FireFly Facilitation

When facilitating a problem-solving session, I enjoy a lively debate in which everybody is participating and ideas are flowing spontaneously from everyone in attendance. However, sometimes meetings don’t start out with a bang. When you’re trying to open up dialog, a wall of silence isn’t exactly an encouraging welcome. What happens if no one ventures forth input? How do you spark conversation when those in the room seem fearful to speak?

One tool I use is brainwriting. This process taps into the unique perspective of each person and encourages them to build upon the ideas of others. The anonymity of the exercise along with its emphasis on stretching ideas further and further increases the odds of coming up with . . . well, odd and potentially novel solutions.

Let me walk you through how this exercise works, and you will see what I mean:

1. Give each member of the problem-solving team—ideally, four to six people—a blank sheet of paper.
2. On the top of the page, have them write an agreed upon problem statement. Then, ask them to draw vertical lines to separate the sheet of paper into three columns.
3. Set a timer for two minutes. Each participant should brainstorm three solutions, writing one in each column.
4. After the buzzer sounds, ask each person to draw a horizontal line under their solutions across the entire page. Then have them pass the sheet of paper to their left.
5. Now, set the timer for three minutes. Have the participants add to or build upon the existing suggestions by writing their own ideas underneath the original solutions.
6. At the end of three minutes, the papers should again be passed to the left. The process should be repeated as many times as there are people around the table. During each round, allow slightly more time since the addition of ideas makes it harder to think up new solutions.
7. When you’ve finished going around the table, post the sheets of paper on the wall so that each person can read the ideas. Ask them to write their initials beside the ones they think are most likely to solve the original problem. Better yet, see if they can combine ideas from one or more pages to generate an exponentially better idea.

I’ve found brainwriting to be ideal when people are afraid to voice their ideas or when one person is dominating the discussion. Brainwriting jumpstarts the flow of ideas and invites everyone into the problem-solving process. The resulting ideas are collaborative and creative—often leading directly to successful solutions.

Nothing oppresses people in a problem-solving session more than the tyranny of “or.” Instead of a collaborative exercise, “or” turns creative brainstorming into a winner-takes-all contest. Battle lines are drawn, trenches are dug, and co-workers duke it out until either Idea A OR Idea B emerges victorious. After the war has subsided, the losing idea is then mercilessly executed in front a firing squad of members of the “winning” side.

It takes a talented leader to spearhead the rebellion against the tyranny of “or.” A true revolutionary teaches his or her team to think in terms of endless combinations as opposed to mutually exclusive options. How can ideas be linked? How do they interrelate? How does one suggestion piggyback on another?

People with an either/or mindset aren’t appeased until they have control, whereas those who think both/and welcome every contribution.  It’s up to the leader to make sure that a spirit of cooperation pervades the strategic planning process. Practically, this means:

1) Establishing a “No-fly Zone” for put-downs. Each individual’s ideas ought to be respected, even if they’re not adopted.

2) Putting ideas in the public domain. Early on, make it know that no one “owns” his or her suggestions. The welfare of the team supersedes personal agendas.

3) Weaving the web of ideas. Encourage the connections teammates make between one idea and another. Do this visibly and audibly (by giving out candy and compliments) whenever someone bridges two previously isolated concepts.

Not long ago, bobble-head dolls were the rage. Sports teams handed them out as giveaways at ballgames. People affixed them to the dashboards of their cars or placed them in their rear windows. Even TV characters adorned their desks with bobble-head dolls (see Dwight on The Office).

I’m not sure what purpose bobble-head dolls ever served other than to nod dumbly up and down. However, I do know leaders ought to be alarmed when bobble-headed behavior infects the workplace. If your people unthinkingly nod assent to your decisions then something has gone drastically wrong. Bobble-heads in the boardroom indicate the decay of constructive conflict, and they’re symptomatic of a disease that may threaten the life of your team—artificial harmony.

Who’s at fault for bobble-headed behavior in the workplace?

For leaders, it’s easier to blame the bobble-heads than to accept personal responsibility. “Why don’t they speak up when they disagree instead of complaining about my decisions later? I can’t read their minds! How come they never seem to think for themselves?” It may seem best to decree “Off with their bobble-heads!” and to replace your team with more confident, more vocal team members. Sorry to say it, but doing so would fail to address the root of the problem—you.

Three ways leaders contribute to bobble-headed behavior.

1) They’re impatient

By nature, leaders anticipate the future before others do and act sooner than those around them. While generally an advantage, this foresight can make leaders impatient. Eager to get started, they rush into decisions unilaterally rather than consulting the team. This need for speed causes them to view questions or concerns from their team as annoying delays rather than valued input.

Not wanting to be seen as a nuisance, team members will soon stay quiet rather than offering their perspectives. Afraid to slow down their leader, they will simply check out of the conversation. When the leader finally does ask for their support, they’ll go along out of convenience rather than “bogging down” the discussion with their opinions.

2) They withhold information

Leaders shut their team out of the decision-making process by withholding information from them. This may happen unintentionally, in that leaders forget to share what they know on a regular basis. Oftentimes, however, leaders simply enjoy the control that comes from having more knowledge than everyone else.

Since they’re uninformed, team members feel like important decisions are beyond their grasp. Fearful of being chided for not seeing “the big picture,” they give tacit approval to whichever course the leader chooses.

3) They turn a deaf ear to feedback

Hearing-impaired leaders demotivate teammates from participating in decision-making. When people feel like their ideas and suggestions are continually being ignored, then eventually they’ll stop offering them. Since being unheard makes them feel small, people will withdraw into silence rather than expressing themselves. When asked to commit to decisions, they’ll reluctantly nod approval, even when they disagree, since they doubt their viewpoints will have a listening ear.

Have you ever had the sensation of leading a meeting, not with fellow humans, but with bobble-head dolls? Instead of input, all you get are vacant stares and bland nods of agreement? If this has happened to you, then SOUND THE ALARM! Your team has checked out of the conversation.

If you find yourself surrounded by bobble-heads, then you need to re-engage them. For starters, bring your team in on your next major decision. Then, as best as you can, explain the context surrounding the upcoming decision. Next, invite questions. Be thorough in your responses; don’t rush past this step. Finally, choose the decision that makes the most sense to you, and then enlist your team in the decision-making process by asking them to answer the following questions:

1. What negative implications could this decision have?
2. What assumptions underlie the decision?
3. Do the assumptions make sense?
4. Who must we persuade to support our decision?

By consulting your team, you’ve not only refined and improved the decision, but you’ve also given them ownership of it. Now, the entire team will be more likely to offer the decision their full support. Hopefully, you’ve also taught them to critically evaluate decisions and have given them freedom to speak their minds more candidly in the future.

At some point, most of us have embarked on a road trip. We have piled into a car with friends or family and driven miles upon miles across the countryside. Singing along to the radio to pass the time, we have cruised long stretches of America’s highways and byways.

For me, there’s no joy in sitting in a vehicle for hours just for the fun of it. I live in Atlanta, and the idea of being cooped up in a car conjures up dreadful flashbacks of being stuck in traffic. However, if I know we’re driving to the Grand Canyon or the Rocky Mountains, then I can endure several hours on the road. Envisioning the endpoint of the road trip creates a shared excitement that makes the drive fun and worthwhile.

Casting an Attractive Vision

Unfortunately, too many employees feel like they’re stuck in a traffic jam rather than journeying to an exciting destination. That’s because their leaders have not given them a compelling vision. As a consequence, instead of going somewhere special, many people feel like they’re just spinning tires and wasting gas.

People want a destination; they don’t just want to be on the road. As a leader, it’s your job to rally excitement around a vision. Within the next month, pose this question to your team:

What excites you about your job?

Examine the answers closely.

Do your teammates articulate enthusiasm about a common vision?

Do they seem authentically passionate about what they do?

The answers will be revealing and will help you to measure how well you’ve been able to articulate a persuasive vision to your team. Regardless of what the responses indicate, it’s a healthy exercise to revisit your vision and to make sure it’s a powerful impetus to motivate your people.