Facilitating Dialogue

The first time I tried to describe Dialogue, my friend/listener (a linguistics professor) looked at me with pity. I meandered into physics, group dynamics and back to philosophy without ever delivering a clear picture of the group process I sought to describe. Later, I stuck with physics to help me describe Dialogue --just as light can be particle or wave, Dialogue occurs when a group moves from a particle state to a wave state and group thought flows through the whole group to create collective meaning.

Not much better, really. It all sounds like woo-woo, out-there, psycho-babble. And if I hadn’t experimented with the process and proven to myself that it can save a design team hours (months!) of looking at each other like they’re crazy, transform a group of enemies into a team, or help heal a re-engineered group of survivors, I would’ve given up. But I know what it can do. And if you ever want a group to peel back the masks, check their guns at the door, and stick with it until they forge common ground, then you shouldn’t give up your pursuit of learning how to facilitate Dialogue either. It is an invaluable tool for anyone who needs to get work done through groups.

I first read about Dialogue (with a big D) in Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline. I wanted to know more but all I could find were essays about Dialogue. I wanted a simple blueprint that told me how to do it. When I couldn’t find it, I decided to write one.

In 1993 I did my thesis on "Facilitating Dialogue" It almost cost me my degree. My professors wanted to see accountability in every step of the training process and Newtonian concepts of accountability bounce right off Dialogue. Eventually I was able to explain a clear enough "recipe" for Dialogue so that my first "Facilitator’s Guide to Dialogue" was stamped with half-hearted approval by my committee members and I got my degree. At the time I rebelled at the imposed structure, but now I value the struggle.

The beauty of having a recipe for Facilitating Dialogue is that you don’t have to use it. I offer my Dialogue recipe to be used in the same way I use recipes when I cook -- as a starting point. After that, I think you should use your own judgment.

There is not enough room for my recipe, here. However, here are some principles that can guide you as you explore the art of facilitating Dialogue. I’ve learned a lot since 1993. Maybe I can save you some time on the learning curve.

First, Paint a Picture

In my "recipe" there are five stages of Dialogue. I use pictures to describe these stages. Pictures help you communicate with a group better than words. Dialogue rarely occurs spontaneously and you need to move the group to a place where they are ready, willing and able to Dialogue. Just as your actions in front of a group speak louder than your words, drawing pictures combines visual, auditory and metaphor input to help you set the stage for Dialogue. I suggest presenting the stages to the group in pictures and words before you start to build their expectations. You want them to expect Dialogue.

That is the facilitator’s first job, to create the expectation that this group process will be different, more valuable, more honest than anything they have ever experienced before. You want to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of them will walk in expecting this to be another waste of time. Your set-up has to be good enough to convince them to give it a chance to succeed.

As you explain the stages, your objective is to see nodding heads and knowing smiles. You aren’t telling anyone anything they don’t already know but by reminding them of the wisdom they already possess you help them prepare for Dialogue

Politeness and Pretending is the stage at which no one admits anything is wrong, blames everyone else, or pretends like the problem is unsolvable. Each of one of those squiggles represents a separate individual belief system. Everyone walks into the room seeing the world the way they see it. The IS guys think you need more hardware, Marketing thinks you need better design engineers, and Sales just wants those "idiots in production to do their job!" In the beginning, these belief systems are hidden. Everyone is pretending and acting polite until they either think it is safe to speak or can’t stand keeping quiet any longer.

Chaos occurs when the group finally stops pretending and allows hidden conflicts to surface. This is assuming that you are talking about something of importance — if no one cares, you don’t get to the chaos stage. Chaos is open conflict. It is also the birthplace of creative thought. A group can scare themselves with chaos and revert right back to the politeness and pretending stage without ever addressing the underlying problems. Some groups get such a buzz out of the conflict they just stay there all the time. A well facilitated group can forge through Chaos to reach true Dialogue.

Discarding and Redefining occurs when the group addresses the conflict and each group member willingly risks their certainty about the "facts" and become flexible enough to generate a Dialogue about the issues. I bend my squiggle (picture of the world) a bit and you bend yours. Sales acknowledges that Production has a point about having the correct paperwork, and Production accepts the difficulty that Sales faces in getting clear answers from their customers. This stage is marked with a long silences and internal struggle. This is the point when a group is at highest risk of aborting the process. It is hard work and the group needs to expect it to be hard work or they will misinterpret their difficulty as failure.

Resolution and Collective Reasoning happens when the belief systems start to flow into each other, when the group thinks as a collective and builds a bigger picture inclusive of all positions, and finds their common ground. This new belief system is a collective view shared by all members. It did not exist before Dialogue. Where there were 8 or 10 different views, there is now one that is a product of those 8 or 10. They see the whole elephant instead of the long snake-like thing, the wide flat leathery thing, and the solid column. The group has created collective thought that can only come from a collective group mind. (When you are in a Dialogue, the birth of this new belief system is a magical moment. Something pops and you can feel the atmosphere of the room crackle with the electricity of the creative process.)

Closure occurs when the group moves back to a more stable state of lowered risk and less flexibility. This is important. New agreements and implementation plans need a firmer foundation than the flexible state of Dialogue. The fact is, you can’t stay in the heightened state of flexibility that Dialogue creates for too long. It is exhausting. Besides, implementation requires action, not introspection. Dialogue is group introspection and too much introspection can paralyze a group (paralysis by analysis),.

That is why I recommend that a group limit Dialogue sessions to twice a month, max. More often than that and it dilutes the magic -- or teaches people how to fake it. In order to keep it potent, Dialogue needs to be a special group process used only intermittently or for special occasions.

Next, Teach them to Facilitate Themselves

Facilitating Dialogue is a paradox. Your goal is to get the group to lead themselves, as a group. Dialogue does not have a leader. Everyone takes a leadership role in Dialogue. Except you, the facilitator. Your goal is to be invisible. If you want to be a part of the Dialogue, you should get an outside facilitator so that you can be a group member. It is not a good idea to try to sit in two chairs at the same time.

If you have decided to take the facilitator role, your ultimate goal is to say nothing so you need to set things up so the group can guide themselves. The paradox is that you have to lead them to lead themselves. As a facilitator, the toughest job is not guiding a group to Dialogue but guiding them away from all the distractions that lead away from Dialogue. William Isaacs calls it "creating a container." I call it, cutting off the escape routes.

You already know the distractions that sabotage Dialogue. I have a list I use, but it is easy enough to come up with your own. Just list all of the things that go wrong in a group discussion (dominating, silent opposition, bullying, etc) -- better yet, get the group to make their own list. Since your purpose is to teach the group how to be self-monitoring, and self-correcting, place them in the position to watch out for these things. That way, you don’t have to be in the unpleasant position of correcting anyone.

Facilitation is an art. Inexperienced facilitators are like new shepherds, dashing about to ensure the herd remains a group. An experienced shepherd has learned how to keep the group together with a minimal effort. In the case of Dialogue this means creating the right expectations and setting the stage for the group to recognize, for themselves, the seductive traps and tributaries beckoning members away from the difficult and strenuous task of true Dialogue.

I recommend that you get the group to develop their own list of agreements that will guide them to Dialogue. Later you can use the leverage of their agreements to keep them on track without appearing to scold.

Now, sit down, shut up and get out of their way

There are few facilitation skills more important that the ability to keep quiet. When I teach facilitation I always spend a lot of time on this particular facilitator skill. If you are a manager, trainer, or a leader in your field, there is a good reason why: you enjoy it. You enjoy being in front of a group, orchestrating consensus and creating the magic of teamwork. This is probably how you have fun

The only problem for you is that facilitating a group to Dialogue means: not leading. It takes great discipline to describe the process, lead a discussion on the escape routes and then abdicate your control to the group. But the discipline of keeping your trap shut will pay off. If you let them, they will come up with better ideas than you ever considered. And those ideas will be their ideas. Groups implement their ideas much more readily that your ideas. This is the hidden power of Dialogue. It is the secret to creating ownership (an over-used term). The reason most leaders can’t do it, is because they can’t stay quiet long enough for their group to rise to the occasion. A good facilitator creates a vacuum of leadership perfectly shaped not for one individual, but for the whole group.

Speak up when necessary

While you want the group to learn how to swim you don’t want to let them drown either. Sometimes, in the beginning, they need you to remind them of the principles of Dialogue. This is when you can do what I call an Intervention of Awareness. As a facilitator, your job is to midwife the group as they birth their creative group view. As a midwife, your preference is to let nature takes its course --unless something is definitely going wrong. It is your call. When you see the group moving down a road that takes them too far away from Dialogue, it is time to speak up. Just don’t let your ego make the call for you.

Your job is to point the problem out, not in an accusatory way, but purely as a reminder to the group. This can be as subtle as walking over the to their list of agreements and pointing to "Be Open and Honest" with a meaningful look at the person you think may be holding back or asking a question "And what is the assumption behind that statement?" At other times you may choose to tell a story that models the principle you hope to share.

Storytelling

Stories are powerful facilitator tools. They are non-directive and meaningful at the same time. I tell the story of how one of my first experiences with Dialogue began with a member of the group audibly counting the ceiling tiles as the group tried to enter Dialogue. When she finally did speak, it was to attack others as they expressed their opinions. She accusing them of "selling out" to the committee who re-engineered their group (and laid off some of her friends). Finally, her need to be heard took over and her accusations turned into an emotional tirade of how guilty she felt that she was left, and how afraid she was of the future. She began to cry. At that moment, the other members of the group stopped acting like they weren’t afraid and started telling the truth, too. In the end, they had a real heart-to-heart dialogue that may not have solved all their problems but cleared the air enough to let them work together to find some solutions.

I tell this story when I expect a group member to be openly rebellious or antagonistic. It heightens their awareness that fear may be behind the attacks and encourages the group to look behind the words to find the meaning. A story can re-frame a group’s perceptions. Whenever I tell that story, the individuals displaying these behaviors are usually more reflective on the source of their anger and better tolerated by the group.

Use your Judgment

Ultimately, your skills in the facilitation of Dialogue will come from experience and experiments. I believe you should try anything that you think might help a group reach the state of Dialogue. Creating the right expectations, teaching the group to facilitate themselves, keeping quiet if you can, and speaking up only when necessary are good principles to follow as you choose your experiments. But above all, trust your judgment — every situation is different and any recipe for Dialogue needs to be adapted to the situation. Once you build your own technique you will be in great demand. People hunger to tell each other the truth and engage in meaningful Dialogue. It is fulfilling work to facilitate a group to that place.