In a consultant's normal course of assignments, he or she invariably has to interact with teams, both internal and external. The interaction usually involves facilitation of groups for problem solving, evolving consensus right down to plain vanilla brainstorming.
In the initial stage, it is best that the facilitator sticks to the role of communicating the objectives of the team. The group needs to know the timelines and deliverables. If even these are in a formative stage, it is essential that the group at least know the next steps. There will be members of the group who will demand more clarity than what is feasible at this stage. Examples of other projects make it possible for such team members to see the parallel. Likening the interaction to a journey will help. In a journey of discovery, it is likely that the next steps become clearer as one moves along. A car with headlights on is yet another example. We are able to see 60 feet or so but yet navigate the car from origin to destination. However, there should be an overall plan. It is desirable that the facilitator chart out this plan and not try to wing it with the group.
One thing that provides focus is having a skeleton structure. For example, this means, having the table of contents of a targeted document somewhat ready in advance. Or, to display a sample of a previous project's deliverable so that the group gets a sense of the plan. Where a clear end result is unavailable, one can resort to sharing the methodology of arriving at the end result. For example, the progression of objective to be arrived at using tools such as root cause analysis, cause-effect diagrams, etc. can be shared.
Do not try and derive any consensus. Shy away from direct confrontation with any of the group members. This will unite the team against the facilitator. If there is a definite indication that a powerful influencer will lead the team away from an objective, it is best to postpone discussion on that objective till later. One can also talk to the dissenter offline. In some cases, it may be required to get an external influencer or authority to get things right.
Every group will then enter the next stage in which different ideas compete for consideration. The team addresses issues such as what problems they are really supposed to solve, how they will function independently and together and what leadership model they will accept. Team members open up to each other and confront each other's ideas and perspectives. It can be contentious, unpleasant and even painful to members of the team who are averse to conflict. Tolerance of each team member and their differences needs to be emphasized. Without tolerance and patience the team will fail. This phase can become destructive to the team and will lower motivation if allowed to get out of control.
In this stage, the facilitator can start mentally identifying the leaders and followers in the group. While it is dangerous to stick a label, the reliance and natural gravitation of the group will be come evident. The facilitator should involve he followers and focus on their participation as the leaders will tend to hold sway. Directing questions and suggestions to the followers while speaking their names is the most direct approach.
The other responsibility of the facilitator is to set a fertile atmosphere for ideas fighting the tendency for groupthink. Groupthink is when the obvious candidates for the objective get chosen almost automatically by the group without subjecting the conjectures to analyses. Dissent should be invited, even encouraged, despite the obvious discomfiture. Detachment and proactive behavior on the part of the facilitator will help the group unearth the real issues. He or she needs to constantly remind the group of the objective to keep the group on track.
Some practical tools to keep on track are discussion structures which allow enough flexibility to accommodate a wide range of ideas. An example of a discussion structure is to have flip charts recording concerns, recommendations and operations in the case of an intervention involving unearthing focus areas. This however, will not be the ideal discussion structure when the focus areas are provided in advance. In such cases, the sub-issues, sub-processes or sub-structures will more readily lend themselves to idea categorization. Some may be as obvious the fish-bone chart favorites like man, machinery, method, etc.
There will be a natural tendency of the group to resolve dissent through the facilitator. One should guard against the tendency to opine to a close matters that are still under consideration. It is useful to keep in mind the profiles of the members in the group and invite further discussion from those who have a background. It is also important to build on the fresh flavors of the discussion that may present themselves. A good thumb rule to test If the discussion is being lost in inconsequential minutiae or firing from the hip is to observe the group's joint energy level around the idea. If there are small groups of two or three indulging in breakaway discussions, it may be time to pull them back into the mainstream.
At some point, the team may enter the converging stage. Team members often work through this stage by agreeing on rules, values, professional behavior, shared methods, working tools and even taboos. During this phase, team members begin to trust each other. Along with shred values there is also a strong danger of groupthink mentioned earlier. Dissent may die away I the energy levels are low leading to passive acceptance of those who still have the energy.
In this stage, it is the responsibility of the facilitator to keep the energy levels high. There will be flagging thrust if time pressures are not felt and the group is pulled into different areas of work. The facilitator needs to remind the group that the end is close at hand. Some examples can be worked out right till the end to whet the appetite to close. There will then be new surge of interest.
One good idea is to keep the sponsor updated throughout the exercise. Course corrections will be caught early. In the end analysis, it is important that the facilitator shies away from attacking and discriminatory behavior throughout the exercise. After all, the end of an exercise is only the beginning of new sustainable relationships. Members of the group do not forget good empathizing and are bound to remember you when they are in decision making roles. Today's empathy may be tomorrow's enterprise.
About the Author:
The author can be reached at
ganesh_natarajan@anantsol.com Ganesh Natarajan is a Lead Consultant at Anantara Solutions, India
http://www.anantsol.com You may also address queries to AskAnantara on the same URL
No. of Times this article has been viewed :
465
Date Published :
Jan 21 2009