[acb-hsp] Dynamic Facilitation

[peter altschul]

shifts in group dynamics, with a new twist on the conventional 
bagendabband
  February 20, 2013 by rosaz
  Agenda
  Agenda.  the word is loaded with meaning, spanning both one 
realm that is extremely logical and rational, as well as another 
that is deeper, more fraught, and generally less conscious.  I 
recently made a discovery that fits somewhere in the dance 
between these two...
  This particular small group seemed to be in the throes of 
transition.  An initial bproject-manager-z leaderb structure had 
evolved and been quite helpful during an earlier phase of the 
project, yet at this point a more collaborative team leadership 
structure was being called for.  This is much clearer now, in 
hindsight.  At the time, not much was clear, except that 
something wasn't working well.  Some team members had already 
threatened to stop attending the planning and implementation 
coordination meetings led by the project manager.
  The existing meeting structure began with a circle check-in, an 
opportunity for connection that was clearly appreciated by this 
group.  Yet the energy seemed to take a nosedive whenever the 
project manager presented a long list of concerns to begin the 
"work" part of the meeting.  While the "draft agenda" was 
followed by an invitation to add any additional items she might 
have missed, this did not appear to lift the energy.
  From a purely rational perspective, agendas serve a very 
logical function of "Let's make a list of all the things we need 
to talk about, so we don't forget any of them.  Then we can 
prioritize, and start talking about them".  Yet as human beings, 
we are not just rational, and something was clearly not working 
in this situation.
  Given the time pressures of an intense implementation schedule, 
there was not much time for lengthy analysis or discussion.  
Instead, I acted on a hunch.  Even though my formal role in this 
situation was one of content expertise rather than process 
consulting, I offered an in-the-moment intervention.  "Let's NOT 
do an agenda today," I suggested.  "Instead, we can keep going 
around the circle.  Mary, as the project manager, why don't you 
start, and pick ONE item from your list ...  maybe the one that 
feels most urgent or pressing to you." Mary blinked, but chose an 
item.  "Now tell us what you think should happen with it, and 
what kind of help you would like.  So that we don't get stuck on 
any one item, if the group hasn't come up with something that 
works for you in the next five minutes, we'll go on to the next 
person and their most pressing concern.  After we go around the 
circle in this way, webll come back to any unfinished items."
  And then the group began to enthusiastically work on the issue 
that Mary had named -- they seemed ready and willing to take 
responsibility, demonstrate competence, and shoulder the work 
that needed to be done.  In three and a half minutes, the issue 
was resolved to Mary's satisfaction, and group was ready to move 
on to the next person.  We continued by having that person offer 
their most pressing concern, their initial solution idea, and any 
requests for help, as the framework for the next burst of group 
collaboration.
  By the time we had finished going around the circle in this 
manner, the group seemed fully energized and ready to go and 
continue carrying out their various responsibilities.  It also 
seemed that Mary might be starting to feel less overwhelmed and 
more supported, realizing that she wasn't the only one holding 
the concerns of the group-z-a-whole.
  However, it took a few times before the new pattern became 
clearly established.  The next time the group met, there was some 
back-and-forth about what form to use.  Despite the clear success 
of the previous meeting, a few group members were ready to 
dismiss it as an "interesting experiment" and return to the 
conventional approach of "creating an agenda" before working on 
any of the issues.  Others, however, were extremely reluctant to 
start by having the whole group listen to the project manager 
read the long list she'd prepared beforehand.  Fortunately, the 
group as a whole chose to go with what had already begun to work 
well in practice, regardless of how unconventional it might be in 
theory.
  By the end of the project, the whole team was working well in a 
collaborative leadership mode.  While itbs likely that many other 
factors contributed to this shift, I was struck by how useful it 
had felt to change the traditional "agenda" format.  I wanted to 
write about this discovery and share it with others, in case you 
find yourself in a situation where this might be a useful 
approach to take.
  Those of you already familiar with Dynamic Facilitation, might 
recognize a few parallels between that method, and my on-the-spot 
improvisation.  This team was not working on a "wicked problem" 
and there was no need (or room) for the "four charts".  However, 
I did encourage each person to offer their own "initial solution" 
to their "most pressing issue", before having the group work on 
that issue.  On a broader level, it was my own comfort and 
experience in working with DF's emergent and multiple agendas, 
that inspired me to play with variations on the conventional 
agenda format.