Category: facilitation

Patrick Lambe on Against Bestness

Photograph of yellow warning signsthat says "water over roadway" and "dead end" surrounded by flood waters. Clouds and trees reflected on the water.


In 2008 Patrick Lambe wrote this fabulous blog post challenging our notion of, or perhaps obsession with, bestness. Green Chameleon » Against Bestness

First, I encourage you to read the whole post. It is still spot on resonant. Patrick highlights many of the missteps of trying to focus on all things best: best practices, simplistic taxonomies, etc. 

Why do we fall for bestness? For me, it is our own entrained thinking and simply not paying attention to the signals where a focus on best is, at best (haha) is a wrong turn.

Second, I’d love you to share the signals you notice when you (if you ever do) start focusing on bestness instead of the right thing to do right now. (Or some variation.)

In taking a step back from constant work, I’m reflecting on some of my choices with groups and clients and see moments where I have consciously or unconsciously not heard what others offer because I thought I had what was best.  Signals? Defensiveness. Interrupting others. Prioritizing the voices that agreed with me. 

My antidote? Stick with structures that prevent behavior that I succumbed to now and again. This is probably why I use Liberating Structures, or at the least, consider my process choices based on how much the bring all voices to the work. 

 

Not another “how are you?” Alternatives from Kat Vellos

Brilliance from Kat Vellos https://www.instagram.com/katvellos_author/ and https://twitter.com/KatVellos/status/1392606023718825986/photo/1 (Her blog post about it here.)

I think I now sleepwalk through someone asking/answering “how are you.” That said, sometimes I’d love a meeting where I can skip ALL check-ins, check-outs and just get the work done and the meeting OVER WITH. This is a unique kind of pandemic-induced fatigue for me. I seek not the gathering place on some days, but the cave.

Interesting…

What does consent look like to you as a facilitator?

“Consent is key. Relatedly, whatever you do, get consent from the local government and the local community. Involve them in the decision-making and processes. For example, in a humanitarian crisis (outbreak, environmental, or manmade), development organizations and INGOs (e.g., UN, Save the Children, IRC, MSF) aren’t allowed to enter a country to provide support until the country has invited them or accepted their offer. This is one example of tapping into existing structures, which are in place for a reason, as well as the importance of consent.” https://www.fsg.org/blog/covid-19-seven-things-philanthropy-can-do

I’ve been thinking more and more about how I have controlled and oppressed others through my well-meaning facilitation. I jokingly call it “facipulation,” and seek to be very transparent about how I approach facilitation. But that is no excuse to ignore my filtered and often biased approach.

I have been working to understand how better to work with the Tribes in my state as it relates to my work with an integrated floodplains management network. Informal conversations between the consultants and the leadership team have opened up many new and nuanced vistas about what consent means.

As I begin to glimpse the complexities of sovereign nation relationships (thank you Bobby), the relationships within and between tribes, and practices of who can or does speak for whom, it is clearer that I based most of my sense of “inviting people in” on my white, American, female and other identities, without having a clue how they were received by others different than me. More importantly, WHY they are perceived the way they are. My personal value was to ensure that “everyone speaks.” Does that, in fact, equal egalitarian engagement? Not necessarily.

In my belief in networked and multi-nodal approaches, I often dismissed existing power structures as oppressive, without even understanding HOW they worked. I lumped them into the buck of obstruction and sought to work around them.

But what happens when working around them makes matters worse? While you might not agree with me and I with you, dismissing the way we each wish to engage does nothing for moving forward together. So what does the path “between” look like? How do we flock together and hold our uniqueness and diversity intact? How does that inform consent and group process?

When we show up, we influence the system…

Stephen Downes wrote something today about educators and journalists that I think we should consider for facilitators and process folks.

…we need to get past the idea that an educator is a person who teachers courses, just as we need to get past the idea that a journalist is someone who dispassionately observes. 

I have long pushed back on an over idealized value in facilitation of “neutrality.” A facilitator is not just someone who designs and facilitates a process. We are part of and influence the field of interaction.

My take on that is that we have to be aware of our influence and impact when we show up. That doesn’t mean we push our agenda on others, but by the mere fact of being present in group process, we change it and we are changed by it. Just like educators and journalists.

A Community Considers the LS “What I Need From You”

I’ve promised myself to start blogging regularly this year. One way to get a jump on it is to finish drafts that I never got around to publishing. This is one of them! Is there something you’d like me to write about? Leave a note in the comments!

Skagit Bay – and colors change all the time…

What I Need From You (WINFY) is one of the Liberating Structures that I avoided for a long time. My own fears? Lack of clarity about how the structure would work, particularly in view of the presence or absences of trust in a power-dynamically lit situation? That said, once I actually started using it, it flowered open with many useful layers. I found some particularly great insights AND, when my fellow practitioners share their experiences, I see even more. This is the value of a community of practice, my friends!

For context for those of you new to Liberating Structures, I love the short and sweet description from The Liberators: “Liberating Structures are a collection of interaction patterns that allow you to unleash and involve everyone in a group — from extroverted to introverted and from leaders to followers.” The help us find the sweet spot between over controlled and under controlled group processes to access the intelligence and action of everyone in a group.

Our LS community of practice functions partially on a Slack instance, where we ask and answer questions for each other. At some point last year there was a great question and answer thread around WINFY that was SO VALUABLE I wanted to capture it before it aged off of our free Slack instance. (As so much does!) The players gave me permission to share so I’m going to share the actual thread, then close with a brief summary of my own. Italicized comments are mine to explain stuff that might not mean anything if you aren’t in the community!

OK, here is the transcript!

lolo
A question re (WINFY –> we use the icon as shorthand in Slack!): :winfy:
I’m not fully understanding the reasoning behind the “No discussion! No elaboration” piece of the sharing. Why wouldn’t elaboration or discussion be helpful? Or do people often follow up this activity with something else to address if a ‘no’ came up? I appreciate that if there’s a ‘whatever’ that it means that there’s a need to clarify the request and so a second round could be done, but “I will try” or “No” with no discussion or no elaboration feels like the opposite of building trust.

fisher
I tend to describe this rigidity as purposeful: there’s no need to justify why it’s a no. WINFY isn’t meant to be a negotiation. If you need me to get you a report by Friday at 12, and I say no. What more is there to discuss? Usually, people want part of the need met – “well we can get you half the report by Friday at 4”. That’s not the need. Do you mistrust the person’s initial request – do you think you know better than they do what they need? I find WINFY goes right at two types of trust. Do I trust that you how your own needs better than I think I can know your needs? Can I say no and deny you an essential need and believe we’ll still be ok relationally?

keithmccandless19
Saying no or whatever or huh in WINFY is an invitation to offer an honest and direct signal. So many of the explanations muddle the relationship and trust among people… particularly when you are working across functions that are very different. Also, getting very short answers out helps everyone see the interrelatedness of what is needed to move forward together. Each individual request is not sacred but rather part of a critically self-organizing set of entanglements. The next straw may break the camel’s back. Often one function or action must be sub-optimized to address the mix of needs expressed across the whole group. Last, it is a good idea to make space for more explanation and follow-on commitments after :winfy:. Helpful? Confusing? Nonsense?

lolo haha18
@fisher & @keithmccandless Thanks so much for your explanations!I appreciate what you bring in here, @fisher, around not only emphasizing the non-negotiation but also intensive negotiation happening where there’s a real need to pose whether you can really know the other’s need better than them, and whether you can accept the relational impact of saying no to their need. How have you experienced people with perhaps more positional power handle the added heat of that need?@keithmccandless I love what you’re saying here, too! I appreciate the need for a brief and non-confusing signal. What have you followed up with to offer space for more explanation or commitment follow-up after :winfy: ? I also welcome other feedback from those who haven’t commented yet!

fisher
@annajackson has some hard stories about using :winfy: with funders and grantees that were tricky given the power relationships. In my experiences, functional groups will often say “Yes” to a leadership team. If you are holding the structure, you often have to intervene a bit and gently nudge them to consider whether it is a request that is clear enough for a Yes or No – or whether it ought to be a huh. You can make it quite playful and eventually someone will say Huh or Whatever to the bosses and there’s usually a cathartic cheer. All of us tend to be underspecific in what our actual needs are and so you have be sometimes a little stiff in terms of supporting groups – especially those without positional power or authority to use No, Huh, and Whatever more frequently.As with most LS, frequent and consistent use of WINFY as a regular interactional or operational structure dampens the anxiety and increases the fluidity.

lolo haha
Thank you @fisher !!

Ziryan
@lolo haha, beautiful question. I have seen WINFY address two major assumptions within a company. People feeling comfortable enough to say Huh or No, and people feeling comfortable enough receiving Huh or No.I facilitated a workshop ones in which we wanted the sales team and development team to work together to sell more Agile contacts instead of fixed scope and deadline contracts. Almost at the end of the workshop, I asked the sales reps, including the sales director to state what they need from the development teams to be successful. The teams only had a few Yes while having lots of Huh and a few No. The sales director was not amused, and I had to intervene and address the trust issue. After the intervention, the sales director cooled down and was grateful for the honesty of the development teams that they did not understand what he exactly wanted from them. They decided to work together to formulate what the director needed and followed up by another WINFY to clarify if it is a Yes, huh or a No. Had I not intervened and allowed discussion, the development team would have been overwhelmed by the reasoning and negotiation power of the sales reps and director. They would end up frustrated and eventually giving in by saying Yes and still doing No. Or, making assumptions in what the director and sales reps needed. And most importantly, the issue of trust and lack of collaboration would not have been discussed and remain in the air like the elephant in the room.

lolo haha
Awesome anecdote, @Ziryan !! Thanks for sharing, sounds like it’s one of those that may need a good deal of added facilitation depending on the trust and communication skills within the team!:heart:1

fisher
I find :winfy: to be the most exhausting and actively held structure. In my experience, there’s quite a bit more hanging on during that structure than in some of the others.:+1:1

keithmccandless
Tempted to share more stories when the people with less power gave honest & risky answers and the people with more power responded with surprise/confusion/curiosity. (Working in healthcare is instructive because there are complex power dynamics). If there is a pattern, I would say the people with more power are unwitting and making unexamined assumptions about the relative importance of their role. Most often, the BIG WINFY insight revolves around interdependence. Eyes are suddenly open to what we need from one another to accomplish something important to everyone.

My Summary

As I read through the thread, the emergence of patterns of interaction – particularly those habituated through roles and power positions – help us see MANY things in a new light. If we can find simple ways, like WINFY and other LSs, to make patterns visible, then we can explore and act upon them. The SIMPLE part is essential, because it is so easy to get lost in a verbal analysis and miss the point.

This is why I love Liberating Structures!