Adapting facilitation tools to a post-truth, trust deficit era

1. An Introduction and Preview of a 4-part series

Adapting facilitation tools is about how I have had to adapt my normal facilitation tools and techniques to deal with a public full of suspicious and distrustful individuals and organizations. A public that is immersed in the Internet of Things that is bloated with fake research, alternative facts, and endless streams of misinformation animated by ‘influencers’ and bloggers and bots.

I tweaked these traditional tools to ‘nudge’ participants into suspending their suspicions temporarily until I can convince them that I am on the up-and-up. I am not trying to convince the participants to adopt the policy/issue/project that is under consideration. I am trying to persuade them to gradually give me the benefit of the doubt and trust me as the (their) facilitator. 

The underlying science in an evidence-based search for solutions to the policy/issue/project under consideration was central to my meetings/workshops/advisory committees/retreats/etc. I incorporated scientists, experts, consultants in every meetings/workshops/etc. I used them to present the existing knowledge as the starting point for the discussions and whenever there was a need to break an impasse or resolve a controversy, they were my ‘go to’ resource. Now, science has lost some of its power to persuade. The New Yorker published an article entitled “The Mistrust of Science’:

• “Despite increasing education levels, the public’s trust in the scientific community has been decreasing. This is particularly true among conservatives, even educated conservatives. In 1974, conservatives with college degrees had the highest level of trust in science and the scientific community. Today, they have the lowest.
• Today, we have multiple factions putting themselves forward as what Gauchat describes as their own cultural domains, “generating their own knowledge base that is often in conflict with the cultural authority of the scientific community.” Some are religious groups (challenging evolution, for instance). Some are industry groups (as with climate skepticism). Others tilt more to the left (such as those that reject the medical establishment). As varied as these groups are, they are all alike in one way. They all harbor sacred beliefs that they do not consider open to question.” (“The Mistrust of Science” , Atul Gawande, The New Yorker, June, 2016)

After this Introduction and Preview, I will present the suite of my adapted approaches and tools In four subsequent chapters. These four chapters will be published on Linkedin, one chapter every week or so. I have used a numbering system to declare a change in topics because Linkedin software has a limited capacity to indent or increase font sizes that I normally use to signal a change.

2. The RAND Corporation called this phenomenon “Truth Decay”

The RAND’s pun describes a phenomenon that is, unfortunately, more than a passing fad and one that makes rational discussions difficult. Kellyanne Conway’s (a White House communication advisor) ‘alternative facts’ was an indirect rebuttal of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s famous saying “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

“The line between fact and fiction in American public life is becoming blurred. ...Where basic facts and well-supported analyses of these facts were once generally accepted — such as the benefit of using vaccines to protect health — disagreement about even objective facts and well-supported analyses has swelled in recent years. In addition, a growing number of Americans view the U.S. government, media, and academia with new skepticism. These developments drive wedges between policymakers and neighbors alike. (“Truth Decay: A threat to Policymaking and Democracy”, Michael Rich and Jennifer Kavanagh, The RAND Corporation, 2018)

Disagreements about objective facts have become the ‘new normal’

The RAND Corporation makes the point that differences of opinion between stakeholders, political parties, advocacy groups and governing entities are the ‘new normal’: 

• “... disagreements about objective facts and topics for which data are reasonably definitive have become increasingly common. Examples include the benefits of vaccines and the safety of genetically modified foods”.

MIT study finds that the truth simply cannot compete with hoax and rumor

Falsehoods almost always beat out the truth on Twitter, penetrating further, faster, and deeper into the social network than accurate information:

• “... social media seems to systematically amplify falsehood at the expense of the truth, and no one—neither experts nor politicians nor tech companies—knows how to reverse that trend. It is a dangerous moment for any system of government premised on a common public reality.” (“The Grim Conclusions of the Largest-Ever Study of Fake News”, Robinson Meyer, The Atlantic, March, 2018)

3. A bad case of ‘Trust Deficit Disorder’

During his annual report ahead of the opening of the General Assembly’s seventy-third general debate (September, 2018), U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told leaders from around the world that it “is suffering from a bad case of ‘Trust Deficit Disorder.’” He pointed to rising polarization and populism within nations, ebbing cooperation among them and “fragile” trust in international institutions -more profoundly that our cherished “democratic principles are under siege.”

• “People are feeling troubled and insecure. Trust is at a breaking point. Trust in national institutions. Trust among states. Trust in the rules-based global order. Within countries, people are losing faith in political establishments, polarization is on the rise and populism is on the march. Among countries, cooperation is less certain and more difficult. Divisions in our Security Council are stark. Trust in global governance is also fragile, as 21st-century challenges outpace 20th-century institutions and mindsets.”

Diminished trust in respected sources of factual information

Polling data from across the country show a significant drop, and continuing decline, in public trust in such institutions as the government and the media. Amid confusion about what is fact and what is falsehood, where people should turn for objective, factual information also becomes unclear.

“Borchelt thinks that for scientists today, however, it’s not only about connecting the dots to the larger picture but about whether scientists can communicate with members of the public in a way that maintains trust, that doesn’t offend values that people hold dear, and that doesn’t hype or oversell the science. Borchelt emphasized that communication has become an issue of managing the trust portfolio of life scientists, their institutions, and the collective life-sciences”. (“Trust and Confidence at the Interfaces of the Life Sciences and Society: Does the Public Trust Science?”, National Academy of Sciences, 2015)

4. Social media - the new “coffee-houses” of the digital age

Tom Standage compares social media of today to the historical use of “pamphlets” and the critical role of “coffee-houses” in communicating news and events of the day:

• “They are all sharing social platforms that enable ideas to travel from one person to another, rippling through networks of people connected by social bonds, rather than having to squeeze through the priviledged bottleneck of broadcast media”. (Standage, “Writing on the Wall: Social Media - the First 2,000 Years, 2013)

The fundamental social feature of these social media platforms is that they facilitate a two-way interactive communication as opposed to the traditional one-way channels like radio, TV and news print. They enable ‘conversations’ between people which in turn enable collaborative work, content sharing, and community building. Users co-create the value of social media platforms in a “community of connected users”.

Social media platforms are used for marketing by corporations, as a public safety tool for information about natural disasters, as a tool for social marketing promotion plans and as a tool for political purposes (governance and elections).

Social media has fueled changes in both collective action and advocacy.

• “ Before the diffusion of digital and mobile technologies, collective action, whether channeled through interest groups or social movement organizations, consisted of amassing and expending resources—money, staff, time, etc.—on behalf of a cause via top-down organizations. These resource expenditures often took the form of elite persuasion: media outreach, policy and scientific expertise, legal action, and lobbying.
• But broad diffusion of digital technologies has enabled alternatives to this model to flourish. In some cases, digital communication technologies have simply made the collective action process faster and more cost-effective for organizations; in other cases, these same technologies now allow individuals to eschew traditional advocacy groups and instead rely on digital platforms to self-organize. New political organizations have also emerged whose scope and influence would not be possible without digital technologies.” (“Technology and Evolving Models of Activism and Advocacy” by Luis E. Hestres and Jill E. Hopke published in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science, September, 2017.)

A periscope into these digital communities

Social media can be a comforting refuge and safe haven for stakeholders who are discouraged/embittered/disillusioned with their current state of affairs and/or their government. These are communities of not only the disgruntled but also the community builders, the ‘better angels’ who work to reduce political polarization, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and their advocacy for a circular economy, etc.

Social media platforms are an important source of ‘intelligence’ that helps me understand, design my meetings/workshops/etc. and track the participants on-line reactions. These platforms are also a channel that I can use to engage the participants with advance copies of notices, invitations, Facilitator’s Guides, etc. 

5. Participant behaviours that inhibit constructive conversations

The following provides several illustrations of the most common phenomena that can affect a facilitator’s ability to channel discussions in a constructive direction.

Confirmation Bias and Backfire Effect have adverse effects on constructive conversations

The confirmation bias is a psychological phenomenon whereby people are generally disposed to see and agree with information/proposals that support their existing perceptions of reality and dismiss/reject information that runs contrary to those beliefs. They not only reject the information that conflicts with their beliefs but they often dig in their heels and double-down in their original beliefs - i.e. the backfire effect. 

The facilitator needs to prevent this situation from unravelling into instant arguments and bombing runs dropping the latest facts and information. These opposing views must be made to feel as though they’re genuinely being listened to and understood, and any alternative viewpoints should be presented in a way that is sympathetic to their priorities (or at least acknowledges the validity of the person to hold them).

Dealing with Deniers (Denialism)

A definition - “denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas” (Megan Scudellari, “State of denial”, 2010). Although deniers are commonly the subject of articles about the moon landing was faked, the climate crisis does not exist, vaccinations cause autism, etc., deniers are popping up everywhere.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom about confronting deniers and trying to convert them with the facts, the latest research suggests avoiding this deluge of data/fact/scientific consensus. Instead it suggests a gradual process of showing empathy for their position, encouraging them to display their arguments, agreeing where one can with aspects/element of uncertainty in existing science.

Participants who are knowledgeable are handicapped by the Dunning-Kruger Effect

In a technical discussion, the normal participants the facilitator counts on to inject reason are often disabled by their awareness that they don’t know what they don’t know. The result is they back off or withdraw from adding to the conversation. Meanwhile the ‘know-it-alls’ take over. But their humility is to be treasured.

6. Slow-release and cumulative effect tools that ‘nudge’

For 30+ years, my normal facilitation approaches have been a work-in-progress as I have tried, tested, tweaked and discarded different tools and techniques. I have followed Thomas Alva Edison’s advice:

• “Keep on the lookout for novel ideas that others have used successfully. Your idea has to be original only in its adaptation to the problem you’re working on.”
• He also said “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work”

In this post-truth era, I have explored ways and means of how I, as the facilitator, can do things that get the participants to gradually shed their cynicism/suspicions about me and the purpose of the meeting/workshop/etc. The theory behind these slow-release and cumulative effect tools is ‘if I change me - how I facilitate - I might be able to change the attitudes and behaviours of some of the participants” - enough to make a difference in a meeting/workshop/etc. Also, since I am trying to stimulate ‘conversations’ between participants, as opposed to just providing opportunities for participants to air their views in the form of speeches, I need some new tools to cultivate these conversations.

Each of these tools or techniques is designed to slowly chip away at their initial mistrust/disbelief - like a drug or fertilizer where the gradual release of the active agen

7. The nucleus of facilitation is an ‘event’ - a meeting/workshop/etc.

Facilitation is event-driven - a meeting, a workshop, a retreat, a charrette etc. Sometimes the event is embedded in a stakeholder engagement process, sometimes it is series of events in a process to deal with an issue. Sometimes it is a one-timer to reduce the pressure on the governing entity. As such I have structured this article around this nucleus of facilitation -a facilitated event - meeting, workshop, retreat, charrette, committee, expert panel, task force, etc. 

This article drills down into the practicalities of facilitating four categories of problems that I have had to facilitate. Although there are similarities, each has unique needs and requirements from a facilitation perspective. These categories are not mutually exclusive categories because in real-time, many meetings/workshops/etc. contain the features of two or more.

In-house planning - this category includes a wide range of facilitated events (strategic planning, operational planning, priority setting, OD, ad hoc problem solving, etc.) that are characterized by the familiarity of the participants with each other, old baggage from pervious events, the need to pursue and achieve consensus and the participant’s various perceptions of the organization’s expectations. I refer to these assignments as ‘interventions’ -someone has decided to drop me into a situation in which I am expected to pour oil on the waters or break a log jam or stimulate some creative problem solving. By always thinking of these events as an intervention, the word intervention reminds me that I am an ’outsider’, a foreign entity, who has to gain the participant’s trust in a, usually, short period of time and help them move from where they are to where they want to be. I am temporary but my impact has to have a shelf-life greater than my sudden appearance and equally abrupt disappearance. I am an intervenor, interloper. 

Public consultation - this category encompasses everything from the one-timers to satisfy legal requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act or the Planning Act to province-wide consultations on major or controversial legislative and regulatory changes. I have found paranoia to be an useful mental state in designing these events. Given the post-truth and trust deficit era, these events start in a deficit ‘hole’, I have to use every technique in the book to ‘model’ the behaviours I hope they will follow during the event. But the bulk of the facilitator’s work is in the actual cultivation of conversations between participants, not with me.. Unless the public consultation is designed to get their ‘consent’ (which is significantly more difficult and intense), these meetings/workshops/etc. are primarily apertures’ for the stakeholders/public to learn about a proposal and provide a catalogue of their feedback/input.

Stakeholder collaboration - events of this nature are generally more satisfying and meaningful to the stakeholders because the purpose is to engage them in a longer term process (than the public consultation 3-4 hour hit) that truly seeks their opinions in a collaborative process. I have been involved in everything from the Strategic Plan for the Ontario Fisheries (the famous SPOF II) to the Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Oak Ridges Moraine to the Expert Panel on the Cornwall Sediment Strategy for the St. Lawrence River. These events are countersunk within a multi-stakeholder process in which the power is shared by the governing entity and the search for consensus is the priority outcome sought. 

In addition to assignments where the governing entity is the driving force, there is an increasing recognition that some problems/opportunities cannot be solved by the governing entity alone. This enhances the role of stakeholders beyond the traditional collaboration. William Eggers and Paul Macmillan, in their book, “The Solution Revolution: How Business, Government, and Social Enterprises are Solving Society’s Toughest Problems”, point out that government is no longer the only game in town when it comes to societal problem solving.

• “... in today’s new “solution economy,” solving social problems is becoming a multidisciplinary exercise that challenges businesses, governments, philanthropists, and social enterprises to think holistically about their role and their relation to others—not as competitors fighting over an ever-shrinking pie, but as potential collaborators looking to bake something fresh that serves as many stakeholders as possible.”

Conflict resolution -these assignment are simultaneously thrilling and frightening, They are thrilling because they pose a challenge that requires all my ingenuity and analytical ability to help a governing entity and a group of stakeholders unravel the knot they are tied up in and find some common ground that will let them move forward. These assignments are also frightening because the mutually acceptable solution is usually not readily apparent to me while each of the parties are entrenched in their perceptions of the desired resolution. Frightening because failure is not an option. I design the process of events to enable the parties to learn about the underlying issues that drive each party’s perceptions of reality and hence their positions. This exploratory stage is one of mutual discovery and usually begins to unearth potential areas of common ground. 

One of my foundation concepts for facilitation is Bruce Tuckman’s model of how groups form and develop. His easy to remember model of Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing provides both an analytical and normative model for facilitating groups.

8. The ABCDs of these meetings/workshops/etc.

These four principles guide how I plan, engage and get closure for the meetings/workshops/etc. that I facilitate:

• ‘A’ is for Assume nothing. The old adage that assuming something means it makes an ASS of U and ME applies to every aspect of facilitating in the post-truth, trust deficit era. Be it an in-house planning workshop, a public consultation Town Hall meeting, a stakeholder engagement advisory committee or a conflict resolution process, I assume the participants will arrive full of suspicion and distrust.
• ‘B’ is Be what you expect. As the facilitator, the participants in the meeting/workshop/etc. take their cues from my mannerisms, tone of voice, words I use and my non-verbals. How I ‘model’ the desired behaviour and ‘prime’ the participants during the start-up and into the live-time discussions, will affect the eventual success or failure of the event. My behaviour is the one thing over which I have total control and one of my slow-release tools.
• ‘C’ represents Cultivate germane ‘conversations’. The reason someone engaged me to facilitate a gathering of some group of participants is that they want the participants to provide advice/input, to create something, solve a problem or resolve a conflict. This won’t happen by itself - arguments, withdrawals, silence happens by itself. Cultivating ‘germane’ conversations requires me to manage the ‘process’ in a way that encourages openness, constructive comments, controls inappropriate negativity while keeping the conversations on track. I have to overcome the effects of the Confirmation Bias, the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Denialism, to name just a couple. Again, my behaviour and the manner/style/friendliness of my subject ringer, will reduce the Backfire Effect and participants digging in their heels.
• ‘D’ is for Dare to close. I use the word ‘dare’ deliberately because getting closure is risky and teasing out the right summary of their conversations is usually challenging. I have to propose a conclusion(s) for their consideration and instantly modify my trial close if they rebel. The conclusion may not be unified in which case it is a series of dissenting positions/opinions that represent the diversity of the collective. All my previous diligence in building a small degree of trust can suddenly disappear if I mismanage the summation stage. A slip of the tongue or a frown is all it takes.

9. “The Facilitator’s 12 steps to the Road to Hell”

I published an article in November, 2017, for Linkedin entitled “Be Wary of the Facilitator’s “12 Steps on the Road to Hell”. I wrote this article after reading a piece written by a graphic designer entitled “Deceit in Packaging” - there is deceit in how some meetings/workshop/etc. are designed and facilitated:

•  Let the most powerful/important person in the room slant the discussions in their direction (without seeking contrary opinions) to the exclusion of the other participants.
•  Limit invitations to a workshop/meeting to only stakeholders who agree with or at least aren’t opposed to your client’s proposal.
•  Stack the workshop/meeting so that the number of supporters outnumbers the opponents by a sufficient margin so they will carry the day when you ask people to vote on the options presented.
•  Structure a public meeting so that the initial presentations by the consultants take up most of the available time thereby leaving little time for public comments, challenges or embarrassing questions.

Most participants/stakeholders have personally experienced meetings/workshops/etc. where they were victims of these manipulations- another source of the trust deficit disorder.

There are facilitators who believe their role is to serve as the ‘hired gun” for clients and manipulate the meeting/workshop/committee to produce the specific outcome the client wants. I use the word ‘manipulate’ in the classic sense of the word - “exerting shrewd or devious influence especially for one’s own advantage” In this case, to the client’s advantage. 

I believe that a Facilitator’s role is to help client’s and their stakeholders find mutually beneficial solutions - i.e. the pursuit of what’s in the public interest or the public good. So, in addition to dealing with truth decay and the trust deficit disorder, this article is also about ‘ethical’ facilitation and the search for mutually beneficial outcomes. that meet the client’s needs and honour the participants’ views and opinions. 

10. A preview of the four chapters

As I mentioned earlier, in addition to this Introduction and Preview, this article consists of 4 chapters that will be published separately, 1-2 weeks apart:

• Chapter 1 - Designing the ‘process’ - this corresponds to ‘Assume nothing’;
• Chapter 2 - “Hi, I’m your facilitator...” - this matches up with ‘Be what you expect’
• Chapter 3- Creating conversations - this coincides with ‘Cultivate germane conversations’
• Chapter 4 - Getting closure - this corresponds with ‘Dare to close’

Unlike the typical table of contents for each chapter, I have described what will be covered in each chapter using thumbnail sketches of each of the tools and techniques.

11. Chapter 1 - Designing the ‘process’ - this corresponds to ‘Assume nothing’

Chapter 1 deals with designing the meeting/workshop/etc. and explains the normal/traditional things I do plus my slow-release and cumulative effect tools.

Since I consider 50% of my success is due to the design of the meeting/workshop/etc., I go into a lot more detail than you would expect. It follows that ‘oldie but goldie’ proverb “The Devil is in the details” (Wikipedia claims that the original quotation is German and translates as “God is in the detail” - i.e. details are important).

Here is a list of the tools and techniques that I have reworked/tweaked/intensified which will present in more detail in Chapter 1:

• Dig deeper than the orientation briefing -as a policy wonk, I analyze (similar to reverse engineering) the policy/issue/project being proposed to identify the soft spots and probably contentious aspects. The only thing I tweaked was to get outside opinions of the proposed policy/issue/project under consideration. 
• Stakeholder Sensitivity Analysis (SSA) - This is totally new. In the past, I just did a preliminary scan of who’s who in the zoo and what their stake in the issue is. Now I do a more comprehensive analysis to get a lay of the landscape in terms of how has an interest, their power/influence to help or hinder resolution. Part of this SSA is a scan of the social media to see who is posting and what is being posted that bears on the issues under consideration.
• The venue - The room can make or break the event. Non-facilitators don’t understand why these things are important. See my preferred and how I compensate for terrible room;
• Participation in the meeting/workshop/etc. In addition to making sure that the participation is balanced between all who should participate and this balance would be perceived as fair and appropriate, I now have to consider identity politics, millennials and naysayers/deniers.
• Facilitator’s ‘subject ringer(s)’ - Often called a resource person. In our approach, the function performed by this person is more than a resource person. in the arts, a “ringer” is a professional (paid) musician, dancer or actor hired to bolster the quality of the performance and increase the pleasure of performers and audience alike, especially in amateur groups. There is no negative connotation and no implication of fraud. Subject ringers are an important asset to facilitators in the early resolution of of potential conflicts between participants. This ‘subject ringer” has to have not only expertise but is able to impart it with a gentleness that makes sit easy for the participants to accept. Subject ringers are a major change I have made.
• Develop clear and concise statement of the purpose - what’s on the table and equally important, what’s not on the table for discussion and why it is not on the table. I pay more attention to this now because participants increasingly challenge/probe the words used.
• Importance of breaks and lunch (if a full-day event) - the behavioural psychologists who trained me repeatedly told me these are the most important times to the participants - critical opportunities for participants to network - leave enough time.
• My Discussion Ground Rules -3 different types for different meeting/workshops/etc. More later on why I ask participants if I can use the ones I propose.
• Methodology for thinking through the issue - figure out a methodology for the sequence of how the participants should think their way through the policy/issue/project being proposed. Then I can structure the agenda accordingly. I now spend more time thinking about how to get the participants ‘off’ their positions and into their ‘interests’ in the issue and how it can be resolved.

• Facilitator’s Guide/Handbook - the meeting/workshop guide or handbook contains everything the participants need to know about how I plan to run the meeting/workshop- contains the objective, agenda, discussion ground rules and a layout of each of the topics I propose we discuss (i.e. the methodology for thinking our way through the policy/issue/project under consideration. When time permits, I send it to them in advance to start preping them for the event, reduce false/incorrect rumours on social media and give them some time to think about their position/preferences/objections. My major redesign of this is adapting to it being posted on the social media platforms - it will get there by postings of the participants. I now package it as the Facilitator’s Guide/Handbook because it is a product of the 'independent public facilitator' and I need the participants to see me as separate from the sponsor/client/proponent.
• The Adoption Model of how participants process information -I use the ‘adoption model’ of how people absorb and evaluate information - 4 steps - Awareness, Comprehension, Kick the tires, Accept or Reject. Given the post-truth, trust deficit disorder, I now increase the layers of information they may need at each step(rather than the traditional one-shot) to render an informed opinion about the proposed policy/issue/project.

This phase in the process is all about what ‘intelligence’ I can sniff-out and then design my approach around this advance information - i.e. develop insurance policies to prevent problems and contingency plans as defaults to deal with participants/stakeholders/public who are being drowned in fake news, alternative facts, misrepresentation, conspiracy theories and outright lies.

12. Chapter 2 - “Hi, I’m your facilitator...” - this matches up with ‘Be what you expect’

This chapter describes the tweaked tools and techniques I use during this start-up phase. I am creating the start of a process to influence the state of mind of the participants. No, it is not manipulation, I am not trying to convince them to accept the preferred solution that will be proposed - it is to begin dissolving any potential suspicions and mistrust of governing entities and gunslinger facilitators they may have experienced in the past - especially if they have experienced the D.A.D. Model.

Although the start-up phase of any meeting/workshop/etc. has always been important, it is increasingly important in this new era. Here is a list of the tools and techniques that I will present in more detail in Chapter 2:

• The 1st objective is to Accelerate ‘Forming’ and ‘Storming’ from Tuckman’s model. My whole start-up is designed to help the participants move through Forming and Storming. 
• Forming stage - participants want to know what the panel/group/committee is supposed to do, why it was formed, why certain people were picked to be on it - scoping the ‘landscape’ to find the safe ground and if there are any hidden agendas. They are gathering information and impressions - about each other, about the facilitator, the proponent/sponsor and about the scope of the task and how to approach it.
• Storming stage - this stage is characterized by participants challenging/questioning the mandate, testing each other’s attitude or approach to an issue, staking out their territory/turf and tabling their “positions” early. Conflict may be too strong a word but I use it to remind myself that the group needs to get through this before they can be expected to move on. If I don’t do it now, it will surface later when I least expect it. The facilitator’s role is not to try to prevent this or gloss over it but rather to accelerate its development so that the group can move to the next stage.

I used to do everything I could to avoid these two stages. I wanted to get right to the discussions of the policy/issues/project under consideration. Took me awhile to realize that people are like artesian water “block them off in one place and they will inevitably surface where and when you least expect them”. This chapter describes how I now go with the flow and accelerate these two stages so that they don’t consume all the available time.

The other tools and techniques that I cover in this chapter inlcude things like:

• Greeting the participants as they arrive - this used to be catch-as-catch-can. Now I treat it as an opportunity to connect with the participants in a face-to-face manner before the meeting/workshop/etc. begins - when participants don’t ‘have their game-face on’. This simple act has deeper value that is too often undervalued or ignored in demonstrating a respect participants are not always afforded. Please keep in mind, I am using every opportunity to undermine their suspicions.
• Formal welcoming comments - same as above. It is an opportunity right at the beginning to undermine their suspicions. The ‘right’ words can have impact as opposed to some corporate boiler plate welcoming comments.
• Round-robin introductions - with the exception of Town Hall Meetings where the number prohibit doing personal introductions, do not let the client/sponsor argue that it will take too much time. Yes, it takes time but it is another value-added step in showing respect and helps with the Forming stage (i.e. answers the common question who is in the room and who do they represent). There are a number of ways of doing this that table valuable information.
• Traditional ‘ice-breaker’ - DO NOT employ this old technique of warming-up the audience - too dangerous in this #metoo/identity politics/populism environment. I have abandoned this traditional technique.
• Facilitator’s start-up - my entire start-up is potentially a slow-release and cumulative effect tool- each slide lays own information that starts the ‘nudging’ process and worms/chips away at their initial mistrust/disbelief. Don’t let the client/proponent cut this short, take the time but make it interesting - avoid ’Death by PowerPoint’ ... this is both modelling and priming. This start-up includes what was designed in Chapter 1: (a) Purpose; (b) Agenda; (c) Facilitator’s Guide; (d) Ask their permission to use a set of discussion ground rules; (e) Role of facilitator; (f) Live-time keyboarding and projection (g) introduce the Facilitator’s subject ringer(s) if appropriate or resource person. 
• This start-up presentation is based on what was designed in Chapter 1.

• Presentations that are used to kick-off the actual discussions -these slide presentations are supposed to help the facilitator move the group into the ‘Norming’ stage - they start wrestling with the issue(s) they were charged with addressing/resolving. Poor presentations just reinforce the Forming and Storming stages.
• Norming stage - when a group reaches this stage, the “rules of engagement” for the group become established, and the scope of the group’s tasks or responsibilities are clear and agreed upon. Having had their initial skirmishes and arguments, they now understand each other better, and can appreciate each other’s skills and experience. Individuals listen to each other, appreciate and support each other, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views. They are now chipping away at the issue(s) they were charged with addressing/resolving.
• Everything is done in plenary sessions - I am trying to build a connection with the participants, I am reluctant to relinquish control by dissolving into Breakout Groups (BGs). This chapter deals with my bias for plenary sessions (and the limited uses of BGs) and how plenary sessions, if run properly by the facilitator, can be another tool for dissolving suspicion...

The first 45 minutes - this chapter is all about getting the meeting/workshop/etc. up and running in a way that starts dissolving some of the suspicions and disbeliefs participants may have had coming into the room and getting them to begin to give the facilitator the benefit of the doubt. Everything is about slow-release and cumulative effects that drive the 1st 45 minutes of a typical meeting/workshop/etc. 

13. Chapter 3- Creating conversations - this coincides with ‘Cultivate germane conversations’

This chapter picks up where Chapter 2 left off and delves into the dynamics of creating and sustaining meaningful conversations between the participants that are also germane for the client - back to the statement of the purpose of the meeting/workshop/etc.

But before I get ahead of myself

Before going any further, there are two things that presenters, proponents and organizations ‘do’ that make cultivating germane conversations difficult - they use the Knowledge Deficit Model for communication with the public and they all rely on the D.A.D. Model - Decide, Announce and then Defend. The former fails to engage and the latter instantly creates irate participants. If the negative stakeholder reaction is substantial and generates enough media attention/support, D.A.D. can become ‘DADA’ or “Decide-Announce-Defend-Abandon.” 

The Trap of the Knowledge Deficit Model of communicating

If the facilitator is trying to create/encourage conversations that involve a policy/issue/project that involves some body of scientific knowledge, then the facilitator has to avoid the trap of the knowledge deficit model of communicating science. It is based on two central assumptions:

1. Stakeholder’s resistance/opposition to a proposed policy/issue/project is based on their “ignorance” or lack of knowledge about the science underlying the proposal; and
2. If they were then “educated” in the underlying science, they would reverse their opposition and become supporters. 

Model as they try to persuade the participants to support/adopt their proposal. In recent years, numerous science governance organizations have commented on the inadequacy of this model and advocated for scientists to move out from behind their podiums and connect with their audiences:

• “...scientists who are focused on ensuring that a public is informed may allot less time to listening to what non-scientists think or producing creative messages designed to capture attention or imagination. Indeed, the results suggest that the scientists surveyed least prioritized the objectives that arguably represent those which may be most likely to lead to positive engagement outcomes: building trust and tailoring messages.” (Dudo & Besaley, “Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement”, Public Library of Science, 2016)

In this chapter I will offer several ways (which the literature suggests and I found effective) that these experts/consultants can augment their presentations to improve their communication approaches that improve their value to the participants.

The D.A.D Model -Guaranteed to make participants livid right away

The acronym stands for Decide. Announce. Defend :

• Decide - Undertake the policy analysis and policy development work within the organization and arrive at an internal decision by the management structure.
• Announce - Present the results of this internal analysis and decision making at or in some public venue. Most often this public venue is a public meeting convened for the purposes of “selling” the decision to the public and the media. 
• Defend  - Having made the announcement of the analysis and decision, the presenter, on behalf of the originating organization, seeks to answer the inevitable questions and challenges from the public and the media. This process of defending the announcement may extend beyond the public meeting especially if the decision is a controversial one.

The D.A.D. Model tends to be the preferred mode for engaging the stakeholders in organizations where decision-making is based on the science underlying the issues i.e. ‘government by technical decision making’.

D.A.D. becomes D.A.D.A. if there is significant public opposition and push-back - i.e. Decide. Announce. Defend. Abandon.

So I have to counteract these adverse effects of organizations who insist on using the Knowledge Deficit Model and the D.A.D. Model. This chapter deals with how I carefully and incrementally move the participants from “Forming” and “Storming” into ‘Norming’ and ‘Performing’ 

• Norming stage - when a group reaches this stage, the “rules of engagement” for the group become established, and the scope of the group’s tasks or responsibilities are clear and agreed upon. Having had their initial skirmishes and arguments, they now understand each other better, and can appreciate each other’s skills and experience. Individuals listen to each other, appreciate and support each other, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views. They are now chipping away at the issue(s) they were charged with addressing/resolving.
• Performing stage -which I call Nirvana. When a group reaches this stage, it is readily apparent. Everyone knows each other well enough to be able to work together. Group identity with the mandate is high, and everyone is equally task-orientated and people-orientated to each other. This high degree of comfort means that all the energy of the group is directed towards the task(s) in hand.
• Bearing the challenges mentioned above, here is a list of the tools and techniques that I will present in more detail:
• Begin by using the Facilitator’s Guide/Handbook - the whole point of the Facilitator’s Guide is to structure the discussions in a logical manner and show the participants how I am going to facilitate their discussions. The Facilitator’s Guide can be relatively simple (just a list of annotated questions) or it can be more detailed including supporting information/evidence for each step outlined in the process of ‘thinking our way through the issue’). This chapter includes several illustrations for different types of problems and situations.
• The following is perhaps the most complex Facilitator's Guide we have ever attempted and it was effective in breaking logjams and getting agreement from the participants.

• Dealing with Confirmation Bias, Backfire Effect and Deniers - these phenomena and individuals are common in the post-truth. trust deficit environment I facilitate. AS such, this chapter delves into the tools and techniques for facilitating discussions/conversations with them. Their influence on the other participants is a critical factor in the overall success in having constructive conversations.
• Remember the Abilene Paradox - Silence is NOT golden and does NOT necessarily mean consent. After each topic/issues discussed, I ask if the participants agree or conversely does anyone disagree. I need to force them to respond and prevent them from hiding in the bushes. The technique is call ‘agreement management’ and will be discussed in detail because it is a critical ‘interim’ closure tool with suspicious/distrusting participants.
• Include one or more “subject ringers” in the meeting/workshop/etc. - Subject ringers may only make several interjections during the life of the meeting/workshop/ect. but these interjections are another slow release and cumulative tool. Subject ringers are a powerful asset to a facilitator who has to stay out of the content in order to protect the integrity of the process.Given their importance, I go into detail on their characteristics, style and use in dissolving suspicions...
• Presenters who are likeable and engaging - The style, tone and material of the presenter can determine if the conversations start off with the participants rejecting the proposal under consideration or if they begin talking about the mixed benefits and concerns they have. The client/proponent usually chooses their biggest content expert in the proposal to give the presentation.
• Sometimes this chapter will sound like a broken record in its reliance on likeable/engaging presenters and the ‘right’ subject ringers. But I cannot understate their importance to cultivating these conversations. Since the facilitator stays out of the content, these doppelg?ngers are critical.
• Create/use visual maps/graphics of the subject to be discussed - If the facilitator can create and employ a single graphic that is basically a map of the subject matter under discussion, it can be used to show participants where they have been, where they are in the process and where they are going. Although this topic could be a chapter on its own, this chapter will go into some of the major concepts that can be used to improve the ability of the participants to move through Awareness - Comprehension - Trial runs - Adoption.
• The 10-20-80 rule -Live-time keyboarding that is projected on a separate screen - I originally developed this tool because I couldn’t stand and write on a flip chart after my amputation. But it soon became apparent that it had several positive effects on the participants -It increased their ability to follow the conversations. Participants who are listening to someone speaking may mentally wander off in response to something said and lose the train of the conversation. The projection of the keyboarding of the discussion on a separate screen enables them to read what they missed and get back up to speed without having to interrupt by asking “would you mind repeating what you said”. It also increases the collective memory of what has and what is being discussed. The 10-20-80 rule applies. It is another slow release tool that has a cumulative effect as the conversations proceed and some initial suspicions are further eroded.
• Facilitator’s ability to ‘live 60 seconds at a time’ - This is a variation on the military expression “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”. Although all my planning is responsible for 50% of my success, the other 50% is my ability to live each minute in the here and now and turn on a dime in response to every unanticipated action/reaction of the participants. This chapter drills down into this ability to live 60 seconds at a time.

Although it is impossible to cover all the situations that can arise, this chapter covers what I consider the major tools and techniques I have adapted to this new era. 

14. Chapter 4 - Getting closure - this corresponds with ‘Dare to close’

This is the final chapter in my description of the four phases of today’s meetings/workshops/etc. Getting closure is the highest risk phase of the entire progression. I say highest risk because if it is not done successfully (i.e. accurately describes the discussions and any conclusions to the satisfaction of the participants), the whole meeting/workshop/etc. loses whatever good will was built and will be deemed a failure. 

Getting closure is a 3-stage process:

1.Wrapping up discussions with a facilitator’s summation during the meeting/workshop/etc. Even though the facilitator explains that the summation is subject to their review, some participants are not that forgiving. It has to include the major discussions and any conclusions otherwise participants will feel jilted - especially those who are wedded to their world views, positions and especially anything they objected to.

2. Drafting a formal summary (the facilitator’s summary) after the meeting/workshop/etc. The formal summary is important for several reasons: (a) it is proof that they tendered their opinions/preferences/objections in the discussions for their host organization to see; (b) it is proof that their opinions/preferences/objections were respected and valued; (c) it is also protection for the facilitator and client as to what was or was not said; and (d) it serves as a briefing document for their members who were not able to attend the meeting/workshop/etc.

3. Following-up on any commitments made by the Facilitator and any outstanding issues that may leave the meeting/workshop/etc. as ‘unfinished’. Some times the discussions/findings of the meeting/workshop/etc. were so significant, that major follow-ups are necessary within the client’s organization and then communicated back to the original participants and their host organizations.

Returning once again to Tuckman’s model, this is the Adjourning stage (which Bruce added to his original model, 12 years later):

• Adjourning stage - It is important to achieve closure once the group has completed its assignment. Group members may feel a sense of loss and their motivation may decline when the group’s work comes to an end. Some observers have even called this the ‘mourning stage’ of group development. The main goals of the Adjourning stage are to achieve closure and end on a positive note.

There is nothing radically different in this chapter except the priority I place on accurately documenting the discussions and any conclusions/finding because I also am a distrusting soul:

Wrapping up discussions with a facilitator’s summation - The facilitator’s summation of the discussions/conversations is how a facilitator starts the process of bringing the meeting/workshop/etc. to a close. It is a process because it involves transitioning from the ‘Performing’ stage to the ‘Adjourning’ stage - i.e. getting them to cast their minds back over the discussions and to think about what happened, what was said and any conclusions reached. There are several major ways of doing this:

• Invent the summation collectively - One option is to launch a free-wheeling discussion about what people saw/heard, have the Recorder keyboard it on the screen for all to see or put it up on the flip chart. Then have the group whittle it down by throwing out the things that don’t have the group’s support. What’s left, is the summation.
• Use the list of questions as prompts -If a list of questions was used to prompt/trigger the conversations, the facilitator can project these and then ask the participants to describe what should be included under each.
• Table a Trial Close for discussion - The preferred option is to have asked the subject ringer (before the meeting/workshop/etc.) to track the discussions/conversations so that the facilitator can ask them to present what they saw/heard as a ‘trial close’. Or the subject ringer and the facilitator huddle at the break, compare notes and the facilitator tables the trial close. The facilitator then opens the floor for discussion of additions, deletions or modifications. Again, the Recorder keyboards the discussion starter and any changes. At the end of the discussion, this is the summation.

Drafting a formal summary - i.e. the facilitator’s summary. After the meeting/workshop/etc., back in the office (probably in the dark of night), the facilitator must confront the task of reliving the meeting/workshop/etc. and preparing the ‘summary’. My preferred approach includes:

• The summary has special value to the participants - Facilitators are used to preparing summaries for their clients who often just want a synopsis of the presentations and discussions which may or may not be sent to the participants. to the participants;

• It is almost a transcript - Given the use of a recorder who is doing the live-time keyboarding and projection, the facilitator can take this rough draft, edit to polish it and then distribute it to the client and participants for review. This transcript-like approach, although lengthy, has a number of benefits. (a) although individual names are not added to each comment, participants can easily recognize their contributions; (b) avoids any objections to how something might have been paraphrased in the traditional summary; (c) for readers who did not attend the meeting/workshop/etc., this transcript-like document gives them an accurate record of what happened at the event; 
• Give participants an opportunity to review summaries - This closes the loop with the participants. Seldom do participants suggest revisions to our summaries because they saw it evolve on the screen. But giving them this power to review increases their comfort level.
• Called the Facilitator’s Summary for a reason -if there is any blow back, the facilitator takes the heat and shields the client . 

Dealing with any outstanding items from the meeting/workshop/etc., “It ain’t over until it’s over” (Yogi Berra). There are always loose ends that need to be dealt with:

• The facilitator promised - Sometimes during a conversation, a report/article will be referred to and some participants will want to receive a copy. If the facilitator or the subject ringer promised to send them a copy, this needs to be done;
• The facilitator may have offered put them in touch with someone or some organization;
• Some problem or opportunity surfaced during the conversations, there may be the need to arrange a follow-up telephone call or even a meeting;

• A Facilitator’s Postmortem is a tool to table my detailed evaluation of how well the meeting/workshop/etc. performed and a description of the follow-up items. Examples of these postmortems and summaries will be illustrated in this chapter.The legacy of a meeting/workshop/etc. for the client is the degree to which the participants were positive about the policy/issue/project under discussion. The legacy for the participants is the degree to which their opinions were heard and taken into consideration by the client/proponent.

15. Next Steps

In a week to 10 days, I will publish Chapter 1 on LinkedIn.

Posted by Robb Ogilvie, Managing Partner, Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company