Process: Infoco minutes: 2008-06-15

Agenda:

Infoco meeting
6/15/08, 6:15-8:15pm, Sarah's house, BYO dinner.
Present: Sarah, Amy H, Jillian, Elph, Alicia, Langston

AGENDA
1. Eat dinner and chat!
2. Monkey Review
3. Monday's community meeting agenda
4. Summarizing and Weaving - review of materials
5. Summarizing and Weaving - role plays!
6. Next meeting
end

2. Monkey review

MONKEYS from previous meetings:

Ongoing MONKEY: Sarah will make the facilitator group fun!

Ongoing MONKEY: We should all appreciate the minute takers! Many
communities struggle with this and we have been doing GREAT with it.

COOLER for fall training: revisit our vision
statement, and/or strategic planning, follow up
on the Grace Potts alternative meeting

MONKEYS from the previous meeting 4/28/2008

DONE: MONKEY: Gail will send out the schedule info to talk.
DONE: MONKEY: Patti will work on how to schedule the infoco meeting in May.


MONKEYS from this meeting:

Alicia and Sarah will put together some
learning/practice materials for the July 11
Infoco meeting.

Minutes:

3. Discussed for a while how and if to have the
agenda item about GO kids and the common house on
Monday. Decided to have the item, focused around
a review of the existing guidelines in small
groups. Review/discussion/evaluation of existing
CH usage guidelines - how are they serving us?
They've been in place for 4-5 years now. Will be
a good starting point to clarify where we're at
and help us see what needs to come back to the
full group.

4. Jillian brought a condensed handout of
material Laird had given the facilitation class
on the very first weekend, about "working
content". Had good sections on Summarizing and
Weaving, among other things, which Infoco members
had expressed a desire for more info and
experience on. (I'll attach it below the minutes
just so its in there, but it is long, but a good
read.)

Summarizing - mostly just restating what people have said.

Weaving - putting things in contexts; showing how
pieces are connected; showing where the
discussion may need to be focused next to get the
group moving on an issue; helping people make the
leaps themselves to where the common ground can
be.

Eg, one example of one way it can work: "We've
heard ideas about this and this, we've heard
complaints that this and this aren't working.
We've been talking more and more about solutions,
do we want to spend some time talking about what
issues and concerns have not yet been covered in
the suggested solutions."


5. Jillian brought four scenarios to choose from,
for role plays, where the facilitator could
practice weaving, and we did two of them, Sarah
and Amy H took a turn each as facilitator. We
stopped and discussed options and ideas along the
way for different facilitator choices at
different moments. Elph called in the space
aliens once we had established that we would put
in landing lights along the dog-run edges. Was
fun!

6. Next meeting is Friday, July 11, 6:15-8:30pm? Sarah's house, potluck dinner.

--end--
--------------------------------
Laird's material on Working Content, weekend 1


A. Contact Statements
This is one of the facilitator's basic tools, and
involves the brief playback of a key phrase, or
perhaps a sentence that captures an essential
nugget of what someone has just said. The idea is
to get in and out quickly and unobtrusively. Your
watch word here is concision. If you're stopping
the flow of the conversation, it may have been a
poor choice.
Done well, the contact statement accomplishes three things at once:
1) It confirms that you understood the essence of
what was said (the point here being that if you
were confused it's almost a certainty that others
were confused as well-might as well clear that up
immediately).
2) It creates an instant nugget summary (Hint:
it's almost the same as what you'd put on a flip
chart if you were scribing notes), making it
easier for the entire group to hold onto what the
person said as the conversation continues.
3) It confirms with the speaker that the contact
statement was accurate As such, it's a preemptive
strike on repetition-the cause of which is almost
always because the speaker is unsure of having
been heard the first time.
Warning: In general, you do it more when a person
has a pattern of not feeling heard; when the
speaker has not been concise; when the speaker
has made a complicated statement; when the group
has demonstrated a poor ability to stay focused;
or when the acoustics are bad and the speaker is
soft spoken. Do not do this every time (it would
become tedious); you need to exercise judgment
[get used to this advice; you'll hear it a lot
over the next two years!] about when it's
appropriate.

B. Summaries
One of your jobs as facilitator is to know how
many threads of the conversation you can hold at
one time, and to develop a sense of when the
groups is at the edge of what it can hold. Once
either you or the group is at your limit, it's
probably time to summarize where you're at in the
conversation.
This helps the group not feel overwhelmed (or put
an individual on the spot by making them admit
they're confused), and maintain focus. It also
reminds the group of the progress it's made -
identifying viewpoints is product - and reduces
anxiety about where it's going. If the
facilitator can easily offer up a brief summary
of viewpoints to date, it helps everyone relax.
The nuance here is balancing the needs of those
who have trouble tracking (or holding many
threads at once) with those who doing fine. For
the former you'll appear to be doing it too
often, perhaps even interrupting the flow in an
irritating way. For the latter you'll be a
godsend giving them an occasional peek at the
road map just when they're starting to feel lost.
Warning: Don't bullshit. The group needs to buy
your summary, which means you don't paper over
differences (that is, pretend there's agreement
when there's not), yet you ruthlessly name all
the agreement you can lay your hands on, showing
the group where the differences have been
narrowed and where some portions of the
conversation are finished (if that's available).
Once again: concision is the watchword. You want
to be in and out with the deftness of a surgeon.
Hint: Be careful about attribution. It takes more
time to mention who said what, yet it can pay off
handsomely when someone has a pattern of feeling
unheard or is skeptical of the group's interest
in their viewpoint. By associating a concern or
input by author you subtly hold that person in
the group focus, paving the way for their buy-in
with the final agreement. Sometimes you can
accomplish this more subtly with eye contact or a
head nod.
Summaries happen on at least two levels:
where we are on this particular topic (or sub-topic), and
where we are in the mtg, reminding the group of
how far it has traveled all together in that
session.
The first form of summary may or may not include
a good deal of identifying product, depending on
how far along the group is with that topic. The
second form of summary is almost always partial
product.

C. Meeting Product & Partial Product
Elements of product (it's way more than wrapping
everything up with a ribbon & bow)
1. agreements about the topic
2. identification of underlying concerns or interests
3. refinement of the areas of disagreement
4. identification and/or resolution of misunderstandings
5. identification and/or resolution of interpersonal tensions on the topic
6. identification of what needs to be researched before continuing
7. assignment to cmtee

The idea with partial product is to mention
progress on the topic at regular intervals. It
keeps morale up and contradicts a baseline
negativity about how long it takes to get through
items-especially complex ones.
There is a marked tendency in our culture to see
the glass half full, by which I mean a tendency
to focus on what is not finished, what challenges
remain, rather than noticing the success of how
the topic has been partially completed and
remaining work bracketed, refined, or assigned.
Your job is to not let the group stew in its
negativity.
This part of working content overlaps strongly
with Summaries, as partial product will be part
of your summaries once it's available. (Early in
discussion, summaries may be comprised solely of
inputs not yet distillable into any product. As
the mtg progresses however, summaries should
include more and more product.
How summaries and statements of partial product
set the table for shifts of focus
It is relatively common for a productive dialog
to uncover an ancillary topic that's potent yet
outside the original scope of the conversation.
This happens all the time, and the group faces a
choice about whether to get on that cross-town
bus or not. First, the facilitator should never
let the group do this without acknowledging that
it's making the choice to modify the agenda.
Failing to do this will usually create tension in
the group, both because people will be unsure
what the focus should be, and/or because some may
actively dislike this choice and feel the mtg as
been highjacked. It also undercuts the potency of
the agenda process (if the group will arbitrarily
alter course mid-mtg, why bother putting much
effort into crafting agendas?)
In evaluating whether to board the cross-town
bus, you need to weigh several things:
o Will progress on this new topic inform work on
the old topic? If so, how much?
o Is the new topic more important or more pressing than the old topic?
o Does it appear that there's time to complete
the new topic as well as the old topic (put
another way, what might not get dealt with in
this mtg if the new topic is accepted)?
o Is the whole group excited by the new topic, or just a few people?
o Can the new topic be engaged fruitfully on the
spur of the moment, or is it more appropriate to
have someone prepare background or a careful
presentation?
This is a lot to hold in view, and you also must
be aware of the dangers of spending a significant
amount of time talking about what you'll talk
about-which tends to be death to morale and
overall productivity. There is nuance here about
recognizing and getting the group to focus
momentarily on the confusion about what they're
doing without getting bogged down. It takes a
light touch to do this well.

D. Weaving
This skill is related to Summaries yet with the
added nuance of connecting different people's
statements in an attempt to show how they fit
togetherŠ or how they don't. The point here is to
sharpen the conversation, getting people to see
the progress or potential progress as it unfolds.
This can be in the form of substantive agreement
about a general direction (or agreement on a
specific point) or in the form of a more specific
statement of differences yet to be resolved.
Done well, weaving gives group members an easier
handle on where they are in the conversation and
what remains to be tackled. It helps keep the
group focused, builds momentum, and reduces the
likelihood of repetition. The trick of it comes
from the facilitator's dedication to seeing the
"glass half full." That is, by looking for
connections and potential agreement, the
facilitator may be the first to see it and can
save the group a considerable amount of wheel
spinning by pointing out how different statements
relate to each other wrt the topic at hand.
You might also think of it as "sheep dogging,"
where each statement of input is a sheep. The
facil endeavors to keep track of all the sheep,
aggregating them usefully, en route to the
(en)closure of agreement. Sometimes, you cut out
one or more "sheep" or discover strays which are
set aside for dealing with later, because they
don't apply to the topic of the moment. A good
sheep dog is always trying to put the right sheep
together and move them along-with both diligence
and patience-toward agreement.
****
In its simplest form, this is the art of showing
the group connections between one person's input
and another's. It is often done in the context of
summaries.
Occasionally it is done with attribution (if the
person has trouble seeing where their input fits
in, or you are trying to encourage an individual
who seldom offers input by showing them how
useful their contributions can be), though I
caution you to avoid doing this in
general-participants will come to expect it and
could be distracted or hurt by your not naming
them as the author of a piece of input. There are
enough excuses for egos to distort matters
without inviting additional opportunities!
When done well, weaving is subtle. It may appear
outwardly that you are merely summarizing, yet
you are doing more: you are building bridges over
which you will soon expect traffic. That is, you
are not randomly summarizing, you are organizing
the information-helping the group to see
connections among statements, building a sense of
forward movement and inviting others to join you
in this cooperative process.
It is while weaving that it will be most apparent
how well you are able to see the glass as half
full. It is here that your agreement prejudice
will shine forth.


E. Groping
It's about educated guessing in the interest of
moving things along. Groping comes into play into
two main ways:
1. You may sense that there is something more
going on than what is being said. An
undercurrent. If you feel that thing is
influencing proceedings and would be better
brought to the surface, you may say something as
simple as, "I sense there is more going on here
than is being said, can anyone name what that
might be?" Or you can grope about what that might
be: "You're talking with animation about what
time dinner will be served, yet I sense a
smoldering anger about their being no meat on the
holiday menu because the organizer is vegan. Do I
have that right?"
This is a guess about the extent of someone's
input, and is best posed as a question.
2. Because you are always seeking agreement, it
is possible that you'll see a productive
direction for the group to head in before others
do. In such a situation, if it appears the group
is floundering about what a workable solution
might look like, it is perfectly permissible for
the facil to suggest a proposal that you believe
will hold everyone's concerns. Another name for
this is "floating a proposal."
This is a trial balloon about a possible
solution, and should be based solely on input
arising from the group (and not on your personal
experience or predilections).
For this to work well, it is essential that you
monitor closely the buy-in with your gropes. If
there is resistance, even hesitation, be prepared
to back away gracefully. Do not fight for your
view-you will lose the group's trust and risk
undermining your future effectiveness as a facil.
You are striving to be as egoless as possible
when groping, and it is better that you never
grope than that you push your view on a reluctant
audience.

F. When to Delegate
One of the most common complaints about group
process is how much time is taken up by mtgs.
This is especially true for consensus, where the
litany is that everything moves as if through
molasses. You are being cultivated to join in a
crusade against mtg negativity. We are constantly
striving for up-tempo, inclusive mtgs that
deliver product-promoting a culture in which
people will be sorry that they missed a mtg,
becasue that's where things happen and one of the
principal ways in which group cohesion is forged.
Who'd want to miss that?
One of the key skills needed to make good on this
promise is knowing when to delegate. Knowing when
a topic is no longer appropriate for plenary
attention. While the overall subject of how to
delegate effectively is so important that it will
be the primary focus of one of the training
weekends, it ties directly to Working Content,
and this handout is aimed to help recognize the
moment (details about the theory and practice
will follow in the appropriate course block).
As you'll recall from the piece on Mind Set, one
of the basic ingredients for high-functioning
consensus is work appropriate for the group.
Assuming that agenda topics are vetted by a cmtee
(more on that in the weekend on Org Structure &
Process Agreements), a topic doesn't get onto the
agenda unless a decision has been made that there
is at least some aspect of it needing group
attention. As facil, you need to know ahead what
that aspect is and be vigilant about keeping the
group focusing there.
Of course, in the process of working through the
issue, other group-appropriate aspects may
surface, and the group may or may not decide to
deal with them in the moment-that's an option.
Keeping in mind this need for flexibility and an
openness to late-breaking developments, you want
to be conscious at all times about how far the
group has progressed on the aspects of the topic
appropriate for plenary focus. Once this goal has
been met, you want to get that sucker off the
plenary floor. One of the most common traps that
consensus groups fall into is working through the
details of a topic beyond the needs of plenary
attention. Another name for this disease is
micro-managing.

Reasons for micro-managing
1. Low trust in the cmtee or manager.
2. Low trust in the group's ability to transmit
appropriate boundaries to the cmtee.
3. Lack of clarity about when to stop (the group
lacks sophistication about where plenary
attention is needed and where it is not).
4. Fundamental confusion about consensus, and the
mistaken belief that the whole needs to decide
everything.
5. Lack of discipline to stop working a topic
once the plenary-appropriate portion has been
completed. Generally this presents as an
accumulation of individuals unable to not say
whatever is on their mind relating to the topic,
whether the group needs to hear it at that moment
or not.
6. Desire to continue a productive roll, to build
on the momentum of making progress (partly
because it doesn't happen so often and the group
finds it irresistible to not prolong the moment).
7. A human tendency to want to personally control the outcome.
So how will you know that it's time to delegate?
The glib answer is when the group has gone as far
is it can on the aspects it was attempting to
address. Of course, delegation is not in play
when a topic is thoroughly finished, so the
interesting case is when work remains yet there
is the sense that the plenary portion may be
completed (we have phrased it this way because
there may be reasonable disagreement about
whether that has happened, about whether
additional plenary work remains).
1. There may be more decisions needed to be made
by the whole group, yet it has been discovered
that obtainable information to inform that
decision is not available in the moment. The
group may choose to interrupt further
consideration until someone can be assigned to
collect and present the missing information.
2. When the group is satisfied that it has
flushed out the group-level factors needing to be
taken into consideration on the topic, and has
defined boundaries for decisions or actions
within which anything is acceptable.

G. Working Concerns
As a first step, check for misunderstandings
about what one person is saying to another, and
spend time clearing those up. Look for ways to
recast a statement into a frame of reference that
may be more accessible to the listener.
It is easy to get stuck looking only at
positions. Yet positions are derivative, not
fundamental. Look for the interests and values
which underlie positions and then invite an
exploration of different agreements or actions
(positions) which respectfully take into account
everyone's interests.
_Top Secret: Information is concentrated in the
resistance. Understanding all you can about
someone's resistance is often the key to getting
the conversation unstuck.
When stuck, try shifting formats. If open
discussion isn't working, try a sharing circle.
Or perhaps breaking into small discussions groups
before returning to plenary. Occasional use of
guided meditations can be startlingly effective
at dispersing energy blocks.
_Top Secret: If facilitating a session where
conflict is expected, come prepared with
different options for engaging the topic, so you
are ready with something else if blockage occurs.
In doing this keep in mind that there all kinds
of formats and what may be comfortable to one
party may not be to another. Try to offer choices
so everyone has something that feels
comfortable-or at least less threatening.
Consider if family of origin or cultural
differences are gumming up the works. For
example, among Black, Hispanic, Italian, or
Jewish families, normal conversation may be
high-spirited, with many talking at once. Among
families from northern European cultures, normal
conversation means one person speaking at a time,
in well-modulated voices. In the former, speaking
calmly and slowly means you're not feeling well.
In the latter, interrupting with animation means
you're angry or out of control. There is no right
or wrong here, but your group may unwittingly be
favoring one style over another, effectively
(though unintentionally) shutting down a large
chunk of your group. Pretty expensive.
Think about how you can mix up styles of
engagement to open it up for everyone getting
some of what they're comfortable with.

-----------

FROM Jillian's NOTES from that training weekend:

Contact Statements
It can save time to take the time to indicate to
someone they've been heard. You're trying to be
concise - you want to be in and out fast.

Discussion around working on a concern when you
think its only a small number of people who hold
it. Basic flow of working on a topic - Discussion
and then proposal. Object of the discussion is to
flush out all the concerns that a good solution
needs to address.

Both things are in play, some people think a
fridge will improve quality of life. At least one
does not think it's a good spending of our
resources. Get those out as facilitator. Then
say, ok, who can make a proposal that can hold
all those concerns. Someone may
Say I want a $3000 fridge. And facilitator can
say, so, how do you think that holds the concern
of the person who thinks we don't need one at
all. You're not inviting a battle, you want to
find what's forward moving in a good intended way
that's holds in the fullest way the full package
of what's in the discussion. How does this
proposal hold concerns B and D, I hear how it
addresses A and C. That discussion usually
happens at the committee level, and then they do
a proposal.

You want the full group to discuss first, to
identify all the concerns that need to go into
the proposal.

If someone thinks something is a factor, then
it's a factor, its part of the picture.

Summaries - You're trying to summarize, nuggetize.
Weaving -
Connecting statements so you're advancing in
understanding - more than summarizing -
connecting the comments. You're seeing the glass
half full. On the road to conclusions, but its
not that you have to come up with the conclusion.
Where there are complicated things going on.

Summarizing would be, Michael said this, George
said that. Weaving: notice that Michael and
George both had concerns about cost. Melissa is
focusing on what needs we need to meet. So we
have to balance these concerns. If you weave it
well together so the group can see it, often
someone in the group will then come up with the
bridging solution. You don't always have to do
it. But you can.

Groping- Must be done very carefully, form of a
question can be good - can I offer an idea. Can
really move the group, save a lot of time.
Work-Nazi example - Laird went right in to the
person who proposed it, said, ok, so I hear
you're wanting to express that this job may be
seen as overbearing etc. Head off something at
the pass - he could see that using the word Nazi
was a big problem for another member.

Working Concerns - Looking for the interests that
underlie the positions. People are not born in
this word as pro or anti fridge - it comes from
other core values - frugality, quality of life.
So how do we marry these things, how do we
respect these core values and come up with
something that is a bridge. That is the level to
work at.

-----------------