Chapter 2 - “Hi, I’m your facilitator ...”

“Adapting facilitation tools to the Post-truth, Trust Deficit Era...” 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 - public that is immersed in the Internet of Things that is a source of like-minded individuals and sources of information reinforcing their anxieries and anger. At the same time, the Internet of Things is bloated with fake research, alternative facts, and endless streams of misinformation animated by ‘influencers’ and bloggers and bots.

I tweaked my 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. 

This s chapter is about how I do what I do

Using the analogy of a ‘layer cake’ (ignore searching for the recipe, scouring the cupboards for the ingredients, pre-heating the oven, mixing the ingredients and so on), I explain that what I do is a combination/a slice of three (3) layers of knowledge. My layer cake ( i.e. how I do what I do) has three (3) layers: 

• Layer 1... Little ‘nuggets’ of science  - science about human behaviour;
• Layer 2... Practitioner’s recipes - other practitioner’s recipes for how they do things;
• Layer 3... Robb’s MO (modus operandi) - this is my MO ( based on trial and error of using little nuggets and practitioner’s recipes) for starting-up a meeting/workshop/etc. 

All of which is couched within the post-truth, trust deficit era and the increasingly suspicious, mistrusting, frustrated and often angry stakeholders. 

1.0 How do I describe how I do what I do as a facilitator?

My problem with this chapter was how do I describe how I do what I do as a facilitator in starting-up a meeting/worksho/etc.? Everyone is familiar with the normal concept of facilitation and facilitators:

• “a highly structured meeting in which the meeting facilitator guides the participants through a series of pre-defined steps to arrive at a result that is created, understood and accepted by all participants.” (Fn 01) 

Hector Villareal Lozoya, former Regional Director of International Association of Facilitators in Latin America, defined group facilitation as a:

•  “process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, who is substantially neutral (to the participants and the content), and who has no decision authority, diagnoses and intervenes to help a group improve the way in which it identifies and solves problems, and makes decisions to improve its effectiveness.” (Fn 02)

Those definitions suit assignments where there is a group of participants who know each other, usually an in-house meeting or workshop. They are not really applicable to Public Meetings or Town Hall Meetings where the group of participants is a gathering of local residents who are being consulted on some proposed policy/issue/project. Nor are these definitions applicable to a specific conflict resolution assignments that I often intervene in.

1.1 Mediating and facilitating practices, collaborative problems-solving, and consensus building processes are closely related

Probably a better description of what I do was described by John Forester in his article “ Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict - Moving From Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations”:

• “Moderating turns argument toward counter-argument, and so it encourages, and risks escalating debate; mediating turns parties toward their multiple and diverse interests, and so it encourages practical proposals to negotiate. Moderating helps parties to sharpen conflicting arguments and terms of disagreement. Mediating helps parties instead to respond to one another’s concerns and to craft workable agreements leading to mutual gain.
• Mediating and facilitating practices, collaborative problems-solving, and consensus building processes are closely related to one another, at times overlapping and at times distinct. All are valuable.” (Fn 03)

Every facilitation assignment is ‘unique’

I have yet to find a cookie cutter/one size fits all template for facilitating all the different types of assignments I get involved in. When I examine what I do, the knowledge, models. and skills I employ/utilize vary by the nature of the challenges in each assignment:

• if the assignment is an in-house problem-solving/communications/re-alignment remit, the first definitions above apply - i.e. “...to help a group improve the way in which it identifies and solves problems, and makes decisions to improve its effectiveness.”. In these cases, I am able to use all of the stages of Tuckman’s theory of how groups develop when they are working on a given problem - Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing and Adjourning;
• if I have been retained to ‘keep the lid on’ a controversial public consultation, I am not trying to help the participants make a decision or strengthen a team. I am using every conflict ‘management’ knowledge and skill I have to simultaneously honour everyone’s right to hold the opinion they do while at the same time nudging them to be civil. If the emotions start escalating to a potentially reckless/rash level, I have to rely on any goodwill I have earned earlier to exercise my status as ‘the facilitator’, take control of the rants/raves and lower the temperatures and pace in the room (CONSULTATION was covered in some detail in Chapter 1(A ) ); 
• if the orders of the day are to design, recruit and facilitate a multi-stakeholder advisory committee to deal with some policy issue that the governing entity cannot solve by itself (AKA a ‘wicked’ policy issue), then my knowledge of stakeholder engagement Best Practices, negotiating the mandate, getting agreement and commitments to the roles of the stakeholders (including the governing entity), facilitating the development of a work plan, etc. require both content and process skills (INVOLVEMENT was also covered in more detail in Chapter 1(A ) ) ;
• if the client/sponsor/proponent wants to engage their stakeholders in the highest degree of engagement (i.e. collaboration), then my challenges involve facilitating/negotiating some type of formal partnership arrangement. It is not unusual for these assignments to involve parties who previously were not used to working together:
• “Never in our history would our shareholders sit in the same room with a ‘radical’ NGO like Greenpeace,” says Aida Greenbury, a managing director. “So it’s quite ground breaking that we sit together in our boardroom and discuss strategy and incorporate their input.” (Fn 04)
• if the mission is to resolve a persistent conflict between the governing entity and one or more of its primary stakeholders, there are at least 12 different methodologies I could employ for helping either or both parties extract themselves from their conflict - from a strategic decision to concede and rebuild the relationship to ‘hard-ball negotiations’ to negotiating a compromise which is often seen as giving in. This litany of approaches and the challenges of each for me as the facilitator is included in CONFLICT RESOLUTION - A POST SCRIPT TO COLLABORATION in Chapter 1(B).

Whatever the assignment/remit, be it strategic planning, organizational realignments, policy analysis and policy development and so on, each has its own key factors for success and inevitable road blocks, unsafe crossings and pot holes.

So, if every facilitation assignment is unique, how do I describe what I do as the facilitator? 

1. 2 In search of an analogy

As a facilitator and trainer, I am always using analogies and metaphors to either help participant understand something or to persuade of a proposition being proposed. The trick is finding an appropriate comparison between the idea/concept being proposed and something else that is familiar to the audience and that by making the comparison, understanding will be increased or suddenly occur.

• “‘An analogy is a comparison between two objects, or systems of objects, that highlights respects in which they are thought to be similar. Analogical reasoning is any type of thinking that relies upon an analogy. An analogical argument is an explicit representation of a form of analogical reasoning that cites accepted similarities between two systems to support the conclusion that some further similarity exists.” (Fn 05)

How I do what I do involves a wide assortment of little scientific concepts of human behaviour, another collection of step-by-step procedures practitioner use to negotiate/intervene/solve problems and my own step-wise approaches to facilitation. So, what analogy would help explain what I do and which could be used to structure this chapter of ‘Adapting facilitation tools to a post-truth, trust deficit era’.

Simultaneous equations ? 

I tried a number of analogies for describing how Ido what I do. First, I played with using the analogy of ‘simultaneous equations’ because a friend of mine once described his ‘org design’ work as solving simultaneous equations - he had to hold all of the design requirements in his head while he considered them all simultaneously as opposed to using a linear step-by-step process of decision-making. 

What I do as a facilitator is also similar to my friend - I hold my knowledge of how people behave in groups with my experience of similar situations simultaneously as I make snap-decision about how to handle a bitter denier without them stomping out of the room.

This analogy would work with a group of scientists but it probably would fail with participants who do not use algebra in their daily work lives. Besides I was never very good at solving simultaneous equations and the image of algebraic equations is too abstract. 

Russian Matryoshka (nesting) dolls?

Then I tried comparing what I do to a set of Russian Matryoshka (nesting) dolls. The visual image of each doll being inside another smaller doll which in turn contained another doll provided a symmetry with how my mind has all these concepts/ideas/schemes etc. stuffed inside it, waiting to be retrieved when the need arises. As a visual image, it had potential, but the doll within a doll within a doll died when I realized that it was only the last doll that had a cavity to hold anything. Yes, there are times when I feel like a pea-brain but I generally don’t want to advertise that fact by promoting it with this analogy.

At this point I decided to Google it. When I posed the question ‘ how does a scientist describe how they do what they do?’, all I got were “10 types of scientists”, “the scientific methods” and so on. I substituted the word ‘engineer’ and no joy either. The term facilitator proved the inadequacy of Google’s search algorithm.

If at first you don’t succeed, go bake some bread

When I get writer’s block, I quit trying to write and go do some baking. While I was kneading the dough for some bread, I began thinking about baking as the analogy - recipes, ingredients, mixing, the oven, aromas and the eventual pleasure of eating (if it turned out right). Although most people would understand the basics of baking, it had too many moving parts. But selecting just one baked product had potential and that was cakes - Mom’s birthday cakes, multi-layer cakes, Angel Food cakes, gum drop cakes, etc.. The more I toyed with the idea, the more a ‘layer cake’ could be analogous to how I think and act as a facilitator.

Alayer cake as the analogy

My layer cake ( i.e. how I do what I do) has three (3) layers:

•  Layer 1... Little ‘nuggets’ of science
• Layer 2... Practitioner’s recipes
• Layer 3... Robb’s MO (modus operandi) 

1.2.1 Layer 1... Little ‘nuggets’ of science 

The 1st layer is a pot-pourri of concepts/research/models/’nuggets’ I have gleaned from the sociological/psychological/physiological/etc. literature that informs my thinking and behaviour as a facilitator - i.e. how and why people perceive, act and behave the way they do and how this can help me facilitate their discussions. Theses little ‘nuggets’ were not discovered by a well thought-out search but rather as a result of periodic searches to solve a specific problem I had or, more often, simple serendipity from reading an article that tweaked my curiosity. For example, the Abilene Paradox comes from an anecdote that Jerry Harvey (management expert) uses in the article to explain the paradox:

• “The Abilene Paradox is a parable about how groups follow a decision-making process that is not entirely open to individual differences of opinion. The parable used by Professor Harvey tells of four adults sitting on a front porch in Coleman, Texas (some 53 miles for Abilene), on a very hot summer day. While everyone appears content drinking lemonade and playing dominoes, someone in the group suggests taking a drive to Abilene to eat lunch. Privately, each of the four participants thinks this suggestion is without merit because the only available car has no air-conditioner. But each one goes along, so as not to be perceived as a ‘‘spoiler’’ of the group. Upon returning exhausted and disgruntled, the family members recognize that not a single one of them wanted to make the trip. They are unable to justify their original decision to take a 106-mile drive in a dust storm merely to eat a mediocre lunch in such hot weather. . . .” (Fn 06)

The phenomenon of ‘not speaking up’ is typical of group behaviour where some individuals are afraid that acting contrary to what is a false consensus of the group. They value their membership in the group to the degree that they avoid speaking up when they disagree with the pseudoconsensus for fear of exclusion from the group, chided as not being a team player, etc. Jerry Harvey described this phenomenon as a lack of agreement management. 

1.2.2 Layer 2... Practitioner’s recipes 

The 2nd layer in my ‘cake’ is an equally random and accidental collection of plans to be followed in effecting some change in condition or change in behaviour of a group of participants. The ground breaking ideas/negotiating schemes of The Harvard Negotiating Project gave me another methodology to incorporate into my repertoire of ways to help people move forward. 

This layer also includes useful typologies for thinking about a governing entity’s options for effecting some change in society - e.g. Bruce Doern’s ‘Continuum of Governing Instruments - Persuasion, Expenditure or Regulation’. Since I am intrigued by phenomena that can be described as a continuum/spectrum, I also immediately incorporated IAP2’s Spectrum of Public Empowerment when I saw it described in an Australian article and I subsequently used it as a framework for cataloguing all the various tools and techniques one could employ under the various degrees of stakeholder engagement. This work-in-progress is another ‘cheat sheet’ helps some problem solving assignments. 

These Practitioner’s recipes differ from the Science behind behaviours in that they are simply someone’s plan/procedure/protocol for effecting a change in condition or behaviour that has worked for me. Needless to say, I have not included any of the ones that didn’t work for me.

1.2.3 Layer 3... Robb’s MO (modus operandi) 

The 3rd layer in this analogy consists of my MO for starting-up, managing the ‘conversations’ that produce the desired results and wrapping-up/getting closure at the end of the meeting/workshop/etc. This layer is how I apply the things I learned from the Little ‘nuggets’ of science and Practitioner’s recipes layers. I use the term ‘MO (modus operandi)’ because I have to be able to develop detailed step-by-step procedures that can be tweaked to take into account the specifics of each assignment. I have three primary MOs:

Start-ups - procedures for creating a warm, inviting, respectful, and safe environment

Creating conversations - the step-by-step procedures for managing the conversations

Getting closure - procedures for wrapping up a meeting/workshop/etc.

Each of these three challenges of meetings/workshops/etc. describe my step-by-step approaches. For example, here is a synopsis of my MO for Start-ups.

Start-ups - “It’s all right to have butterflies in your stomach. Just get them to fly in formation” - Rob Gilbert

The step-by-step MO for start-ups is based on my obsession with creating a warm, inviting, respectful, and safe environment to express what you really think about the topic. If one starts from the premise that participants are likely to be suspicious of the governing entity that is my client, angry/frustrated if they are a member of the ‘left-behinds’ and distrusting in this post-truth, trust deficit era, I start every meeting/workshop/etc. from a deficit position and have to incrementally claw my way to neutral and then, hopefully, to a positive position.

1.3 Each assignment takes a slice of all three layers, usually from a different part of the cake

If I continue with my analogy of a layer cake, then each assignment cuts into the layer cake to extract the slice that has the combination of ‘Little ‘nuggets’ of science’, ‘Practitioner’s schemes’ and ‘My step-by-step frameworks’ that I need. I have some ‘go to’ science and practitioner’s gems such as:

• The Abilene Paradox
• Bruce Tuckman’s Theory/Model of Group Development
• “Priming”
• “Creative Problem Solving” (CPS) - Dr. Bob Mark and Dr. Chuck Mario
• IAP2’s Spectrum of Citizen Empowerment
• The 10-35-65 rule - Oral, Visual Alone and Visual & Oral

Very seldom do I encounter an assignment where I can replicate a previous assignment. 

2.0 Little ‘nuggets’ of science - Layer 1

This 1st layer of the analogy includes a cross -section of some of the concepts/research/models/’nuggets’ I have found useful :

• Communication Models - The Shannon–Weaver model, Schramm’s Model, and Berlo’s SMCR Model
• “Noise” distorts the message -physical, physiological, psychological and semantic
• The Abilene Paradox - The Management of Agreement
• The 5 Stage Consumer Adoption Process
• Bruce Tuckman’s Theory/Model of Group Development
• Social proof
• "priming"
• Confirmation Bias 

2.1 “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” - George Bernard Shaw

As a facilitator, my communication skills are critical if I expect participants to understand my directions, instructions or interventions. Similarly, I need to be able to understand what they are telling me and I need to be able to read between the lines. When I am trying to create conversations between the participants, I need to be able to intervene where necessary to help them communicate with each other.

The literature on communications is wonderfully huge, covering every aspects of senders, messages, channels, noise, receivers and feedback in more depth than I could assimilate in a lifetime. The theories that helped me understand the communication process and the multiple opportunities for communication to fail were:

• The Shannon–Weaver model
• Schramm’s Model, and
• Berlo’s SMCR Model

2.1.1 The Shannon–Weaver model 

The Shannon–Weaver model was the original model developed in 1949 by two engineers dealing with the technical problems of radio and telephone technology. To their credit, it is referred as the ‘mother of all models’.

 Shannon and Weaver argued that there were seven (7) components to any communication - sender, encoder, channel, noise, decoder, receiver and feedback. 

 Sender ... the initiator and encoder of a message. Through language and/or body language, the sender expresses something and sends it to the recipient. It can be information, an emotion, song, dance, etc.

Encoder ... puts the idea into spoken language while putting their own meaning into the word/message. the sender uses coding. They translate what they have in their head to understandable language, with the intention that the recipient will understand what they mean.

Channel ... the medium through which the message travels-In addition to the voice for spoken words, the sender uses gestures, facial expression, posture and intonation as media. The sender can also use supporting media, such as a PowerPoint presentation, flip chart, music or a slide show.

Noise ... interference with effective transmission and reception of a message. Interference is anything internal (jargon, heavy accent, etc.) or external ( noisy air conditioning, fake news, etc.) that leads to misunderstandings 

Decoder ... translates the sender’s spoken idea/message into something the receiver understands by using their knowledge of language from personal experience. The recipient tries to ‘crack’ the sender’s message through decoding. They interpret what they are seeing and hearing and translate it into thoughts.

Receiver ... the one that receives the message (the listener) and the decoder of a message. 

Feedback ... the receiver’s verbal and nonverbal responses to a message such as a nod for understanding (nonverbal), a raised eyebrow for being confused (nonverbal), or asking a question to clarify the message (verbal). Subsequently, the sender can respond by asking a question for instance (‘I see that you don’t really get it, is that right?’) or by explaining it again in a different way (‘I’ll try to rephrase it’). (Fn 07)

Their basic model increased my sensitivity to the increased number of opportunities for communication to fail or as George Bernard Shaw said “is the illusion that it has taken place”.

2.1.2 Wilbur Schramm’s Model

Wilbur Schramm is considered the founder of the field of Communication Studies. His first book Mass Media in Modern Society (1949) was followed by 29 more books on the role of communications in societies.

Schramm’s model forced me to increase the attention I paid to how I ‘encoded” my introductory presentations and how the participants in my meeting/workshop/teleconference were likely to decode my messages in the manner I needed. In particular, I changed my approach to designing my words and images used in my slides and I began sticking my nose in the presentations of the consultants who were delivering the slides on the proposed policy/issue/project.

• “Information is of no use unless and until it is carefully put into words and conveyed to others. Encoding plays a very important role because it initiates the process of communication by converting the thought into content. When the information reaches the recipient his prime responsibility is to understand what the speaker intends to convey. Unless and until the second party is able to understand or decode the information what the sender wants to communicate, the message is actually of no use. Thus encoding and decoding are two most important factors of an effective communication without which information can never flow between two individuals.” (Fn 08)

“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” - Albert Einstein

Wilbur’s work also highlighted the potential for communications to fail where, what he called the ‘fields of experience’ of the sender are different than the ‘fields of experience’ of the receiver. Since I do a lot of science- public-policy assignments, the ‘fields of experience’ of the scientists providing the scientific findings are often significantly different from the publics that they are trying to convince. Some scientists and technical experts are extremely good at translating the technical subject matter into understandable metaphors and analogies without dumming it down. Other scientists and experts require some coaching, if they let me. If not, I have learned to have my own subject ringer (AKA resource person) in the audience who I can call on to periodically help translate the technical ‘mumbo-jumbo’ for the participants/audience. 

Einstein also said “ Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Communication is incomplete until the sender receives feedback from the recipient

It took me a long time to discover the importance of this element of communication. For years my facilitation was really that of a moderator cum traffic cop, moving from one speaker to the next one. It was only when I started thinking about how to create ‘conversations’ between the participants that this concept of feedback’ took hold in my psyche and I realized the inadequacy of my previous approach. 

• “[Schramm] also emphasizes that the communication is incomplete unless and until the sender receives a feedback from the recipient. Imagine a person sharing his thoughts with his friend and his friend not responding to him. Is the communication complete? NO.Schramm believed that communication is actually a two way process between the first party and the second party.” (Fn 09) 

2.1.3 Berlo’s SMCR Model - Source, Message, Channel and Receiver

In 1960, David Berlo developed a model of communication that takes into account the emotional aspect of the message. Berlo’s model of communication is called the SMCR model. I use his four (4) elements/components/aspects as a checklist in my prep before a meeting/worlshop/telecon. I have found that when I switch gears from writing one day to suddenly facilitating the next day, these prompts help me make the sudden transition. 

The following is from “Berlo’s Model of Communication”: (Fn 10)

 S - Source - 5 ingredients that affect the effectiveness of the sender attempts at communication

• Communication Skills of the sender
•  Attitude of the sender
• Knowledge of the sender
• Social System of the environment
• Culture of the receiver(s) 

M-Message -Berlo also described the influence of how one converted their thoughts into words or how the message was created (M - Message). Any message comprises of the following ingredients:

• Content/information the sender is trying to communicate
• Elements of the message include non-verbals
• Treatment of the message must coincide with the content of the message
• “Chunking” the message into digestible pieces and delivered over time

C-Channel - Berlo differs significantly from other models when it comes to the ingredients of Channels. Channel refers to the medium how the information flows from the sender to the receiver - i.e. through one or more of our 5 senses - seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching. All the five senses are the channels which help human beings to communicate with each other.

R-Receiver - Berlo’s receiver is a mirror of the sender when they are interpreting/decoding the message. 

2.1.4 “Noise” distorts the message -physical, physiological, psychological and semantic 

Noise is mentioned in all the communication models but it is seldom given the attention it should be given. I have found ‘noise’ to be a major consideration in how I start-up and run meetings/workshops/telecons.

Physical noise - The obvious example of noise that can interfere with the communication cycle in public meetings/workshops is environmental noise outside the room - caused by transport, industrial and recreational activities in the vicinity. Meetings in facilities near airports are notorious for noise that can interrupt at the most inconvenient times. Similarly, meetings/workshops in hotels where a large room is divided into two rooms by dividers that are not sound proof and the next room over is holding a rowdy session. Telecons are notorious for background noises creeping into the airways from the cell phones of some of the participants on the telecon.

Physiological noise - These are biological influences that distract me from communicating competently - such as hunger, fatigue, headaches, pain, etc. Physiological noise can also interfere with the participants’ ability to communicate what they intended but didn’t deliver.

Psychological noise - This is perhaps the most significant source of ‘noise’ that interferes with communication. This source of noise includes preconceived notions that audiences may bring to the meeting/workshop such as identity politics, reputations, biases, and assumptions. It also includes ‘confirmation bias’ -Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms their preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. They will accept or reject the presenter’s message depending on the degree to which it confirms their preexisting beliefs. 

• “Once we have formed a view, we embrace information that confirms that view while ignoring, or rejecting, information that casts doubt on it. Confirmation bias suggests that we don’t perceive circumstances objectively. We pick out those bits of data that make us feel good because they confirm our prejudices. Thus, we may become prisoners of our assumptions.” (Fn 11) 

 Semantic noise - This source of noise is driven by the choice of words we use. The most common is the use of jargon that may not be familiar to all the participants, or acronyms instead of the full name or title. Simply different interpretations of the meanings of certain words (e.g. ‘weed’ - an an undesirable plant in a garden or marijuana). Then there are the colloquial expressions that are specific to a locale or culture. Semantic noise also includes the ‘pace’ at which the words are delivered - slow to reduce the emotional state of the audience or fast to increase excitement. Tone of voice, rhythm, intonation and stress placed on words all can distort the message.

Non-verbal noise - This includes all the physical movements of the presenter - pacing the floor, hand movements, body gyrations, facial expressions, eye contact can interfere with the communication cycle.

Takeaways from these models

• “Perfect communication is impossible because what I said is not what I intended and what you heard is not what I said” - Anon
• 1. Encoding the information is the critical 1st step in the communication cycle 
• Encoding the information in a way that enables the receiver to decode it correctly is the responsibility of the sender. I have to create my start-up presentation with the information I want to deliver in a manner that the audience will understand what I intended.
• 2. Decoding by some of the participants will often be inaccurate and distort the intended message
• Decoding will usually result in a distortion of the message because of the receiver’s previous accumulated experiences in life/culture. Most presentations focus on the “logic” of the analysis of the problem and the solutions. Whereas the audience is primarily concerned with how the proposal will affect them, their interests and their community.
• 3. Attention span - The average customer’s attention span is 8 seconds, less than the attention span of a goldfish which is 9 seconds- (Fn 12)
• 4. Psychological noise, confirmation bias in particular, is the major source of ‘noise’ that I have to offset/anticipate/counter with my materials, the presenter and my subject ringers.

2.2 The tyranny of the ‘group’ and the desire to belong

If one of the reasons for organizing/convening a meeting/workshop/etc. is to hear from those who have a vital interest in the policy/issue/project under consideration, then I need to create a ‘container’ in which people feel free to join the conversations and to do so with impunity. I need to say and do things that encourage and legitimize dissent as Edwards de Bono advocated in his book “Six Thinking Hats” (explored later). I cannot rely on everyone being strong enough to do it on their own.

The Abilene Paradox - The Management of Agreement

The name of the phenomenon comes from an anecdote that Jerry Harvey (management expert) uses in the article to explain the paradox. This version of the anecdote is an abridged/shorter version from Wikipedia:

• “The Abilene Paradox is a parable about how groups follow a decision-making process that is not entirely open to individual differences of opinion. The parable used by Professor Harvey tells of four adults sitting on a front porch in Coleman, Texas (some 53 miles for Abilene), on a very hot summer day. While everyone appears content drinking lemonade and playing dominoes, someone in the group suggests taking a drive to Abilene to eat lunch. Privately, each of the four participants thinks this suggestion is without merit because the only available car has no air-conditioner. But each one goes along, so as not to be perceived as a ‘‘spoiler’’ of the group. Upon returning exhausted and disgruntled, the family members recognize that not a single one of them wanted to make the trip. They are unable to justify their original decision to take a 106-mile drive in a dust storm merely to eat a mediocre lunch in such hot weather. . . .
• Professor Harvey gave an example of how the Abilene Paradox evolved in a company where top management wanted to go with its pet project to Abilene, while all the individual members of the research and development (R&D) department wanted to go somewhere else. Fearful of being accused of insubordination, the R&D director and his team members wrote ambiguous progress reports so the president and vice presidents could interpret them ‘‘to suit themselves.’’ As the reports were slanted to the positive side—with heaps of praise—a unanimous decision was made to continue the questionable project for yet another year. Symbolically, the organization ‘‘had boarded a bus to Abilene.’’” (Fn 13)

The phenomenon of ‘not speaking up’ is typical of group behaviour where some individuals are afraid that acting contrary to what is a false consensus of the group. They value their membership in the group to the degree that they avoid speaking up when they disagree with the pseudoconsensus for fear of exclusion from the group, chided as not being a team player, etc. 

Jerry Harvey described this phenomenon as a lack of agreement management. (Fn 14) 

Takeaways from the Abilene Paradox

The key learnings for me as a facilitator was the need to ‘explicitly’ test/manage agreement with the group/assembly of participants involved. The old adage ‘Silence means consent’ camouflages underlying dissent that should be uncovered and discussed without fear of exclusion or reprisal. 

• 1. During the start-up of the meeting/workshop/etc., legitimize dissenting opinions and differing world views of the subject under consideration. Unless I am seeking a consensus, stress the importance of tabling a spectrum of opinions.
• 2. Declare for the group that the adage ‘silence means consent’ is invalid/not applicable/rejected. Silence will be interpreted as people are still thinking or thinking about something else or the facilitator should move on, etc. 
• 3. As the meeting/workshop/etc. progresses and key points are reached, push the group to answer the question ”Do you agree?” or conversely “Does anyone disagree” - i.e. formally and repeatedly see if the group is in agreement or not. 
• 4. Positively reinforce and protect participants who offer dissenting opinions or raise questions that challenge the flow of the conversations.

2.3 Berlo advocated “Chunking” the message into digestible pieces and delivered over time

Many of my facilitation assignments have involved consulting a group of stakeholders on a proposed policy/issue/project. As I mentioned in Chapter 1 (A), the purpose of this consultation can be either to seek ‘consent’ from the stakeholders for a proposed policy/issue/project or just to receive and document their concerns. In either case, especially where the client/proponent is seeking their consent, how do the stakeholders come to a conclusion about whether they like/agree with the proposal or object/disagree with it? For years, I simply thought I had to make sure the proponent’s consultant gave them the facts and they made their decision. 

But the problem was a lot of the audience had that confused look on their faces as if they didn’t understand what had been presented. It wasn’t until I encountered Philip Kotler’s model of how consumers make their purchase decisions that I realized my stakeholders were going through a similar mental decision-making process - instead of purchasing a product, they were being asked to buy or reject the proposed policy/issue/project. So, some of my stakeholders were really were confused because I was expecting them to make a decision in one fell swoop when (according to Kotler) their decision-making process was multi-staged, requiring information in smaller bites and allowing more time to think it through. The consumer purchase analogy also applies to stakeholders evaluating a proposed policy/issue/project - “let the buyer beware”.

The 5 Stage Consumer Adoption Process

The consumer adoption model has an assortment of descriptions but the basics include: 

Awareness Stage: Awareness is the stage of being conscious of something (product); or having knowledge about something. In this stage, the consumer is just aware or knows about the existence of a product. But lacks enough knowledge about the product or service to actually patronize it immediately.

Interest Stage: After being aware of a product or service a consumer thinks can satisfy him, he would want to know more about such product or service by seeking more information about it. And that’s basically what the second stage of the consumer adoption process is about.

Evaluation Stage: After the consumer had successfully sought and found some information about the product, this is the stage they now decide if buying the product is the right thing to do or not. During evaluation, consumers uses all of the information they’ve gathered about a product to judge the product.

Trial Stage: The trial purchase or free sample of the product will determine if the consumer will buy more of the product overtime. 

Adoption (product purchase). This is the stage whereby the consumer decides to buy the product after due consideration of all of the above stages. In essence, the adoption stage is the last and final stage in the consumer adoption process in marketing; and it’s in this stage the consumer decides to buy in large quantity and make full regular use of the product. (Fn 15)

Takeaway from Kotler - Adapting the Consumer Adoption Model to Stakeholders being consulted on a proposal

If you read Chapter 1(B),skip the following description because you have already seen it. I included it here again because it is a core piece of research that is central to how I ‘chunk’ the messages.

In practicing what Thomas Alva Edison advocated (i.e. “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.”), I adapted the consumer process to fit the stakeholders I deal with - i.e. a Stakeholder Adoption Model. I have reduced the 5 steps to 4 because, in a meeting/workshop/etc., the stakeholders are basically ‘hostages’ to the presentations of the proposed policy/issue/project - they are not free-agents searching for products that might ‘interest’ them. The graphic below depicts this adoption process as a set of steps/stairs.

This adoption model suggests that we should structure the communication process so that it allows people to systematically progress at their own pace through the following 4 stages: 

1. Awareness...they have to be exposed to the basic idea. They may or may not have been exposed to the policy/issue/project previously. If they have seen it in the media, they may not have given it much attention.

2. Comprehension... Assuming they have an interest in the policy/issue/project, they have to develop some degree of comprehensive understanding so that they can evaluate the relative costs and benefits of the idea to them. This stage involves their accumulation and analysis of information about the policy/issue/project. 

3. Trial Adoption...they need to “try it on”, “take it for a test drive”, “kick the tires”, etc..in effect talk about it in workshops, public information forums, etc. They need to visualize the proposed policy/issue/project in their neighbourhood or community.

4. Adopt or Reject... or remain undecided as they work towards a decision. For the undecided, handouts and material that they can takeaway are useful tools that they can mull over at a later time. For those who reject the proposal, continued discussions are necessary in a continuing effort to convert them.

2.4 The “Invisible” Stages of a Meeting/Workshops/etc. 

•  “In making theories always keep a window open so that you can throw one out if necessary.” -Dr. Bela Schick 

Bruce Tuckman’s theory has survived nearly 60 years and I see no need to look for a window yet.

This is another ‘little bit of science’ you can skip because I covered it in Chapter 1(B) but it is a core theory to how I plan and execute my MOs.

Bruce Tuckman’s Theory/Model of Group Development

One of my primary models for visualizing the dynamics of a meeting/workshop/etc. is Bruce Tuckman’s theory of group formation among a group of strangers brought together to solve a problem. (Fn 16) 

•  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. These ‘conflicts’ can be readily apparent or carefully hidden “under the table”. 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 and can move to the next stage.
• Some never get beyond forming or storming. Sad to say but the reality is that these ones usually need to be dissolved or morphed into some other entity.
• 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 - 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.

He listened to his critics and after 12 years, he added an ‘adjourning’ stage:

• Adjourning stage - This is about completion and disengagement, both from the tasks and the group members. Individuals will be proud of having achieved much and glad to have been part of such an enjoyable group. Some critics have described stage 5 as “Deforming and Mourning” - recognizing the sense of loss felt by many group members.

We created the following schematic diagram to illustrate the slightly overlapping characteristics of each stage as opposed to completely mutually exclusive phases that is normally associated with the term ‘stage’.

Takeaways from Tuckman’s theory

As with any meeting/workshop/etc., the start-up is critical. This is where Tuckman’s model is particularly useful. 

• 1. This provides me with an ‘invisible’ blueprint for how to stage and facilitate the step-by-step process to get them to a successful conclusion.
• 2. By splitting the start-up into Forming versus Storming, requires me to design the process so that my introductory slides deliberately enable both to occur as quickly as possible. This means taking my time with my start-up slides to give the participants ample opportunities to ask questions and challenge my proposed approach 
• 3. This means telling them to ask me questions as I present, don’t hold their questions until later or when I finish. I need them to Form and Storm as quickly as possible.
• 4. In the past ‘Storming’ was superficially focussed on the ‘content’. Now the Storming delves deep into the content led by participants who has educated themselves with information from the Internet and often connected with the authors/experts/bloggers they liked (i.e. who confirm what they believe). I have to spend more time letting these debates occur before pushing on. This is problematic if there are deniers and/or participants who espouse conspiracy theories in the room. 

2.5 People are like water - they flow downhill at increasing speed, they take the easiest course, they build up pressure if blocked, and if artesian, they will re-surface where you least expect 

2.5.1 Social proof - Robert Cialdini

Social proof, a term coined by Robert Cialdini in his 1984 book, Influence, is also known as informational social influence. It describes a psychological and social phenomenon wherein people copy the actions of others in an attempt to undertake behavior in a given situation - “The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more the idea will be correct.”

• “When we feel uncertain, we all tend to look to others for answers as to how we should behave, what we should think and what we should do. This psychological concept is known as social proof. It occurs as a result of our natural desire to behave in the correct manner and fit in with others. It can be easy to assume that everyone else has a better grasp of what to do in a given situation. Social proof is especially prevalent in ambiguous or unfamiliar conditions, or in big groups. It affects us both in public and in private.” (Fn 17)
• “. . . Social proof? Simple idea, really: it boils down to ‘seeing is believing.’… We use social proof to decide how to dispose of an empty popcorn box in a movie theater, how fast to drive on a highway, or whether to tackle that fried chicken or corn on the cob with our hands at a dinner party. At the more consequential end of the spectrum, we rely on social proof to inform moral choices- whether to assist an inebriated football enthusiast who falls on the sidewalk or step forward as a whistleblower.” (Fn 18)

Takeaways from Social Proof

• 1. This phenomenon can be deadly to a facilitator in a meeting/workshop/etc. where a number of contrarians and/or deniers have been able to dominate the proceedings. If the rest of the audience is uncertain, they might reach conclusions which are outright wrong. This is also known as groupthink or herd behavior.
• 2. “The more uncertain we feel, the more susceptible we are to social proof.” I try to pre-empt these feelings of uncertainty by quickly giving participants some solid ground to stand on before they can be influenced by any dissenting factions that are trying to dominate.
• “A phrase like ‘the American way’ when uttered on behalf of a particular agenda, signals that most Americans, or at least most respectable Americans agree on what is appropriate. Of course, the claim embodied in such a phrase may harbor much exaggeration. Other methods of exaggeration include dwelling on biased polls [e.g. a political poll only completed by white males] and overstating the size of a demonstration. All such methods constitute direct appeals to social proof. ..the softness or hardness of a belief must not be confused with its power, which is its potential influence over behaviour. A belief based solely on social proof -one that is extremely soft- may generate wild passions, as when a student participates fervently in a revolutionary movement whose program she has never read.” (Fn 19)

2.5.2 “Priming” 

Exposure to certain types of information (e.g., traits, stereotypes, or goals, etc.) can “prime” a person’s subsequent response, either positively or negatively. This initial information is stored in a person’s memory and is ‘activated’ by some associated information/event/source at a later time. Social psychology has a long and rich history of studying the influence of racial stereotypes in priming the attitudes and behaviours of those depicted in the stereotype. My first encounter with this research was a study that selected two groups of people from the same race (matched for gender, age, socio-economic, etc. characteristics) to take a written test to measure their knowledge about a common subject. Group ‘A’ was given advance information citing examples of the successes and role models of their racial group. Group ‘B’ was given advance information that bemoaned the lack of successes and role models for their racial group. When the results of the exams were scored, Group ‘A’ outperformed Group ‘B’. The authors of the study concluded that the advance information ‘primed’ the participants and subconsciously affected their performance on the test.

• “. . . the mere exposure to socially relevant stimuli can facilitate, or prime, a host of impressions, judgments, goals, and actions, often even outside of people’s intention or awareness.” (Fn 20)
• “Priming Can Be Used as an Educational Tool - Teachers and educators can also utilize priming as a learning tool. Some students perform better when they know what they can expect. Tackling new material can sometimes be intimidating, but priming students by presenting information before a lesson is given can help. . . . New material is presented before it is taught, allowing the student to become comfortable with it. For example, students might be allowed to “preview” the books or materials that are going to be used as part of a lesson. Because they are already familiar with the information and materials, they may be better able to pay attention during the actual lesson.” (Fn 21)

Takeaways about “Priming”

• 1. Give participants advance information about the pending meeting/workshop/etc. that describes the event in sufficient detail that their positive impressions/memory will be triggered by my introductory slides
• 2. The typical notice and/or agenda is inadequate as a ‘priming’ instrument
• 3. I create Workshop Guides, and where I can get the client to agree ( because some fear advance information will give them time to marshall their opposition...Workshop guides are a map of how I am going to facilitate their thinking/review/discussion of the proposed policy/issue/project
• “. . . Unbeknownst to participants, the word left out of the sentence was systematically related to the concept of “being old”. The beauty of the experiment lies in its unusual dependent measure: walking speed. Those participants who had been exposed to words related to old age walked slower when exiting the laboratory than the participants who had not been so exposed. . . . This striking finding, now widely cited, established that priming may occur automatically and influence behavior with little or no awareness..” (Fn 22) 

2.5.3 Confirmation Bias -English psychologist Peter Wason 

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 term confirmation bias was coined by the English psychologist Peter Wason. He conducted series of experiments in the 1960s to demonstrate that people are indeed biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Instead of trying to falsify a hypothesis, people tend to try to confirm the hypothesis - they do not want to face the possibility that their beliefs could be wrong.

• “Creating and testing hypotheses represents a crucial feature not only of progress in science, but also in our daily lives in which we set up assumptions about reality and try to test them. However, the lay scientist stands accused of processing his or her hypotheses in such a way that he or she is biased to confirm them. “Con?rmation bias” means that information is searched for, interpreted, and remembered in such a way that it systematically impedes the possibility that the hypothesis could be rejected – that is, it fosters the immunity of the hypothesis. Here, the issue is not the use of deceptive strategies to fake data, but forms of information processing that take place more or less unintentionally.” (Fn 23) 

Takeaways from Peter Wason

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). Hence the need to facilitate this inter-change of opinions:

• 1. Facilitating this struggle for understanding is more than leaving it at ‘the participants held widely opposing views on...’ I now anticipate this phenomenon and strengthen my start-up presentation to accommodate this bias.
• 2. If the purpose of the meeting/workshop/etc. is to reach a consensus on something, then this type of conversation has to play out in more detail.
• 3. I also also bring my ‘subject ringer’ (the facilitator’s expert who is good at explaining technical matters in understandable terms and who can help move the conversation off any prolonged debates) into the discussion to help balance the opposing views and suggest where each is acceptable. Usually I have to cover these costs myself but it is a small price to pay for success.

3.0 Practitioner’s recipes

This layer includes a sample of practitioner’s recipes that I often use in my step-by-step frameworks:

• Creative Problem Solving” (CPS) - Dr. Bob Mark and Dr. Chuck Mario
•  “6 Thinking Hats” - Edward de Bono
• “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them” - Edward deBono
• The Harvard Negotiation Project -William Ury and Roger Fisher
• Visual images trump text
• Social Media Platforms

3.1 Behaviour modification (of me)

 This subject matter brings a smile to my face as I remember all those workshops with participants bursting with energy, ideas and a playfulness that was the genesis of their success. As their facilitator, I created ‘containers’ that were based on my experimentation with the literature on creativity and the different types of problem solving methodologies. My research, training and assignments in this sphere of group endeavours had the biggest positive impact on my approach, style and techniques of facilitation.

3.1.1 “Creative Problem Solving” (CPS) - Dr. Bob Mark and Dr. Chuck Mario

I had already explored, used and kept in my back pocket problem solving methodologies like Kepner-Tregoe, Systems Analysis, Sydney Love’s 16 Steps, Ford’s Eight Disciplines Problem Solving process, etc. I was expecting another similar but different linear or circular schema of problem analysis and options development. 

What I got/found/discovered was behaviour modification - modification of my attitudes and behaviours in how I thought about and worked with groups to facilitate their creativity and problem solving. 

Build and add to other people’s ideas - The first modification in my attitude/thinking was to let go of my training as a policy analysts which was based on my knowledge of the subject matter under consideration and my debating skills. The typical problem solving session between us policy wonks was to present one’s perspective, politely listen to the other position and then argue, try to defend one’s position while undercutting the other positions. The last position still intact was the preferred solution.

Remove your own ego and ideas from the process - The CPS approach was the exact opposite of my training - it was to ‘build’ on other people’s suggestions, to ‘add’ to their ideas. To be able to contribute to the problem solving process in this manner required one to really listen and think creatively along with what the other person was thinking. It was not acceptable to make superficial comments such as ‘I like your idea’ and then stop. I was expected to make substantive suggestions on how to move the other person’s idea forward towards a solution. Instead of debating, I was inadvertently building a collaborative relationship with the other person and others in the group.

Remove the word ‘but’ from your vocabulary - The word ‘but’ is like the delete key on the keyboard - The second modification was that I had to remove the word ‘but’ from my vocabulary and replace it with the word ‘and” - when my natural instinct was to say “i like your idea but ( then I would kill their idea with a big negative)...”, I had to replace it with “I like your idea and ( here I was supposed to include a suggestion of why I like their idea)”. When I would normally say “I like your idea but...”, I am really lying in public - the word ‘but’ is the precursor to how I am going to trash the other person’s idea.

Say 3 positive things first and then express your concern beginning with the words ‘how to...’ - The third major modification was in how I dealt with ideas I didn’t think would work. In those rare instances where the other person’s idea is giving you heartburn (i.e. grave concerns) and you can’t immediately find a build or add, give them a ‘structured criticism’. A structured criticism begins with the sentence, “I liked this about your ideas, and this aspect would enhance... and I think it would have a longer term benefit such as ... AND if you can help me figure out ‘how to’ do..., I think it might work.”

These behaviour changes look simple enough but/and it it is amazing how entrenched our normal behaviours are and how resistant they are to change. Even when I could see the benefits to my facilitation, it took months of practice and live-time use before it became second nature. (Fn 24)

Takeaways from “Creative Problem Solving” (CPS) 

• 1. I had to stop thinking and acting like a policy wonk (immediately evaluating what the other person said and mentally prepared my rebuttal) and start thinking how I could ‘add’ or ‘build’ on what they said.
• 2. It is inherently creative, especially if you begin with someone whose initial idea/suggestion/solution is ‘off the wall’, or seemingly bizarre’
• 3. It automatically creates a positive relationship with the others and increases their self-esteem - just what a facilitator wants.
• 4. It allows the facilitator to intervene beginning with the words “I like these 3 things about your suggestion and if you can help me solve this concern, I can buy everything you said.” 
• 5. Any idea can be made to work if you systematically solve all the concerns. Hence the expressions “solutions are a dime a dozen” with this methodology.

3.1.2 “6 Thinking Hats” - Edward de Bono

In this book, de Bono made the case that rigorous ‘thinking’ about any given problem requires 6 types of thinking:

1.  White Hat - OBJECTIVE FACTS, neutral; focus on information available, what is needed, how it can be obtained
2.  Red Hat - EMOTIONS, FEELINGS, intuition, hunches, presents views without explanation
3.  Black Hat - LOGICAL NEGATIVE, judgmental, critical, why something is wrong
4.  Yellow Hat - LOGICAL POSITIVE, optimism, sunshine, looks for benefits, what’s good
5.  Green Hat - CREATIVE THINKING, possibilities and hypotheses, new ideas
6.  Blue Hat - CONTROL OF THE PROCESS, organizer, facilitator, thinking about thinking, overview (Fn 25)

In addition to the use of colour to distinguish between the hats, he chose the metaphor of hats to signify that participants should role play the different type of thinking by wearing the different hats. I have used his methodology of 6 thinking hats with in-house workshops where the participants know each other and where I can get them to role play the thinking under each hat ( I have purchased hats in each colour so that I can actually table the hats). 

Takeaways from “6 Thinking Hats”

• 1. Convinced me to accept ‘red hat’ thinking as a legitimate way of thinking in any given problem solving exercise that I was facilitating. As a policy wonk, I previously avoided/discouraged/discounted red hat thinking.
• 2. Increased my perceptions of the value of ‘black hat’ thinking with the caveat that it should not be allowed to control the thinking of the group. The ‘air hogs’ in any group tend to always be black hat thinkers and unfamiliar with being able to role play the other hats. I have come to accept the logical negative as a necessary element in most group conversations. The adaptation in facilitation is don’t try to prevent it or shut it down when it first rears its head. The trick is simply to keep it from dominating which keeps the other person they dumped on, alive for the rest of the conversation. 
• 3. It empowered participants (without me ‘pleading’ for more creative suggestions or optimism) to play the roles of the ‘yellow hat’ and the ‘green hat’ which are normally considered too optimistic or too ‘off-the-wall with their creative contributions.
• 4. Expanded my own thinking about who should be recruited for a given problem solving or advisory group. Normally I focussed on recruiting ‘content’ experts familiar with the problem/dilemma under consideration with an odd person or two thrown in as contrarians. de Bono’s arguments for 6 types changed the formula forever. 
• 5. Gave me a safe (non-offensive) device to start-up in-house problem solving assignments that were deliberately seeking new and creative solutions to old problems.

3.2 Conflict is the natural state of the universe 

• “It were not best we should all think a like; it is the difference of opinion that makes horse races,” - Mark Twain

3.2.1 “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them” - Edward deBono

Edward deBono, in his book “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them”, describes four (4) reasons why people disagree:

1. Because they see things differently - de Bono describes an hypothetical situation in which a child, hit by a car at a neighbourhood intersection, is viewed differently by the mother looking out her kitchen window, by the driver of the car, a witness on the corner of the intersection and the police who arrive later.

2. Because they want different things -People have different values and objectives. They want to make different choices. Where these choices conflict with the choices of others, there is conflict.

3. Because their thinking style encourages them to - We attach permanent value labels to items and this make it difficult to regard something as good up to a point but bad beyond that point [his salt curve - some salt is good but more is bad]. Most arguments are based on this difficulty. As a result both parties in an argument are usually right, but under different circumstances or in different amounts. 

4. Because they are supposed to -Our civilization is highly geared up for conflict. Conflict is an expected and revered idiom in our civilization. The conflict idioms pervade our attitudes, our expectations and our language. We like to talk about peace but can only think of fighting our way there. Our attitudes towards conflict span righ across the spectrum to the competitive rivalry between two tennis players.

Takeaways from de Bono

• 1. It took me a long time to realize that conflict was the normal state and not an anomaly to be periodically endured.
• 2. His ‘design option’ (creating an alternative that was not on the table previously) expanded my thinking beyond my traditional search for a ‘compromise’.

3.3 Visual images trump text

My proposition that “visuals trump text” is based on a time-tested adage: “A picture is worth a thousand words.” Interestingly, this adage misquotes the original author: “‘A picture is worth ten thousand words” as stated by Fred R. Barnard, of Printers’ Ink, 10 March 1927. (“A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Words”, Freakonomics Blog, 2011)

I have been reasonably successful in our graphic design of the Facilitator’s Guides, Handbooks, WorkBooks and other ‘primers’ where we are presenting technical information about a policy/issue/project. Kenya Hara’s book “Designing for Design” and Breaking Designer’s Block: 501 graphic design solutions for type, color, and materials”, Rockport Publishers have been important reference books. (FN 31) 

The example below is my Facilitator’s Atlas for the Northumberland Forest Advisory Committee. 

3.3.1 The 10-35-65 rule - Oral, Visual Alone and Visual & Oral

The start-up and the 1st presentation are critical to capturing and sustaining participants’ attention.

The Pictorial (or Picture) Superiority Effect has been long studied showing how much better we are at remembering and recognizing information presented visually.

• “Allan Paivio (1971, 1986, 1991) developed the “dual-coding theory.” The theory states that when we are exposed to different stimuli, we form mental representations and, depending on the stimuli type, we have the possibility of encoding them twice, once as a verbal code and again as an image code. For instance, if I said the word “chair,” you can encode it twice: a verbal code for the word and an image code because you can easily picture what the word is about. When we have two codes we increase the likelihood for memory because we have two memory traces. Compare this with something abstract like “optimization.” This creates only one code—the verbal one—and it is harder to come up with an image for it, and is thus less likely to be recalled.” (Fn 32)
• “Text and oral presentations are not just less efficient than pictures for retaining certain types of information; they are way less efficient. If information is presented orally, people remember about 10 percent, tested 72 hours after exposure. That figure goes up to 65 percent if you add a picture.” (Fn 33)

Takeaways from the 10-35-65 rule

• 1. The combination of visual images and a voice-over that is talking about the topic that is visually presented is the most effective. Steve Jobs, the founder and Czar of Apple Computers, was one of the first great presenters to use the visual and oral combination.
• 2. Garr Reynolds, in his superb book entitled “Presentation Zen”, makes a convincing case for using dramatic/clean images, minimum text on the slide and an enhanced verbal presentation of the presenter’s script. Here is a dramatic example of his approach.

“You can see the picture superiority effect used widely in marketing communications, such as posters, billboards, brochures, annual reports, etc. The effect should be kept in mind too when designing slides (images and text) that support the narrative. Visual imagery appears to be a powerful mnemonic tool that helps learning and increases retention compared, say, to witnessing someone read words off a screen.”

1st Slide - “A traditional slide which duplicates the presenter’s words. More of a reading rest than a visual.

2nd Slide- “This slide serves to enhance the presenter’s spoken words much better. The photo has impact and the point is made clearly. Which slide is more memorable? And since people are not reading, they can actually listen to you.” (FN 34)

• 3. Death by Powerpoint ... “Toss your PowerPoint presentations. It’s text-based (nearly 40 words per slide), with six hierarchical levels of chapters and subheads—all words. Professionals everywhere need to know about the incredible inefficiency of text-based information and the incredible effects of images. Burn your current PowerPoint presentations and make new ones.” (Fn 35)

3.5 Social Media Platforms - not a game changer any more, the game has changed

Stakeholder engagement was revolutionized with the “internet of things”. With the internet, stakeholder engagement became stakeholder empowerment. E-mails replaced faxes and snail mail - paper docs now became an electronic PDF file that could be transmitted instantaneously. Websites burst forth suddenly making new and more information on everything available to anyone with a computer and a service provider. 

3.5.1 There 212 major active social media platforms as of today

“There are thousands but Wikipedia has a running list of the major active social networking sites. As of today that number is around 212.”

Brian Solis created The Conversation Prism to illustrate and categorize the different types of social media platforms .

“ The Conversation Prism debuted in 2008 as social media was exploding online. Social media would change everything about how we communicate, learn and share. It forever democratized information and reset the balance for influence.

The Conversation Prism was designed as a visual map of the conversational networks that continue to reshape everything. Its purpose is to help you understand and appreciate the statusphere so that you can play a productive and defining role in the conversations shaping our future.” (Fn 36)

I have included his Prism, a stunning, truly stunning infographic, because it illustrates the overwhelming size of the universe of platforms much better than simply saying there are 212 platforms or listing them. Unfortunately I had to split the Prism into 2 parts because of limitations of the Linkedin software.

His Conversation Prism includes a surprising 28 categories of platforms. Several of these categories were foreign to me and I had to Google them.

Takeaways about social media platforms

• 1. These social networking sites support one or more functions: communication, collaborative work with like-minded subscriber who they have probably never met, content sharing in the production of market ‘value’ and community building in the sense of civic participation and social capital.
• Today’s participants in meetings/workshop/etc are connected to their community, be it a neighbourhood, municipal community, a community of hobbies, interests, the arts, etc, or a policy community such as parents of autistic children. They are informed or misinformed depending on the issue and whose websites they have been accessing.
• 2. As attractive as these platforms are, their reputations in recent years has been tarnished by concerns regarding their merchandising and sale of users’ personal data and information. Shoshana Zuboff, in her latest book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism”, describes the merchandising forces at work below the surface of these platforms:
• “She argues that users are sleepwalking into this new world of ‘smart’ devices and smart cities, created more for the benefit of those who hoover up their data than for them. In order to get the best use out of their robo-vacuum cleaner, or ‘sleep-tracking’ mattresses, or internet-enabled rectal thermometers, they consent to surrendering their most intimate details, not realizing these are put up for sale in ‘behavioural futures markets’. (Fn 37)
• 3. Social media networks are useful tools for disseminating emergency warnings of flood, tornado, hurricane, volcanic eruption, earthquake, heatwave or landslide. Most of the citizens have mobile phones with Internet and social networking applications - provided the cellular network is still operating and not knocked out by the natural disaster. 
• In addition to warnings/alerts, social media fulfill a communication need since people seek to contact family and friends in the disasters zone, and seek information regarding food, shelter and transportation. Social media has played a significant role in disseminating information about these disasters by allowing people to share information and ask for help. Social media are also becoming vital to recovery efforts after crises, when infrastructure must be rebuilt and stress management is critical. (Fn 38) 
• 4. Social media is the ideal tool for social marketing campaigns that seek to change some condition in society (e.g. global warning) or change some human behaviour (e.g. smoking cigarettes).
• “Internet-based applications (i.e., social media), in which users control communication, holds promise to significantly enhance promotional efforts within social marketing campaigns. 
• Social media platforms can directly engage consumers in the creative process by both producing and distributing information through collaborative writing, content sharing, social networking, social bookmarking, and syndication. They can also enhance the power of viral marketing by increasing the speed at which consumers share experiences and opinions with progressively larger audiences. (Fn 39)
• 5. However, as enticing as these social media/networking platforms seem, they are not without major implications and potential consequences in their application and use:
• triggers expectations - once launched a social media tool, I also immediately trigger as whole host of stakeholder expectations that they have come to expect from social media exposure which I may not be able to meet, deliver or embody;
• high maintenance - social media platforms require labour intensive efforts to build the conversations, respond to all participants in a timely manners and get corporate approval for dissenting opinions.

In short, social media platforms look attractive but may not be the right tools for different types or degrees of engagement.

4.0 Robb’s MO for “start-ups”

The New Yorker proclaimed in a recent headline “The Story of 2019: Protest in Every corner of the Globe”. In France, President Macron has been dealing with a rebellion of its citizen, initially over an increase in the price of fuel, that has spiraled into riots and vandalizing/burning private property. Protesters were called ‘Gilets jaunes’ because they were wearing the yellow vests that, under a 2008 French law, all motorists are required to keep in their vehicles and to wear in case of emergency. This grass roots movement sparked sympathetic protests in Canada with protesters wearing yellow vests. 

The Atlantic Magazine and /Foreign Affairs cite three reasons/factors contributing to these protests across the globe:

•  economic stagnation and falling standards of living; 
• the anger of citizens who believe their way of life is being eroded by migrants, gay people and others;
• dissatisfaction with the governing business and political elites.

4.1 Slow-release and cumulative effect tools that ‘nudge’

In my search/discover/adapt trials, I have developed a concept of ‘slow-release and cumulative effect tools’. 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.

Each of these tools or techniques slowly chips away at their initial mistrust/disbelief - like a drug or fertilizer where the gradual release of the active agent over a period of time/timed-release creates the sustained effect.

In some ways, it is like magic, the effect is visible but the mechanics and underlying physics are not readily apparent...in my case, the underlying mechanics and physics are the scientific findings and models of human behaviour.

4.2 Thirty to forty-five minutes to ‘convert’ the participants

I have a thirty to forty-five minute aperture before I introduce the Presenter who is going to launch the technical/detailed session on the proposed policy/issue/project. In this aperture, I want to:

• focus their minds on the purpose of the meeting/workshop/etc.
• convince them that I am their neutral, objective protector
• give them opportunities to Form and Storm
• get their agreement to a set of discussion ground rules that are transparent, informed, fair and civil
• dissolve some of the mood of post-truth, trust deficit era

4.2.1 “Hi, my name is Robb, I’m glad you came...

I always get to the venue early because the room set-up usually has some features that need to be corrected or are simply missing - handouts at each place setting or chair, space within the audience for me to connect with the audience, registration area, and the projectors and the laptop connections.

This fussing-around with the set-up also serves to occupy me instead waiting stupidly in a corner of the room which I ended up doing when I run out of extension cords to double check. One of the problems with waiting in a corner of the room is that it usually attracts the member of the team. To the participants, it looks like a private scrum that they have not been invited too - sets up a we-they image which I am trying to avoid. 

Early on I discovered that this set-up time was also an opportunity to connect with participants as they arrived. No, I don’t mean jumping on them as the ‘hall monitors’ in one of my military schools were prone to do. Simply approaching them after they settled-in, introducing myself in a friendly manner and chatting with them to establish a bit of a connection. To begin setting a friendly tone, demonstrating that as their facilitator, I was not a stand-offish up-tight authoritarian dictator. 

4.2.2 Welcoming comments: First impressions matter . . .

• “First impressions matter. Experts say we size up new people in somewhere between 30 seconds and two minutes.” - Elliott Abrams (American diplomat and lawyer)

I used to consider ‘welcoming comments’ as a boring/bureaucratic necessary waste of time. It wasn’t until I analyzed my start-up framework for potential opportunities to begin countering the expected participant attitudes of suspicions that we are going to con them and their lack of trust in us and most every governing institution, that I decided to bend the ‘welcoming comments’ to serve this purpose.  

The objective(s) of ‘welcoming comments’ from the client’s perspective are:

• to introduce/explain who the client/sponsor/proponent is; 
• to give the client/sponsor/proponent an opportunity to explain why they have initiated the event and what they hope to achieve by holding it. In some cases they may have a message their boss/higher authority wants them to deliver as a further means of establishing importance/legitimacy of the event; 
• to thank the participants for taking the time and effort to attend; and
• to introduce me as the independent public facilitator and give their blessing for me to take over from here. 
• in some cases, the client/sponsor/proponent prefers that I give the welcoming comments which eliminates the need for their blessing and the transition to me. It does however put the monkey on my back to deliver a ‘warm and sincere’ performance on their behalf.

If I am going to take advantage of the ‘welcoming comments’ to start dealing with participants’ attitudes in this post-truth, trust deficit era, then I need the ‘welcoming comments’ to reflect Berlo’s SMCR Model:

• Communication skills of the sender - need a good communicator otherwise the messages get lost in the humms and haaws;
•  Attitude of the sender - need an attitude of ‘we care what you think’ - people can smell a fraud, faker, a BSer a mile away
• Knowledge of the sender - need a presenter who can deliver the messages in a knowledgeable way without dumming-it-down or drowning the participants in needless detail
• Social System of the environment - need the presenter to explain the context - is this a land use planning process, an environmental assessment, a circular economy exercise, a climate change challenge, a participatory management exercise, an employee engagement process, etc. 
• Culture of the receiver(s) - need to be sensitive to the dysfunctional aspects of the post-truth, trust deficit and begin chipping away at the suspicions/distrust/anger/rebellion of the participants - speak the language of the participants, create an authentic image  

Although my previous informal chats with participants as they arrive is my first opportunity to connect, the ‘welcoming comments’ if the first formal opportunity to influence them. Mind you, this is only a 5 to 10 minute aperture. But it is an important start in a multi-step process of chipping away/nudging/priming those troubled stakeholders.

Left to their own, if the client(s) make the welcoming comments, they are usually ‘corporate PR’ and do little to begin the process of chipping away at the suspicions/distrust/anger/rebellion of the participants. Although some clients are open to advice on how to make their comments beneficial to the process, having the Facilitator deliver the welcoming comments speech is my preferred approach.

4.2.3 Round-robin introductions are worth the ‘time’ 

This is customary in workshops/panels but not generally possible in public meetings or town hall meetings where there are large numbers of participants. Where it is feasible, I like to go around the room and personally ask each person to introduce themselves and in some cases ask them to tell me what they hope the workshop will achieve and what they hope it will avoid.

With the exception of a large Public Information Forum/Town Hall Meeting, introductions of the participants is SOP. Participants expect it and these introductions provide them with information as part of the ‘Forming’ stage. The usual invitation is something like “tell us your name and who you work for”. Some will go a little further an reveal what their job title is and what they actually do for a living - the more information, the better. 

In a Stakeholder Engagement intervention or a Conflict Management intervention, I want more information tabled to help the ‘Forming’ stage go farther. Sometimes I will ask “and tell us what you want or don’t want out this session” or “what’s the one thing we need to know about you that will help us understand why you are here”. For those who may not want to go this far, I always say they can ‘take a pass’.

4.2.4 The traditional ‘ice-breaker’ - forget it, don’t do it, too risky 

I do not employ this old technique of warming-up the audience - too dangerous in this #metoo/identity politics/political divide between political parties/etc. I used to research jokes and humorous anecdotes that I could use and tested their utility by the amount of laughter. But it became apparent that it was no longer appropriate and potentially counter productive to building a connection and trust.

4.2.5 Facilitator as the protector 

This is usually not the first rodeo for most of the participants in the room and too many of them would have had an unsatisfactory experience in the past with a facilitator. They are not going to believe me ( unless they have seen me before or heard about me) just because I tell them. They are all from Missouri and will decide if they believe me after they see me in action.

Nevertheless, this is my 2nd formal opportunity to chip away/nudge/coax them to gradually alter their mind-set without saying they shouldn’t feel the way they do. 

The purpose of this section is to explain that my role is to:

• serve as their neutral/objective moderator and help ensure that the meeting/workshop/etc. is a worthwhile presentation and discussion of the proposals, issues and concerns;
• assure them that I am not responsible for convincing/selling them on the proposed policy/issue/project;
• protect/ensure that the presentations and discussions will deal with the issues and concerns of the participants;
• make sure the discussions are fair and everyone who wants to speak will get air-time, that air hogs will be controlled; and 
• protect everyone from being criticized or attacked. All views and opinions will be given a fair hearing in the best of our Canadian traditions.

4.2.6 Live-time keyboarding and projection of the discussions

By this time in the meeting/workshop/etc., participants would have noticed that the ‘welcoming comments’ and my ‘facilitator as protector’ presentations appeared on the 2nd screen at the front of the room.

I want to draw their attention to the fact that we use the live-time keyboarding and projection of the presentations and discussions on a separate screen. This logistical technology of keyboarding and projection serves a number of functions:

• it is perhaps the most significant factor in physically demonstrating that the participants’ views and opinions will be properly and fairly recorded;
• it will be used to create the written summary of the meeting/workshop/etc. Copies of which will be sent to the participants for them to review and submit any errors or omissions;
• it provides a written record of any commitments made by the client/sponsor/proponent during the give and take of the discussions;
• it improves the communication process by simultaneously projecting the words being spoken. It reduces some of the ‘noise’ that interferes with the decoding of the messages;
• it shows the Facilitator and Recorder are listening and trying to accurately record what is being said. And the recorder is prepared to change what they keyboarded if the speaker feels it was not correct. All of which is a significant improvement over the use of traditional flip charts that just capture key words or phrases;’

The live-time projection of the presenter’s verbal dialogue and my intervention are captured on the screen on the right hand side of the photograph while his slides are captured on the left hand side of the photograph below. BTW the photograph is from a Public Information forum we designed and facilitated regarding the possible construction of an overpass over the Hwy 400 in Vaughan.

It is another tool that connects with the participants - it is common for a couple of the participants to come over to the recorder during the breaks and compliment the recorder on their ability to capture the discussions so accurately. I do not rely on the client’s staff to serve as a recorder - they are not neutral and tend to put their own spin of what was said/discussed.

I was the first facilitator to develop and employ this technique in 2001, when it became apparent I could no longer use a flip chart from a wheelchair. As is often the case, this loss of the flip chart (which had been my tool for tracking the conversations for years) paid proof to the adage “Necessity is the mother of invention”.

The live-time keyboarding and projection of the discussions on a separate screen is another slow release tool that has a cumulative effect as the conversations proceed and some initial suspicions are further eroded;

4.2.7 ‘Ask’ their permission to use my discussion ground rules

I used to simply table my discussion ground rules and then ask “Do you agree” or “Does anyone disagree”. I was re-reading Seth Godin’s book “Permission Marketing: Turning Strangers into Friends and Friends into Customers” in which he argues that permission marketing asks the target audience if they want to be subjected to a given marketing campaign. He claimed that this approach produces better customer engagement and retention. My immediate reaction was that this would reduce the telemarketing calls I get in the middle of supper.

But it got me thinking that it might have a similar effect on the participants in my various meetings/workshops/etc. Needless to say it worked and it provided me with more and better feedback on my discussion ground rules - often a question from someone about one of my suggested rules and a brief discussion of my interpretation or even my making a change on the spot. I start with “I would like your permission to use these ground rules”, run through my list and then I formally ask “May I have your permission?” and “Does anyone disagree?” (agreement management from the Abilene Paradox).

 My Canadian Discussion Ground Rules

• Defend the other person’s right to say what they want even if you disagree with them
• Encourage openness, transparency and fairness in how we deal with each other
• Challenge self-serving statements that do not consider the larger public good
• Engage the people you don’t like or understand in a last ditch effort to find some good in what they say
• Never kill an idea too fast… once it’s gone, it will seldom poke it head up again
• Tell the other person what you liked about their idea before you tell what aspects gave you heartburn

Ground Rules for potentially contentious participants or where there is an increased risk

When I have a group of opinionated/strong willed and ‘loaded for bear’’, I get their permission to use these ground rules to get them to curb some of their emotional steam and reduce their tendencies to attack. Once they agree to these rules, they tend to policy themselves( to some degree:-))

• Findings and Conclusions- In facilitating the discussions, the facilitator will periodically determine the “sense of the session” and present this to the group to see if it is acceptable. 
• Views and Opinions- With the exception of the facilitators, participants are encouraged to express their personal views and the perspectives of the organizations they represent. 
• People must feel free to express their ideas without fear of being misquoted outside of the workshop.
• When Enough Discussion is Enough- Once an issue or problem has been dealt with, the issue is closed and should not be reintroduced at subsequent times unless new information is tabled that makes a compelling case for the issue to be re-visited. 
• Dissatisfaction with the conclusions is not reason enough to revisit the issue.
• A Climate of Respect-all participants must agree to respect the opinions, positions and legitimacy of each other’s roles and responsibilities. This does not mean they have to agree with each other, simply respect each other’s rights to be there and to hold different opinions. 
• The approach should be one of critiquing ideas, not individuals.
• Climate of Openness-all participants must feel free to and be accorded the right to openly express and examine personal concerns, feelings, ideas or beliefs on the subject matter;
• Equality - All participants should treat each other as equals, regardless of “Rank” or position in their respective organizations. 

My discussion ground rules are another slow release and cumulative effects tool/instrument for slowly dissolving suspicions and mistrust. 

4.2.8 Facilitator’s Guide/Handbook

This another one of my slow release cumulative effects tools - a visual ‘paint-by-number’ guide to how I am going to facilitate the presentations and discussions of the proposed policy/issue/project. 

I started developing simple prototypes of a ‘guide’ when I realized that my typical agenda was not very good at giving the participants a clear description of what I planned to cover (i.e. a step-by-step illustration of how we were going to ‘think’ our way through the issue). These agendas were usually too cryptic, written in a code (using the jargon of the issue) that only those who wrote it understand it and generally useless without a Buck Rogers Decoder Ring (Buck Rogers was a fictional deep space character that popularized the concept of space exploration in the 1920s and 30s - if you sent in a proof of purchase and 10 cents/a dime, you got a ring in the mail - I still have mine somewhere.)

These simple prototypes evolved into two types of Guides - a small 4-page Guide and a multi-page Workbook for those projects where we were going to be reviewing and editing a proposed policy or issues paper.

Small 4-page Facilitator’s Guide

The typical small 4-page Facilitator’s Guide included:

• the Welcoming comments, 
• a statement of the purpose of the meeting/workshop/etc., 
• an annotated agenda, 
• my suggested discussion ground rules, and then 
• material/graphics/photos/maps that will be used in the presentation and Q&A discussion 

Sample: Environmental Assessment for a proposed Thermal Treatment Waste Management Facility

The project was an Environmental Assessment for a proposed construction and operation of a Thermal Treatment Waste Management Facility capable of processing up to 140,000 tonnes annually of residual municipal solid waste remaining after diversion. This sample is of a Facilitator’s Guide for the 2nd round of 9 public information forums (PIFs) on the potential sites for the facility. Since the primary focus of these PIFs was to table the consultant’s analysis of potential sites, make sure participants understood    where the facility ‘might’ be located and get their comments and concerns, my team designed a guide (1 page double sided tabloid size folded in half) that included a process graphic, an indication of where we were in the process, and detailed maps identifying the potential locations of the facility. We created a similar 4-page guide for each of the 3 rounds of public consultation and distributed over 1,000 copies at the PIFs.

Facilitator’s Handbooks/Workbooks

Quite a few of our assignments over the years have involved designing and facilitating workshops with invited participants to review and comment on a draft policy paper, a Discussion Paper or draft report on everything from Ontario’s Biodiversity Strategy to York Region’s Front-end Contracts to protecting the ecological integrity of provincial parks and protected spaces. I found that participants brought their own versions of these reports and there were often ragged debates about whose document should be used in the discussion - all of which left me out of the discussion because I didn’t have copies. The solution was to simply to poll the participants before the workshop to find out a ‘commonly accepted’ document and then convert it into a ‘workbook’. These workbooks include the same front-end material as the simple 4-page Guides but the bulk of the workbook is the extracts from the policy paper/discussion paper/etc.

Sample: The value of CA lands and waters potential contribution to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 

The purpose of this workshop was to explore a proposed approach to cataloguing and assessing the conservation value of CA lands and waters, and to discuss the potential contribution of these properties to Canada’s commitment to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Dr. Paul Gray had produced a 140 page report entitled ”Fully Accounting for Canada’s Conservation Lands”. My dilemma was how to present the key findings from Paul’s report in a manner that the participants could quickly absorb the information and then engage in an informed discussion. My solution was to create a 26 page ‘Coles Notes’ version of Paul’s report and embed it in a Handbook/Workbook. After the preliminaries, I facilitated the whole workshop using the Handbook page by page, to find out what the participants from the Conservation Authorities liked and didn’t like about Paul’s report.

The client was Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service (ECCC-CWS) and we did the assignment in association with the Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)

Final Words

My MO for start-ups include eight(8) procedures designed to chipping away/nudging/priming those stakeholders who may arrive in a suspicious and/or mistrustful mood. Each procedure is a slow release and cumulative effects tool.

Recap of Chapter 2 - ‘Hi, I’m your facilitator. . . ’

This chapter is/was all about how I do what I do and my MO for starting-up my meetings/workshops/etc. 

A layer cake as the analogy

How I do what I do involves a wide assortment of little scientific concepts of human behaviour, another collection of step-by-step procedures practitioner use to negotiate/intervene/solve problems and my own step-wise approaches to facilitation. All of which are described in a wordy text format. If a ‘picture is worth ten thousand words’ as Fred said, then I need a visual analogy.

After toying with simultaneous equations and Russian Matryoshka (nesting) dolls, I settled on a layer cake as the analogy for how I think and act as a facilitator. My layer cake has three (3) layers: 

• Layer 1... Little ‘nuggets’ of science
• Layer 2... Practitioner’s schemes
• Layer 3... Robb’s MO

Layer 1... Little ‘nuggets’ of science 

The 1st layer is a pot-pourri of concepts/research/models/’nuggets’ I have gleaned from the sociological/psychological/physiological/etc. literature that informs my thinking and behaviour as a facilitator - i.e. how and why people perceive, act and behave the way they do and how this can help me facilitate their discussions. Theses little ‘nuggets’ were not discovered by a well thought-out search but rather as a result of periodic searches to solve a specific problem I had or, more often, simple serendipity from reading an article that tweaked my curiosity.

This 1st layer of the analogy included a cross -section of some of the concepts/research/models/’nuggets’ I have found useful :

• Communication Models - The Shannon–Weaver model, Schramm’s Model, and Berlo’s SMCR Model
• “Noise” distorts the message -physical, physiological, psychological and semantic
• The Abilene Paradox - The Management of Agreement
• The 5 Stage Consumer Adoption Process
• Bruce Tuckman’s Theory/Model of Group Development
• Social proof
• “Priming”
• Confirmation Bias .

Layer 2... Practitioner’s recipes 

The 2nd layer in my ‘cake’ is an equally random and accidental collection of plans to be followed in effecting some change in condition or change in behaviour of a group of participants. The ground breaking ideas/negotiating schemes of The Harvard Negotiating Project gave me another methodology to incorporate into my repertoire of ways to help people move forward. 

These Practitioner’s recipes differ from the Science behind behaviours in that they are simply someone’s plan/procedure/protocol for effecting a change in condition or behaviour that has worked for me. Needless to say, I have not included any of the ones that didn’t work for me.

This layer included a sample of practitioner’s recipes that I often use in my step-by-step frameworks:

• Creative Problem Solving” (CPS) - Dr. Bob Mark and Dr. Chuck Mario
•  “6 Thinking Hats” - Edward de Bono
• “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them” - Edward deBono
• Visual images trump text
• Social Media Platforms

Layer 3... Robb’s MO (modus operandi) 

The 3rd layer in this analogy consists of my step-by-step MO for starting-up, managing the ‘conversations’ that produce the desired results and wrapping-up/getting closure at the end of the meeting/workshop/etc. This layer is how I apply the things I learned from the Science behind behaviours and Practitioner’s schemes layers. I use the term ‘MO (modus operandi)’ because I have to be able to develop detailed step-by-step procedures that can be tweaked to take into account the specifics of each assignment. I have three primary MOs:

Start-ups -creating a warm, inviting, respectful, and safe environment

Creating conversations - the step-by-step frameworks for managing the conversations

Getting closure - wrapping up a meeting/workshop/etc.

End Notes

Fn 01 - Michael Wilkinson, “The Secrets of Facilitation: The S.M.A.R.T. Guide to Getting Results With Groups”, 2004 

Fn 02 - Hector Villareal Lozoya, former Regional Director of International Association of Facilitators in Latin America

Fn 03 - John Forester, “ Making Participation Work When Interests Conflict - Moving From Facilitating Dialogue and Moderating Debate to Mediating Negotiations” , 2006

Fn 04 - David Kiron, Nina Kruschwitz, Knut Haanaes, Martin Reeves, Sonja-Katrin Fuisz-Kehrbach, Georg Kell, “Joining Forces: Collaboration and Leadership for Sustainability Collaboration and Leadership for Sustainability”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Jan, 2015

Fn 05 - “Analogy and Analogical Reasoning”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2019 

Fn 06 - Michael Harvey, Milford Novicevic, M. Ronald Buckley, Jonathon Habesleben, “The Abilene Paradox After Thirty Years: A Global Perspective”, Organizational Dynamics, 2004

Fn 07 - P. Mulder, “Communication Cycle model by Shannon and Weaver”, 2016. 

Fn 08 - MSG Management Study Guide, “Schramm’s Model of Communication”, https://www.managementstudyguide.com)

Fn 09 - “Schramm’s Model of Communication”, Op. cit.

Fn 10 - MSG Management Study Guide , “Berlo’s Model of Communication”, https://www.managementstudyguide.com)

Fn 11 - Psychology Today, “What Is Confirmation Bias?”, 2015

Fn 12 - “Why We’re More Likely To Remember Content With Images And Video”, Infographic, https://br.pinterest.com/pin/81487074482948789/

Fn 13 - “The Abilene Paradox After Thirty Years: A Global Perspective”, Op. cit.

Fn 14 - Jerry Harvey, “The abilene paradox: The management of agreement”, Organizational Dynamics,1974

Fn 15 - Agabi Godwin, “The Adoption process in marketing [5 Stages With Examples]”, Jan. 2019, https://www.entlifeonline.com/consumer-adoption-process-marketing-5-stages/)

Fn 16 - B W Tuckman, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups’” , Psychological Bulletin 63, 1965 and B W Tuckman and M A C Jensen ,“Stages of small group development revisited”, Group and Organization Studies, 1977

Fn 17 - fsFarnam Street ,“Social Proof: Why We Look to Others For What We Should Think and Do”, Latticework of Mental Models, 2019

Fn 18 - Richard Pascale, “The Power of Positive Deviance: How Unlikely Innovators Solve the World’s Toughest Problems”, 2010

Fn 19 - “Timur Kuran, “Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification”, 1997

Fn 20 - Daniel C. Molden, “UNDERSTANDING PRIMING EFFECTS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: WHAT IS “SOCIAL PRIMING” AND HOW DOES IT OCCUR?”, Northwestern University, Social Cognition, 2014

Fn 21 - Kendra Cherry, “Priming and the Psychology of Memory”, 2018 - https://www.verywellmind.com/priming-and-the-psychology-of-memory-4173092

Fn 22 - Stéphane Doyen , Olivier Klein, Cora-Lise Pichon, Axel Cleeremans, “Behavioral Priming: It’s All in the Mind, but Whose Mind?”, PLoS ONE 7(1): e29081., 2012, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029081)

Fn 23 - Margit E. Oswald and Stefan Grosjean, “Con?rmation Bias”, in “Cognitive Illusions - A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory”, edited by Rüdiger F Pohl, 2012

Fn 24 - Dr. Bob Mark and Dr. Chuck Mario, “Creative Problem Solving”, In-residence Training course developed for the Human Resources Secretariat, Management Board, Ontario Government

Fn 25 - Edward de Bono, “6 Thinking Hats”, Optima Training (UK), YouTube, 2015

Fn 26 - Edward deBono , “Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them”, Vermilion Books, 2018

Fn 27 - William Ury and Roger Fisher, “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without giving In” in 1981 and William Ury, “Getting Past No: Negotiating in Difficult Situations”, 1993

Fn 28 - Arnstein, Sherry R., “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 1969

Fn 29 - UNDP Social and Environmental Standards (SES ), “Stakeholder Engagement”, 2017

Fn 30 - R.J. Ogilvie, “Stakeholder Engagement: Some Tools to Inform ? Consult ? Involve ? Collaborate”, Linkedin, March 2019 

Fn 31 - Kenya Hara, “Designing for Design” , Lars Muller Publishers, 2015 and “Breaking Designer’s Block: 501 graphic design solutions for type, color, and materials”, Rockport Publishers, 2004 

Fn 32 - More Statistical Fallacies, “The Pictorial (or Picture) Superiority Effect”, PolicyViz.com

Fn 33 - John Medina, “The Brain Rules”, Pear Press, 2018

Fn 34 - Garr Reynolds, “Presentation Zen: Simple Ideas on Presentation Design and Delivery”, New riders, 2008

Fn 35 - John Medina, “The Brain Rules”, Op. cit.

Fn 36 - Brian Solis and JESS3, “The Conversation Prism”, https://conversationprism.com/

Fn 37 - “Is Google an evil genius?”, Schumpeter, The Economist, Jan. 2019

Fn 38 - Dimiter Velev, Plamena Zlateva, “Use of Social Media in Natural Disaster Management”, University of National and World Economy, 2012

Fn 39 - Thackeray, Neiger, Hanson, and McKenzie, “Enhancing Promotional Strategies Within Social Marketing Programs: Use of Web 2.0 Social Media”, Health Promotion Practice, 2009

Fn 40 - “The true measure of a space and how it makes us feel”, Teknion, 2017

Fn 41 - Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles, “The Captured Economy”, Oxford University Press, 2017

Next chapter ... Chapter 3 - ‘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. 

Robb’s MO for cultivating germane conversations

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:

The first/main presentation -Presentations are used to kick-off the actual discussions -this chapter will cover 4 types of presentations and their role in moving the process forward and the dangers of ‘Death by Powerpoint’.

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. The client/proponent usually chooses their biggest content expert in the proposal to give the presentation. That person is seldom people-oriented and often sees the audience as a necessary evil. But a facilitator may stuck with an individual who is like the brilliant partner in the law firm from the Grisham’s novel “The Pelican Brief” that the partners kept locked in his office because he turned clients off with his personality. In that case, use your subject ringer to pour oil on the waters.

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.

Tapping into participant’s thirst for knowledge - Participants love to learn about the policy/issue/project under consideration. Part of stimulating conversations is to develop and use materials on the science underlying the policy/issue/project under consideration and watch their attitudes change from suspicion to curiosity and an innate desire to know more - “how does that work?”. 

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/etc. 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.

Dealing with Confirmation Bias and Backfire Effect - 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. 

Special case of Deniers - 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, and remembering that many of the scientists we now praise, were once deniers of the conventional wisdom. Deniers are like NIMBYs and LULUs, you may not like them but they have a legitimate right to be at the table.

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). The facilitator is the vehicle for dispelling suspicions and building little bits of trust - keep the connection live for as long as possible. Some facilitators like BGs because they give participants more opportunities to speak and give participants a chance to move around/influence of different physical spaces/breakout rooms. The time required ( shuffle time, time in the BG and time reporting back in Plenary), the need for additional group facilitator and recorders means they can only be used in a few circumstances. The conduct of Plenary sessions will be covered in detail and how to make it rich for the participants.

Moving the participants through “Forming” and “Storming” into ‘Norming’ and ‘Performing’  - The facilitator’s goal in this phase is to build on the good will what they created in the start-up phase and now move into the nitty gritty of the proposed policy/issue/project under consideration. 

Posted January 25, 2020 by Robb Ogilvie, Managing Partner, Ogilvie, Ogilvie & Company

Writer, policy wonk, facilitator and curator of information about ‘wicked’ policy issues