3

CREATIVITY, STRUCTURE, AND DESIGN

Regardless of how distasteful most meetings are, we live increasingly in a world full of them: one on one, four, eight, 20, or more. Every day we run from one to the next, breathless, frequently feeling ill-prepared as a member or leader. A meeting is where we are led, informed, criticized, and delegated to. It is the place where most traditional leadership occurs—at least in terms of strategy execution. And unfortunately, it’s where participants often feel disengaged, uninvolved, and impotent. Facilitators have more opportunity than most others to change the often-unsettling equation. But, they too frequently settle for mediocrity, not willing to risk the creative act that might breathe both meaning and life into same old, same old.

We are painting a boldly unflattering picture of most meetings only because it is true. They have become the bane of leaders and participants alike and can wear negatively on both productivity and morale—the cultural psyche of teams and organizations. After all, when was the last time you felt disappointed that a meeting was canceled?

The art of design is meant to provide new skills and ways of doing things that will turn the tide. This often depends, of course, on facilitators’ willingness to lead, to take a risk and challenge themselves.

Oh, come on, you say. Typically, as the facilitator, you have a limited amount of time, an agenda or set of agendas (some hidden), and a group of people who just want you to get on with it so they can rush off to their next meeting. There is little time for niceties, and besides, most people’s heads are still in their last meeting or in the important one that lies ahead. Now, make something meaningful out of that.

And as for the beleaguered leader whose meeting it theoretically is, there has been little time to design anything, so they unceremoniously hand the responsibility to you, the facilitator, with little real authority and the goal of getting on with it, whatever that may mean. So, without a high bar to drive your own interest, you cobble together an agenda (probably not getting it out to the participants in advance) and you begin with the mantra borrowed from most leaders: “Well, we have a lot to cover and not much time, so let’s start.” The air is somber at best or resentful at worst. You begin.

Consider this: Any time you have the audacity to call a meeting to take people’s time and energy, it’s an opportunity to bring a modicum of success into the participants’ day. You either make something positive of the opportunity, or you don’t. Are you willing to embody that? Most are not, and they will make excuses that the outcome of the meeting is supposedly out of their control. But, here are no excuses. What you do as facilitator is defined as your leadership.

Having a Diagnostic Mentality

As a facilitator with a diagnostic mentality, whenever you walk into a room, ask yourself, “What’s needed? What value can I add? How can I contribute to the goals—either task or process?” It doesn’t matter if you’re in charge. What matters is that you are continually assessing the needs as they change. It’s a very opportunistic attitude with the assumption that if you can help, you will. You are always assessing the possibilities. And, when you leave, you have to ask, “How could I have contributed more, and why didn’t I?” That’s why you call yourself a facilitator.

It is an attitude that you carry wherever you are in the world. It’s active, not passive. It is the expectation of providing service to the group whenever the opportunity avails itself. It is driven by an ongoing assessment of the ever-changing reality of a given business or plan—not by ego. It’s an assumption that says you are an active player in the game whether labeled that or not; that you have certain skills and behaviors that may be helpful, whether acknowledged by anyone or not. Thus, it is your knowing and preparedness that changes your role from the beginning, and you will be wary of who has the real authority and their ego invested in what’s happening. But, if you can be of value, that should always be your intention.

Now, shifting to a meeting (one on one, three or four, a team meeting, or other gatherings) where you have responsibility for accomplishing work, it is up to you to know the climate of the group, the expected deliverables now and later, where potential trouble lies that might sabotage success, and what level of contribution is needed. And ultimately, this includes what the other participants think about the outcomes that result and how much they might want to engage in the process.

All this is woven into a consideration of the time available. There are other more pointed questions that will be considered, but for now, it is this attitude that is foundational for everything that follows.

Consider this definition of meeting design: Using diagnostic information to develop activities to help a group or organization systematically move toward the completion of both task and process goals. With this in mind, the design and structure of a meeting can have a huge influence on its potential success. Facilitators can often control planned meeting activities, the location, the layout, and timing, all of which will influence the outcomes. For example, it is not wise to jump into the most contentious, urgent, or critical part of an agenda first thing in a meeting, as participants need time to get psychologically present and settle in. Facilitators need to understand the urgency of the tasks and adjust their approach by continuously asking, “What are the initial needs of the group?” Are they serving their own needs or that of the group? For many, this kind of rigorous questioning is seen as a bother rather than a critical aspect of any gathering.

This chapter describes how creative meeting design and choices relating to meeting structure can greatly contribute to successful outcomes.

The Task and Process Equation

As discussed in chapter 1, you can think of every meeting as a balance between task goals and process goals (Figure 3-1). The task goals—the “what” of work (measured deliverables) is commonly the exclusive focus of meetings. Yet, how the work is accomplished and how people feel both during and after the experience can have a significant impact on the team or organization involved. How facilitators treat the participants can leave them feeling either engaged and energized or frustrated and depleted, and this has nothing to do with the “what” or the goals of the meeting itself. Additionally, your attitude will influence your willingness to take action and participate in the necessary follow-up, homework, or commitments that will directly influence the next meeting.

Facilitators are often much more comfortable dealing with the task side of this equation, because it is easier to define and more comfortable than dealing with the process side. For example, a team of leaders has 40 minutes on an agenda to make a marketing decision. What to do is a no-brainer. With limited time and a specific decision to be made, the facilitator does what is almost always done: goes around the table hearing from each member, and then looks to the leader to make the decision. And, because it is likely that the decision has been debated by key leaders prior to the meeting, the discussion is simply a means of making the participants feel included. There is no time for a penetrating discussion among all those present.

However, most morale problems stem from indiscretions in the “how” domain of process rather than the “what” domain of the task. The “how” side deals with how the work of the task is going to be accomplished. It includes how people will be involved, how the facilitator wants them to feel as participants, what kind of emotional baggage everyone brings to the group, and what needs addressing if the task is to be successfully completed. In the previous example, there is little interest in the process. Everyone just wants to complete the task and get it off the agenda. Habit runs the meeting’s process rather than a more creative and interesting process worthy of the decision that is about to be made.

Think about the tensions in your own team or organization. Do you think they stem from the task side of this balance, or the process side?

Thus, to produce a well-crafted meeting design, facilitators need to first identify both the task and process goals. Doing this will ensure that they are prompted to consider which designs are required to achieve all the goals—not just the task ones. The result will be increased productivity in achieving the task and increased morale due to the process the participants used to get there. It’s not that a good outcome cannot be produced without considering how morale is being influenced. However, if morale is not actively considered, there is a good chance that dysfunctional norms such as talking over others, interrupting, and not listening will become part of the process. We are usually in too much of a hurry to address these kinds of process issues when they occur, and they are rarely discussed at the end of a session, when everyone is eager to leave. By not addressing these insensitive behaviors that turn a group off, they are actually reinforced. This is further exacerbated in many cases because the norms of the team or organization reflect aversion and denial of most conflict. Speaking the truth about process is bound to raise some ire because somebody has dropped the ball.

Along with being mindful of both task and process goals, other design considerations include whether to stand or sit; use PowerPoint, multimedia tools, or a flip chart; and whether to speak with objectivity or with passion in attempting to sell a point. All these make a difference. Similarly, providing materials in advance, breaking the team into large or small groups, the time of day, the physical setting of the room, and the facilitator’s dress, tone of voice, eye contact, and use of humor can all influence success. The devil is most certainly in these details.

As the complexity of the meeting or project increases, so does the complexity of the variables that need to be considered. For example, a systemwide change initiative would also involve factors such as the history of previous changes, the political realities that exist, the powerful cliques that drive most solutions, the triggers that may create dissent, the strength and attitudes within various silos, and the trust that exists throughout the organization. The facilitator also needs to know if there is any unfinished business needing to be addressed before progress can be made on a larger initiative. Again, it’s all in the details. If the facilitator does not have this detailed knowledge of the group or organization, they, and ultimately the participants, will be limited in what they can accomplish. It also demands courage, skill, and patience to address the underlying factors that can influence success. For facilitators, as in the case of the human shields, it is often easier to remain in the backwaters of denial and avoidance than to rock the proverbial boat with unvarnished truth.

Breaking Down an Example of a Complex Design

The following is an example of some of the thinking that goes into meeting structure and design. The need in this particular case is for a meeting to decide which of three virtual learning providers will be selected to produce custom content for a company’s e-learning suite. The key stakeholders who are to attend the meeting have been identified by the meeting sponsor, who has engaged us to facilitate the discussion on their behalf. We have been given one hour to achieve the final decision on provider selection—that all stakeholders are expected to buy into (Figure 3-2). While the task is challenging, we believe it’s manageable if we are rigorous with our process, using a design that reflects crucial aspects of both task and process goals and the consequences of each.

The first thing to think about is the amount of knowledge that the stakeholders will need to have prior to walking into the meeting. We have only 60 minutes, so this means that there will be no time for the stakeholders to review the detailed bids during the meeting. This leads us to the first process goal: Provide the participants with detailed knowledge of the three bids beforehand (Figure 3-3). The problem, of course, will be motivating them to read and understand the materials. Meeting success can be diminished when only half the group has completed the assignment. Thus, the players must know what is expected of them coming into the meeting.

The second process goal—ensure 100 percent buy-in—comes from the sponsor’s direction that all stakeholders must buy into the ultimate decision. This will need to be reflected in every piece of the meeting design, starting with the circulation of the bids before the meeting. These will be provided via a pre-read, to be circulated one week ahead of the scheduled meeting time. We will also give the stakeholders a chance to ask any questions they might have concerning the pre-read before attending the session.

Prompting for questions can have several functions: It makes sure participants know the reading is required, it gives them a chance to digest the content, and it makes sure nobody is holding questions until the meeting. Don’t just assume that people will ask questions, because they probably won’t. Create the expectation of questions by setting up a brief call with each stakeholder, or a conference call in which each stakeholder has five minutes to present their questions. By getting questions out beforehand, we can avoid wasting time with them in the meeting. It’s this kind of detail that can undermine the meeting’s success if it’s not planned for.

The next consideration is the third process goal: Decide how to decide at the start of the meeting by spending a few minutes facilitating this decision. Without this structure, there will not be time during the 60-minute meeting to decide how to decide. Failure to do so can sabotage the entire effort. For every participant to buy into the final decision, it is best to let them have input into how the decision will be made—and to do this before the decision actually needs to be made. An open discussion will probably not work unless the participants are well versed in different decision-making methods and their strengths and limitations. As the facilitator, providing two suitable choices would be a good option; then, let the group vote on a two-thirds or majority vote to decide. People like having a choice.

Setting the meeting up in this way is also serving process goal 2—both letting the group feel ownership of the meeting process and giving them a quick win right off the bat (Figure 3-4). They have already made their first, albeit easy, decision. Waiting to decide how to decide until the moment of truth can lead to manipulation and resistance by those in the group who see that the probable outcome will go against them. For example, people could force a discussion to increase the two-thirds vote to, say, a 75 percent majority requirement if they perceive the vote as not going their way. By doing this in advance, we can cast a sense of inevitability that the participants will generally accept. They’ll likely play by the rules they’ve agreed to.

The next challenge is the fourth process goal: Develop the criteria used to determine the best decision (Figure 3-5). In this case, we need to design a meeting process for achieving this goal that will be explained to the group. Some example criteria might be cost to deliver the custom content, time to develop it, how intuitive the user interface is, or the quality of styling and graphics. This helps remove some irrational thinking from the discussion and from the ultimate decision.

An option for the design would be to divide the group into pairs or threes (depending on the group size), with each subgroup developing a list of their top five criteria, in order of importance. We will need to do the math so that we end up with four even subgroups.

We’ll give the subgroups 10 minutes to construct their lists, and tell them that they can present only criteria that every member agrees to. This might mean some subgroups may have only two or three criteria—perfectly acceptable. These instructions will result in people being able to agree more easily. Our experience is that people are more willing to compromise when their voice in the final decision making will be lost if they don’t. Most subgroups get stuck when individual egos get in the way and consequently they have no way of influencing the final decision.

Following this, we’ll combine the four subgroups into two larger groups, and give these two new groups 10 minutes to negotiate a combined prioritized list of their top five to seven criteria. It is likely that there will already some overlap within the various subgroups. If not, they still need to agree, if they wish to influence the final vote.

Finally, both half-groups will come together and share their ideas. Inevitably there will again be some overlap between the two groups as they look to find the five to seven best criteria. If the two half-groups generate only four agreed-upon criteria between them, we’ll give them another 10 minutes to agree on any additional criteria.

This design will both satisfy process goal 4 and contribute to process goal 2 by rapidly building consensus among the group on what is important, without having to lobby for any particular solution. By using clear rules to govern discussion and structuring time, success is almost guaranteed. Called collapsing consensus, the design assumes that such consensus building is a negotiation, and most individuals will be able to live with the final list of criteria. Done well, this aspect of the overall design will make the final selection of the provider considerably easier. Leaving the process open without such designed structure invites the chaotic, ego-driven discussion that we often experience, with many individuals becoming passive and a few (usually the same) individuals dominating the discussion and the eventual decision. That approach is certainly easier for the facilitator and ensures the kind of dysfunction we so often experience.

Finally, the task goal is this: Choose a provider (Figure 3-6). Instead of facilitating a contentious and unstructured discussion, we’ll employ a very rigorous process of scoring each bid against the prioritized criteria, then use the method identified in process goal 3 (two-thirds or majority vote) to settle any ties. Imagine how easy the decision making will be using this meeting design, versus a more traditional approach of going around the table and having a few powerful individuals dominate the discussion and the eventual decision. In this example, participants could decide in 10 minutes because using weighted criteria makes it easy to determine the best choice. In another scenario, egos would likely rule.

You may have noticed that there are four process goals and only one task goal in this particular meeting design (Figure 3-7). You might imagine that so much focus on the process would extend the time spent on the design. Not so; structure and the carefully monitored use of time results in a product that would take longer with a more open and unfettered process.

Design as a Creative Act

Designing meetings to move a team or system forward is definitely a creative act. There are no boilerplates, no predesigned formulas for what to do, no one-size-fits-all approach for meeting types. Instead, facilitators must ask themselves, “What can I create that will benefit this group, overcome resistance, or accelerate the work these people do as a team?” Choosing which of the designs in your toolbox to use in any given moment, deciding which combinations would work well together, or modifying the tools to better suit a particular situation are all creative acts. Our effort here is to provide additional ideas to expand your thinking while you read this book.

You can also use creative thinking when holding a single meeting with multiple agenda items. Each agenda item can be thought of as a mini meeting, having a beginning, a middle, and an end, in addition to having both task and process goals. The only limits to the creative process are in your mind. Asking questions concerning time availability, desired engagement levels, and task and process goals can improve both participant satisfaction and the quality of the eventual outcomes. Will this approach by the facilitator require more planning time and creative thinking? Yes. And the result will be greater productivity and satisfaction at the end.

It helps to have a design buddy, someone who can help you think about your designs in a diagnostic way—offering “what if?” questions or testing your design assumptions. This is not always possible, so we have developed the following 15 diagnostic questions that help facilitators decide on the nature and flow of their activities, the kinds of involvement desired, and the layout of the room. All are important creative considerations to achieve the greatest success. These can provide facilitators with a certain rigor often not present by the owner of the particular meeting or event.

Essential Questions to Diagnose the Group Need

Breaking bad habits or adding new, more positive actions to the facilitator repertoire usually requires practice with lots of repetition, along with a deep belief that the new behavior is a better replacement for old actions. When at all possible, facilitators need to practice the new behavior in a safe environment so they can actually experience the advantages. Our use of animation in the videos that accompany this book is meant to provide confidence in this process. Still, the following 15 questions are intended to be foundational for any design the facilitator should want to experience. Some of these are similar to a pilot’s checklist; others may seem like the task or process thinking we touched on before. Still, they are present in any good design.

Are the task- or outcome-based goals clear, well articulated, and agreed to by those participating? Is the meeting itself necessary?

It is extraordinary how rarely these commonsense conditions are all present and how often the meeting adds little value. People often act out of habit, and many meetings are, in fact, acts of habit and unnecessary. Having the courage not to have a meeting can test your mettle.

Do the agenda items reflect the goals? Is there sufficient time and resources to accomplish them?

Stuffing 10 pounds of agenda into a five-pound meeting reflects a lack of rigor and destroys any possibility for creative design work. It also leaves everyone feeling frustrated. This is the reality of many meetings and their resulting dysfunction. It takes courage to undertake only goals that have been thoroughly scrutinized and aligned realistically with the time and resources available.

Is the process aspect of the meeting addressed—how the task or work is to be accomplished—with attention to how people are involved and how they feel about what is happening?

This is where morale and productivity intersect. If people are really engaged in the process, the outcome will be much more powerful and success more easily achieved.

Are the right people present to accomplish these goals? Do they have everything they need?

How often are the necessary resources absent? How often do people attend who add no value to the meeting? Having only those people present who add value is another act of discipline and courage. Once in attendance, it is up to the facilitator not to waste their precious time. That is the primary facilitator function.

For each task or agenda item, is there a creatively designed activity that meets the unique need of the moment?

This assumes the facilitator, prior to the meeting, has set aside critical planning time to create appropriately designed strategies that will address the needs of the group. Doing this with another person is a good way to test assumptions and to build design skills throughout the organization. Like we said, each separate agenda item is a mini meeting. Such understanding reflects a true comprehension of design.

What level of involvement is needed from those present to make certain that the best ideas are shared and the resources in the room are fully utilized?

Full engagement by all the participants is one of the key variables that people don’t always consider. Too often the same few individuals dominate the discussion, causing passivity, resentment, and dependency among the rest. Not everything has to be shared, but, when feasible, what is the level of collaboration that needs to occur in relation to each issue or agenda item? Having “ownership” of the various outcomes is key to the overall success of the meeting.

Is decision making a critical component of the meeting? Is it clear how the decision is going to be made in advance of the decision itself?

Decision making should be a carefully designed part of any problem-solving process, not a reaction or afterthought. Who has the real authority? Is that clear? Can everybody agree to the method that will be used to make the decision? These are key ingredients of trust, and they must be established prior to the point of the decision to head off manipulation in the group. Decisions are at the heart of understanding where power and authority really lie. It is a source of much discontent.

Is there any “unfinished business” that could sabotage the desired behavior or group effectiveness?

Unresolved conflicts among participants, and the unwillingness to tackle them, can damage any meeting. It’s the facilitator’s responsibility to ensure that these factors do not undermine the desired outcomes. This may require pre-meeting work or some intervention in the session itself, built into the time available. Here again is where the facilitator has to lead from intention and courage. Your alignment with the actual leader of the session is crucial prior to the meeting itself.

Has the facilitator thoughtfully considered time?

Time can have a huge impact on outcomes. The time of day or the day of the week can determine levels of energy and motivation. The time available is a critical issue in any planning. And the amount of time can be used as a tool to increase meeting efficiencies. For example, having participants work on specific tasks in subgroups, and giving them 10 minutes rather than 20 or 30, can help. Or telling the group that you want three ideas or whatever number they can agree on in the time available. It’s amazing how these kinds of ground rules can help small groups move toward consensus. People rarely question the amount of time given for an activity, and generally they will use all the time allotted. You can even create a sense of urgency where there is none by making the group work under a time crunch. Using time creatively is a critical element in the design process. The goal is not to increase anxiety through unnecessary urgency. Rather, it is using time as a critical resource and helping the participants understand why you are using it that way as you move forward. Such brief explanations can be motivating and help participants begin thinking about how they use time in their own meetings.

Has an effort been made to assess the potential consequences that could affect success? Have assumptions been tested?

Facilitators, like everyone else, can get lazy, becoming inattentive or simply ignoring the limitations of any given design. That people see what they want to see can be a hard-won truth. Therefore, asking yourself, “What could go wrong?” is a critical question in any design activity. Similarly, have the assumptions—realistic statements of the “givens” or variables mentioned previously—that are driving the meeting been clarified and addressed in advance of the meeting? Lastly, what do people need to know in advance if success is to be assured?

Does the design feel routine rather than creative?

Often it is an unwillingness to challenge and think outside the box that can result in participants not feeling stimulated or engaged. Most people actually love doing out of the ordinary things as long as they make sense. Even previously successful designs can become old rapidly. Boredom, in turn, can spawn passivity, disengagement, and inaction. We’ve found that a design like Future Search (see chapter 5) can be overused because it works. And the result is that over time, participants are less enthused. The key is to create the “best” design called for in the current situation.

Is physical space utilized to maximize participation?

How often do facilitators become victims of the space used for a meeting? The space can determine what occurs. For example, a large table can dictate where people sit and how they interact with one another—or not. Predictable seating by members of a team or committee can reflect power in the group and who gets heard. It’s also easy to see how a classroom with chairs in rows leads to less involvement and more of the teacher “talking at” those present. Open seating, on the other hand, can result in the flexible use of small groups. It’s amazing how easy it is to turn participants off simply by how the room is structured. The combination of space and time can have a remarkable influence on the energy and vitality of those in the room. Ten people sitting around a table is often the norm that results in predictable patterns of who talks and who gets heard. It can be the death knell for meaningful conversation. We have created a wide range of designs that address how to stimulate meaningful conversation.

Are difficult people allowed to interfere with the desired outcome because of their negative or damaging behavior?

It is the facilitator’s job to confront people or actions that diminish or undermine the group. Heading these problems (often from the same offenders) off at the pass can save a meeting from being derailed. Avoiding handling these individuals only reinforces their undesirable behavior. If it is your meeting, you must act like it; set ground rules to avoid the dysfunctional behavior that can hamper the group’s effectiveness, and gain the offenders’ support. Often this needs to occur before the meeting, so you do not have to stop the meeting and change course or deal directly with the individuals. You don’t have to use threats, but a no-nonsense attitude is essential, as well as the courage to act when necessary.

Something as simple as putting two talkative people in the same subgroup of two or three people can result in more opportunities for others to be heard. There are many creative configurations of group members that can be used within any meeting. To have a meeting hijacked falls on the shoulders of the facilitator, because they should have seen it coming or had a plan B in mind to deal with it.

Are summaries of progress made and follow-up commitments formalized? Is accountability clearly established prior to people leaving? Are promises kept?

We’ve found a lack of rigor to be the single largest reason for disillusionment among both facilitators and participants. The consequence? Passivity and noninvolvement in the future. The facilitator needs to ensure meaningful accountability and compliance, with agreed-upon commitments and consequences. Lack of follow-up is a morale buster and needs to be addressed in the group, with clear ground rules and infractions openly discussed among the participants. For people not to do what they have agreed to will lessen the value of any meeting and the commitment of members in the future.

Is every meeting of an hour or more evaluated in light of what worked or didn’t work? What could be done to improve the outcome the next time?

Done well, this is the best antidote to bad meetings and failed initiatives. It requires courageous facilitators who demand this level of accountability for themselves and those attending. Corrective action and follow-up will break habitual and boring meetings of virtually every kind, but that starts with you having the will to stop the train and look hard at your successes and failures. Such modeling can set a precedent for future meetings and increase trust and the willingness to experiment.

These questions may not all be asked every time, but it is easy to see the value of using them when they are appropriate. Once again, it’s like a pilot going down a checklist before takeoff—after a while, the checks become second nature. Anybody can learn them, and the answers provide the diagnostic mindset essential in determining the nature of the design(s) that will be created. Facilitators, skilled in the use of these questions, will immediately open themselves to many new choices for creating challenging, motivating, and engaging meetings.

This chapter is intended to whet your appetite for what lies ahead. Now, equipped with a diagnostic lens and a deeper understanding of the task and process dimensions of any meeting or agenda item, you are armed with many more choices for improving your own effectiveness as a facilitator.

The next chapters are deeper probes into all aspects of design and the discipline that can drive you toward more creative activities that not only increase effective participation, but also reflect a better use of time and resources. By the time we reach the second part of the book, you will be ready to observe an array of classic designs, and the accompanying videos will increase your confidence in using them. It will be as though you’re sitting next to the participants.

Even more important, you will have the assurance to create your own designs as you draw from the diagnostic questions reviewed here and the kinds of activities demonstrated by our avatars. You will never settle for same old, same old again.