Sponsored by:A Service

Of:

Naked Meetings II: Structuring Effective Meetings in Contentious Settings

Rick Lent

July 11, 2012

Sponsored by:A Service

Of:

Advising nonprofits in:

• Strategy

• Planning

• Organizational Development

www.synthesispartnership.com

(617) 969-1881

info@synthesispartnership.com

INTEGRATED PLANNING

Sponsored by:A Service

Of:

www.mission.do

Sponsored by:A Service

Of:

Today’s Speaker

Rick LentPrincipal

Meeting for Results Hosting:

Sam Frank, Synthesis PartnershipAssisting with chat questions:Jamie Maloney, Nonprofit Webinars

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Naked Meetings II: Structuring Effective Meetings in

Contentious Settings

Rick Lent, Ph.D.

http://www.MeetingforResults.com

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Agenda

1. Help you see how unseen structures may affect (+/-) meetings in contentious situations

2. Outline ways to structure better meetings in contentious settings

3. Give you selected tools for implementing structures to keep discussions respectful and productive

And take your questions …

6

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Your Challenges…1. You face contentious meetings where …

a) One or two voices dominateb) Group is divided on an issue and some arrive with their

minds made upc) Decisions lack real support or get remade later even

though there seems to be consensusd) One person’s objection stops progresse) Passive/aggressive “participation” as some show up late or

fail to engage in the work of meeting

2. Were you part of the first Naked Meeting webinar on the underlying structure of meetings?

a) Yesb) No

7

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 8

Unseen structures …

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Unseen Structures of Meetings

• Physical, temporal, procedural aspects of meetings.

• With an (unrecognized) impact on how we interact with each other and the work of the meeting.

9

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Unseen Structures of Meetings

10

Sara Beauvais The FairyCircle.com

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 11

Structure affects power, control and participation in many ways and sets the context for respectful exchanges.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

A Difficult Board Proposal• Large church (1000

members)

• Board intends to propose an organizational change and expects resistance

• Risk of some particularly outspoken people.

12

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Engaging 150+ Members in 60 Minutes

• Meeting held between services -60 minutes available.

• Room set up in small clusters of chairs.

• Seating directions on door.

13

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Engaging 150+ Members in 60 Minutes• Board presents purpose

of meeting: to gather input on proposal.

• Proposal presentation (12 minutes)

• Small groups answer 3 questions

• Groups address all 3 questions and be ready to report back in 20 minutes.

14

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Whole Group Meeting Resumes• President asks for (a sample of) group

responses to first question.

• As comments shared, another board member writes key phrases on flip chart.

• Same process for second and third question.

• After all reports, President thanked everyone for their input and explained that the Board will review the feedback and present conclusions next week.

15

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Over the Next Week …

– Board summarizes what they heard in response to all 3 questions

– Board develops revised proposal

– Meanwhile, Frank talks to minister

16

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Board Meets with Congregation Again

– Board summarizes what they heard in response to all 3 questions

– They explain how they have taken the feedback into account.

– The revised proposal is presented.

– Again people shared their reactions in small groups before whole group discussion.

17

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Underlying Structure of My Story

1. Clear, multi-step process. 2. Short initial presentation.3. Everyone gets to speak in

small, mixed groups. No one gets to “take over” meeting.

4. Three questions, one at a time, ensure balanced feedback heard by all.

5. No back-and-forth verbal “ping-pong”.

6. Board works with feedback before having to reply.

18

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Contentious Respectful Meetings– To be respected, both you and your ideas are

heard and honored

– To do this, use meeting structure to:

• Connect as people first, ideas second

• Enable all to speak and be heard

• Avoid binary voting when possible

• Avoid physical arrangements that create “sides”

• Avoid need to defend positions

19

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Tools Used in My Story

20

– Seating Structures to connect people in small mixed groups

– PALPaR so everyone gets to speak, no sides dominate

– Three Reaction Questions for balanced feedback

– Visible Note Taking to demonstrate listening and focus/record feedback

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Seating StructuresChanging Interaction by Changing Seating

Decide if you want individuals to sit as they usually do. The best choice may be to mix participants so that the same people don’t sit with and talk to the same folks as usual.

– Direct people to their “assigned” seats as they arrive.

If nothing else, you can take a different chair yourself. If you always sit at the head of the table, move to the side.

If it’s a large group, create small circles of chairs.

21This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

PALPaRCreating a Respective Exchange in Response to Some Proposal

Present: You present the proposal. Try not to take any questions at this time.

Ask: Ask participants to talk with each other (in small groups) to clarify

feedback by answering specific questions

Listen: Take reports from each small group, one question at a time..

Pause: Take a specified break to incorporate what you have heard before

continuing, and

Reply: Come back to the group and summarize what you heard as key points

in the feedback, and how you have taken feedback into account (or not).

22This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Three Reaction QuestionsGathering balanced feedback

• Present proposal. Then ask participants to reflect on their own or in small groups to answer these questions:

1. What do you like about [the proposal]?

2. Where do you need further information?

3. Where do you have concerns?

• After a few minutes, take reports, one question at a time beginning with the first. Get all replies to first question before proceeding to the second.

23This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Visible Note TakingRecording the progress of the group’s discussion

• Maintain an ongoing record of comments, using each speaker’s words as much as possible.

• Record the comments where all can see it.

• Use the speaker’s words. But, this is not a transcript. Some abbreviation of comments is fine as long as you capture the essence of what the speaker said.

24This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Turning to Your Challenges…

a) One or two voices dominate

b) Group is divided on an issue and some arrive with their minds made up

c) Decisions lack real support or get remade later even though there seems to be consensus

d) One person’s objection stops progress

e) Passive/aggressive “participation” as some show up late or fail to engage in the work of meeting

25

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: 1-2 Dominant Voices

Plan to create opportunities for individual reflection and small group sharing before whole group discussion.

26This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Tool: “1-2-All”

1: Individual Reflection. Give individuals a chanceto gather their own thoughts.

2: Small Group Discussion. Ask participants to turn to their neighbors to share their ideas.

All: Whole Group Discussion. Ask each group for a brief report (typically 1-3 minutes) summarizing their discussion.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Arriving with Minds Made Up

27This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Plan to engage everyone in respectful sharing and listening to balanced feedback.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Decisions Lack Support

28

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Decisions Lack Support

The “potholes”…

29

What’s the underlying issue? Do people feel they are responsible for this decision at this time?

Failure to act consistently with the choice.

Failure to communicate the choice.

Failure to decide how to decide.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Decisions Lack Support

Five ways to reach a decision with a group: “5Cs”• Consensus: All support the decision. If one person has an objection,

then you don’t have consensus.

• Consent: Each person says that s/he can support the decision even if not “perfect.”

• Compromise: Everyone gives up something to achieve a unified common outcome.

• Count: This is majority rule or voting. One side wins.

• Consult: You want the group’s input on some decision you will make.

30

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: One Objection Stops Progress

Key is to respect individual. Avoid isolating and causing him/her to go defensive.

31

Ask: “Who else feels this way?”• Form sub-group to explore their view (not debate or argue against other

view)• Remainder of group listens• Form second (and third) subgroup to discuss other view(s)• Then ask whole group: “What are we learning about similarities and

differences in views?”

See tool “Practical Subgrouping” (or Weisbord and Janoff: Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There. (2007)

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Passive/Aggressive “Participation”

What’s the underlying cause?

32This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

• Is there enough time for the discussion and do all understand how a decision will be reached?

• Are the right people present to do the work?

• Is the work of this meeting clear and relevant to all?

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Challenge: Passive/Aggressive “Participation”

Tools:

Five Cs of decision making

FATT for a clear task

ARE IN for getting the right people in the discussion

33This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

FATTDefining a Clear Task: Focused, Actionable, Timely, Timed

The more clearly the task description fulfills the FATT criteria, the more likely it is that the group will engage each other effectively in the work of the meeting.

• Focused: The subject for discussion is a clear and bounded task so everyone understands exactly what is under consideration.

• Actionable: The decision to be reached can be acted on by those present. This group has the relevant authority.

• Timely: This is the right time to address this topic.

• Timed: The assigned time is adequate to the task.

34This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

ARE INIdentifying Who Should Be Present

Be clear about the work of the meeting and what a successful result will entail. Then plan how to include those who represent one or more of the following:

• Authority to act on meeting conclusions.

• Resources to apply in implementing meeting conclusions.

• Expertise on critical aspects of the discussion or decision.

• Information on some aspect of the discussion.

• Need for an effective outcome or conclusion of this meeting.

The ARE IN acronym, was first proposed by Weisbord and Janoff (2010).

35This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

How Do I Know This Works?

• The last 30 years have seen major advances in how we conduct effective large group meetings of 50, 100, 500 or more participants.

• In such large meetings, it is very difficult to direct the behavior or participation of individuals. Instead, a facilitator uses structure to enable all to participate effectively and efficiently.

• My goal is to adapt and communicate the structural approaches of these large group meetings so leaders everywhere can make own meetings more engaging and effective.

36This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

This work by Rick Lent, Ph.D. is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

For More Information..

Stories of challenging meetings and structural tools to help at www.meetingforresults.com/blog

Complimentary consultation on a meeting challenge (by email or phone appointment) rick@meetingforresults.com

1-978-580-4262

E-book on 31 structural tools for better meetings: Meeting for Results Tool Kit: Make Your Meetings Work. Available late summer.

Sign up to be notified when available: www.meetingforresults.com

37

Sponsored by:A Service

Of:

Find listings for our current season of webinars and register at:

NonprofitWebinars.com