PWS Agenda Design, Part II: ORID by Accident (Spring 2017, week 5)

During our late night planning session, we set out our meeting objectives first like any professional facilitator, but we didn’t intentionally apply any particular overarching strategy aside from  to come forward (outside of a combination of circle and non-circle work), yet to both our surprises we ended up doing a process that mapped quite well to the ORID process. ORID is an acronym for a facilitation framework that comes from The Art of Focused Conversations by R. Brian Stanfield; it stands for: Objective, Reflective, Interpretative, and Decisional. It also happens to be one of the topics that Lysbeth teaches, but that I had never learned before as Nellie does not teach it, at least not in her introductory course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objective is all about facts and what is observable data, some authors reference this as the “WHAT” part of a facilitation. This is valuable because we all observe, interpret, and remember data differently (thank you ladder of inference!), and thus we can’t assume that we are all working from the same page of facts. For the Pasadena facilitation, based on our case development interviews, we knew that we needed to spend the most time constructively looking at the facts since different understandings and interpretations was at the heart of their disagreements.

Without it intentionally being the objective section, we created two activities to bring out “the facts” in a constructive, safe space. First, we asked “What one question do you most need answered in order to move forward?” Clumping these into theme gave specific direction for our time, highlighted what people were stuck on despite leader’s efforts, and gave us something to evaluate our time at the end and create next steps (by asking which questions still need more information or discussion to be satisfactorily answered). (By the way, this activity comes straight from Sam Kaner, so thank you San Francisco!). The second way we brought in an objective lens was to have the participants create nearly 60’ long timeline on the walls in the room. With the use of sticky notes, people were able to add key events, which provided perspective and a launching pad to have conversations around what happened when and why. Using the timeline also provided us with the ability to split up the day in past, present, and future: looking at where they’ve been, where they are, and how they want to move forward.

             

The Reflective section of ORID then provides space for the reactions, hurt, heart, feelings, and overall emotional responses associated with “the facts,” and is considered the “GUT” or “HEART” part for some facilitators. We moved into this space with a two-part “powerful moment” or “blank paper photograph” activity. For the first part of the activity participants were asked to get into pairs with someone of a different perspective than themselves (teachers with board members, etc). Each pair was given a blank sheet of paper and asked to remember a powerful moment that crystallized the impacts on you or others about how the events at the school have unfolded; if someone had snapped a photo right then, describe to your partner what that photo would look like and what that moment means to you. This was done as an active listening exercise, listeners were asked to not interrupt or ask questions until after the storyteller was done, and were told they might be invited to reflect or paraphrase what they heard in the larger group. This second part, which brought everyone together, did invite people to share how they themselves or another was affected in the situation. Intended to build empathy and give space for tough emotions, there certainly were a fair number of tears shed during this section.

We then moved into the Interpretive, “SO WHAT,” section which invites participants to make sense of both the facts and their emotional reactions. Our interpretative section was a back-and-forth between pairs and the full circle, asking simple questions around “what are the lessons we can learn from today?” To say the least, there were a lot of lessons learned as evidenced by the nearly 10 charts I wrote on lessons learned. Finally, we spent the last little bit of the day in the Decisional, or “NOW WHAT” space helping the group to brainstorm and decide on next steps after this meeting. We did a fine job of helping them to articulate areas of action, but there is no doubt that everyone was tired at this point and that we probably could have developed more fleshed out action plans if we all had the luxury of coming back together a few days or a week later, but alas we had a plane to catch just a couple hours later.

Learning “New” Things: Weaving & Funnel (Spring 2017, Week 2)

This week I assisted Lysbeth with teaching her all-day Friday facilitation course for the CRES Cohort 12 students. At this point I have done a lot of facilitation training, however, you can always learn “new” things, or at least slightly different approaches or names for things. Two concepts that I had never heard of before, but recognize that I frequently put into practice with my own facilitations are weaving and the funnel, both of which come from a Quaker tradition.

Weaving is a very subtle form of moving a divergent group of ideas towards a single concept in an effort to build consensus. Difficult to describe, with weaving the facilitator names the threads of a conversation and periodically helps to reframe them under common interests or values, or bring them together as decision points. With good listening and reframing skills, most threads within a given topic will be able to be woven together. There are times, however, when some threads will not naturally “weave” together, such as the orange/red and green threads in this diagram. In these situations, it is up to the facilitator to decide how much acknowledgment is given to these potentially tangential, but also potentially invaluable threads. Sometimes the energy behind these inputs will organically dissipate as the individual either recognizes that they are tangential or moves past them as they recognize their own deeper interests reflected in the weave, in which not giving them extensive attention or maybe even not verbally naming can be okay, as is the case with some of the red and orange threads here. However, this tactic can also backfire if someone does not feel heard, which can have particularly toxic consequences in a consensus-building space. And sometimes, as is the case with the green thread, it is important to work with the idea in parallel to the larger weave and recognize a separate decision about the idea that can be worked with or implemented separately going forward. From a training perspective, this is a really tricky technique to teach and indeed the students in their feedback sheets for the day felt that they did not understand or were able to identify when Lysbeth was demonstrating weaving, which seemed to really frustrate the students and make them doubt this concept. I think that this type of nuanced strategy would be better taught as a general theoretical concept and less of a specific technique, especially given how these students have been taught mediation with very precise and easily identifiable strategies.

The second concept was the funnel. The funnel is a way of creating a consensus-based agenda that breaks down what would otherwise be a potentially overwhelming big decision into smaller component parts. In the example shown on this flip chart, a group is trying to decide on hosting a large event for the first time. Rather than try to get consensus right-off-the-bat on all elements of such an event, the facilitator has broken it down into design, location, budget, and timing with a period for open discussion at the beginning to help ground people in the overall concept and establish some common interests to build decisions from. After a discussion for each component, the decision and the level of agreement is clarified by the facilitator. At the end of the session, the facilitator can then run through each component and quickly re-cap what decisions have been made and where additional discussion is needed, making next steps and the next meeting’s agenda self-evident. For both of these techniques, I feel that I use variations of them in my work, whether in how I help a group move along or in how I design my agenda. However, I’ve never put specific names to these approaches, instead seeing them as off-shoots of interest-based re-framing, creation of group memory, and divergent-convergent design. In a microcosm this is one reason why teaching and practicing facilitation can be so tricky: there is no common, or at least not canonized approaches that allow for a shared language across facilitators or between facilitators and their clients. What one person calls a snowfield, the next calls an idea wall, and the next just calls using sticky notes for list generation. However, as long as we are open to new ideas and curious about each other’s approaches, we can continue to learn and understand the nuanced differences and fertile common ground with which we all approach this work.