The Enlightened Manager

Better Teambuilding through Metaphors

I do a fair amount of teambuilding work, in particular in the areas of communications and conflict resolution.  And while every situation is a little different, the basic concepts are similar from one organization to another.  So I've been looking for ways to continue to make teambuilding more relevant and powerful, and I have a new idea I'm trying out.  I'll explain what it is.

Most organizations produce a certain product or service.  And the purpose of the organization can really bind the people in that company together.  Healthcare employees are motivated by health and patient care.  Aircraft manufacturer employees think about aircraft and the complexities of assembly.  Wedding planners generally enjoy thinking about weddings and event planning.

OK, so this isn't rocket science - but how can we use it?  How can we take what people do and use that information to help them learn?

This is my experiment. I'm putting together a series of teambuilding sessions right now for a group of healthcare workers.  So in building the sessions, I'm using the metaphor of the human body and health to engage them with the material. 

"What makes a body healthy" as likened to "What makes a healthy team." for example.

What I suspect is that by tying the concepts of communication and trust to concepts they are already familiar with, the material will have a freshness and relevance that goes a little deeper than "Let's talk about the communications cycle." 

Could employees at a sports arena benefit from discussing teambuilding using the example of how a world-class sports team works together?   Could aerospace engineers use the metaphor of "helping a plane take flight" to better understand their interdependence?

I think so.  I feel so.  I'll let you know what feedback I get, if any.

If you have anything to add to this post please leave a comment or send me an email.

Effective Meetings: A Case Study

Today I'm going to share a consulting story with you.  One of the things I love best about my work is being able to experience the incredible variety of organizational cultures that I interact with.  Sharing some of these experiences is one of the things I particularly enjoy doing here on this blog.

So today I was facilitating a discussion about organizational improvement in an organization here in Seattle.  The company decided to do this work in the context of a regular staff meeting, so I was able to sit back and observe how people interact.  I've been to a lot of staff meetings in my life but this one was particularly impressive.  Here are some of the factors that stood out:

They had Rotating Leadership
One thing this company did is to rotate the responsibility for facilitating the meeting.  Each session, someone new comes up and runs the meeting with the support of the HR executive.  This has the effect of building up the facilitation skills of the workforce while it encourages everyone to share in the leadership of the team.

They Laughed Often
Another element of this team is that they used humor to bond the team together.  The facilitator was a funny guy to begin with (Think starting off your staff meeting with wisdom from Homer Simpson) and there was plenty of laughter and gentle self-deprecation in the meeting.

They all Chipped In Without Complaint
The team also demonstrated a habit of helping each other out as a matter of course.  For example, when the team convened there were large stacks of mailing materials on the tables.  As people sat down, they automatically began stuffing envelopes.  By the time the meeting was five minutes in, an incredible amount of "busy work" had been completed.  No one seemed to find this kind of work demeaning or bothersome.

They Planned for Gratitude
This one impressed the heck out of me.  Shortly after the meeting started, the facilitator invited everyone to express any thanks that they had.  Suddenly, team members began to speak up.  These are the kinds of comments I heard:

"I'd like to thank Joe for helping me by filling in while I was on vacation."

"I'd like to thank Maggie for pulling me out of the fire last week when my computer broke down - she helped me get my reports printed when I was stuck."

"I want to recognize Accounting for pulling all those customer reports for my group - it was a lot of work and they were very thorough."

Was this series of "thank you's" a special event?  No, this time takes time for gratitude at every staff meeting.  Saying "thanks" to members of the team is a routine part of how they operate.

They Reported Successes
During the meeting, there was special attention paid to successes.  "These three employees referred new clients" and "We sold all the tickets to the conference." for example.  Each success was met with appreciation and smiles.

They Kept it Brief
No one at this meeting provided a laundry list of what they were working on, listed status reports for the sake of status reports, or rambled.  The meeting was brief, on target, and lighthearted.  To keep the meeting relevant, individual teams (HR, Customer Service, etc) each met *after* the main meeting to talk about departmental issues.  The whole team meeting focused on what applied to the whole team.

To walk into the room with this team was to feel that you were in the midst of a group of people who genuinely respect and enjoy each other.  No team is perfect, and I don't doubt that there are sometimes challenges or hard moments, but the overall tone was one of positive action.

And I admit that I'm especially entranced by that idea of taking time each meeting to recognize and thank others.  What a powerful action!  What would your team be like if they took the time to say "thank you" on a regular basis like this? 

I hope you enjoyed this 'case study' into effective meetings.  If you have a response to this post or your own stories to tell, leave a comment below. 

Do Executives require "Special" Facilitation?

I've had an interesting experience the last few weeks dealing with organizational leadership.  The theme has been this:  I am approached by an organization looking to have some sort of a group meeting or facilitation involving members of upper management.  That is when people begin speaking to me in capital letters.

"Cheri, we'd like someone to facilitate our SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM" they say.  Or they say this: "The group will include members from our EXECUTIVE TEAM.  Do you have experience facilitating members of an EXECUTIVE TEAM?"  After these sentences there is often a dramatic pause - as if they are waiting for me to express shock and awe or perhaps even humility at being chosen for such an honored task.  I'm honored to work with all of my clients of course - but it doesn't have much to do with titles.

When people speak in capital letters it always interests me.  The first thing I notice is that clearly they are setting this group "SENIOR LEADERSHIP TEAM" apart as a special group.  The second thing I notice is that they feel that these people require special handling as part of who they are.  As I sense waves of intimidation roll off of my clients, I begin to feel like I am being prepared to enter a room containing a public health hazard - like Ebola.

Are special skills needed to facilitate senior leaders?  You could make a case for saying yes.  Senior leaders are known for having strong individual personalities and agendas - so this is a consideration.  Senior leaders may resist facilitation - wanting to run the meeting without external interference - so this is a consideration too.  Senior leaders may, in situations where they are in mixed company, intimidate the snot out of other participants, so this is a factor.  But these forces can be present in any group interaction, regardless of the seniority of the participants.  So the environment is not as unique as it may appear.

Yes, I've done group work with senior leadership teams.   And you know what I've noticed?  They are human beings like anyone else.  They have strengths and flaws just like you and I do.  And they don't require a great deal of special handling - although they have a propensity to believe they need it.  They want a facilitator who has "worked with people at my level", but as much as I hate to burst a bubble (actually, I don't) a group facilitation with a group of executives uses pretty much the same skills as a group facilitation with a room full of truck drivers.  People are people.  Group dynamics, while far from universal, tend to follow a certain number of patterns.   Executives may have a certain slant to their group dynamics, but what group doesn't?

Always curious, I asked a contact of mine at one of these companies what was so intimidating or special about meeting with senior leaders.  This is the answer I got. (I'm paraphrasing)

"We know that these leaders are incredibly good at what they do, and that they are quick to make judgments.  The fear is that if we go and contribute - and we make an ass of ourselves - that due to their influence and power these leaders may limit our success at the company.  And because they are so impressive, we know that the chance of us looking unintelligent is higher than it normally would be.  So that is why it is intimidating."

So this makes sense from an insiders perspective.  But what should a third party facilitator be thinking about?

My observation is that paradoxically, a challenge in facilitating leadership teams is often the lack of group leadership in the teams coupled with a lack of collaboration skills.  Think about it - in any other group there is usually going to be a leader-given directive about what the team is to accomplish, and in the case the team stagnates there is going to be a leader who is going to make the final call.  So non-executive teams have the authority above them to rely on to force group progress.  To put it simply, a King may tell his court what to do, but when you get a room full of Kings, who has the authority to direct the group? CEOs sometimes fill this gap but most CEOs rightly spurn directing, preferring instead to have executives bring solutions forward.

Team leadership and collaboration issues are not unique in the facilitation world.  Plenty of groups face these challenges. You can begin to address them by allowing time for some teambuilding as part of the facilitation, as well as having some highly directed conversations about "how this team will make decisions" before you dive into the material.

So do Executives require "Special" facilitation? I think the answer is no. Good facilitation starts with a design (facilitation plan) aimed towards supporting the group towards it's goals, a strong base of facilitation skills, and with a commitment to treat all participants with equal respect.  I don't know about you, Enlightened Managers, but when I walk into the room intimidated by someone it's harder to focus on what matters....

Like being a good Facilitator for example?

Let's give our senior leaders the respect of treating them like regular human beings. Dancing around them like they are made of glass serves nothing but the false gods of ego and fear, and we can do better.  I know it is easier to say this as an outsider looking in - but I think it's a goal worth striving for.

To our North American Readers - Happy Thanksgiving.

Effective Meetings: Tips and Tricks

If there is one thing I've always hated about meetings, it is that they tend to veer between extremes.  Some meetings practically use parliamentary procedure.  While it may be fun in a cheesy way to stand up and exclaim "Point of Order!" importantly during a staff meeting, such stiff practices tend to sap all of the life out of meetings.   On the other extreme are the meetings that are poorly organized and that seem to go nowhere.  People agree to do things but no one remembers what, and no one is sure why the meeting is there to begin with.

Here are a few tips that come from my experience facilitating groups as well as my general distaste for meetings that "suck" (to use the colloquial term).

1. Have a clear purpose.  - Avoid meetings which are just "on the calendar" for the sake of it, or meetings in which people update each other for the sake of updating each other.  Meetings should be topical, and should include only the people necessary.  If you feel beholden to have a team meeting simply to see each other's faces, have a topic for discussion at least.  Don't let your meetings devolve into the "lets listen to everyone talk about their jobs for five minutes each then break."

2. Set Ground Rules -  I know they seem lame sometimes.  But ground rules, when generated by the group and not by a single leader, reflect what the team expects from each other.  Make them practical.  "Don't be late" isn't a ground rule - it's a useless nag device.  "We start and end on time, and don't spend time catching people up" is practical.  If you meet regularly with a group, set ground rules early and keep them posted.

3. Track Accountabilities - I personally loathe the notion of the "minutes taker" who scribbles for the sake of creating paper, but there should *always* be a process for tracking decisions and who is accountable for what.  A good way is to keep a running tabulation on a sheet of flip chart paper and have one person email the list out immediately after the meeting.  By the way, you need to CHECK IN on those accountabilities at the next meeting or they are useless.

4.  Have a Facilitator. -  Have one person responsible for controlling the meeting process.  This person should keep the meeting on target, hold participants accountable to the ground rules, make sure someone is tracking accountabilities, and (ideally) help to manage tension in the group.  Even if you are not a group dynamics expert, just start by holding the meeting "strings" and helping things move along.  Make sure the group knows who the facilitator is and what their role means.

5.  Keep a "Parking Lot" - In short, when something is raised that is not in the scope of the meeting, document that "something" for later action.  Don't get diverted. Often times this is simply a sheet of paper called the "Parking Lot."  Items on this list should be assigned (via the accountabilities list) or crossed off at the end of the meeting.  Don't let your parking lots collect dust.  Be decisive.

6.  Talk about the meeting itself. - Take the last 5-10 minutes to evaluate the meeting and the team members.  Did you stick to your ground rules?  Did you meet your purpose for the meeting?  Did you track accountabilities?  What could have gone better?  What went very well?  This brief "check-in" will keep your meetings on an improvement track.

Six tips.  You may have heard of these before.  But are you applying them consistently? When used regularly, these tips will help keep your meeting on track.  You don't even need a gavel!

But if you really want one... go for it.  You have my blessing.

Effective Meetings: Advocacy vs. Inquiry

Today I'd like to talk about meetings.  They can be terrible, can't they? I'm thinking back to one particularly terrible meeting I was in.  The situation was that we had come together to discuss the course of action for a particular project.  We all knew without a doubt what our boss wanted us to do.  We all knew without a doubt that even if we said what we truly felt, we'd be shot down or discounted.  So we remained silent. 

Our boss got more and more frustrated with us.   We weren't participating!  We weren't showing any team spirit!  We were making him look bad in front of his boss because of our general malaise!  His face turned red, and his remarks grew caustic.  So what happened?  We participated even less.  It was supposed to be a meeting, but we all sat there waiting for a bomb to drop.  The tension was terrible.

Ever been to a meeting like this?  Or another kind of horrible meeting? Most of us have.  And I'm guessing O Enlightened Manager that you don't ever want to make the kinds of mistakes my boss did. So let's talk about one aspect of meeting facilitation: the balance between advocacy and inquiry.

Advocacy - Advocating a point of view.  Stating your Opinion.  Defending your Opinion. 
Inquiry -  Asking questions.  Seeking to understand other points of view.  Withholding judgment.

You can make your meetings more effective by creating a balance of advocacy and inquiry.  Most of us recognize an all-advocacy meeting.  It runs like a presidential debate!  Everyone talks over each other.  No one tries to understand the other perspectives

Letting go of Advocacy (even temporarily) can feel threatening.  It is natural to say "But what if I lose my chance to speak?"  While this worry is natural, keep in mind you're not giving up advocacy forever.  What you are striving for is balance.

As an external facilitator, my role in a meeting is 90% or more Inquiry.  As a non-participant, it's not my job to make decisions, but to help the team make their own.  As a facilitative leader, you'll be served well by increasing the percentage of the time you spend inquiring.  When a leader uses inquiry well, it sets an environment where others can listen and contribute without fear of reprisal.  It can also result in more creative ideas, better team communication, and a greater willingness to engage.

Enlightened Homework:  At your next team meeting, take a sheet of paper and divide it into two columns.  Make a tick mark in one column each time you advocate.  Make a tick mark in the other column each time you inquire.  Look at your pattern. Does it change depending upon who is in the room?  Is there an opportunity to include more inquiry in your style? 

Enlightened Tip:  The Advocacy/Inquiry exercise is one that you can do with your team.  Assign a team member to track the group's balance and report back.  Experiment by asking a few team members (or yourself) take an inquiry-only role for a particular meeting.  How does that change the dynamic?

Enlightened Warning:  "Have you considered doing it this way?...." is not inquiry.  It is possible to advocate by clever questioning.  The intent is what matters, not the sentence structure.

Getting to Consensus

Let's begin our conversation around consensus by dispelling a common myth.  Consensus does not mean that everyone is in agreement.  Consensus does not mean that everyone is enthusiastic about a particular course of action.  Consensus means that a group of people has come up with a decision or plan that everyone can live with.  That means that there may be people who can live with the decision who are nonetheless not thrilled about it.

Consensus is powerful because it builds commitment through discussion.  Here is a simple "five-finger" method you can use to experiment with consensus in your work team.  Once a plan or decision is suggested (often after some discussion) each person holds up a hand to indicate their level of agreement.

Five fingers (open hand) - I agree

Four Fingers - I agree with some mild reservations, but I don't want to stop the team because of my reservations.

Three Fingers - I can live with it.  I have some concerns, but if we move forward I will support the efforts of the group.

Two Fingers - I disagree.  I think this is an inadequate decision and I feel uncomfortable with it.  If we go forward, I want my disagreement to be formally noted.

One Finger - Veto - I want to block this decision.

General Consensus usually means that everyone present has at least two fingers up, and that the majority have more fingers up.  A uniform showing of twos and threes indicate lukewarm support, and probably is a signal that getting a lot of energy or action around implementation is a problem.

Absolute Consensus means that everyone is in agreement.  This generally means all 4s or 5s.  If there is a divisive issue which is going to require full team support to be successful, making a commitment to reach absolute consensus means that unless there is a decision that everyone agrees with and can support, no action will be taken.

Using the five finger method provides a quick tally of where everyone is at.  After the initial discussion about the proposed decision, take a count.  If the response is generally positive (mostly 4s and 5s, with some lower numbers) ask those with lower numbers to explain their concerns.  They should not be made to feel defensive.  Consensus is about shared understanding - not power plays, so as manager/facilitator your role is to help the team understand each other's points of view and share ideas.  If you find yourself tempted to go with a "majority rules" approach, consensus is not a good method for you.

If you get lots of low numbers, you can discuss them, but the chances are the proposed action will have very low support.  If consensus is very low, you may wish to explore other options.

Enlightened Homework:  Think about the kinds of conversations you have in your work team.  Are there any times when consensus might be appropriate?  What would it be like to propose consensus based decision making?  What do you think would be different if you tried it?

Touchy-Feely Consultants

I'd be lying if I said I've never made fun of the so-called "touchy-feely" consultants.  I remember watching a few presentations back in my HR days where consultants asked participants to do some of the following:

"Pass the talking stick."
"Close your eyes and visualize with me..."
"Speak from your heart..."
"Now you're going to make a collage..."
"Reach out and take the hands of the two people nearest to you...."

I remember suppressing an eye roll at these moments.  For one, I couldn't imagine how making a collage would have anything to do with getting the business results we were looking for, and for another I wasn't remotely interested in holding some hokey talking stick and discussing my feelings.  My feelings were personal dangit - this was about work!

Over the years, I've had a shift in my perspective.  In a logical sense, I've realized that while it is natural in our culture to separate our feelings and our personhood from our thoughts about business - that business success is most often driven by these very same feelings.  Business is about results yes, but those results are achieved by people.  People do happen to have personalities, feelings, preferences, and fears/dreams.  Tapping into these things does make a certain amount of sense.

As I've had an opportunities to work with some of these "touchy feely consultants" over the years I've noticed a surprising thing.  They come into an organization with their talking stick and art supplies, and when they leave the organization an actual change has taken place.  By tapping parts of the mind that we often ignore in professional life- these professionals are remarkably skilled in creating meaningful business results.

That is why you'll occasionally see CEOs crawling around on the linoleum with their executive staff building a mural in a strategic planning session, or a group of aeronautical engineers working to create a skit that represents how their planning process could be different in the future.  While these processes can seem "silly" to some (as they used to seem to me), they are about far more than fun - they are about results.

Am I a touchy feely consultant?  Probably not quite.  I don't think you'll see me asking a group to honor the talking stick or doing group meditations.  But I have realized that many of the creative-fun methods used by professional consultants are powerful tools for change.  And you know what - if ANY method (yes, even the reviled talking stick) means my clients will be better prepared to achieve their goals I'm going to find a way to use it.  Even if it means I'm a little more touchy feely than I used to be. 

But I'll let you in on a secret.  If I see a participant suppressing an eye roll in the corner of the room, I'll have a little smile for them.  I understand that perspective - I've been there myself.

Article: Kicking Off Effective Meetings

How do you start a meeting in a way that enables everyone to be fully "present" at the meeting, rather than just thinking about everything else that is going on in their lives?

In our meeting-heavy lives, managers often struggle with days when they move from one meeting to the next, with little time to debrief or get ready.  This can lead to trouble when you are running a meeting of your own and you need undivided attention!

Today's article: Kicking Off Effective Meetings (click to access it) is all about getting all of the "baggage" that people come to meetings with out of the way, so you can focus on the task at hand.   There is a simple technique, called "check-in" to help facilitate that.

This technique requires practice, but the article will get you off to a good start.

Facilitation Basics

This post includes some introductory information about using facilitation in your leadership role.

Principle One: Facilitators "hold the process"

This means that as a facilitative leader, you can think of yourself as creating a structure or container for the process of doing group work to occur. Some ways that you create this structure include:  Describing the work to be done, Setting Timelines, Establishing a Decision Making Method, Setting Ground Rules, and Keeping the Discussion Moving.

For example:  Jane is bringing together her team to create a proposal for a new workflow process.  Jane starts the meeting by describing the assigned task and the due date.  She also mentions that the group will use consensus as the main decision making method.  Jane sets some ground rules for the meetings, which includes starting on time, everyone participates, and other rules.

Note:  Because Jane is a facilitative leader, not an outside facilitator, she will probably come up with these things herself and then ask the team for input on them.

Principle Two - Facilitators encourage participation

The main point of group work is to harness the power of a team, which can be much greater than a single person's perspective.  Thus facilitators use methods to get the most out of the group - and encourage participation.

Jane starts each meeting by going around the room and asking each group member to make a comment about what they are thinking that they want to share with the group.  Jane also builds the agenda for each meeting using feedback from the group.  When the group discussions seem to be dominated by one or two loud voices, Jane pauses and asks for those who are not speaking to contribute.

Principle Three:  Facilitators are careful about swaying the group.

Particularly when a leader is facilitating, there is a big risk that when the leader speaks up with an opinion others are less likely to offer their own.

Jane waits for the group to have its say before she ventures her own opinions, preferring to get the full wisdom of the group before she influences the decisions.  Jane knows that the group may have better ideas than her own, and she wants to create an environment for participation.

Principle Four:  Facilitators balance task and process.

In facilitation, there is a balance between the task and the process.  The facilitator does his/her best to serve both of these.  There is a classic joke about a man told to cut down a particular tree.  He is too busy cutting it down to listen to his coworker who points out they are in the wrong forest.

Jane has observed that Mark always wants to get right to making a decision.  Certainly with timelines being tight there is limited time for discussion.  Jane strives to find a balance between time spent making decisions and time spent making sure the group is asking the right questions.  Jane cautions the group about rushing into action before they are ready.

Principle Five:  Facilitators go beyond the words

Probably one of the most challenging parts of facilitation is learning how to observe more than what is being said.  Good facilitators observe what is being ignored, what body language is indicating, and even how people say what they say.  This takes practice, but can deepen the discussion.

Jane noticed that when she suggested a certain course of action, several group members crossed their arms or averted their eyes.  She said "I noticed that some of you crossed your arms when I mentioned that.  Can you tell me how you feel about this option?"  One staff member volunteered that the option Jane presented was a poor one because it wouldn't be supported by the larger employee group.  Jane knew that sometimes body language offers clues when people are not comfortable speaking up.

Next time we'll discuss when facilitation is a good option for a leader.

Facilitation or Leadership?

In my experiences working with clients recently the issue of facilitation versus leadership has come up often.  What really is the difference between the two?  And are they really the same thing?

Recently I heard a snippet from a Futurist, someone who analyzes trends and predicts the future with uncanny accuracy.  He said that in the future, formal managers will become facilitators, and that the organization will no longer have leadership positions as such. (I lost his name but will look for it.)

So where does facilitation end and leadership begin? 

It is helpful to start with some practical definitions of each:

A facilitator helps the thing he/she is facilitating to happen.  Think of a facilitator as a midwife.  The midwife is not giving birth, but he/she is helping the child be born.  Facilitators are often seen leading meetings, holding planning retreats, or "midwifing" change in an organization.  Facilitators can be participants, but the clearest form of facilitation is when the facilitator remains distinct from those in the process itself.  The group, not the facilitator, is ultimately responsible for the results from their efforts.

The manager has formal authority over the people he/she supervises.  This includes helping them achieve their goals, dictating who does what, and rewarding/punishing as a means to get things done.  The manager is ultimately responsible for the results of the people they manage.

As organizations become more flexible to adapt to changing environments and internal conditions, they will need leaders who are equally flexible.  They'll also need non-managers who are self-motivated, bent on learning for improvement, and often self-directed.  So where does that leave you as a manager?

The most effective leaders of the future will be skilled facilitators.   Leading through facilitation is different than traditional leadership, because the responsibility for results is held within the full team, not one person.  Additionally, facilitation bypasses the clunky tools of carrot and stick (punishment and motivation) in favor of group-generated meaning.  This means that the group, being facilitated, is involved in setting goals and direction, a pursuit which is rewarding.  Facilitative leadership is by nature participative.  This is more difficult, because it requires a high degree of maturity and skill in the non-managers in the group, but it is also full of benefits because many traditional management challenges (people who do the minimum, hiding errors, losing data due to centralized decision making, slowness to change) can evaporate.

So, how does one develop facilitative skills? The next few posts will discuss leadership as facilitation in more detail.