Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

participants are neutral parties whose concern is with performing their respective roles employing creative practices. The creative promise of this process design is cultivated by minimizing constraints to group creativity and maximizing divergent thinking (see Jarboe, 1999).

Procedural Communication Analysis The activities, episodes, and acts of synectics are well detailed from the sequence of steps to specific language used in performing communication acts (see Jensen and Chilberg, 1991 or Ulschak, Nathanson, and Gillan, 1981, for more detailed summary). There are three activities: problem analysis, solution development, and solution planning. The second two activities can be repeated in efforts to generate additional solutions. Each activity has several episodes with specific communication protocols that can be repeated as needed to develop tenable solutions. The problem analysis activity begins with an episode that occurs prior to the group meeting when the facilitator works with the client using several scripted questions to discern the problem background, unworkable solutions, and desired results and establish the problem in a how-to form (for example, how to make a frame for a portable solar mirror). When the group is assembled, this analytic episode is repeated; the participants sit together listening to the client’s answers to the facilitator’s questions. While listening, the participants are instructed to engage in an informationseeking episode to acquire additional information or clarification. At the same time, participants engage in a solution development activity by generating ideas silently in the form of metaphorical how-to statements (for example, how to use a sky hook, how to use a spoon). They use the problem analysis information along with the client’s implied wishes and needs to reframe the problem regardless of how strange or unusual the reframing might be.

The participants’ how-to statements set up the beginning of the solution development activity. First, the facilitator initiates an idea-seeking episode by soliciting and listing the participants’ how-to ideas for the client’s review. Second, the facilitator engages the client in a choice-seeking episode and explanatory act by selecting a how-to statement that stands out and explains why it was chosen. Third, for the selected statement, the facilitator solicits ideas for solutions from the client and then the participants. This idea-giving episode calls for descriptive and explanatory communication acts where the facilitator coaches participants to work on one idea at a time, build on an initial idea, and credit the previous person for the contribution. This approach to solution development promotes both task and

relational features of the group process by encouraging attention to one idea at a time while acknowledging participants’ contributions. Creative behavior, preventing negative judgment of others, and acknowledgment of ideas can promote group morale and member satisfaction (see Jarboe, 1999).

Once an idea is formed, an evaluation-seeking episode ensues where the client in asked to engage in evaluative acts using the spectrum policy (Prince, 1970). Solution evaluation involves three steps, which require the client to paraphrase the solution, describe all of its positive features, and then state what, if anything, he would wish to see added to it. This approach to evaluation reinforces productive task and supportive relational outcomes by first checking on the client’s understanding of the idea, followed by identifying what works for the client while confirming the contributions of the participants. In addition, the client’s concerns with the solution are not stated in a negative manner but posed as additional features for a viable solution. These desired features set up a feedback loop where the participants are asked how to modify the initial solution to make it more workable for the client, followed by a reevaluation of the modified solution with additional cycles of how-to’s and reevaluation as needed. This process avoids the problems associated with the emphasis on negative aspects of a solution that can lead to dropping it prematurely. It also prevents the dampening of enthusiasm and creativity associated with evaluation and negative criticism (see Jarboe, 1999).

Once the client perceives a possible solution, the process moves into the solution development activity where the client is asked to determine if the solution is a new idea, next steps for implementation, and if there are any residual concerns with the solution. If there are any residual concerns, the facilitator asks the client and participants for how-to’s that could resolve the concern, followed by a cycle of the client evaluation and solution planning activities. When a possible solution is developed, or should a cycle fail to provide a possible solution, the facilitator asks the client to pick another metaphoric how-to and the process, activities, and episodes are repeated.

Synectics, unlike most other process designs, not only identifies process activities and episodes but also establishes the specific phrasing of key communication acts to promote fruitful task and relational results. The design promotes the task aspects of group problem solving in many ways, most notably through structuring and coordinating problem-solving interaction, separating the creative and evaluative roles, and employing feedback loops to develop viable solutions. The most notable relational features are associated with the consistent opportunities for

participation, acknowledgment of participants’ ideas, and elimination of negative idea evaluation. These features can motivate participation and support creative thinking that can contribute to productive and satisfying problem-solving events.

ENHANCING FACILITATION EFFECTIVENESS

Effective group facilitation is not solely dependent on the process design but is determined by selecting a process design that fits the task demands, builds constructive relationships, and considers group circumstances. Regardless of the procedures used to facilitate group decision making, consideration of the interrelated and interdependent nature of the task and relational dimensions of communication can help maximize decision-making effectiveness. The analytical scheme presented here provides a means for examining a process design for its inherent activities, episodes, and acts for fit with the meeting event. Conducting a procedural communication analysis also aids with preparing for implementation by detailing the communication requirements of the facilitator and group members. The facilitator is better able to rehearse the communication demands of the process design and prepare instructional episodes for group members. Most important, a communication perspective sensitizes the facilitator to message behaviors and the message-person relationship. Being able to see the task and relational functions of messages inherent in the procedural activities, episodes, and acts helps in identifying when members are off-procedure and why. It promotes critical awareness of messages in the unfolding process of group communication. It can help in recognizing when interventions are needed to bring communication back on track or what element of a process design needs modification. The more one is aware of the implications of messages and acts in the moment, the more one is able to respond in ways that maximize the benefits of task and relational communication, the main ingredients of effective group facilitation.

1.Demonstrate effective participatory and interpersonal communication skills.

•Applies a variety of participatory processes

•Demonstrates effective verbal communication skills

•Develops rapport with participants

•Practices active listening

•Demonstrates ability to observe and provide feedback to participants

2.Honor and recognize diversity, ensuring inclusiveness.

•Encourages positive regard for the experience and perception of all participants

•Creates a climate of safety and trust

153

•Creates opportunities for participants to benefit from the diversity of the group

•Cultivates cultural awareness and sensitivity

3.Manage group conflict.

•Helps individuals identify and review underlying assumptions

•Recognizes conflict and its role within group learning and maturity

•Provides a safe environment for conflict to surface

•Manages disruptive group behavior

•Supports the group through resolution of conflict

4.Evoke group creativity.

•Draws out participants of all learning and thinking styles

•Encourages creative thinking

•Accepts all ideas

•Uses approaches that best fit needs and abilities of the group

•Stimulates and taps group energy

154

David Sibbet

Facilitation is the art of leading group process toward agreed-on outcomes in ways that elicit participation, creativity, and ownership from everyone involved. At its heart is the art of calling out the wisdom in groups and guiding individuals into fully participating and

collaborating in creating solutions and results for themselves.

Graphic facilitation has become especially effective at achieving these kinds of facilitative results reliably. It is most commonly distinguished by large visual displays used to interactively record and visualize group thinking. Because everything is recorded publicly and open to feedback and correction, it is one of the most direct ways to make group processes explicit and accessible. The conscious employment of imagery, graphic metaphor, and structured group displays lets people literally see what they mean. Practitioners find that this way of working predictably increases participation, systems-level thinking, memorability, and group ownership.

While good facilitation practice is similar across different styles, the effects of working with panoramic visuals are dramatic and worth understanding. The demands on a facilitator when working graphically are different from nongraphic facilitation options in important respects. There are initial challenges of simply figuring out how to use the trademark tools of markers, wall space, and large white

155

paper or graphic templates. The discipline involves helping people make visual sense out of their information by listening for and reflecting the mental models and patterns of understanding that guide the process of making meaning out of what is being said.

This chapter introduces the tools and best practices of graphic facilitation. It begins by describing a meeting that epitomizes the promise in graphic facilitation as a way to support multisector meetings and almost any group facing complex communication challenges. (There is also a growing field of graphic recording, to support large meetings and other processes where the graphics are not always front and center but used for rich documentation. This chapter is not intended to treat graphic recording, although many of the observations are relevant.)

UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY:

A VISIONARY CHALLENGE

The forty-five environmental and foundation leaders coming to the first Roots of Change (ROC) advisory board meeting in the spacious Irvine Foundation conference center in downtown San Francisco were greeted by two panoramas. One was a wall of windows facing the San Francisco Bay. The other was a thirty-foot-long mural with a big title, “What Is a Sustainable Food System?” Across the chart at the bottom was a suggestive map of California, drawn in bird’s-eye view with markers and chalk. In the middle was a smaller poster with an image of a large wheel of influences. A large U-shaped conference table faced the nearly blank mural.

This first ROC advisory board meeting was convened by a small consortium of funders frustrated with their attempts to support more sustainable approaches to agriculture in California. They decided to pool their efforts to tackle projects that might help change the entire system of thinking surrounding sustainable food systems. Because the topic was immensely complex and out of the general public’s focus of attention, success would depend on expanding their core group to include a larger network of advisers experienced in environmental and agricultural matters. These advisers would help shape the giving policies of their ROC Fund and help stimulate projects.

The Challenge of Engaging Participation and Understanding

The funders faced a classic set of challenges. They had already met for months refining their own understanding of the need. They knew that any change needed to be systemic, because farmers, wholesalers, retail stores, agriculture policymakers, bankers, and other players are very interdependent. They also needed to engage the public imagination. And they had to convey the complexity and think about the subject within the context of a one-day meeting.

Need for a Map of the Larger Context

The funders already had an image of the system, in the form of a wheel with peapod spokes. The rim was a series of factors that make up the food system. But the image was very abstract. “Why don’t we work with this image, but begin this first advisory board meeting with a more freeform mapping of what everyone in attendance thinks a sustainable food system is?” I suggested. “This will engage everyone, prime them for listening, and honor the breadth of experience you are bringing to the table. Instead of pushing information at people, let’s draw it out.” I described the possibility of creating a thirty-foot-long display across the shorter end of the conference room.

The idea of creating a California-wide map across the whole front of the room was accepted and came to be the opening activity at the advisory board meeting. It proved to be a perfect choice.

The Power of Large Group Dialogue

A member of the funder’s group used the chart showing the peapod wheel to share the reasons for expanding the scope of the ROC effort. This introductory chart was then moved aside, and we revealed the larger map that would be used for the morning deliberations.

I initially framed the exploration with a review of the reason for picking a graphic format and the key question that would drive the drawing and the question: What Are Sustainable Food Systems? People were encouraged to begin identifying some of the constituent elements, stimulated by the peapod chart, and talk about their relation to the larger picture.

An initial contribution described the primary system as it stands today, with production, processors, buyers, and retailers linked in a commonly understood supply chain. I focused in on that which addressed the explicit theme and its implicit components—in this case, elements involved in a sustainable food system and a characterization of the relationship between these elements. I wrote “PRIMARY SYSTEM” on the chart, picking a red color that would be used only for the other elements of a sustainable food system so they would stand out when the chart was more complete. In another color, I diagrammed the value chain being described.

Because we were working visually, the group members could literally see what they were discussing. They could choose to add comments or make changes in order to achieve a shared understanding.

As others spoke, I repeated the process of listening for constituent elements, using people’s actual words, and leaving space for them to have confidence that their perspective was visible for all to see.

The chart grew in complexity as categories and data were added in different places. Since everyone watched the process unfold, they could follow the pattern. At strategic times, I reviewed the chart and asked for more detail and other elements. Everyone was completely engaged. The give and take, communication, and instant feedback took on a rhythm and direction.

Although this meeting was unique, we experienced the excitement and engagement that I have come to expect from cocreating a single, huge, panoramic map of the relevant environment. The group was stimulated by the increasing array of data that they could now remember, revisit, compare, and find patterns within.

Results for the ROC Advisory Board

This context map, when completed, was transferred to the window side of the room, where it remained visible as a reminder of the larger system the ROC Fund was supporting. The meeting continued for a full day, surfacing suggestions for initial focus of the fund, polling to narrow choices, further discussion, and initial agreements. All these exchanges were recorded graphically on new charts. The initial session succeeded in involving everyone.