Facilitation and meetings
·
7 min read
Key findings
A decision differs from a recommendation in having an owner who has agreed to act, so every decision record names one.
Groups often disagree about whether a decision was made, and a stated decision rule removes the doubt.
Kaner's poll records the strength of support, and it shows whether support is enough for the effort the decision needs.
Dot voting orders a long list, and it does not settle who decides between the options.
A recommendation differs from a decision in one respect, which is that a recommendation has no owner who has agreed to act.
A decision making workshop ends in a decision when three things are in place.
The sponsor states before the session who decides and by which rule.
The group works towards a written proposal.
The close records the decision with an owner, a date and any dissent.
Without those three, the workshop produces a recommendation at best.
The usual result is a wall of notes, a well-rated day and no change three weeks later.
The failure is designed in, because a session built around ideas and discussion has no step that produces a decision.
What Counts As A Decision
Sam Kaner and colleagues place a decision point between discussion and implementation.
Before it, disagreements are alternative views, and after it objections are out of line, because the agreement is treated as authorised.
Groups are often unsure whether the point has been passed.
Someone who thinks a decision was made starts acting, and someone who thinks it was not calls that person impulsive.
Inaction afterwards is read as disloyalty, and the person replies that no decision was ever made.
A workshop needs a marker that removes this doubt, and the marker is a written record with four elements.
The decision, in one sentence
The owner, by name
The first action, with its date
What was ruled out, and any dissent, attributed
A recommendation differs from a decision in one respect, which is that a recommendation has no owner who has agreed to act.
Anything the workshop produces without an owner goes into the notes as a recommendation, and the sponsor takes it from there.
Who Holds The Decision
A workshop cannot decide what its sponsor has not delegated.
A frequent workshop failure is a decision rule failure, in which the group believes it is deciding and the sponsor believes it is advising.
Kaner lists six common decision rules.
Unanimous agreement
Delegation
Majority vote
The person in charge decides after discussion
The person in charge decides without discussion
A coin flip
Four cover most internal sessions.
The sponsor decides, having heard the group
The group decides, and the sponsor implements
The group recommends, with dissent recorded
A named subgroup decides, by a date
Roger Schwarz and colleagues distinguish four decision types of their own, which are delegative, consensus, democratic and consultative.
They add that commitment to a decision depends on how far people made an informed free choice to support it.
For high-stakes decisions Kaner finds strong justification for the person in charge deciding after discussion, because that person holds the access, resources and authority to act.
The risk he names is that group members give the advice they think the boss wants to hear.
His remedy is to design a formal step for devil's advocate thinking, or to hold a discussion without the person in charge and bring the result back.
The Sponsor's Rule In Writing
Kaner describes a chief operating officer who decided after discussion every time but varied how much discussion each item received.
He never explained his reasoning, and his managers concluded that he was manipulative, fearful of politics or incompetent.
The sponsor's rule therefore needs stating in the invitation, in a sentence.
"I will make this decision on 12 November, after hearing this group, and I will say what I have ruled out."
A group told after the last session that its work was advisory is less likely to attend the next one.
The Written Brief
Preparation decides more than technique, and four items belong in a short brief agreed with the sponsor.
The decision the session has to produce, written as a sentence
The decision rule, from the four above
The people whose agreement is required, and whether they will attend
What happens to the output, including who writes it up and by when
A session whose fourth item is unanswered produces photographs of a wall.
The same brief, at larger scale, sets up a two day offsite.
The brief also settles whether a workshop is the right instrument.
A decision the sponsor has already taken needs an announcement, and a decision that turns on data nobody has needs the data first.
A frequent workshop failure is a decision rule failure, in which the group believes it is deciding and the sponsor believes it is advising.
The Difficult Middle
Kaner's Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making describes four stages, which are business as usual, divergence, the groan zone and convergence with closure.
The groan zone is the point at which people try to understand perspectives they do not share.
Group members become repetitious, defensive and short-tempered, and Kaner reports that groups often read this as a sign the group is dysfunctional.
He says many projects are abandoned early for that reason, when the difficulty was a normal part of the process.
Most workshop designs give time to opening and closing and none to the middle.
Three design choices carry a group through it.
Structured work that forces perspectives to be understood, such as pairs who summarise an opposing view before responding to it
The hardest integration placed before a break
Naming the stage aloud when it arrives, and saying how long it usually lasts
A facilitator who apologises for the difficulty confirms the group's suspicion that the session has failed.
On a screen the middle is harder to hold, which running a workshop on video covers.
Proposal Before Poll
Convergence needs a written proposal, because people cannot agree on a topic.
Kaner's Gradients of Agreement scale replaces yes and no with eight positions, from whole-hearted endorsement to veto.
The steps are short.
Record the proposal where everyone can read it
Check that everyone understands it
Ask for final revisions to the wording
Draw the scale below the proposal
Ask how people like the proposal
Record each person's position openly
Kaner is explicit that the result is a record of support and not a vote or a decision.
The third step prevents the most common dispute, in which people agree to different readings of the same sentence.
The spread of positions carries the information.
Kaner notes that lukewarm support with no one blocking is adequate when the stakes are low, and that it is not enough when carrying out the decision needs sustained effort.
A single veto is a specific concern held by a named person, and the facilitator can work on it.
For example, a poll of nine leaders on centralising graduate recruitment might show three whole-hearted, three with a minor point, two with reservations and one in serious disagreement.
The facilitator asks the one what would change the position, records the answer and gives the sponsor the spread.
Kaner advises a person in charge to poll before deciding, and to reopen the discussion when support is thin instead of deciding something hard to carry out.
Dot Voting And Its Limits
Dot voting orders a long list quickly.
Dave Gray and colleagues describe it as one of the simplest ways to prioritise when a brainstorm produces too many ideas, and suggest five votes for each participant.
Kaner uses the same device to cut a list of selection criteria to five, and cautions that the tally is not a final decision and shows what people value most.
A dot vote settles which options get attention.
It does not settle who decides between them, so it belongs before the poll and never in place of it.
Seniority And The Dominant Voice
Seniority changes what a group says, and facilitation reduces the effect without removing it.
Kaner describes people giving the person in charge the advice they think is wanted, and lists ways to counter the tendency.
Have people write before they speak
Take contributions in a fixed order for the first round
Ask the person in charge to speak last
Break into small groups for part of the discussion
Have the person in charge leave the discussion for a part
Where the sponsor cannot hold to the third arrangement, run part of the session without them and report back.
When a disagreement turns personal, disagreement in a leadership meeting sets out the interventions.
A dominant voice needs three moves, in this order.
Acknowledge the contribution accurately, because an interrupted person repeats it
Move to structure, by switching to written input or a round
Speak to the person in the break, naming the effect and not the character
Recording The Decision
The record is the deliverable, and it goes out within a day.
For the graduate recruitment example it might read as follows.
Decision: Graduate recruitment moves to a single team from 1 September
Owner: The talent acquisition manager
First action: A transition plan to the sponsor by 30 November
Ruled out: Keeping regional teams for the largest two sites
Dissent: The operations director, who expects local hiring quality to fall
The example is an illustration, not a case.
Attributed dissent gives an objection a place on the record, so it is less likely to reopen in private.
The person whose objection is recorded also has a route to be heard again, at the review date.
Facilitating With A Stake
An internal adviser often runs a workshop about a recommendation the adviser wrote.
Holding both roles silently destroys trust in the function.
Two arrangements are honest.
Declare the stake at the start and ask the group to challenge the process when it bends
Hand the session to someone else and take part openly as an advocate
The second is right more often than advisers like, and the choice turns on how contested the subject is.
Signs A Workshop Will Not Decide
The invitation names a topic and no decision
The sponsor has not said who decides
Nobody has written a proposal by the afternoon
The poll is skipped because the mood is good
The record has no owners
The second is the earliest sign and the cheapest to fix, in one conversation with the sponsor.
Where The Tools Sit
Trusted Talent Advisor covers the session brief, the decision rule and the decision record in its facilitation component and its template pack.
The contracting conversation that produces the brief is described in contracting as an internal consultant.
Sources
1. Kaner, S., Lind, L., Toldi, C., Fisk, S. and Berger, D. Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Jossey-Bass.
2. Schwarz, R., Davidson, A., Carlson, P. and McKinney, S. The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook. Jossey-Bass.
3. Gray, D., Brown, S. and Macanufo, J. Gamestorming: A Playbook for Innovators, Rulebreakers, and Changemakers. O'Reilly.
From the system
Trusted Talent Advisor sets out the full method: seven components, 51 tools, The Talent Template Pack and The Prompt Library.
See the system
Questions this answers
How do you run a decision making workshop?
Agree with the sponsor who decides and by which rule, write the decision as a sentence, work towards a written proposal, poll the group on it, and close with a record naming the owner, the first action, what was ruled out and any dissent.
What is the best way for a group to make a decision?
The best way depends on who holds the decision. The common rules are the person in charge deciding after discussion, unanimous agreement, majority vote and delegation. Choose one before the session and tell the group, since a rule left unstated causes disputes.
How do you make sure a workshop leads to action?
Write the decision record before anyone leaves and send it within a day. Each decision needs a named owner, a first action with a date, what was ruled out and any recorded dissent. A recommendation without an owner goes into the notes.
Is dot voting a good way to decide?
It is a good way to order a long list, and Gamestorming suggests five votes each. It does not settle who decides between the top options, so follow it with a written proposal and a poll of support before the sponsor decides.
What should happen after a workshop?
A decision record goes out within a day, owners start their first actions by the dates recorded, and the sponsor and participants review progress on the agreed date. Recorded dissent is revisited at that review.
Keep reading
Measuring HR impact
Internal Mobility Metrics Without A Platform
Seven measures an HR adviser can build from existing records, each with a stated definition, a base and a way to read it.
7 min read
Workforce and future skills
Job Rotation As A Talent Gap Strategy
A job rotation programme closes a talent gap when the role, the person, the cover and the evidence are agreed with both managers before it starts.
8 min read
Talent reviews and succession
Seeing Talent Below The Top Team
Visibility of leadership potential drops below the top team. A cross-unit forum, run on one page per unit and a written evidence standard, is the method for seeing it.
8 min read