If you are facilitating a group bigger than 10, or have a scary agenda, you probably would benefit from making a plan, with intervention points ready, and plan B in place in case your best efforts go down in flames. My favorite plan B is to grovel, tell the group I am over my head here, can we take a break while I try to get some ideas and direction together? I have saved myself many a time with a strategically called break. Rob Sandelin South Snohomish County at the headwaters of Ricci Creek Sky Valley Environments <http://www.nonprofitpages.com/nica/SVE.htm> Field skills training for student naturalists Floriferous [at] msn.com http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
- consensus, (continued)
-
consensus Timothy Clark, February 7 2002
- Re: consensus Sharon Villines, February 7 2002
-
Re: Consensus Mary English, January 21 2004
-
Re: Re: Consensus Sharon Villines, January 21 2004
- RE: Re: Consensus Rob Sandelin, January 21 2004
-
Re: Re: Consensus Sharon Villines, January 21 2004
-
Consensus: late blocks Tree Bressen, January 30 2004
- Re: Consensus: late blocks Racheli Gai, January 30 2004
- "not safe" concerns Saoirse, January 30 2004
-
consensus Timothy Clark, February 7 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.