Manage Process Integrity, Shadow Facilitation Tactical Series (3.1)

Resist Pressure to Prioritize Applause Over Results

Introduction

The tactical series on shadow facilitation addresses a range of client system pressures that facilitators and event organizers may need to manage and which typically do not appear in a job description or terms of reference for facilitation support. The focus of this post is resisting pressure to prioritize applause over results, praise over substance.

Introduction

A common shadow pressure tempts us to confuse a good process with a happy feeling:  prioritize participant enjoyment and positive evaluations over challenge and solutions. (pressure 5).

Organizers may seek “nothing too hard” to guarantee positive evaluations.

Your role is to ensure the process delivers transformative results, even if that requires productive tension. 

To do that effectively, develop a nuanced analysis of factors that contribute to pressure to prioritize applause over results. 

• Human nature is one factor.  Most of us like the things we’re responsible for to go well.  Praise, admiration and positive feedback are compelling. 

• Senior management pressure to appease different audiences may influence a process. 

• Desire to be seen to do well: Some organizers want to ensure participants have an enjoyable experience so they give positive evaluations.  Their professional reputation and possibly their jobs depend on it. 

To counter these forces, you need a process built on integrity, not on setting a low bar or appeasement.  The following six tactics provide a framework. 

True satisfaction comes from accomplishment, not just amusement.

Not everyone will be equally happy with all parts of a process or with all processes.  Learning can be frustrating before it becomes rewarding.   People often initially resist requirements to change, and resistance can take the form of criticism.  If individual participants feel they are not heard, recognized or validated, they may withdraw.  Facilitation tactics to navigate this client system pressure include: 

Tactic 21:  Use clear purpose as the lodestar and a strong results framework as a map.

Tactic 22:  Match methods and techniques to stage of facilitation spiral and objectives.

Tactic 23:  Reference all facilitation tactics back to purpose and results.

Tactic 24:  For a change process, use a structured consensus model. 

Tactic 25:  Focus on the group field more than on individuals;  nurture the collective.

Tactic 26:  Stay open, transparent and positive:  it encourages participants to do the same.

The tactics are organized in a three-part defense system:

1. Anchor the process in purpose and design.  (Tactics 21, 22, and 23).  Everything ties back to this “north star”.

2. Structure for real agreement (Tactic 24).  Select a method for ensuring commitment that isn’t superficial and directly supports transparency about implementation.

3. Nurture collective spirit and capacity.  (Tactics 25 and 26.) Apply a group-focused mindset to sustain energy and positivity through challenge.   

1.      ANCHOR IN PURPOSE AND DESIGN

Tactic 21:  Use clear purpose as the lodestar and a strong results framework as a map.  

Design the experience with purpose as the centre and results as the goal.  Make decisions about methods and techniques based on how they contribute to this “north star” of process navigation. 

Clearly define the contribution that each meta-level decision will make to the purpose and results. 

Use a strong results chain or results framework.  Regularly refer to it when planning the process overall, each day, each session, and contributions of resource people and team members.  All contribute.  Your job is to define how.  Some of that job is in the explicit TOR of a facilitation, shared:  some is in shadow facilitation. 

Different disciplines use different results frameworks.  In learning and development, a standard results framework is common.  The purpose, impact, outcomes and outputs are presented as levels or stages.  Sometimes the results framework is called the results chain.

An example of the four types of result in the framework is in a separate post on establishing a community of practice.  (Link to be added).   

Of course, you want people to be satisfied – the more satisfied the better.

Shadow facilitation of participant satisfaction does not mean you don’t want people to enjoy the experience.  You definitely do.  But in support of achieving purpose and results, not independently.

Satisfaction comes from sources other than having a good time.  Clarity is powerful.  When people know what is expected of them in a pending change process and have had scope to be part of shaping it, they are more likely to be on board and less likely to resist it.

Tactic 22:  Match methods and techniques to the stage of the facilitation spiral as well as to objectives. 

Each stage of a facilitation spiral presents opportunities to meet different participant needs and support the group to achieve results.  

Opening

• Take time in the opening of a process to set the context, brief people on basics so all are on the same page.  Cover context factors that inform the purpose, and the plan for the time together.  Minimize assumptions about what people already know.  Don't "jump in" without bringing the participants along with you.

• Include activities that help people get to know each other, build relationships, network.  Design table conversations into plenary sessions.  Use buzz groups of 3 or pairs if layout is theatre style.  Consider a "walking conversation" to get people moving. Include icebreakers.  Create a bio wall with participant profiles people can look at during breaks.

• Consult with participants about priorities, a recommended good practice.  Provide an overview of consultation inputs and how they have informed design.

These measures do not have to be extensive or take a long time. They do need to be clear.

Into the work

• Plan an incremental agenda where sessions build on previous outputs and contribute to coming sessions.  Consolidate incremental outputs as you go.  Task strong note-taking and summarizing leads on the communications team.  Include interim summaries in day openings and closings.   

• Plan an iterative agenda.  Summarize emerging conclusions at key points, validate or adjust them. 

• Avoid packing in too much stand-alone substantive work disconnected from the purpose and results, even if participants request it.  Some people may want to show case their own work or have a platform to share it. 

• Hold parallel sessions on different subjects to accommodate diverse interests.  Pose the same guiding questions. 

• Allocate enough time in plenary for people to reflect on different contributions to a meta-level output. 

• Do the consolidation work behind the scenes, by codification and communication leads, and summarize each version of an evolving output with new inputs highlighted.

Mid-point

• By mid-point, focus begins to shift from opening to closing.  The shift will be phased, but you need to be working back from wrap-up and closure.

• Design sessions so resource people provide new insights about the required outputs.

• Task working groups to integrate those into work done so far. 

• Give drafts of emerging results to resource people who bring experience and expertise, as part of their briefings.  Ask them to respond, provide feedback and recommendations.

Three-quarters through

• Pivot the process firmly to finalizing outputs.

• Review all parking lot topics.  Create a list of topics raised that will not be addressed in this event.  Consult with the lead organizers on how the topics will be addressed.  Transfer back to the workplace?   Which mainstream process?  A follow-up communication?

• Give outputs scoped so far to functional groups, or people from the same regions.  Invite a deeper dive on implications and need for flexibility.  Do they resonate? Will they work?

• Have a senior person share perspectives on what has emerged so far.  If it’s strong, say so.  If it’s in an early formative stage and needs a lot of work, say so.

• Invite feedback from the group about how they feel, inspired or deflated by the prospect of implementing what is emerging.   

Consolidation and wrap-up

• Allocate enough time for thoughtful, reflective consolidation. 

• A common tendency is to over-pack an agenda, with new substantive content right up to the finish line.  Avoid this, to make the most of time together. 

• Reflection can get sidelined.  But collective reflection can elevate an adequate piece of work to a robust shared road map.  Reflection is a leadership practice.  Integrate it. 

• Build in time to review and finalize next steps. 

• Require an evaluation.  Improving processes is a shared responsibility. 

• For participants who seldom get to meet, protect time after the formal part for individuals to hold bilateral or small group meetings around common interests, for informal activities. 

• Hold a final debriefing of the extended facilitation team, and a separate one for the core team.  Bring forward difficult points to senior leaders confidentially and anonymously.

Tactic 23:  Reference all facilitation tactics back to purpose and results. 

No single tactic works in isolation.  A successful process is a dynamic, continuous flow of inputs, exchanges, summaries, reiteration, focus, additional data, draft results, counterarguments, tentative agreements, validation, reflection, recommendations and decisions.  Purpose and results define the target and serve as critical continuing reference.   

• Make purpose and results the centre of the concept note that kicks off an event or process.

• Integrate purpose and results into day plans and session plans. 

• Set a theme for each day that focuses participants on one contribution to outcomes, a particular output.  Themes serve as common tracks within which people work together.

• Create a poster or flip-chart sheets with the purpose and key results on it.  Regularly reference it when progress is made, specific milestones are achieved and unique contributions are made.  Also reference it when exchanges seem to be getting off track, or scope seems to be expanding. 

2.      STRUCTURE FOR REAL AGREEMENT 

Tactic 24:  The strategic advantage:  use a structured consensus model to build shared clarity and durable agreements for action. 

Research shows that people are more likely to take actions when they commit to them in public.  Even more when they commit in writing. Making commitments as well as decisions transparent can be an invaluable facilitation and management tool.

Many people think “consensus” means “agreement”.  In its more traditional form of a decision-making model, consensus establishes where each individual in a group stands in relation to support for a decision and availability or willingness to help implement it.

This map of positions can be invaluable for managers and a group because it helps manage expectations and set a realistic implementation plan.

Even more importantly, results reached through a structured consensus model have already addressed critical blockage points, and collective support for implementation will be stronger.

A structured consensus model offers four positions, each with two parts, shown in the following table.

Position	Degree of support	Willingness to help implement
1	I fully support this.	I will help implement it.
2	I support this.	I can only help implement it in limited and specific ways (detail).
3	I do not support this but don’t feel strongly enough to block it.	I am not available to help implement it.
4	I block this – I disagree with it.	I don’t support implementation.

The fourth position can make it seem as though a person who blocks can stop a process in its tracks.  The opposite is true.  A person who takes a block position is required to:

1. Identify specifics of disagreement

2. Explain concerns or objections

3. Propose alternative solutions that recognize others’ inputs to this point

The role of a facilitator can become crucial as a group navigates the 'white-water' of a turbulent process in which people disagree, particularly on matters of values and principles. Maintaining respect for the person while arguing a point or a position can call on process mediation skills, and a consensus model gives the facilitator, individuals and the group a common framework within which to work and reflect.

Consensus approaches are often dismissed as “too time-consuming”.  But they save time by providing key intelligence for implementation planning and they prevent implementation failure. Decisions about actions have only two basic answers: YES, or NO. The rest is about how you get there.

Photo by Florian Sch ... on UNSPLASH

A transferable model

I have used a consensus model with non-profit societies, which can be important because so much depends on volunteers. Meaningful engagement is a compensation for no salary.

I’ve also used it with professional teams in development organizations.  Although it can be difficult for people to work through it, the satisfaction people feel at the end is genuinely a collective one. Confidence and efficiency increase because everyone is clear on positions of others. Inaccurate assumptions about levels of support and expectations that people will help implement a change can be addressed transparently at a formative stage, before they lead to rifts and ruptures.

The method holds people who block a process responsible for identifying the real reasons.  Sometimes people react without clear reasons. They may not know or be able to voice their reasons. The process will be one of exploration and clarification for them, on behalf of the purpose of the whole group, and sometimes of self-discovery.

Occasionally, even with facilitated dialogue, a person may not be able to move from a block position.  If you sense a person’s position is hardening, don’t keep at it.  Call a break.  Confer with the lead organizers and senior managers.  Propose an interim decision to focus on the areas of agreement and refer the pain points to senior management for follow-up after the event.  Accept that "far enough" can be excellent progress on genuinely complex challenges involving people.

A structured consensus model does not have to be used to take binding decisions.  It provides insights about the range of positions people hold and warning signs about implementation barriers. Discussions of positions clarify for managers and peers where information gaps or capacity gaps may need to be addressed before progress forward can accelerate.

NURTURE COLLECTIVE SPIRIT AND CAPACITY

Photo by Rineshkumar Chirao in UNSPLASH.

Tactic 25:  Focus on the group field more than on individuals:  nurture the collective.   

Participatory processes can be energizing, even when they are challenging.  C

ollective work carries its own energy.  But keys are strong design, careful facilitation, supportive norms, links to purpose and results and enough time for all to contribute in clear ways.  Research on the “wisdom of the group” is instructive, as are cautions about it. 

Keep track of the energy field within a group.  Provide different opportunities for individuals to engage with each other to generate and sustain that energy field.  Mechanism examples:   

• Consult participants and share a consolidated profile of inputs from the group as a whole.

• Enable table conversations.  Rather than full report backs, invite each table to share one point in a series of rounds until all have been heard from.  Encourage people to build on and link to points others have made.  

• Hold table exchanges before you open the floor for plenary contributions.  Invite groups to report back first on points everyone agrees or disagrees with, before giving time to individuals. 

• With working groups, design and guide the report-back and consolidation in plenary as carefully as the group work.  See the case example of a meeting with practitioners from three UN entities who had to implement a new policy for an illustration (blog link).   

• Use quick buzz groups of three and pairs for quick conversations that energize. Pose 1 or 2 questions with no report-back.  The objective is to engage everyone. 

• Include a “walking conversation”: introduce several guiding questions and get people up and moving as they discuss.  

• Provide facilitation support to break out groups and work groups from the co-facilitation team, people familiar with the design, approach and instructions.

• Use consultation apps and varied input mechanisms such as index cards, parking lots, suggestion lists, coloured dots for polling, playlists as input channels. 

• Debrief daily, more often if the process is flowing through white water.  Invite “highlights” and “lowlights”, both equally, and recommend adjustments to address reported experience and observed engagement. Appetite for willingness for this critical process management measure vary. Sometimes you will need to convince leads. Other times you'll have to go with what you get. Demonstrate the value of collaborative and distributed facilitation in specific immediate ways, such as adjusting a programme or introducing a new method to directly respond to feedback, facilitation team observations and analysis.

Tactic 26:  Stay open, transparent and positive:  it encourages participants to do the same.  

Photo by Pete F. on UNSPLASH

• Integrate these characteristics into your professional facilitation style - openness, transparency, positivity. If they’re not part of your personal style, it may be work to cultivate them.  It’s worth it.   Openness and transparency can be on a graduated basis depending on circumstances. Positivity is a constant essential.

• Stay open even when participants give negative feedback.  Try not to take it personally. 

• Keep inviting inputs through different means, anonymous and owned. 

• Consolidate and share what you get, removing personal comments or anything that might embarrass someone or hurt them.  Don’t ignore these inputs:  be smart about their effect on individuals and group dynamics.   

• Include in daily summaries feedback from the facilitation team to the participant group.  Noticing people on their devices?  Ignoring process norms?  Worried about a sour tone?  Recap the process norms the next morning, as part of opening the day, and note related observations.  Encourage the group to engage professionally in the process. 

• Direct negative feedback to the people who need to address it.  Your job is to be alert to asymmetries and suggest a solution, but the solution typically doesn’t lie with you. 

• If a decision-maker is not available, let people know that “hanging points” will be taken forward into work processes.  In daily debriefs, confirm tasking and timing. 

• Manage early criticism, and put it in context.  If participants critique one part of a sequence, encourage them to stay engaged until the end and make incremental links more visible.  Revisit their input when the full process has generated results. 

• Highlight positive progress, recognize unique contributions, and reinforce collective capacity. 

In dark times and challenging times, a key job of a leader is to bring hope.  Rebecca Solnit develops this theme in “Hope in the Dark”. 

Translating the same principles to facilitation, staying positive under pressure and encouraging others is part of shadow facilitation. To be effective, it has to be real.  Your confidence in the process means you can reassure and convince others that the work is going somewhere positive and the results will be worth it.

Conclusion

Facilitation integrity means valuing the substance of the outcome over the mood of the moment.  The six tactics guide you to design with purpose (21-23), secure genuine commitment and support for implementation (24) and foster a resilient, positive group culture (25 and 26).

Remember the bell curve.  You can’t please everyone, nor should you try.  Your goal is to guide the group to a result they can own and implement:  a deeper, more lasting form of satisfaction than fleeting applause.   

Next, we tackle the final process integrity pressures, to treat all contributions as equal in value when they are not, and to shield organizers from shared responsibility and collaborative leadership.   

[Link]