This chapter provides additional devices (Tools) and highlights a few significant differences between facilitating in-person meetings and facilitating online meetings (without exploring or favoring specific application programs, brands, or technologies). While many facilitation experts recommend twice as much preparation time to get ready for online meetings (along with having two facilitators), I take a more practical approach, providing tips that will help you, the solo practitioner, prepare faster and complete on time while facilitating alone.
Finally, I did not want to close this book without also sharing a few special Tools and Meeting Approaches that I’ve learned to love. And for those of you also subjected to staff or board meetings, there are some special controls to help you get done faster, as leader or participant.
Material covered thus far supports online meetings. Effective online facilitation requires line of site, listening skills, conflict management acumen, and meeting design. In fact, learning what to do remains most critical, because how you complete facilitated meetings can be easily modified once you know what to do.
NOTE: For example, in our private lives we “pay bills” (what we do). Most remitters use some form of electronic funds transfer, but you could also send a check, use currency, use a credit card, and so on. How you pay bills becomes far less important than making sure the bills get paid (what gets done).
The larger the group, the more your meeting facilitation skills need to keep any one person from dominating online meetings. Remember, scope creep begins in meetings.
Organizations justify online meetings to save travel time and money, along with reducing some risks associated with travel. While online meetings work particularly well for reviewing progress and sharing information, they are not optimal for all deliverables. The online platform becomes suboptimal when the meeting is a kickoff or attended phase-gate review, when consensus is critical, when the issues are contentious, or when the situation involves highly political decision-making and trade-offs. Figure 9.1 shows some of the different factors that affect the choice of online or in-person meetings.
Online meetings may be helpful when . . .
Online meetings are not optimal when . . .
Figure 9.1. Online Meetings Criteria Preferential
Research and results are quite clear. You can expect online meetings to take much longer to accomplish the same amount of work than in-person meetings, for these reasons:
“All or none” (or colocation) is a better policy than holding hybrid meetings. When some participants gather in person and others remain remote, facilitation challenges increase. Remote participants frequently are treated and feel like “second-class” citizens. Yet the secret to creating equanimity is effortless. If some people must “dial in” or “Zoom in,” then make everyone dial in. It is much easier and more effective to manage a full complement of remote participants than to try to blend in-person and off-site participants. And don’t forget, strive to keep your group size between five and nine participants for optimal performance.
NOTE: Don’t forget the Agile principle of “all or none”—meaning to avoid hybrid meetings. Either everyone attends in person (colocated or in the same physical vicinity) or everyone attends online.
Online meetings increase the likelihood of engaging multiple cultures. In the absence of some of the in-person intuitive and visual feedback, closely monitor:
Prepare thoroughly and allow twice as much time when possible. As meeting leader, you need to keep all your participants fully engaged. Thorough preparation requires planning your activities, scripting your questions, and creating backup plans. You will be responsible for keeping participants clear about what you need from each of them; therefore, do the following:
Logistical considerations:
Facilitation considerations
Meeting design considerations
Figure 9.2. Sample Artifacts for Online Sessions
Invest heavily in scheduling and preparation, because you cannot rely on your “charisma” when meeting with online participants:
Greet each person as they come online and create an online seating chart. Seating charts (also known as roll calls) are indispensable and may be used frequently during online meetings. Assign a virtual seat in a circular sequence to everyone as they join the meeting. Tell them where they are sitting at your imaginary U-shaped table. Encourage them to create a mental picture of the room and their orientation to the other participants. Use their seating positions to determine the roll call sequence you may use at significant inflection points.
Getting and keeping people involved takes a concerted effort from start to finish. Get off to a good start by setting a good example:
NOTE: Icebreakers remain particularly valuable with online settings. Even basic questions like “favorite ice cream” strengthen connections between participants remotely located from one another.
NOTE: Most people do not use a protocol because they feel that saying “Hi, this is Terrence speaking,” is a waste of time. They’re right. We do not need the words “Hi, this is . . . speaking.” They add no value. Simply identify and reinforce the name behind the voice with a single word or term, like “Metz” (then speak).
Heed this suggestion closely when you end up with hybrid meetings and a few remote people calling in. The participants attending in person don’t bother to identify themselves because they can see who is speaking. Unfortunately, the remote people pay only partial attention when they cannot attribute the source of content. Their time is frequently wasted because we fail to treat them as active and fully engaged participants.
If you don’t monitor participant etiquette, no one else will. While some of the following directives reflect common sense, your role as the process police officer mandates enforcing standards:
CAUTION: When members of one team use a second language, or when members of one group are subcontractors, or when participants in one group clearly have higher pay or status, people build the perception that one group is “better” than the other. Such perceptions will quickly destroy the respect, trust, and commitment that are essential for true collaboration. Remind participants that facilitators treat everyone as equal, and see whether participants can support this equality. If not, you have serious problems, so consider delaying your meeting until after additional conversations.
Throughout, emphasize reflection and confirmation of content. Too frequently, online participants are distracted and do not capture as much as they do when meeting face-to-face. Summarize, summarize, summarize: a “clear group” may be an oxymoron.
Use your intuition. Since you cannot rely as much on nonverbal feedback, remain firm but flexible.
Many of the complaints registered against online technology are misdirected. Frequently, the complainer didn’t know what to do in person either. Collaborative online meeting technology can speed idea generation and data collection. Technology can also change group dynamics by allowing people to contribute anonymously through polling and asynchronous arrangements that also give participants more time to think.1 Consider the following about such arrangements:
If you know what to do in the role of meeting leader, you will find it remarkably easy to change how you do it. Once you integrate clear thinking about your meeting design, you could scratch participants’ comments in sand or post them in the cloud: it doesn’t matter how you do it when you want to build consensus. All methods, whether in-person or online, require leadership line of site, active listening, and appropriate meeting design and tools. In truth, most people who “fail” online are not particularly effective in person either.
The following pages outline some special-purpose Tools and meetings.
Besides standard 10-minute breaks every 75 minutes or so, you may need to break up participants’ saturation—for a change of scenery. “Special” breaks enable people to stand up, move around, and think of the situation in an unusual way (for example, by going outdoors).
Whenever participants get stuck on a subject, in a circular argument, drowsy, brain-dead, and so on, take a break. Before you send them on their break, however, do the following:
If you are stuck, saturated, or brain dead—take a break. Before you send participants on their break, however, repeat the procedure above. Note the following benefits to this technique:
Clinical proof tells us that you learn faster after exercise than after sitting still. Why? Exercise improves the blood’s access to specific brain regions and stimulates learning cells to make brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which acts like a fertilizer for neurons.
Especially during full-day or multiple-day workshops, you will note around 3 p.m. that energy is lagging. Biorhythms are lower mid-afternoon than at any point, even compared to our sleeping hours. So, be prepared to take a quick 30-to 60-second ergonomic break.
To develop consensual understanding about the impact of speakers’ presentations, open issues, or otherwise newly obtained or developed information.
Using a slide presentation as an example, it’s common to conduct a question-and-answer activity when the presenter has completed a presentation. Next, participants give the speaker a round of applause and take a break or dismiss. As participants, we assume that we all heard the same thing or that our interpretation will automatically lead to consensual changes and coherent behavior. Such is not always the case. In fact, meeting participants may take off in opposite directions based on their biases, filters, and interpretation of the presented content.
The following begins optimally before a speaker’s presentation has begun, by suggesting that the listeners should be capturing takeaways (facts or evidence), why we should care (implications), and what we may want to do differently that will make us more efficient or effective (recommendations) because of the presentation we just sat through.
NOTE: If nothing changes in our world, then the presentation was a waste of time. If we’re not sure what changed, we need help or insight. If we disagree on what changed, let’s find out now.
Since we’re focused on what the participants will do differently, it’s a clever idea to conduct a review activity with a technique that breaks down the “many-to-many” into uncomplicated logic and more manageable takeaways (see figure 9.3):
Figure 9.3. Content Management Tool
To help a group understand needed trade-offs. Executive sponsors want the best, the fastest, and the cheapest, but something’s got to give. (For example, it’s highly unlikely you can access a 5-star hotel at the base camp of a major mountain, which guarantees a successful ascent the next day, for USD$100.)
If you ask an executive sponsor, “Among time (for example, speed), cost (for example, price), and quality (for example, scope), which is most important?,” the likely answer will be “all of them.” Therefore, we concede that scope, timing, and cost are the crucial factors, but we seek to understand where we have the most amount of flexibility and, conversely, the least amount of flexibility.
Since the sponsor may not give us that information, we can ask the team to build it. This Flexibility Matrix Tool captures group assumptions to support consistent decision-making. Building consensus around flexibility early and up front helps drive consistent decision-making across the life cycle of projects or products.
Build the blank template in advance. Fully define or explain the terms “time,” “cost,” and “quality” for your situation.
After participants have indicated their choices by placing check marks in the appropriate columns, have the group convert each check mark into a narrative sentence providing the rationale and support. For example, using the illustration in table 9.1, we might find that schedule is least flexible because we must be ready for use by October 1. Quality, defined as scope or feature set, is the most flexible because we can secure improvements, updates, or upgrades later.
Table 9.1. Flexibility Matrix
Flexibility |
Least |
Moderate |
Most |
Resources (Cost) |
|
✓ |
|
Schedule (Time) |
✓ |
|
|
Scope (Quality) |
|
|
✓ |
When you need a productive time-filler for a few minutes, turn to your Parking Lot (chapter 5) and pick a quick-hit issue the group needs to talk over. By the time you are finished, lunch will have arrived. If not, continue with an additional open item.
This exercise enables people who do not necessarily like each other to get to know each other better. It forces antagonists to stand in each other’s shoes, thus reducing the antagonism for a while. This exercise may take 30 minutes or more—so plan accordingly:
As the first antagonist makes the other sound like a hero (because they want to prove that they are not the cause of any animosity), some people will giggle at the flowery remarks. The second antagonist, of course, must go a step further and make the first one sound like the best thing since “sliced bread.” Now people are laughing. They know the two cannot be serious but having put a stake in the ground and publicly praising the other person forces them to maintain respect throughout the meeting in order to “save face.”
While it is critical to be sensitive to the meaning of nonverbal gestures for the people and cultures you facilitate, some groups in the United States rely on a quick thumb indicator to generate a quick sense of the level of consensus about consensual issues, such as, “Should we break for lunch now?”:
This Tool has the speed of using “thumbs-up” or “thumbs-down” and displays the degrees of agreement across participants. Using this Tool, people vote using their hands and display fingers to represent their degree or intensity of support:
Groups need a Tool to help them stay focused on the same topic—to avoid scope creep. When participants agree about what something is, they might need to test their agreement by confirming what the thing is not.
Clarifying what something “is not” and “is” creates a Scoping statement—what may or may not be included in a field of work. Strong empirical evidence says you should always begin with what something “is not” (out of scope) and then continue with what something “is” (in scope).
Various means may be used to capture input, including Breakout Teams (chapter 6), Post-it notes, electronic templates, and off-line gathering. You can also gather input from multiple Perspectives (chapter 8).
Table 9.2. “Is Not—Is” Procedure
Is Not (Out) |
Is (In) |
Uncertain |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
✓ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
Consider using the “is not—is” procedure (table 9.2) concurrently with results or output from Categorizing (chapter 6). If not, there are typically similar or redundant components that can be eliminated or “chunked” together.
Once the group feels comfortable with how they have categorized what is not and what is in scope of the topic at hand, aggregate the inputs into a narrative statement. The statement, or brief paragraph, can then be appealed to during the project or product life to see whether something new should be included or not. Let the group know that the initial statement may be modified later if needed, and frequently is, usually to sharpen the edges and make the scope more detailed and clearer.
When needed, there is also an “uncertain” option. Most items should be “is not” or “is,” but some remain undecided until they are resolved or escalated to a sponsor or review board to decide.
There are good meetings, and there are long meetings, but there aren’t many good, long meetings. Based on Agile’s Daily Scrum, this procedure encourages self-advancing teams to meet daily, yet briefly. Time-boxed to 15 minutes in duration, the Daily Scrum may also be called a morning roll call, daily huddle, or a daily stand-up. You can use the following questions to improve your own regularly conducted staff meetings, whether you are the leader or a participant.
Daily Scrum meetings provide team members insight about where each other focuses their activities. For instance, you may use the trichotomy formula of “yesterday, today, and tomorrow” to modify the questions listed here for your needs.
The classic three questions (with alternatives) are as follows:
Here’s a motivational version:
Use the same technique for your weekly, biweekly, or monthly staff meetings. Although not exhaustive, scope creep is prevented when progress reports are restricted to yesterday (past), today (present), and obstacles (future). Additionally, standing rather than sitting ensures that staff meetings remain brief, discourages wasted time, and keeps participants in scope.
NOTE: The Daily Scrum does not provide the time and place to solve problems. Rather, the Daily Scrum makes the team aware of what people are working on. If detailed support is required, a separate meeting with appropriate participants is arranged after the meeting. Topics that require additional attention should always be deferred until every team member has reported.
You may lead or participate in board meetings that rely on Robert’s Rules of Order. However, you may still leverage your facilitative leadership skills to improve the clarity of meeting output and the quality of meeting outcomes.
In 1876, General Henry M. Robert wrote the rules of the U.S. Congress (parliamentary procedure) for common citizens and societal groups with his publication of the Pocket Manual of Rules of Order.2 One hundred and fifty years later, his grandson, Henry M. Robert III, was living with an MG RUSH alumnus (also a monsignor) in the rectory at St. Mary’s Parish, Annapolis. The two frequently argued at dinnertime over the value of “voting” compared with “building consensus.” There is a time and place for both methods of decision-making. Never forget, however, that voting may not yield better decisions, only bigger numbers. For decision quality, strive for diversity of views and building consensus.
For routine decisions such as approval of meeting minutes, committee reports, and other noncontroversial items, use a consent agenda to save a lot of time. Consent agendas enable the board to approve items that do not require discussion or independent action—in other words, items that do not need to be motioned, seconded, debated, and so on. After the Launch Agenda Step (chapter 6), make producing a consent agenda the next item, so that you spend precious meeting time on items that demand members’ input.
NOTE: The concept of using a consent agenda should be approved in advance. Consent agenda items should also be distributed at least one day before the meeting so that members can review the material before being asked to ratify it.
With traditional board meetings, parliamentary procedure expedites Agenda Steps and provides structure that ensures topics are considered, managed, and documented. As meeting leader, embrace the following facilitative tips.
Start every board or committee meeting with a solid, well-prepared Launch. Cover the seven required activities quickly, but thoroughly. In sequence, the introductory activities should do the following:
Your best meetings will conclude ahead of schedule. Do not overinvest in early topics and shortchange the value of later topics. “New business” often follows “department reports,” and “new business” remains one of the most important topics of every meeting. Be sure that you get to that topic.
Do not allow your participants to wander, ramble, and extemporaneously talk too much. Keep them on point. Focus on what has transpired, not how they are accomplishing stuff. Most important, do not deviate from the agenda by jumping around to the topic of the moment. Cut people off when necessary with the caveat that their content will be covered in a later Agenda Step.
Satisfy the legalities of mandated meetings, but strive for clear and actionable results each time. Focus on change and what actions transpire because of shared learnings, experience, and suggestions. Carefully record and separately document decisions, actions, and other inflection points. Visualize your deliverable for every Agenda Step. What should we do now? What should we do differently? If nothing changes, we wasted our meeting time with material we could have reviewed on our own.
Make yourself comfortable with one of the three procedures for managing the Parking Lot (chapter 5) and making follow-up assignments. If board members’ contributions need to be analyzed further, make the assignment clear so that they can prepare input when the issue is brought up again in a different forum. Conclude with any reminders that help participants show up better prepared for the next meeting. And remember, strive for consensus, rather than relying on voting as a painless way out. Consensus, as a more sophisticated way out than voting, will generate higher returns on the investment of your money and your board members’ time.
1 Polling and asynchronous arrangements enable participants to contribute at separate times from separate places.
2 Henry Robert, 1907 Pocket Manual of Robert’s Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies (1907).