1. Trainer: Jérôme L’host
Facilitation Skills (Meetings, Facilitation, Coordination)
Geneva – 22 February, 2012
Trainer: Jérôme L’host

2. OVERVIEW Effective group meetings The Meeting's Objective
Different Agenda to consider
Definition of Terms
Characteristics of a Good & Bad Facilitator
What is coordination?
Meeting Problems

3. They achieve the group's objective.
Effective Group Meetings
They achieve the group's objective.
They take up a minimum amount of time.
They leave participants feeling that a sensible process has been followed.

4. The Meeting's Objective
Do you want a decision?
Do you want an agreement ?
Do you want to generate ideas?
Are you getting status reports?
Are you communicating something?
Are you raising awareness ?
Are you trying to influence ?
Are you making plans?

5. Focus, Focus and…Focus
To help you determine what your meeting objective is, complete this sentence:
At the close of the meeting/session, I want the group to ...
(Consider your next 2 meetings)

6. Different Agenda to consider
Priorities – what absolutely must be covered?
Results – what do we need to accomplish at the meeting?
Participants – who needs to attend the meeting for it to be successful?
Sequence – in what order will you cover the topics?
Timing – how much time will you spend on each topic?
Date and Time – when will the meeting take place?
Place – where will the meeting take place?

7. Example: Stages in collective decisions
Sharing information
Prioritization of issues
Constructing proposals
Collective action decisions
Monitoring/evaluation
We do not simply start a coordination process with joint action decisions. A lot must happen before and after, so different meetings or collective processes have different functions.
Sharing: Sharing information, analysis, work-plans, opinions, brainstorming…
Prioritization: deciding what issues the collective group will invest time/energy in
Constructing proposals: Formation of concrete joint action proposals on prioritized issues
Collective action decisions: Deciding on proposals and making commitments together
Monitoring/Evaluation: Review implementation --- propose corrections/adaptation. (Note this takes many forms, formal and informal, and might involve external observers, small groups, or a full collective evaluation.)
Ask the group: Which of these stages require collective decisions by all stake-holders? [answer – prioritization and collective action, and to some extent evaluation. Sharing information and proposal construction do not require full-group “decisions.”
Ask the group: What kinds of processes can we use for these different stages? Does it all happen in formal meetings or are there other ways to work together?
[after a few ideas surface – move to next slide…]

8. Définitions… Facilitation means making all group interactions easier;
Facilitation helps groups and organizations identify and resolve difficult issues;
It provides unique solutions to unique needs;
It is based on techniques that are only appropriate or inappropriate, not right or wrong;
Facilitation is based on perception; it is not an exact science.

9. Characteristics of a Good Facilitator
Work Hard to stay Neutral
Carefully access needs of those in the meeting
Listen Carefully on different issues
Open Minded
Using simple and direct language
Clear step for the next meeting

10. Characteristics of a Bad Facilitator
Wants to be the center of attraction
Failed to listen on different ideas
Get People down and get defensive
Poor notes-poor decisions
Push ahead with different Agendas
- My Comfort Zone -
Look at the five intervention modes to see where you feel most comfortable, especially under pressure.
Ask a friend or colleague for feedback.
Then imagine yourself operating, at your best, in an intervention mode that is « new » for you.
Do the exercise many times until you feel at ease. Start practising in your next meeting.

11. What is coordination? CO-llectively put things in ORDER
Working together towards shared goals
A voluntary process
Usually without clear vertical authority
“Facilitating different people to work together for a goal or effect”
Coordination skills are for everyone involved, not just for “coordinators.”
What is coordination? Get a few answers.
Coordination is a voluntary process. This is a fundamental and often overlooked point. Put simply, if nobody has authority, coordination cannot be effective unless it makes sense for everybody involved, and its benefits outweigh its costs for each.
We’re going to look at the skills needed for coordination – but we mean more here than “skills for coordinators” – in fact, coordination skills are important for everyone involved in the process.

12. Coordination is a negotiation process
Do we really all have the same objectives?
Usually, each stakeholder has a different agenda
We each engage in coordination only if we think we will achieve more of our own objectives that way than by working alone.
It has costs and benefits
[These slides presume that some initial concepts on negotiation theory have already been presented to the group in an earlier module. If this has not occurred, the presenter may need to integrate some explanation of basic negotiation concepts here.]
Explain the link to negotiation: how each actor in a coordination process has a range of acceptable outcomes (e.g. Pursuing their own objectives) and this creates a “Zone of possible agreement” (or ‘zone of possible coordination’) where these ranges overlap. (You could illustrate this on a flipchart by drawing three intersecting circles, to represent the objectives or acceptable outcomes for different groups in a coordination process, and show where they overlap as the Zone of agreement.)
Point out also that sometimes there are multiple objectives of different Units, in which a Unit is engaging in coordination because it wants other Units’ assistance in achieving its own objectives. This same Unit, therefore, may be willing to assist others to reach objectives that are outside their own circle, as a kind of quid pro quo.
Transition to the next slide by pointing out that there is are both benefits and costs to negotiation... coordination

13. Put yourself in their shoes
Analyze each group’s interests, positions, objectives. Do we all have common interests?
What can they get out of coordinating with me/us? Can they do better than their expectations?
How can I help them achieve their objectives and get more out of this coordination relationship?
[TAILORING: Note that this slide will need to be modified if BATNAs have not been introduced]
This slide recalls the two key concepts of the negotiation presentation: positions and interests, and BATNAs.
Positions and interests
To reach a coordinated agreements among multiple parties, you need to identify outcomes that meet each one’s interests. In the beginning of the process there may be many contradictory positions among them, so the deeper interests – and mutual interests – need to be identified through dialogue and analysis together.
BATNA
What is their outcome if they don’t coordinate with you? This is their BATNA. Does the coordination process offer them alternatives that are better?
(Ask yourself the same question: “What outcome do I get if there is no coordinated outcome?”)
Key point: the more we understand the interests of the others involved in the coordination process, the more likely we are to discover our mutually shared interests and work together effectively.

14. The coordinator as mediator
Since coordination is negotiation, sometimes a neutral party can help diverse groups find their zone of possible agreement.
A good coordinator encourages participation and buy-in from parties whose absence would obstruct others.
A coordinator helps parties look behind their positions and identify interests that might be shared with others.
A coordinator uses a problem-solving approach to overcome obstacles to agreement.
While going through these points, make sure to mention the common dilemma of a coordinator with “two hats”: they have a coordination function, but they also represent one institution’s interests. When this happens, the coordinator has an obligation to be transparent and objective. He/she should try to be an honest broker among others, representing the good of the collective. But when s/he feels it is essential for his own institution that he stand up for its interests, this “change of hats” should be explicit. “Stepping out of the coordinator role for the role, I need to point out some of the concerns of my institution…”
S/he needs to avoid generating mistrust – so others do not perceive that the coordination function is being manipulated in the interests of one institution.

15. Coordination as Facilitation
Sometimes coordination fails to produce results, even when the parties involved have shared objectives and would all benefit from jointly coordinating their efforts. Opportunities are wasted.
Why?
Process problems.
Poor management of the process
Bad meetings,
Wasted time
Pointlessly obstructive behavior…
Now we’ve seen how coordination requires negotiation.
But is also requires good facilitation processes. Potential collaboration that would be good for everyone is sometimes lost because of poor facilitation (see bullet points on slide)

16. Meetings or no meetings?
Coordination does not aim to meet
It aims to achieve action and change.
A meeting is just a tool - to be used only when it is the right tool to get the job done.
One of the most common critiques of coordination processes is “too many meetings” “meetings where nothing gets done” “time wasted”.
And sometimes, people believe that because meetings are happening, coordination is happening. (You can even find lists of meetings attended listed in log-frames as ‘indicators’ of coordination!). But “MEETING” DOES NOT EQUAL “COORDINATION.”
As the previous two slides suggest, big meetings are not the best way to achieve every coordination outcome. And coordination is about achieving mutually beneficial outcomes. You must be selective about when to bring people together.
Keep in mind: if 12 people each spend 3-4 hours travelling to and attending a coordination, that amounts to over 40 hours work – a full work-week? Is the expected outcome of the meeting worthy of a full work-week?

17. Problems in coordination
Hierarchy and uneven power relationships
Favoritism or bias
Conflict of interest
Weak participation
[the next two slides list common challenges in coordination processes. This first one lists general problems in the overall process (not specific to ‘meetings’) while the next slide focuses on problems that emerge in meetings.]
Thinking back to the point we made about coordination as a negotiation process among multiple parties – the agendas, interests and commitments of each party to the process make a big difference to its success. When one key actor has far more power than others involved, for instance, weaker parties can be sidelined or excluded. Favoritism, bias or conflict of interests among key partners can also yield decisions that are against the interest of some partners (for instance, when one group is manipulating a coordination process only to get others to come on board with its own agenda, but without concern for theirs.) It is difficult to sustain a coordination relationship over time if these kinds of approaches are not dealt with.
Sometimes a coordination process fails because key players are simply not convinced that the process is useful enough to their interests, so their participation is too weak. When participation is weak, the implementation of results is doubtful.

18. Meeting problems Unclear objectives Group size Agenda size/complexity
Lack of key actors
Disruptive behavior
In a coordination meeting, we have all seen these kinds of problems:
If the participants are not clear on the objective of the meeting, then no progress can be made on achieving decisions.
If the group or the agenda are too large, it will not be possible to fully discuss issues or to encourage active participation by all. The agenda becomes to pressured, and nothing is given sufficient time. (A common and troubling dynamic that often emerges is that for a given agenda topic only a few people speak, and a facilitator rushes to a proposed decision by presuming that others agree.)
Even though too large a meeting can fail, a meeting can also fail because key actors are not there. The group is paralyzed because it cannot move forward without the agreement or the implementation commitment of actors who are not in the room.
Finally, there are many kinds of disruptive behavior which can destroy or damage the effectiveness of a meeting. Some are deliberate, but often disruptive behaviors are unintentional. Participants who are not clear about the meeting objectives will send the discussion off on a tangent. Participants who do not pay attention to time may talk too much if there is not firm facilitation. Sometimes individuals become angry or rigid or stubborn if they interpret someone else’s comments as being disrespectful.
[the group could enter into further discussion of examples from their own experience, and the presenter should guide the discussion towards “best practices” – solutions that help to avoid or respond to each kind of problem that emerges.]

19. Summary Effective group meetings The Meeting's Objective
Different Agenda to consider
Definition of Terms
Characteristics of a Good Facilitator
What is coordination?
Meeting Problems

20. BIBLIOGRAPHY / RESOURCES
The Skilled Facilitator - Roger Schwarz
The Art of Facilitation - Dale Hunter, Anne Bailey, Bill Taylor 
The Facilitator’s Fieldbook - Thomas Justice & David W. Jamieson