I’m having trouble downloading the podcasts.
Could you let me know if the site is working or email me the podcasts as files?

Thank you.
Alex Hains.

In addition, I always find a way to have people participate early on in order to give them a chance to shape the meeting, show their competence and to tease out any underlying issues.

What techniques do you use? Any questions?

One of the challenges I faced in my role as a VP of Global Operations at Limited Brands was facilitating meetings where we had multiple languages, cultures, time zones and various levels all participating.

1: We learned that face to face was always best but not always cost efficient nor possible due to business calenders.
Video conference was the next best thing but difficult to ingrain in the culture.

2: Spending a couple of hours prior to the real meetings at a social gathering the night before was a fabulous way to begin to break down barriers.

3: Having each person bring 2 to 3 small gifts that represented their country or culture was always fun. The gifts need to be wrapped and placed on a table in a visible place. One of the rules during the meeting if there was a great question asked or answer given, one of the participants would nominate one of the attendees to select a gift as a perk for participating…it was amazing how small trinkets always provoked amazing energy. And the positive feedback came from within the group.

4: Arranging the seating so that competitors set next to each other always brought interesting results and created synergy that inevitably yielded very strong idea sharing and results.

Those are just some of my learnings. Hope you found them helpul.
Elaine Clarke
Ulimate Solutions USA LLC
Website
elaineclarke@comcast.net

You might check out this site (Babel Fish) for other approaches for group discussions:

I have found that the most effective way to engage a group is through utilizing ‘visual’ models. These can be anything from a graph to a flow chart to a 3D model of the problem and solution. There is something gained in the use of visual constructs that one doesn’t get from purely textual (words, sentences, paragraphs, bullets, etc.) approaches. I find that starting with the ‘text’ is appropriate and, when the pure weight of the ‘text’ becomes unmanageable, synthesizing the work in a visual construct can both provide a review of the work and pointers to where the work needs to go.

I recently found an interesting site which deals with the ‘visual’ aspect of learning:

Your thoughts?

In order to choose an appropriate approach, you must consider the need for:

• Accurately defining the problem/opportunity. The probability is very high that the organization has been focusing on symptoms and anecdotal ‘data’ and hasn’t yet define the ‘core’ problem/opportunity. A good methodology provides a path for the group to examine and define what’s really going on in the organization.
• Engaging everyone in the group regardless of ‘formal’ status. Many organization have ‘cultures’ which place high importance and ‘weight’ to opinions held by upper management. A good methodology allows participants from various levels of the organization to interact and to learn from each other. It also enables and encourages people to contribute their ideas.
• Utilizing all of the knowledge in the organization as it pertains to the task. In addition to engaging everyone in the group, many organizations have expertise centers which can be invaluable to the group as it defines and solves it’s problems. I try to strike a balance between utilizing these resources and, at the same time, avoiding a ‘dog and pony show’ consisting of one presentation after another.
• Examining accurate and timely information/data about the problem/opportunity.
• Examining and assessing multiple solutions. I have found that many groups are hesitant to ‘play with ideas’. They seem to believe that they are only allowed to examine one solution in any kind of depth. It’s important that your methodology en-ables and encourages the group to ‘play’ with ideas. One of my favorite quotes comes from Tracy Kidder’s book “The Soul of a New Machine ” in which the main character (a computer system design architect) presents a design to his team and says “I’m pretty sure this isn’t right, but it could be useful”. From the ‘not right’ design comes the genesis of the ideas from which the ‘right’ design comes. Groups often need permission to play…to experiment…and to dream.
• Choosing the ‘best’ solution. The best solution is simply the solution that incorporates the organization’s culture, competence, political environment and commitment. You may have created a solution in your mind that you believe is 100% ‘right’ whereas the group may decide on one that’s ‘80% right’. Your job is not to push your solution; it’s to make certain that the group has chosen the solution that is best for the organization. You’ll lose the group as soon as you forget that your role is to facilitate, not to provide answers.
• Creating a macro-level plan to implement the solution. As a former manager of mine used to say “If you don’t get a real solution out of the group, you might as well send them to a Broadway play…they’ll have a better time and you’ll get the same results”. Putting together both the plan (the ‘artifact’) as well as the structure and discipline to implement it are critical components of your methodology. Too many efforts fail due to a lack of a realistic plan, with accountable people, and a timeline which is aggressive and doable.
• Implementing (if within the mandate that the group has been given)…oh yeah, implementation…you know, actually get it done.

I recommend not reinventing the wheel; there are many types of deliverables (process redesign, quality improvement, project plan, etc.) which already have well defined methodologies which you can learn and apply. There is no need to ‘invent’ an approach if a time-proven one exists.

Structuring an engagement includes:

• Identifying The Client
• Contracting
o Defining the client
o Deliverables & Resources Required
o Methodology To Be Used
o Financials
o Milestones
o Changes To The Contract
• Writing A Proposal
• Gathering Knowledge About The Group & The Organization
• Establishing The Mandate

At the heart of many facilitation failures is a lack of understanding as to what facilitation is. We’re not going to get into an academic treatise here, so I’ll simply state what ‘I’ mean by the term.

When the term is used in this book (and when I use it in my practice), I mean:

• Providing a method/process to enable groups to achieve their goals
• Guiding the group through the use of the method/process
• Providing an environment for groups to succeed by engaging the whole group in the work

Facilitation requires/involves:

• Identifying, anticipating and helping to remove barriers in order to help the group achieve its goals
• Implicitly ‘modeling’ ways of working in an open, transparent and trustworthy way (no hidden agendas or ‘gotcha’s’ by the facilitator, the methodologies or the members of the group
• Encouraging, cajoling and cheerleading the group when they get ‘jammed ’.
• Remaining neutral.

Roger Schwarz defines facilitation as: “Group facilitation is a process in which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, substantively neutral, and has no decision-making authority inter-venes to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the group’s effectiveness”. (Emphasis provided by me).