Managing Outward: Shadow Facilitation (2.2)
- PatriciaKeays
- Jan 4, 2020
- 11 min read
Part 2 of the series: Preparing for power and politics in group dynamics
2.1.B MANAGE OUTWARD - ENSURE EQUITY IN THE ROOM
Introduction
Our last posts provided insights and tips on managing upwards to address client system facilitation challenges. This one focuses on managing outward – ensuring equity in the room.
Two client system pressures apply, dividing the blog into two parts:
Accommodate dominant voices: allow disproportionate air time instead of applying agreed and equitable boundaries (Blog 2.2A)
Overlook problematic behaviour: bypass microaggressions or disrespect to maintain surface harmony and momentum (Blog 2.2B).
Pressure to accommodate dominant voices was covered in the previous post. This one concentrates on overlooking problematic behaviour. The tactics explored to counteract related pressures continue from the previous posts in the series.
Counteract pressures to accommodate dominant voices:
Tactic 9: Apply a range of measures to equalize participation: draw on the group.
Tactic 10: Employ a full systems approach to equalize contributions.
Tactic 11: Use embedded mechanisms to ensure equality of opportunity to engage.
Overlook problematic behaviour
Tactic 12: Actively use the facilitation team to address problematic behaviour.
Tactic 13: Maintain strong process themes in a substantive agenda: manage time around the DNA spiral the two create together.
Tactic 14: Where problematic behaviour is part of the culture, accept your own limits.
First, we’ll tackle pressure to accommodate dominant voices.
Some people have so much to say they can’t contain themselves. Others are by nature are in listening and absorb mode most of the time. Your facilitation role encompasses these and everything in between.
In some cultures, deferring to more senior people is the only acceptable social behaviour. Strongly patriarchal cultures require a similar deference of women to men. In other cultures, people are encouraged to express themselves with confidence in whatever context.
The differences manifest in a kaleidoscope of ways in group dynamics. But it’s a kaleidoscope with predictable patterns.
A strong process design and effective facilitation aim to make space for the diverse range of human personalities and cultural communication patterns.
Are people who dominate doing it deliberately?
Sometimes people deliberately shoulder their way into an interaction and try to dominate. They assert their authority, they impose their views because it works for them.
In situations with a troubled history, the pattern of people deliberately disrupting a process by interrupting and silencing others is so well established the advice is to “watch for spoilers”.
More often, individuals are so preoccupied with what they want to say and determined to say it that they are not aware of or don’t care about the effect on others and a group process.
Case example: In a training of trainers programme, one member of the facilitation team was tasked to track the number of interventions that different participants made each hour through a full two days of sessions.
At the end of the second day, she projected the pattern of interventions, anonymized. The results were startling, sobering and instructive. Viewing them as a pattern made it possible for people to see their interventions in relation to the contributions of others.
One very voluble person had made 36 interventions in 1 hour.
A number of participants had made no contributions unless they were called on by name.
The debrief explored not only the effect on group dynamics of people who talk too much, but also the effect of people who don’t contribute.
The critical insight I still carry is that focusing on individuals is not as important as focusing on the group as a whole, and the effect of individual behaviours on the collective experience.
I wish it were possible in mainstream meetings and processes to collect the same data in the same depth and share it with the group to raise collective self-awareness. Sometimes in meetings and sessions I keep all the speaker’s lists, debrief the profile with the facilitation team, and together we take decisions about managing challenges that emerge from the analyzed patterns of engagement.
Tactic 9: Apply a range of measures to equalize participants: draw on the group.
Propose norms that reinforce the principles of equal opportunities to contribute, mutual respect, arguing a point and not a person. Then you have something to reference when alternate behaviours present.
Once time management norms are established, use them. They’re not a tick on a standard list: they’re a tool. Your ability to flex the tool for shared purpose defines its usefulness.
Start with seating plans that distribute people known to dominate throughout the group. Tip: creating effective seatings plans is seriously under-estimated by most people in terms of both their value and how long it takes to create them. Don’t make that mistake.
Sometimes deliberately put two strong people at the same table, so they can engage with each other.
Also, make sure a member of the extended facilitation team is at each table, "embedded". Brief them well about “facilitating from within”, and build their capacity as required. Influencing as a participant can be pivotal. Raising adherence to norms, gently noting when they are not being followed, is part of collective process modelling and management. This internal reminder can be more powerful than an attempt to micro-manage from a podium. It can also encourage other participants to reinforce the norms.
Change seating arrangements each day, flexibly. Where working groups are to continue, retain the same seating. Distribute less outgoing people with more social ones, senior people with more junior ones, people from different contexts together. The strongest, most resilient ecosystems are the most diverse: aim for diversity.
Delegate responsibility to different facilitation team members to raise behaviours and patterns that need to change for the benefit of the process and results, privately and informally. Not as fellow participants: as a delegated representative of the facilitation team.
Change the mechanisms for reporting back from table groups and working groups.
If all groups are discussing the same topic, use a “popcorn technique” that quickly collects one point per group until all points are collected. No repetition of points already made, only new points. The result is a collective report, not a single report from one group to which others add incidental points.
If groups are discussing the same 3-4 questions, invite all group responses on the first question or output,and take time to reflect. Then move as a group to the second question or output. This cumulative process addresses the weakness of a single group reporting back first which may cover much of the ground and leave others feeling unheard.
Consider designing break out groups that do not report back in plenary. Rather, participants take the insights and conclusions from that session to a next planning sessions and bring forward individual points most important to them. This underscore the value of a deliberately incremental agenda, in which sessions build on previous ones and lead to subsequent ones.
The mix of measures that may work well depend in part on the individuals and group dynamics. Practice being a quick study, absorbing the body language, non-verbal communication signals as well as what people say.
What precisely is the problem?
Some people tend to dominate, in plenary sessions, table discussions or informal conversations. They may or may not be conscious of their behaviour or see it as inappropriate pushiness.
Sometimes an informal touching base at a break to share observed patterns can be enough. You don’t want to silence them, you want them to be more aware of their behaviour and its effects on others and the process.
For example, you could say: “ Thank you for the points you raised in the last session. I noticed that you are confident speaking up, which is great. But some of the people are your table are quite silent. Do you think in the next session you might encourage them to contribute as well, so we hear as many views as possible?”
Some people are bullies. They get the floor and make a point, cover the same ground, repeat the point, give an example of the point, rephrase the point. Meanwhile other participants disengage, begin to look at their phones, talk to neighbours. You have to interrupt, on behalf the overall process.
Some people are so absorbed in the topic that they are unaware of how long they have been talking. A gentle reminder will bring them back to the process.
Most people will engage with the programme and follow time parameters if they are briefed on what they are. The solutions below cover specifics.
What’s the solution?
Tactic 10: employ a full systems approach to equalize and contributions.
Record people’s points. Be seen to be recording points - you or a member of the communications and note-taking team. A “group memory” on flip chart with key words reassures people that codification is happening, nothing is lost. Taking digital notes works, but still requires time to share the summarized profiles with the full group and reflect, discuss.
Be transparent about time use plans. In every session, let people know how long presenters will be speaking, how much time each panelist has, when they will have a Q&A opportunity. Share the time road-map with all.
Introduce varied mechanisms for giving input. In the set-up, explain mechanisms for participants to pose questions if time runs out. These may be index cards at tables, a consultation app kept open, maintained “parking lots”, or even private asides.
Follow through - reassure people. Use those mechanisms to reassure people that their questions will be addressed. Take collected inputs and questions to daily debrief meetings. Report back the following day.
Provide time warnings. When a table group conversation to exchange views on what has been heard is scheduled, let people know the total time, when half of that time is gone, and a 1 minute “bell” warning. Stick to the time – allow no more than a minute or two to get people to focus back on the wider proceedings.
Work with co-facilitators in break out groups and rooms to manage time. When working groups are in different break out rooms, mobilize the facilitation team to ensure groups receive a time notice and are encouraged to be back in plenary on time. Provide extended facilitation team members who are assigned to each working group the same guidance and briefing information about time expectations.
Demonstrate time-keeping supports. When a Q&A session is opened, let people know the total time, request brief inputs, let people know how they will be notified that time is up (time cards, a bell, a facilitation team member coming to take the microphone away.)
Use "mike runners" to help manage contributions. Where microphones are limited, and you need to have mike runners, use them to help keep time. Alternate sides of the room when you take inputs, so as soon as one participant is finished a second microphone is with the next so no time is wasted.
Follow norms equally. Apply the same time management rules to everyone equally. If a senior person or particularly informed expert is able to clarify outstanding points, explain to the group why you are giving that person a little more time. Make the process decisions visible and transparent. While a key part of facilitation is gauging the group appetite for more and being flexible, that has to be within the broader parameters of design and agreements.
Special circumstances
In some cultures, communication is more oblique than others. People are used to giving a lot of background, starting with generalities, moving circuitously to the point. In time-bound processes, time can run out on such people before they complete their main thought. If you notice this happening, have a private conversation with the person and suggest how they might more effectively make full contributions to the subsequent sessions.
Case example: In a junior programme officer training in the United Nations, people from the Arab States region began to join the UN in larger numbers. Integrating people with different communication styles into an organizational culture is not a typical part of on-boarding. The expectation is people come with the skills they need. With communication, that is not always the case.
A young Arab professional in the community of practice meeting was thoughtful and wanted to contribute to each session. At the end of the first day, he came to me and asked if we could meet. He said he could tell after a day that his communication style was not going to work in the organizational context. Did I know where he could get lessons, coaching in how to adapt his communication style to the context? No such training existed at the time, and may not now. The best I could do was to offer to monitor his contributions and give him feedback at the end of the day. That feedback included:
Prepare mentally by going through what you would say in familiar circumstances. Then aim for the closing remarks and concentrate on making your key points.
Ask yourself, what do you want people to hear and take away? How do you want to see your contribution in the final record? Influence is key, not communicating for the sake of talking.
Link the point you are making to ones that came before, and to the session objective and purpose. This helps people see the relevance of it.
Respect people’s individual choices about how they manage their engagement, while encouraging them to contribute.
Tactic 11: Use embedded mechanisms to ensure equality of opportunity to engage.
Active mechanisms to equalize contributions replace the need for individual interventions. Some are visible parts of design and support: others are part of shadow facilitation. For example:
Analyze the organizational culture and assess degrees of hierarchy and openness.
Analyze the participant group and identify power dynamics. Factor them into your approach. Be prepared to raise them to the group’s attention if they are counter-productive. Protect time to open and close each day so process dimensions get addressed.
Invite representatives of less powerful groups to serve as members of the extended facilitation team, as “eyes and ears”, ensuring a channel for the perspectives, for example, of younger people, new hired, people of colour, people with disabilities, women.
When you keep speakers’ lists, note if the same people keep claiming the floor. When the pattern seems to be skewing inputs, explain that to ensure everyone is heard from you will be prioritizing those who have not yet spoken.
Directly call on individuals, inviting them to speak, share the view from their point of expertise or function.
Accept that some people are shyer or less willing to speak in public. Initiate a private conversation with them and encourage them to use other mechanisms for input – index cards, parking lot, daily feedback, direct feedback. Capture that as you get it and integrate it into the record of proceedings.
Check the work of note-takers and reporting leads, especially near the beginning. Make sure that a full spectrum of views is captured, and consolidation work does not over-emphasize the wordy but integrates views of all.
Use time cards, a bell or timer on a phone, to help speakers and the group keep track of time. When people are absorbed in a process, they can be unaware of how fast it is running. Serving as a timekeeper is not a mechanical exercise: done well, it’s attuned to the process and responsive.
Use your body in the physical space. Move closer to a speaker who won’t stop. In one event, after every other attempt to get a person to stop talking had been ignored, I walked to where he was seated and sat down beside him. He looked at me in surprise and said, “What are you doing?” I said, “I’m trying to get you to stop.” He was a little taken aback, settled when the group expressed its appreciation by clapping.
Conclusions
The experiences and tactics shared in this part of the blog series intertwine with those in the next part. Ensuring equitable opportunities for people to participate is best done as an integral part of design and with the lightest touch possible in plenary sessions. When things go well, it will seem effortless.
Action
Take some time to absorb the points made in this blog before you read the next one. Reflect on your best and worst group experiences, as a participant or as a facilitator. Try to identify the factors that influenced each.
Deepen your understanding of how to support equitable, productive processes by scanning the second part of the blog, on shadow pressures to overlook problematic behaviour. (Link).
