Most people are familiar with a pretty standard set of ground rules used somewhere near the beginning of each facilitated session. These will talk about participation, electronics, and -- often -- how to disagree.
Something I've noticed with growing alarm is what I consider to be the OVERuse of disagreement ground rules in certain kinds of sessions.
Often, the reason you go to the time, trouble, and yes, expense, of bringing in a facilitator is because you've been unsuccessful in resolving an issue on your own. Ground rules which provide too many artificial controls on the free and even unpleasant expression of conflicting points of view are not likely to get you very far. I would even go so far as to suggest that this level of control is often for the facilitator's comfort, not for the purpose of getting the best outcome.
If there is deep conflict, forcing everyone to pretend to "play nice" only encourages taking the conflict further underground and driving it into highly unproductive -- but much more familiar -- political channels. A better approach: make sure your facilitator will, first and foremost, manage and take ownership of his or her own anxiety. Then (s)he can work to provide an environment where the unpleasant "truth" is expressed -- and everyone survives.
If you're trying to negotiate the boundary between family and the business in a family business, pay particular attention to this. Most practitioners I've seen use all kinds of rules and controls to ensure that things don't get unpleasant -- but unpleasant is, in my opinion, often what you need to make progress.
A client of mine likes to tell people the organization chose me over other consultants because I promised to "kick the sleeping dogs." Consider -- is this what your organization really needs? If so, be sure you choose a facilitator who is willing to face into the tough, emotional issues and encourage others to do the same.
Comments