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

From these various approaches, we will look at three of the most common techniques, identified in Exhibit 22.1:

Technique 1: Delineation

Technique 2: Strengths and weaknesses

Technique 3: Merge

Technique 1: Delineation

After ruling out outside factors as the source of the disagreement, you will want to take the steps to determine if it is a level 1 disagreement. In essence, you want to make sure each party clearly understands the other’s alternatives. We call the process delineation. The purpose is to delineate the facts. Delineation has six steps:

Step 1: Start with Agreement Starting with agreement helps both parties see that they already have something in common. This initial agreement can serve as a bridge for constructing the final solution.

Facilitator: Let me make sure I’m understanding what I’m hearing. You seem to both agree that this is a valuable course. Is that right?

Chris: Sure, I can agree with that.

Step 2: Confirm the Source of the Disagreement Identifying the source of the disagreement shows the parties that they are not far apart, despite the fact that the discussion may have become somewhat strained:

Facilitator: Where you seem to disagree is on who should take the course.

Pat: Yes.

Step 3: Identify the Alternatives Under Discussion and Create New Ones

Once the source of the disagreement is confirmed, you then identify the alternatives that have been discussed and ask the participants to create any new ones that come to mind. If there are two alternatives, we recommend creating a two-column chart and labeling the columns with the name of each alternative. If there are more than two alternatives, you will have as many columns as you have alternatives.

Facilitator: So, Pat, you are saying everyone should take the course.

Pat: That’s right. [Facilitator labels the first column “Everyone.”]

Facilitator: And Chris, you are saying something different?

Chris: Yes. I think only key managers should take the class. [Facilitator labels the second column “Key Managers.”]

Step 4: Ask Specific Delineating Questions to Each Party For each alternative, direct specific questions at the supporter of the alternative, and record the responses on the flip chart. For most disagreements, the questions should result in the group’s understanding the following: how much it will cost, how long it will take, what is involved, and who is involved.

Facilitator: Pat, you said everyone would take the course. How many people is that?

Pat: All five hundred of our employees.

Facilitator: Would each one take the full three-day course?

Pat: Yes, that’s right.

Facilitator: How many people would be in each class?

Pat: I understand that the vendor permits up to sixteen people per class. So let’s assume that we will have fourteen to sixteen people per class.

Chris: Probably one class per month.

Facilitator: Okay, I think I’ve gotten all that down.

Step 5: Summarize the Information After getting the details for each alternative, summarize the key points at the bottom of the flip chart:

Facilitator: Let’s summarize the information that we’ve learned. With the key managers alternative, we would have eighty people trained, it would take about seven months, and we would have about $70,000 in out- of-pocket costs. For the alternative in which we train everyone in the organization, we would have five hundred people trained, and it would take eighteen months at a cost of $350,000.

The results from the delineation are shown in Exhibit 22.2.

Step 6: Take a Consensus Check Once each alternative is delineated and summarized, check to determine if consensus has been reached. If it has been reached, you will be able to move on. If it has not been reached, you will want to move to the next consensus-building technique:

Exhibit 22.2

Results of Technique 1: Delineation

Facilitator: I know that we’ve only talked about the logistical and cost details without looking at some of the other issues. But it would be helpful to get a sense of what people are thinking at this point. Based on the information we’ve talked about so far, how many people would be in favor of the first alternative: having everyone trained? And how many would be in favor of the second alternative: having only key managers trained? (pause) Well, it is clear we do not have consensus yet.

There are several points to remember when delineating alternatives:

•Delineation encourages people to listen to each other. Prior to the facilitator’s stepping in, Pat and Chris were talking at each other. The facilitator used a simple technique for getting Pat and Chris to listen. The facilitator took control of the conversation and then directed all of the questions at one person, Pat. This encouraged Chris to be quiet and listen. Then the facilitator turned and directed all of the questions at Chris, and it was Pat’s turn to listen.

•When asking the delineation questions (step 4), rather than ask the direct question (for example, “How much does this alternative cost?”), ask instead the questions that provide the information needed to answer the direct question. For example, when the facilitator wanted to know the total cost of the alternative, the facilitator first asked the questions that would help the person figure out the number of classes needed and the cost of each class. This made it much easier to figure out the total cost. In situations in which the components of cost might be complicated, it can be helpful to ask the cost question directly in the following way: “Let’s talk about costs. If we wanted to determine the costs of this alternative, what are the various components we would have to price?”

•The delineation questions focus on facts only. There are no evaluation questions (for example, “Why is that important?”) during this stage.

•I recommend waiting until you have gathered information for all alternatives before summarizing. If you summarize following each alternative, participants tend to focus on trying to ensure that their alternative “beats” the summary for the other alternatives.

Recall that delineation is designed to provide the information needed to resolve level 1 disagreements. Could this issue with Pat and Chris have been a level 1 disagreement? Certainly. For example, the discussion could have gone as follows:

Facilitator: Pat, you said everyone would take the course. How many people is that?

Pat: All five hundred of our employees.

Facilitator: Would each one take the full three-day course?

Pat: No. I would want the vendor to create a special one-day class for our people so they wouldn’t have to spend so much time away from work.

Chris: A one-day course? Why didn’t you say that? I have no problem with that.

In this case, Pat and Chris would have been in “violent agreement.” They were in agreement but did not know it. If the disagreement is truly level 1, delineation will likely resolve it by encouraging participants to take the time to understand one another.

Technique 2: Strengths and Weaknesses

If consensus has not been reached through delineation, I recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative.

Step 1: Identify the Strengths With delineation, the focus is on just the supporter of each alternative. With strengths and weaknesses, the entire group is involved:

Facilitator: Now that Pat and Chris have delineated the alternatives, let’s all identify the strengths and weaknesses of each one. This will help us better understand the alternatives and the reasons for supporting them. Let’s start with the first alternative: having everyone trained. Think about this alternative compared to the other. There are particular strengths of taking this alternative over the other one. There are particular benefits to this alternative that the other one doesn’t have. Let’s list them. What are the strengths of having everyone trained?

What about the second alternative: having only key managers trained? What are the key strengths of this alternative?

Step 2: Identify the Weaknesses Once the strengths of each alternative have been identified, have the entire group discuss the weaknesses of each alternative. The results from the strengths and weaknesses discussion are shown in Exhibit 22.3.

Exhibit 22.3

Results of Technique 2: Strengths and Weaknesses

Step 3: Take a Consensus Check Once the strengths and weaknesses have been identified for each alternative, check to determine if consensus has been reached. If consensus has been reached, you will be able to move on. If consensus has not been reached, you will move to the next consensus-building strategy.

There are several points to remember when using the strengths and weaknesses technique:

•It’s very important to get the strengths of all alternatives first before discussing the weaknesses.

•This method gives value to each alternative before the participants devalue either through the weaknesses discussion.

•For many disagreements, especially when there are only two alternatives, the weaknesses of one alternative are equivalent to the strengths of the competing alternative. Notice in our example how the weaknesses of the “everyone” alternative reflect the strengths of the “key managers only” alternative. Once the group identifies this relationship, you can save time discussing the weaknesses.

•If there are only two people involved in the discussion, we recommend having them give the strengths of the alternative they oppose. This approach encourages

active listening and helps the parties see the other side. The supporter of each alternative then adds any additional strengths that may have been missed.

•Recall that a level 2 disagreement is based on different experiences or values. When you ask people the strengths of an alternative, their responses typically represent the values they hold that result in their preferring one alternative over the other. For example, those who prefer the “everyone” alternative place greater value on common language and everyone benefiting. Those who prefer the “key managers only” alternative place greater value on saving dollars and limiting time away from the operation. Even if consensus is not reached at this stage, identifying these underlying values will provide the group with a clear basis for moving forward.

Technique 3: Merge

If the group does not reach consensus through strengths and weaknesses, the next technique we recommend is merge. Through merging, the group creates a third alternative, which combines the key strengths of the prior alternatives.

Step 1: Identify Key Strengths Start the merge process by identifying the most important strengths of each alternative:

Facilitator: Now that we have identified the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative, let’s see if we can use this information to help us come to consensus. For those who prefer the first alternative, would you raise your hand? I’m going to read through each of these strengths. When I’m done, I would like you to tell me what are the one or two most important strengths. (Reads through the strengths; places an asterisk next to the one or two most important identified by the group.) For those who prefer the second alternative, let’s do the same.

Exhibit 22.4 shows the strengths, with asterisks indicating the key strengths.

Step 2: Create One or More New Alternatives Have the group focus on the key strengths to create one or more alternatives that combine the strengths:

Facilitator: Is there a way to create a new alternative that combines these strengths? Is there an alternative that is . . . ? (reads the strengths and draws a single circle around all the key strengths)

Exhibit 22.4

Results of Technique 3: Key Strengths Identified

Note: Asterisks indicate the key strengths.

Pat: Chris, I can see how having only the key managers take the class limits the time away from work. But I would still want everyone to be exposed to the skills. What do you think of having all managers hold a twoor three-hour briefing for the members of their staff to focus on the skills they learned in the workshop?

Chris: That can work, especially if we can get the vendor to develop a briefing packet for the managers to use.

Facilitator: I’ve written that alternative. Are there other alternatives we should consider?

Step 3: Delineate the Top Alternative Have the group select the new alternative with the most promise, and delineate it:

Facilitator: Of these additional alternatives, is there one in particular that we might focus on first?

Chris: I think having the managers brief the rest of the staff is the way to go. It focuses the training on the most important group and provides a means for getting the training communicated throughout our organization.

Facilitator: Other thoughts? We seem to have strong consensus around the briefing approach. So let’s delineate this alternative to make sure we all understand how it would work.

Step 4: Take a Consensus Check Once the group has delineated the merged alternative, check to determine if consensus has been reached. If consensus has been reached, you will be able to move on. If consensus has not been reached, you will want to move to another consensus-building strategy.

There are several points to remember when using the merge technique:

•Through merge, the group creates an alternative that combines the key values of the participants. Typically, we use the three techniques in sequence. You may find, however, that the group is ready to create a short-cut through the process early and create new alternatives right away.

•Be sure to delineate the new alternative before assuming consensus. The delineation will ensure that all participants understand how the new alternative will work.

Additional Consensus Processes

Facilitators may find other techniques helpful as well.

Five-Finger Consensus This method achieves consensus-based decision making without resulting in watered-down decisions. It is often appropriate with crossfunctional teams and community groups in which there is a wide variety of interests and the desire for full consensus can potential erode the quality of the decision (Wilkinson, 2004).

With five-finger consensus, once an alternative is proposed and discussed and the group is ready to check for agreement, the facilitator explains that on the count of three, each person should hold up between one and five fingers indicating the level of support for the recommendation on the table:

5: Strongly agree

4: Agree

3: Can see pluses and minuses, but willing to go along with the group

2: Disagree

1: Strongly disagree and can’t support

If everyone shows a 5, 4 or 3, consensus has been reached, and we can move ahead. If there are any 1s or 2s, there is further discussion, and the originator of the alternative has the option to make adjustments to the alternative.