The cooperative process frequently requires giving information and getting input from everyone in the group. In large groups this can take considerable time, and even small groups can take an inordinate amount of time to hear everyone. The primary means of information and ideas sharing will occur in discussions. Discussions can also be very time consuming and in some cases, not be as productive as they could be. For example, a belligerent tone can cause lots of hands to go up, and people will react and desire to speak because of the tone, rather than the content. When an agenda item needs to be run through a whole process from discussion to decision in a timely way, long periods of discussion may sap the time and energy of the group, leaving less energy for proposals.
There are several alternative ways to get peoples two cents worth without tying up the whole group for several hours.
One of the first ways to lighten the meeting load is to create ways outside of meeting time to gather peoples opinions. For example, a carefully worded paper questionnaire can quickly gather trends. Remember to number the questions so that when a small group collates the responses you can quickly tally by number. Using multiple choice questions where possible will make it easier to collate than essay questions. Another way is to hold “discussion circles” to talk about an issue. This is a great activity over dinner or some other informal atmosphere. Electronic means such as email, websites, and phone message boxes can also get information and opinions spread outside the meeting.
Sometimes a lot of discussion can go on about a topic which is much less important than something later on the agenda. This can sap time and energy that would be better used for more important issues. You can quickly ask the participants which topics on the agenda are most important, or you can use the public private scale to assuage how people feel.
<^> For more information about the public private scale
In larger groups discussions may require some organizing to be effective. The key to organizing discussions is to ensure that the process itself does not hamper peoples willingness to give information.
In this method, sets of small cards of different colors are given to each participant. To use this method you assign a specific meaning to a color. During discussions participants hold up a card which has a color which indicates both their desire to speak, and what kind of input they want to make. The kinds of input commonly assigned to colors are information, process, and opinion. For example, the color green may be assigned to mean I need information, and the color yellow may be assigned to mean I have an opinion about that. A red card might mean, I am feeling an unacceptable level of conflict or upset. This distinction is useful for groups because if a person does not have enough information, they may not be able to evaluate an opinion very well, or if they are really feeling upset they are unlikely to be able to hear very much of what is being said.
The facilitator can use a hierarchy to determine which colors to process first. For example, an issue comes up and several different colored cards are raised. The facilitator calls on the yellow, information cards first to get the questions answered, then calls on the green cards, to get opinions. This way, all the group members get the information they need before they begin hearing opinions about the issue. You can assign a color of card to any type of process you want to be able to visually identify. For example, you might want to assign a color to call attention to feelings, or to alert the group about a process problem. Colors can be assigned to anything you wish but it is best to remain consistent in assigning what colors mean. Also the more colors you have, the more potential for confusion exists so limiting colors might be wise.
Fingers can also be used in the same manner as cards. You can assign a meaning to one, two, three fingers, hands held palm up, hands held palm sideways, etc. Fingers are harder to see in very large groups than cards are but do not require any work to create, assuming the participants all have fingers.
The use of input timing devices is widely used, such as giving anyone who wishes to speak a time limit, or setting a time limit for the topic. This can encourage timeliness of speaking but can also add a feeling of pressure to the meeting which can inhibit people from bringing up important issues because they may take too much time. Sometimes just passing around a watch is helpful.
The faciltator calls on people to speak in a set of 4-5. The advantage of this process is it allows definite break points that the facilitator can use to the benefit of the group. For example, After a couple stacks of people speak the facilitator can then summarize and decide to use a new process, or redirect the group into creating processes, brainstorming, or some other process.
A way of gathering input quickly is the two cents method. Give every person in the group two pennies and place a pot or other container in the middle of the group. The facilitator asks who wants to speak in the first round and as people raise their hands and the facilitator recognizes the first six or so. Then to speak, a person pitches a penny into the pot which buys them 1 minute of group time. You only get to pitch one penny in a round, and once your pennies are gone, you don’t another chance to speak until all the pennies are spent. You might want to decide if a question costs a penny, or just an opinion. For example, If a person asks a question and someone else has the answer, anyone in the group can pay one of their pennies for the answer but if no one wants to hear the answer, and no one pays a penny, the question goes unanswered. You can allow members to pass their pennies to those who are broke and still have something to say, or not, making the more verbose have to carefully dole out their words. Once a round is done, and everyone has spoken, the facilitator calls for another round until, all the pennies are spent, or until no one raises their hand.
You might be selective whom you pick to speak. For example, five hands go up, and Jill, who is an excellent summarizer, is in that list of five. Calling on Jill first, who may summarize the issue well, may cause several of the hands to go down.
One of the key skills of facilitation, which is frequently overlooked, is recognizing when a topic should be redirected. It is a very large waste of human talent to have thirty adults spend an hour sitting through a discussion that only four or five people are involved in and care about. One way to gauge this is, after an appropriate amount time, to ask the group how many wish to continue the discussion. If only a few hands go up, and if the topic can be deferred, create a task force or action group and give them the task of presenting a proposal at the next meeting.
A large group can sometimes be much more effective when broken into a set of smaller teams to focus on a topic. Teams work especially well when the subject has subparts which can assigned to teams, with each team working to develop ideas or plans around a specific part. Teams can also be used just to change the energy of a meeting, to get people moving around and doing something different.
In this format the
chairs need to be in a circle. Then one person starts speaking and the speakers
go around in turn, one after the other. Sometimes having a ceremonial object
referred to as a talking stick is passed around to signify changing the
speakers.
Sometimes within a group
a set of people need to be able to have a conversation which is heard by
everyone. To set this up put the chairs in a circle and then place 4-5 chairs
in the middle facing each other. Invite people who have something to say about
the issue, or who want to converse about the topic into the middle. They then
hold the conversation. When a person in the fishbowl decides they have nothing
more to add, they can rejoin the larger circle and someone from the large
circle can move into the empty chair. When all the chair in the middle are empty the fishbowl is over.
In this process on or two people are the focus people for an issue and they stand and talk about the issue. They answer questions, encourage comments from others, and freely interact in a sort of controlled conversation. This process is usually used with people who are the “experts” on the subject.
One way to guide the group to use a form of logic
is to print up on the easel in large letters three columns titled, If, Then,
Because. Each statement by participants is encouraged to use each of the three
columns. So for example someone might say: If we adopt the child care proposal,
then we will have more parents in the
group, because they will be provided with childcare.
This gives the group an outline which shows the thinking of the individual which can then be addressed.
Sometimes a small handful of members may dominate discussions. Some people are just more verbal than others, or may be passionate about the issue. When this happens the group may not be getting the full picture nor benefiting from the experiences of the whole. It may also be the case that the whole groups time is not being well used on this issue and maybe the issue should be moved to a small group decision process. If this continually happens within a group it should be noted and the facilitator should intervene with a instructional period or some other way to make the group aware of what is happening and how it is effecting the functioning of the group. A quick way to circumvent dominant behavior is to break up into small groups and then have each group do a brief report. It can be helpful to put all the dominant people in one group.
<^> For more information about working with dominant people.
Some issues may require significant time for discussion. The stress of making life-changing decisions, and personally risky compromises in order to move towards an abstract goal deserves lots of time for listening. Sometimes when a person goes on and on about an issue its not really about the issue at all but about control, and compromise and fear and personal expression of all the other emotions that get tied up in working with and trusting a group.
A simple way to keep an eye on participation is to make a talking list, and each time somebody speaks just write down their name on the list. This can be a meeting task called turn keeper. That way you can quickly scan the list to see if any name appears regularly and you can also get an understanding of those that have not spoken. If you keep these lists over several meetings and then analyze them you might find patterns of participation that are useful to know.