Tag: facilitation

The Dangers of Unexamined Empathy

Don’t make others fit into your view of the world

image of reflections on a pond on Whidbey Island in the early morning fog

The tension in the room was palpable as people waited for the meeting to begin.  Some perched on the edge of their seats silently staring ahead. Others fidgeted nervously. It was a first. More than 25 people from seven countries had gathered together in one room for this planning session, convened to determine the strategic direction and, ultimately, the fate of this team.

At first, the facilitators had the team’s full attention. They reviewed the agenda and did some cursory intros before diving into an exercise designed to build empathy by getting to know something about each team member. The facilitators’ intention was to focus on the interpersonal aspects of the team to warm things up by sharing their hobbies. While some people gamely stood up, others remained seated with facial expressions reflecting a combination of confusion, surprise, and anger.

People began to vent their displeasure openly, with comments like:: “What the…..????” “What a complete waste of time!” “What if someone thinks my hobby is silly?” “That is none of anyone’s business what I do outside of work!”

The facilitators were caught off-guard. After all, this exercise worked well before with teams from high-tech organizations in the greater Boston and NYC areas.  Luckily, they had a Plan B that went better, but they struggled to earn the trust of the group for the rest of the meeting. What went wrong? What were their blind spots and biases in the design and delivery of the meeting?

In this post, which I had the pleasure to co-write with Nancy Settle-Murphy of Guided Insights, we reflect on ways that empathy as we understand it, can actually work against us as facilitators or team leaders, and the importance of checking our biases and assumptions at every step. We were stimulated to think and write together after reading Kaitlyn Greenidge’s recent essay in the New York Times (“The Bearable Whiteness of Little Women”) which reminded us of our white privilege and prompted us to think about shifts we need to make in our own facilitation practices.

Nancy White: I had always thought of “being empathetic” and “walking in someone else’s shoes” as a useful thing, something I valued. But this masked my unconscious privilege as a white person by not realizing if I am not careful, every choice I make in designing group process comes “from my shoes.” I’m asking others to participate through my worldview. I started writing a few thoughts and Nancy Settle-Murphy chimed in.

Nancy Settle-Murphy: Ironically, even though I lead unconscious bias workshops, I hadn’t really considered the extent to which my own biases affect the design of my programs. I’d always hoped that if everyone would just “trust the process,” everything would be fine. That’s because I was looking at the program through my own eyes, rather than imagining how it might feel to others.

Together, we brainstormed some things for us to practice, as facilitators, trainers or team leaders, to work more from compassion than empathy, starting with our understanding of the difference between the two.

  • Distinguish between empathy and compassion. In a Vox.com article, The Case Against Empathy, author Sean Illing quotes author Paul Bloom: “By empathy, I mean feeling the feelings of other people. So if you’re in pain and I feel your pain — I am feeling empathy toward you. If you’re being anxious, I pick up your anxiety. If you’re sad and I pick up your sadness, I’m being empathetic. And that’s different from compassion. Compassion means I give your concern weight, I value it. I care about you, but I don’t necessarily pick up your feelings.” Empathy can be draining, while compassion  can be invigorating.
  • Don’t make others fit into your view of the world.  In her New York Times essay, Greenidge laments the preponderance of white characters in American literature. “When we as black girls read most books, we have to will ourselves into the bodies on the page…and do an internal edit that white readers of the same canon do not necessarily have to exercise.” It’s true that reading fiction can be an exercise in empathy, she says, but, she asks: “Is empathy really empathy if it’s flowing in only one direction? If so, empathy looks less like identifying with the other and more like emotional hegemony.” Indeed.
  • We may think we’re empathizing when we’re really not. We see others through the prism of our own experiences, thoughts and feelings. It’s pretty much impossible not to. But as facilitators (or leaders), we like to think we’re especially empathic people. In reality, our empathy often typically extends only to those people we see as similar or pleasing to us. Says Bloom: “I actually feel a lot less empathy for people who aren’t in my culture, who don’t share my skin color, and don’t share my language. This is a terrible fact of human nature, and it operates at a subconscious level.” The key is to challenge ourselves constantly at critical junctures – when we’re designing our meetings, creating activities, asking questions, or making interventions.
  • Misguided empathy can sometimes be worse than none. We may think we’re being sensitive when we take into account the differences among certain people or groups (e.g. Mindy the Millennial, Bob the Boomer, Asra the Engineer). In reality, making quick stereotypes can lead to flawed assumptions that become the basis for the design of training programs, team assignments, professional development plans and so much more.
  • Design with instead of for. We can view our designs, methodologies, approaches, etc. from other perspectives, either by engaging stakeholders in design, asking others, or by prototyping how others might see this, based on what we’ve learned about their culture. What about our approach might be uncomfortable or off-putting? Which approaches might transcend differences? Or better yet, leverage the power of those differences?
  • Become more aware of our unconscious biases. For starters, we can take one or two Implicit Association Tests (free online). Be open and curious about what we’ve learned Discuss our results with people we trust.  Don’t judge ourselves harshly if our results show that we have a strong preference for a particular culture, religion, gender, body type, etc.
  • Learn more about other cultures, ethnicities, races, religions, demographics, etc. – especially those represented by the people we work with, or those we will support. Read books by authors from those groups, seek articles and books written by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, and especially those with lived experience.
  • Seek feedback from people who can observe us in action (whether in person or virtually). It is often hard to see our own blind spots. Ask colleagues or those whose opinions you trust to critically (not judgmentally) observe your actions, words, nuances expressions, etc. in calls, meetings and in informal settings. Especially ask for help from people outside of your usual “crowd” or colleague group. But be wary of asking “representative” members of certain groups to do your work for you. It’s a fine line.
  • Wield your power thoughtfully. The greater the power we have over others, the less likely we are to feel empathy toward them. In an experiment by the Max Planck Institute, researchers concluded that when you are in an “agreeable and comfortable” situation it is more difficult to empathize with another person’s suffering. Participants who were feeling good about themselves assessed their partners’ negative experiences as less severe than they actually were. This has profound implications for both facilitators and leaders, who have a hard time relating and responding to concerns of those they consider to be “lesser than,” whether due to hierarchy, place of origin, ethnicity, level of education, or other factors.
  • Always have a Plan B instead of “Trust Me.” Despite our best intentions and most thoughtful planning, our approach may misfire. If we sense resistance, rather than debating the merits of our idea and asking people to just “trust the process,” we are prepared to change the process. Be curious about why our approach wasn’t working, either in the moment or afterwards. We really can learn a lot from our mistakes.
  • From empathy to compassion. This is probably the hardest to put into specific action steps. We think it starts with self-awareness (the facilitator’s best friend). It may be like the distinction between enabling and empowering by Nedra Tawwab. We start with what others ask for, not what we think they need, even if they haven’t fully arrived at clarity of their needs. This is a delicate, emergent space. But it is the right space for us to focus attention. If we stop pretending, or worse, believe we accurately “feel” what others feel, and instead ask, listen and respond based on that data, we’ll be setting off in the right direction. As they say, this is a compass, not a map.

Summary from Two Nancys

We are not omniscient. Assuming the stance of empathy does not make us understand others automatically, and may in fact get in the way of being compassionate. As facilitators and leaders, we must be critically self-aware of our privilege, power and shortcomings. We must design group process to engage everyone in ways that work for them, not designed to make our jobs familiar, comfortable, or even easy for us. For if it were easy, then who needs someone to support the group process? If we were all skilled at including and unleashing the diversity in each room we enter together, many of our problems would be on their way to solutions. So now is the time to improve our own self-awareness and practices.

What tips can you share? Please comment below and/or send to nancy@guidedinsights.com. Nancy Settle-Murphy will share in a future issue of her newsletter, with your permission. Comments here will just be here!

Links

Developing a Shared Meeting Agenda

A colleague asked me today about how I work with teams who need to develop meeting agendas – hopefully together. As a facilitator, I’m particularly interested not simply doing this FOR a client, but building the capacity for them to do it.

Most facilitators have some version of this process. It is neither innovative nor unique. But for me it has been useful. Today’s request reminded me it might be helpful to share my process here on my (too) sleepy blog.

Below you can skim the process and see a template you can copy in Google Drive to try it yourself! Screen shot below just to spice things up a bit!

  1. Agree on tangible meeting outcome(s) together. Often I jump start this by asking “by the end of this meeting we want people to think, feel, know and do next…” Get those on the table, prioritized if necessary. Trim down to reality check after the first draft and once drafted, ensure agenda meets these outcomes. It is amazing how often there is not a match! I typically do this on a phone call with the planning team, and work through steps 1 and 2 of this process.
  2. Design first draft of agenda together. I use a table with the following columns: Time (from x to Y), Description/Purpose (what we want out of this agenda item), Process (how we will do it – more on that in a second) and Notes which includes who leads, who is responsible for any artifacts, etc). I like to do this in a collaborative editing space, NOT IN A CIRCULATING Word doc. I set it up before the planning call and share the URL. This online co-editing is not always an accepted practice, but it makes the process visible and participation (or lack of it) apparent. This visibility is critical in moving from us as consultants or leaders doing the work for them, to us coaching, to us being on call only as needed. It is very helpful when there are at least two members rather than one designing (yay co-chairs). They can use their unique talents together and it also is less risky for them individually.
  3. Review the agenda with a lens that reflects the values and principles of the group. Note, there is an assumption that a group has these. If not, this might be part of the step 1 conversation. This step does NOT mean we will have designed specific agenda items FOR these principles, but have chosen processes for the work agenda that leverage these things. One lens I frequently use comes from a Communities of Practice (CoP) perspective. It reflects the three parts of a CoP: community, domain and practice. When reviewing the agenda together we ask:
    • Is there something in this meeting that allows people to get to know/trust/enjoy each other better (community)? This supports the subsequent actions/follow up.
    • Is there something that deepens their domain understanding (domain)? This gives each individual some of their own professional development while participating in a meeting. Value in meetings should accrue in all directions if possible.
    • Does each person have a chance to practice what they need to do to execute going forward?
  4. Reality check against time/resources. Review and simplify where ever possible. I tend to make everything more complicated than it needs to be on first pass. This is where things tighten down.

With some groups there is not a widespread skill set of understanding their process options, how to mix and match them, etc. Good news – a friend and I are running a two day “Liberating Structures Immersion Summer Camp” in July down at Dumas Retreat Center here in Western Washington to teach this stuff. Leave me a note in the comments and I will let you know when the details are released.

Most meeting planning I’m involved in happens in an online video conference room (like Zoom) where we can screen share, see each other and take notes together. Phone is a distant second best. Most people cannot afford the time to do the planning F2F.

In a good working context, one person sketches out the first draft and invites people to review. We have our online meeting to discuss the outcomes, principles and draft. A DIFFERENT PERSON does the second draft with asynchronous online comments. The next online meeting is to prepare execution of meeting. If artifacts need drafting (slides, handouts, share background readings or data) we link those into the agenda so all materials are easily accessed and, where appropriate, shared.

Here is one more tip. While the facilitators’ agenda can be as detailed as you want, only send a summary agenda to participants UNLESS you are trying to build everyone’s meeting facilitation practices. I typically only put general times to avoid the “oh, I can slip out and take my phone call during this agenda item because it doesn’t matter to me.” Uh, no, our goal is that the entire agenda matters to you. If it doesn’t, we are failing.

Criticisms and Cures around Liberating Structures

Last year I was inspired to mimic a cool format, criticisms and cures, on the topic of facilitating in complex contexts. I have found myself recently in conversations with people who can’t see the value of using Liberating Structures (LS), of engaging in immersions or communities of LS practitioners for people in NGOs, international development organizations and other cause related groups. There seem to be some unique barriers – and I’m not sure I have them right, so school me in the comments. But there seems to be some unique challenges in the NGO sector that I think are related to the diversity and complexity of the sector, and that creepy crawly sense of scarcity that comes into play. There are other sectors, like the Agile Programming world, who have adopted LS quickly – perhaps because LS gives with Agile philosophy and practices where are pretty specific. There is little such shared philosophy or practice in the NGO world. So I thought I’d try a C&C around this topic. (P.S. if you don’t know what Liberating Structures are, watch this little video!)

P.S. If you are interested in joining me in a Liberating Structures immersion in Atlanta, Georgia, USA September 18-19 check out
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/liberating-structures-immersion-workshop-atlanta-tickets-62928099640

PS. If you are interested in LS in Europe, join the Liberating Structures Learning Festival in The Hague, Netherlands, October 7-9, go to
https://liberatingstructures.eu/the-hague-ls-festival/

Impromptu Networking

Criticism: Why should I go to a Liberating Structures Immersion workshop. I already know how to facilitate?

Cure:  LS is not simply about facilitating. It is about essentially stripping down our group interaction practices to the bare bones to better understand how to unleash and engage everyone. It is about finding that space between over and under-control. It is about getting real work done, not just using clever techniques to keep people amused. If we have a practice that can help us diagnose and design for real needs, that is worth the time invested. Besides, once you get the hang of LS, you can design meetings in half the time as traditional approaches – or less. Even better, as you role model using LS, others will adopt it, so this is about behavior change in a system, not just one person learning something new.

25/10 Crowd Sourcing

Criticism: Liberating Structures takes away all of my control.

Cure:  Yes, and that is bad because? Group process is not about our control as leaders or facilitators or whatever. It is about getting stuff done together. So instead of framing in terms of control, focus on the purpose of the gathering and create the space (using the LS) to enable people to get that work done. Is there a risk? Compare it to having an awful meeting and getting nothing done, and that risk grows very small. This may be a great moment to reflect on our need for control and how that negatively impacts groups. Think about it. Do YOU like being controlled? And by the way, it will most likely be more enjoyable and the next time you invite people to a meeting, they may be happier saying “yes.”

Additionally, in NGO work we are often stating our values to be participatory, and led by those we are working with, not leading them. I don’t know about you, but I’ve found there are some bad habits I keep having to break around what I think is right, how I think things should be done. LS help me from falling back into those old patterns by using just the right amount of STRUCTURE, as opposed to keeping CONTROL.

Criticism: Meetings are fundamentally a waste of time. I don’t need to learn how to design and run better meetings, I just need to get rid of all of them.

Cure:  Purpose. The meetings you may have been forced to attend or lead may have been worthless. If you are in a very hierarchical and/or large organization, you may be suffering from bad meetings. By all means, stop those.

Next, think about what do people need to do with each other to meet organizational goals? How much clarity can you generate around purpose? Don’t confuse purpose with an agenda. Purpose is the reason to meet. If there is no purpose, don’t meet. If purpose is unclear, then there is a reason to meet. If purpose is clear, then an LS-infused gathering can convert that purpose from idea, assessment, action and first steps. There are six questions that have emerged from the LS community that are really helping me think about meeting (or project, or strategy) purpose.

  1. What is the purpose of our work? (What are we “making,” for whom and how do we know it is of value.)
  2. What is happening around us that demands change in our work? (If nothing, well go have a coffee and congratulations!
  3. What are the challenges and wicked dualities we are facing to do our work?
  4. Where are we starting, honestly?
  5. Based on what we now know, what is made possible?
  6. What are our first steps in those possibilities and how will we know we are making progress?

When groups can seriously consider and answer these questions, tapping into each person’s perspective and knowledge, much more becomes possible. This can be framed from the perspective of a status update or retrospective, all the way to the launch of a major initiative (with tweaking of the questions, of course!)

Criticism: As an NGO or international development organization, we don’t have the luxury of going to capacity building workshops. We are too busy address others’ capacity building needs.

Cure:  Calculate how much time is wasted in boring, unproductive, inappropriate meetings and group interactions. Query what you know about good adult learning. How are you applying that to the capacity building you are doing? If you don’t cultivate your own capacity, how can you do that for others? If money is an issue, ask for a scholarship. The worse thing you can hear is no. The best thing might just be a yes. You are WORTH it!

The 2 of 1-2-4-All

Criticism: People are getting totally annoyed with me breaking them down into groups, doing 1-2-4-All and all that. Come on!

Cure: I have struggled with this and what is dawning on me and others is that there are some essential interaction patterns or microstructures in LS that need repeat practice until they become habitual. We have a lot of things we have habituated in our meeting practices – we are just not very aware of them. These basic structures, once cultivated and practiced, become automatic instead of feeling like they are imposed upon us. Read this useful post on Medium.

Ecocycle

Criticism: Complexity is a buzzword or indicates a mess so big we can’t deal with it. I’m done with complexity.

Cure:  Go back and read this blog post!

Hopping Between Notetaking and Backchannel Conversations

One of the practices that is part of my daily routine in communities and teams which use phone calls for meetings, is to take notes in a chat environment. I am really good at capturing notes so I’m often one of the note takers. I find typing increases my attentiveness and listening. Otherwise I’m prone to multitasking (email, checking twitter, writing blog posts. Should I admit I started writing this post while on a telecon?)

What I’ve noticed is that I’ve started to use the chat as back channel for voicing my own input and thoughts. This is more like the “backchannel” used by techie communities, particularly during face to face events. It is another layer of conversation that enables more than one person to “talk” at the same time. It is also useful in web meetings. Back channel, of course, has it’s risks too — fractured attention and a channel for mocking etc — but it is different from the note taking practice. One is a record, the other is part of the conversation. One represents the voices of others, the other IS the voices.

When I mix the two, I start wondering, am I compromising the note taking with my comments and input? Or am I adding richness and voice to the proceedings? Am I strengthening the conversation by adding text input and not interrupting, or am I undermining the speaker? All these are possible. So how does this inform my choices in my practice?

This duality reminds me of this “two hatted” feeling I get when I am in a facilitator role. I often feel I am not fully devoting myself to facilitation if I put my participant hat on. When I do, I do it explicitly. I am wondering, should I do that when I shift in chat, or does that just add more noise to a fast flowing chat?

What do you think?

Photo by Salvor

Roger Schwarz on Email Attitude

Roger Schwarz sends out a periodic email called [Fundamental Change] to let folks know about his workshops and such, but always includes a juicy gift. This month he has a great piece on how to use his “Facilitative Leader” approach in email. As I read the good advice I thought that this applies to any online media. Even voicemails left via Skype. Thankfully, Roger also allows reprinting of his material if it is properly attributed. He even tells you how at the end of the email. That is another useful practice to spread your work virally. Thanks, Roger. So here it is, reproduced AND linked back to Roger. By the way, unsolicited plug, Roger’s books are on the “core, easy to reach” part of my bookshelf. The Skilled Facilitator is a must have if you are a facilitator.

Now the good stuff. Please note, this has a different copyright than the rest of my blog posts. Please honor Roger’s choices!

Changing Your Outlook on Email

“How can I use the Facilitative Leader approach in email?”

This is one of the most frequent questions I get from people who attend our workshops. Most of us spend time every day on email and, for some, it’s our main mode of business communication. The good news is that you can apply the same principles and techniques in email that you use in face to face and phone conversations. Here are some tips for making your email communication much more effective:

Explain your reasoning. Just as you explain your reasoning in a face to face conversation, you do it in email. As I was writing this paragraph I received an email from a colleague who asked, “Will you need me to teach in the March public Skilled Facilitator workshop?” She then explained (I’m paraphrasing), “I can’t find any information saying whether my participation has been confirmed. I have another client who wants me to work on these dates. My preference is to teach in the workshop; I’m not trying to get out of it.” By explaining why she was asking, my colleague gave me all the information I needed not only to answer her question, but to avoid making inferences about why she was asking. By sharing her reasoning for asking, I can now give her an answer that speaks directly to her needs. Take the extra sentence or two to explain your reasoning whether you’re asking a question, sharing a decision, or taking an action.

Share your views and ask genuine questions. When you send an email, don’t simply state your views; follow it by asking a genuine question to learn. Instead of simply writing, “I think we should have the meeting off-site so we don’t get people drifting in and out,” continue by writing something like, “What problems, if any, do you think this would create?” By getting curious and asking a genuine question, you increase the chance that when people respond, they will be addressing your question and you will be crafting a solution that takes into account the range of stakeholders needs.

Test your assumptions and inferences. We make the same assumptions and inferences in our emails as we do in our conversations. In both cases they get us in trouble, when we act on them when they are not true. The first step is to become aware of the assumptions and inferences you’re making. To do this, read through your email before you send it, carefully looking for assumptions and inferences you are making. For example:

“I think we absolutely need to resolve this issue for the client before next Tuesday. I’m setting this as the deadline because I’m assuming that we are still planning to meet with the client next Tuesday and I want the issue resolved before we meet with them. Is my assumption still correct?”

Name your feelings, don’t let people guess them. One problem with email is that the reader can’t hear your tone of voice, see your facial expressions, or watch your other non-verbal behavior. That means that sometimes the reader can’t easily tell whether your comment “I think this project took a lot of your work and didn’t bear the fruit we expected” is one of compassion, frustration, or something else. It’s particularly frustrating when your intent was to be compassionate and the reader interprets your email you complaining or being annoyed. Don’t make someone guess; tell the reader what you’re feeling. Write something like,”I’m not frustrated with you about this, I’m concerned that others didn’t share information with you that would have helped you better navigate the project.” If you are frustrated, say that and explain why.

Stop typing, start dialing. We have so many text- based ways of miscommunicating with each other: BlackBerrys and other PDAs, Skyping, IMing, text messaging, and the standard laptop and desktop email. I’ve noticed that messages I send from my BlackBerry are shorter – and explain less – than messages I send from my laptop or desktop computer. It takes me a lot more effort to type on my small BlackBerry keyboard than on my laptop. I’ve noticed the same pattern for those who send me email. But some messages aren’t meant for email in any case. When you’re dealing with an issue that involves testing a number of assumptions, explaining much of your reasoning or asking others’ their reasoning, or talking about feelings, stop typing and pick up the phone. It’s much more interactive, so you can better explain your views and understand others – in less time than it would take to swap multiple emails.

Productive emailing,

–Roger Schwarz

Publication And Reprint Information

Unless otherwise attributed, all material is written and edited by Roger Schwarz, Ph.D. Copyright © Roger Schwarz & Associates. 2008. All rights reserved.

I invite you to reprint material from Fundamental Change in other electronic or print publications provided this copyright notice (“Written and edited by [Author], copyright Roger Schwarz & Associates, [year]. All rights reserved.”) and a link to http://www.schwarzassociates.com/ is included in the credits. Please send a copy of the publication along with a note referencing the reprint.

“Fundamental Change” is a trademark of Roger Schwarz & Associates, Inc.