It
is up to the chair/facilitator and group which tools are used on a
particular occasion. Many of these depend on good will and a desire to
seek a consensus; most can also be used cynically and negatively, if some
people are so minded, and therefore the chair/facilitator has a particular
responsibility to choose those which are most likely to lead to consensus.
Go rounds
Go rounds allow everyone to speak and put their point of view but with
less opportunity to go off on fascinating tangents and argumentative
diversions. The round can start anywhere and then move on to the next
person (they should not always start or end at the same point). Each
person can be formally time limited. Anyone who wishes not to say anything
can simply 'pass'. Depending on time, the importance of the matter at
hand, and individual feelings, an opportunity can be given for short
additional points at the end of the round which can be time limited.
Taking a break
Getting tired and losing focus are one or two reasons to take a break
but there are others (e.g. preventing an all out bust-up if things are
getting very heated and there is no immediate way to calm them). It can
provide an opportunity for some people engaged in a discussion to confer
informally so that the process can move forward more swiftly when
reconvening. It can also mark a line under a particular part of the agenda
before moving on. It can aid creativity to simply take a short,
unscheduled break at an appropriate time. If time allows, people can even
go outside or out for a coffee.
Playing a game
Groups and contexts differ and playing games may be possible or
impossible. Where games are possible then an appropriate game may provide
a 'collective break together' and introduce an element of fun. If the
facilitator has knowledge of a range of games then a carefully chosen game
can also be used to illustrate a point or the stage a group is at. Where
'games' as such are impossible it may be possible to do a 'verbal game'
-.e.g. sharing what people's favourite breakfast is, sharing on an
activity of hobby people are involved in at the moment, etc.
Taking an indication of strength of feeling
It is important to take into account not only what people feel but
also how strongly they feel it. This can be done verbally ('who feels
particularly strongly on this?'), or by a show of hands. One method is to
use an index, e.g. 0 - 5 as follows:
0) Not really concerned, not an issue.
1) Feel it is an issue but don't feel too strongly about it.
2) Issue of some importance but not overly important.
3) Feel strongly on the issue but willing to compromise somewhat.
4) Feel strongly enough that compromise would be difficult.
5) Matter of principle/essential issue where cannot see how can
compromise at the moment.
However this has to be used with honesty, good will and give and take
or it simply becomes a blocking mechanism. A high index rating may mean a
decision has to be deferred and/or a different mode of discussion is
indicated.
Use a consensus voting method
Consensus voting procedures (e.g. de Borda, Condorcet) can be used for
any number of voters from 2 upwards, and for any number of options from 3
upwards (if only two options are put it results in the same decision as a
majority vote). Consensus voting can be used as a) the definitive
decision, or b) the starting point for a discussion which will arrive at
an agreed decision, taking the vote into account (this is possible at a
small group level where it is not possible in the same way at a societal
level).
One important point about consensus voting methodologies is that all
'sides' have to feel that at least one of the options put to the vote
represents their point of view. In other words, no one person or side, not
even a facilitator, controls the options which are put to the vote. These
may need to be moderated into coherent options but again all 'sides' have
to feel their position is being fairly put for the vote to proceed.
With a CD-Rom readily available to do the work in producing results,
this is now an accessible method for most people.
Straw vote
A show of hands, or other indication, is taken of how people feel.
This is a snapshot of where people are at that point on a particular
matter or proposal, not a decision in itself. Combined with an indication
of strength of feeling it may help to direct how the discussion on the
matter at hand should take place. It is also important that, while it may
indicate a minority on an issue whose views need to be taken into account,
what follows has to be discussion and not pressure on anyone to 'give in';
likewise, how the facilitator/chair frames options for the straw vote
needs to avoid divisiveness.
Time restrictions
Time restrictions are not something which may be necessary, depending
on the volume of business the group concerned has to deal with, the time
available and the range of views involved. However they may be necessary
either in general or for a particularly contentious item of business. If
possible there needs to be agreement beforehand on their use so this tool
(as with others) is not seen as being wielded in a partisan way.
The simplest time restriction is to simply allocate everyone a set time
to speak ('2 minutes') with perhaps extra time ('1 minute') for additional
points. Contributions can be made as people wish or as a round.
If desired there can be a timekeeper. This is often advisable because a)
it is a 'neutral' person who simply records the facts of time, and b) it
frees the chair/facilitator to concentrate on the issues.
Here's some of the possibilities:
Conch'. Other forms include a chair or chairs that you have to sit in
to speak (cf fishbowl).
- Ball of wool (once off) [to indicate interaction patterns]
- A round of everyone and then any additional points for less than 2
minutes each.
- '2 minutes' each and '1 minute' for additional points.
- Each person has some many 'minute points' to speak at the start of a
meeting (e.g. with matchsticks or counters). After these are used they
have to get special permission to speak.
- 'Traffic lights' with a time keeper (to be used with some form of
time restriction). Green when the speaker has the floor; orange when
they have, say, 1 minute to wind up; red when they have passed their
time limit.
- Agreed time limits beforehand on agenda items (not just chair's
aims).
- Move from speaker 'for' a proposal to one 'against' to a
'neutral/undecided' and back again (cf debating). However, even with
the 'three sides' there is a danger in this being simply divisive.
- Break into one-to-one discussion, generally with 'opposites' where
possible. Each person is given, say, 5 minutes to talk while the other
listens; the pair then reverse roles. Coming back, each summarises the
opponents' views with the other person allowed 1 minute to add
anything they feel is left out.
The facilitator or chair has to be firm but fair; the aim is to get all
views expressed, without unnecessary repetition. Where new ideas or views
are being expressed then time may need to be extended, in which case the
chair/facilitator is wise to get agreement to this and acknowledge what is
happening (so that they are not seen to be partisan, allowing one 'side'
to speak more than its due).
Brainstorming
This is used to generate everyone's ideas. Crazy, zany, humorous, dead
serious ideas are allowed and encouraged. The essential prerequisites are;
- Everything suggested is written down on a sheet which everyone can
see.
- Normal ideas of appropriateness are discarded to allow creative and
lateral thinking.
- No comments are made until the brainstorming process is completed.
Fast processing of brainstorm suggestions can be done by running
through the list and stopping at points where people want explanation or
feel there is something worth exploring further. A straw vote can be used
to indicate support for exploring items further.
Lateral thinking process
This can be used in conjunction with a brainstorming process. In the
case of lateral thinking, it is a matter of exploring other ways of
dealing with the matter in hand which might have the same or a similar
effect or conclusion. Focus on interests not positions (cf Getting to Yes,
Ury and Fisher).
Small group/caucus discussions
This is to allow people to articulate concerns and develop ideas.
Caucus groups can be formed with members a) randomly chosen b) birds of a
feather, or c) deliberately having mixed opinions in each group. The
choice of a), b), or c) here is up to the facilitator in conjunction with
the whole group. Having 'birds of a feather' (similar views) together may
be useful if what is most important is getting proposals for going forward
from the different 'sides' involved. Having deliberately mixed views in
each group may be appropriate where the most important aim is for
individuals to both 'hear' and 'be heard'.
One-to-ones
Already mentioned above, one-to-ones are an important tool for several
reasons. Firstly, it allows everyone, including those who may find it more
difficult to speak in meetings, to formulate and express their ideas
(which can assist within the larger group). Secondly, it allows
communicate at a more intimate level than in the whole group, which may
assist real understanding. Thirdly (an extension of the second point) it
helps to ensure that individuals are hearing and heard and thus that
everyone's concerns are taken properly into account in the group.
One-to-ones should usually be done as a 'speaking/listening' exercise.
That is, one person speaks for a certain time while the other listens;
roles are then reversed. The length of time given can depend on the
subject (though the facilitator can check with some pairs whether they
need more time to get an indication for the whole group). The facilitator
needs to indicate when it is time to change over speaking and listening
within the pair, perhaps giving a minute to swap over, and also give an
indication of when time is nearly up so that no one is suddenly stopped
dead.
Silence / Music / Poetry
We all tend to be afraid of silence but it can be a strong and useful
tool in allowing reflection and restoring calm. An alternative is some
music, or poetry. These need to be used carefully and the purpose
explained by the facilitator so it is not seen as an attempt to 'silence'
people but rather as part of a process of helping communication.
Appropriate music can also be used to set the scene before a meeting,
during a break, or a particular song can be used to illustrate a point. In
this case music is being used to add an extra dimension to the meeting.
Check for agreement on parts of a proposal
If parts of a proposal are agreed, these can be set aside. This both
focuses attention on the remaining issues and can also help to show what
has already been agreed and achieved.
Set aside [see also 'End options' worksheet]
It can be agreed to set aside contentious parts for discussion later
or at the next (or a specially convened) meeting. If matters are set aside
for a later meeting then a process needs to be put into operation to
assist decision making then. Possibilities here include;
a) A few key people (representing different points of view) agree to
develop their ideas, and possibilities for going forward. These are
compiled and circulated to members before the next meeting.
b) The chair or facilitator consults with some members and puts
together ideas which are either circulated to members in advance or
presented at the start of the next meeting.
c) A working (sub-)committee is set up to take the issue forward and
report back.
If the stalemate is particularly serious or the need is felt for
outside input, the group can get in an outside consultant or mediator. The
role of this person should be agreed beforehand (e.g. Do they facilitate
the next meeting? Do they make recommendations or simply help the group
explore options?).
|