Pulling Proposals out of a Hat (or Some Orifice)

This is the counterpart I promised to my May 4 posting on how to get the most out of plenary Discussions. After you've flushed out all the factors that the group agrees need to be taken into account (the main objective of the Discussion phase), then it's time to start crafting solutions. Often this step is begun by a cmtee, but sometimes the plenary is on a roll or there's time pressure encouraging the group to proceed with all deliberate speed. In any event, I will offer here four aids for efficient and energizing Proposal Generation:

An Atmosphere of Curiosity, not Embattlement
The key moment is when someone says something that differs substantially from what you're thinking. How do you respond? It will make an enormous difference if your initial reply is less like, "That won't work for me... " and more like "Wow, that's really different from what I was thinking. Tell me how you got there; maybe I'm missing something... "

In the former, you're assuming a fight. In the latter, you're wondering if your mind will be changed by new information or new insights. The trick is developing the mind set that different perspectives can be a strength—they let you see the problem more completely—rather than as an occasion for a battle.

In the mainstream culture, we learn to capitulate or fight in the face of differences; in cooperative culture we need to learn wonder in the presence of differences.

Stretching, not Pulling
As a practical matter, the initial responses to suggestions are crucial for setting the tone. If people can learn to begin with what they like about a suggestion (rather than with "But... ") there will be a lot more flexibility (and hence, creativity) with which to reach the finish line. The image I offer here is how can everyone stretch to reach what others are offering, rather than how can you pull everyone toward your position. [Remember, the object here is not how well your initial suggestions hold up; it's how efficiently the group finds the best solution.]

Bridging, not Advocacy
When facilitating Proposal Generation, insist (gently, yet firmly) that all suggestions be attempts to combine and balance what came out of the Discussion phase. Let's suppose that there are a list of factors labeled "x" and another list labeled "y," both of which need to be taken into account. What you don't want (now that you're in Proposal Generation) are statements in support of just "x" or just "y." Been there, done that.

So, when a person proposes something that appears to only address "x," a savvy facilitator will respond, "I get that your suggestion will satisfy "x"; help me understand how it also satisfies "y." Generating solid proposals is essentially about bridging all the factors; it is not about pushing until you get your way.

Build on Interests, don't Get Stuck on Positions
For many, their nightmare dynamic (short of fulminating anger) is where the group is more or less evenly divided on some non-trivial issue: one side favors doing "Z"; and the other side favors doing "not Z." That is, the positions are diametrically opposed and each side is fairly passionate about it. What to do?

There's generally a way out. Almost always, "Z" (or "not Z," if you prefer to look at this the other way around) is a conclusion, and not a fundamental value. The key to getting unstuck is peeling back the deadline positions to the underlying interests. Most times, each side is looking at the same problem through a different lens, each of which is a legitimate group value. So, for example, would it be that shocking if an analysis focused on affordability came to a completely different conclusion than one emphasizing environmental impact?

The good news is that affordability and environmental impact are not sworn enemies. By identifying these two as baseline interests you now have much more room to work with. Let go of Z and not-Z; focus instead on finding proposals that do a decent job of balancing these two interests. [Hint: in the end it may turn out that Z (or not-Z) is actually a good proposal; but the energy around it will be completely different because everyone has acknowledged and honored that both core interests need to be taken into account. People can be amazingly graceful about specifics if they feel that their core interests are fully understood and will be taken care of.]

The Pitfalls of Proposals from Meetings People Miss

I'm trying to navigate some tricky dynamics right now as the administrator of a group whose representatives are spread across North America and have never been in the same room together. There are nine reps from nine groups which share common values and have pooled money to self-insure against catastrophic health care costs. As the administrator, I take care of day-to-day business and organize the agenda for discussion whenever there's a policy issue, yet I have no official say in the decisions. The group has existed for more than 20 years and generally operates with little difficulty. This last year has been different.

There has been considerable turnover among reps over the years, to the point where no one currently involved goes back more than 10 years, and most less than two. In the last 12 months we have bumped up against questions about program objectives, the criteria on which we evaluate loans, our investment philosophy, and how we define acceptable risk. There's more, but you get the picture: more or less everything is now being called into question. Because of the expense (in both time and dollars) of calling a face-to-face meeting, we've tried valiantly to make progress on our issues through a combination of email and conference calls. However, good intentions aside, these are not the kind of issues that lend themselves well to email resolution, and we've been mostly bogged down in our attempts to make progress. (No small part of this is our never having met in person before; turnover among reps being what it is.) In light of this, I'm advocating that we now must have a face-to-face meeting in order get traction on our agenda, regardless of the expense.

While I think people will agree with this assessment, there is, understandably, considerable interest in having this happen sooner rather than later, and with minimal cost. It happens that there is a regularly scheduled meeting happening later this month where six of the nine participating groups will be sending delegates. (To add to the confusion, the delegates to this subgroup of six are, with only a single exception, different people from the reps to the group of nine.) With good intent, someone suggested that the other three groups send their reps to this mtg and we create space for the face-to-face mtgs about the health care group there.

This was a decent idea, but it came too late for busy people to free up the time and it was quickly apparent that only a small fraction of the reps could attend (maybe two out of the nine). Despite this, one of the attending reps has proposed going forward with whoever is in the room to discuss the issues. Their forward-moving intent was clear enough: we have a lot to do, so let's get started where we can.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. And that's the point I want to make in this blog. Under consensus, there is certain flow to making solid progress on issues. In essence, it's important to first flush out all the factors that a good decision needs to take into account before starting to problem solve (that way, you have a decent screen to test proposals against—how well do they balance the factors that everyone has agreed are in play?). When people are missing from the opening discussion (which is sure to be the case in the upcoming mtgs of the subgroup), then there is considerable danger of engaging in problem solving before the missing people have had a thorough chance to add to the mix of factors that need to be taken into account. It's a classic example of the cart being placed in front of the horse.

Of course, the missing people may have nothing to add to what those in attendance were able to surface and there may then be no awkwardness in how the conversation proceeds. But if there is momentum built about solutions which have not taken into account factors that the missing people name later, there can be considerable tension around honoring the investment of time by the problem solvers versus really being open to input from those missing from the first conversation. Remember, the object here is solving problems with energy that brings the group together. While it doesn't happen often, sometimes more communication (with stakeholders missing) is less helpful than waiting for a time when everyone can be in the room.