Consensus or Manipulation?
by Ted Slater on 04/08/2008 at 10:28 AM
Maybe you've had one at work or in your neighborhood or school or homeowners association: a meeting where someone tries to get the group to come to a consensus about something.
You gather together in groups, led by a facilitator, to determine what the best course of action is.
The thing is, sometimes these exercises are a facade. Sometimes the "facilitators" already have their minds made up, and they are manipulating the group into concurring with their decision.
An article we published this morning on Boundless shows you how you can identify whether a meeting like this is sincerely intent on understanding what the group wants, or whether it's a cynical attempt to manipulate the group into going along with what someone else wants.
I've been part of one of these meetings. And I wish I knew then what I know now.
1. Sylvia said the following at 11:45 AM on Apr 8:
Scary stuff.
I have a question. To me, the whole idea of hiring an outside facilitator sounds pretty suspicious. You said "sometimes" facilitators already have their minds made up. Is "sometimes" pretty often?
I have rather a mind to warn people the minute I hear the word "facilitator" in any context. Is this wisdom, or is it unnecessarily defaming a mostly honorable profession?
2. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:13 PM on Apr 8:
That was a very difficult article to read...it made my blood pressure go up.
I'm very grateful to the author who supplied methods for diffusing that.
3. a sassy sister said the following at 12:40 PM on Apr 8:
what happens when people in leadership positions use this in churches?
4. BDB said the following at 1:01 PM on Apr 8:
Manipulation or Initiative?
You know, what's interesting is that many of these folks simply believe they're showing leadership when they take over a group.
The Delphi technique is a legitmate tool for solving operational problems. For example, if you have two different departments in an organization that refuse to cooperate, someone in leadership must break the logjam. By increasing tension you create a crucible that forces out the truth. The same kind of tension is used in a company's budget process - using tension as an eyeball test to see who blinks first. If you listen to the audio tapes of oral arguments before the Supreme Court they're doing the exact same thing - the justices interrupt the lawyers with questions to try and push them towards their position.
That's not to say it's fun. I was at a leadership conference once in college. The facilitator seemed to be really pushing people towards a secular worldview. I don't remember what she said, but I remember feeling like my faith was backed into a corner.
So, when she decided to go around the room and ask people who their "hero" was, I forced the issue. I said "Jesus Christ." As she went around the 40 people in the room, about half the others did, too. And this wasn't at a church event, this was a secular event. But she had clearly pushed people the wrong way.
Incidentally, the more education someone has, the less vulnerable they are to this technique. This particularly true of graduates who've learned to marshall the evidence that supports their position. Several of my undergraduate and graduate professors were adamant that they didn't want to see someone write an essay about what they 'felt' about a subject - they needed to write what they thought was true and what evidence supported that conclusion.
What's interesting about some of the programs I've studied in is that they are designed to train you to not react. For example, it's sometimes best to sit back and be quiet and observe. Essentially, what can end up happening is that the "facilitator" believes that the quiet individual is unwilling to go against the group. When they get to the buy-in part, that's the time to speak up and say, "This is the wrong course of action because of a, b, c, d, e and f."
Incidentally, the people who force consensus like this usually fail operationally. It is possible that they have the authority to force out people who disagree - happens in business all the time. But successful leaders seek consensus because they are listening to what other people see in a situation - that's muc faster than trying to analyze all the facets of a situation alone. Those kinds of leaders are much more successful over time. But it may be necessary to form a coalition with people like that to stand up to a faction intent on manipulating policy.
5. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:08 PM on Apr 8:
Sassy sister: A friend of mine and I actually wondered about that same thing.
It's really irritating when you have these "meetings" and "leadership" has already decided on a course of action.
6. a sassy sister said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 8:
amir:
unfortunately, after reading this article, it made me realize that this can become a form of abuse in authority if used in church leadership.
7. Novagirl in VA said the following at 4:45 PM on Apr 8:
I have been trained in facilitation, and this is nothing like what I have been taught.
First, why use a facilitator? Because they are neutral and don't have skin in the game. Their purpose is to help the group meet their goal, make a decision, etc. They don't have a stake in what the decision is.
The whole point of facilitation is to design a process that helps the group reach its own conclusions, and to honestly reflect to the group what it is saying -- on all sides -- minority, majority, everyone. All views are to be respected, and the facilitator is never to play sides, or make some participants to be the bad guy or "wrong."
There are never to be pre-formed conclusions or decisions. There should always be clear expectations set up front, preferably in the session invitation, so that participants know if the purpose is to make a decision during the session, to hear feedback to inform a decision that will be made later (when and by whom), or to come up with alternative ideas, etc.
Facilitators are not supposed to hype emotions to purposefully reach a boiling point -- that is manipulative and potentially damaging. At the same time, if there are strong emotions already present in the room, a skilled facilitator will help them to come out in a manner that is respectful (no name-calling) and productive so that the underlying issues can be heard, and hopefully resolved.
All the facilitators I know use flip charts or screens so that when notes are taken, everyone can see them. The point is that participants know their thoughts were heard and seen by all. There is none of this "individuals put[ting] their ideas and disagreements on paper, with the results to be compiled later." And decisions are most often done in the moment with all taking part, either through consensus, voting, or other techniques.
Facilitators also often send out a final report or notes after the session to all participants so everyone can trust that the "record" reflects what really happened.
If you want to read more about what facilitation really is, a great book is The Skilled Facilitator by Roger Schwarz.
I am really sad that The Delphi technique and these types of manipulations are hurting perceptions of facilitation. There are some bad apples out there, indeed, and that is really unfortunate. But the facilitation I have been trained in is based on integrity, transparency and ethics. And when done well, it can really help a group reach consensus and be more productive.
8. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 4:52 PM on Apr 8:
I think this is the best article I've read on Boundless. Extremely informative and good advice.
9. BDB said the following at 5:11 PM on Apr 8:
Ah - found something. What's mentioned in the article is actually the opposite of the Delphi process.
Cite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_method
The Wiki article is how I learned to do it - the facilitator's job is actually to get everyone's ideas on the table without them facing any personal repercussions for it. All opinions are submitted anonymously in written form and then the group is informed about what the different options are.
Frankly, I've used informal versions of this in lots of situaions. Typically it required speaking with all the relevant stake holders in advance in one or two rounds, going back to them with questions raised by the other people - without identifying who those people are.
The best boss I worked for did this, too. He was always coming into my office and asking me obscure questions, "What if we did this?" As he eventually explained to me, we saw the world quite differently - he from a very people-oriented view, me from a financial/process view. So when we both agreed on a solution - it would almost always work.
One of the problems in group meetings is that people are intimidated - not everyone is comfortable speaking up. It becomes the leaders responsibility to make sure they are NOT belittled by the others. Sometimes, if a timid person had the best idea, I'd simply adopt it as my own so that the other powerful personalities would come after me - never realizing that the person whose idea it was actually was sitting at the table being quiet.
A good leader should have discussed the issue with the participants before calling the meeting. A meeting is a good way to finally make a decision and make sure that everyone understands - at the same time - that the decision has been made.
So, I guess another way to deal with such a facilitator is to call them out on their process: I suppose I could say something like, "When I learned the Delphi process in college, everyone's input was submitted anonymously so that no individual would be ridiculed for believing differently. Why did you just belittle that person?"
Followed by, "You're not really a facilitator are you? Are you even from this city? Get the tar and feathers!"
10. J said the following at 6:43 PM on Apr 8:
Do we get articles on civil disobedience next? :D
Seriously though, more articles on practical politics, etc. would be great!
11. Robin Munn said the following at 8:42 PM on Apr 8:
Oh, and why does the URL for today's front page Boundless article still have "2005" in it? %lt;grin>
12. Robin Munn said the following at 8:42 PM on Apr 8:
Where did the name "Delphi technique" come from, by the way?
I don't mean the history (I presume it was named after the oracle at Delphi, though I'm not entirely clear why it would be so named) -- I mean, who took the name "Delphi" and applied it to that particular technique?
13. Andrew the Misanthrope (aka Andrew) said the following at 9:34 PM on Apr 8:
This Delphi Technique made me kind of mad too. The scary part is that I can imagine this technique working fairly often to advance somebody's agenda.
I have observed that most people are rather ovine in their intelligence and actions. (However, I have not observed anyone eating grass.) The good news is that people are willfully stupid. This means there is hope!
Consider this: although most people act like they must be retarded, over half of the population cannot be retarded. Otherwise, what we now call "retarded" would be called "normal". My conclusion, then, is that people somehow suppress their intelligence. That is, they have the mental capacity to think logically, but they choose not to.
Suppression of intelligence can be observed when two average people are discussing politics (or probably any other subject, for that matter). The participants in the discussion usually use emotional "arguments" rather than arcane thinking strategies such as logic and reason.
It is sheeple like this who are most susceptible to the Delphi Technique, and there are a lot of sheeple out there. I guess I will go drown my sorrows with some Brawndo. (It has electrolytes!)
14. P&P said the following at 8:27 AM on Apr 9:
I've noticed people only complain about this technique when their needs are not met. I've also seen this more from religious groups than I have in the secular world.
As distasteful as the technique is, I've noticed that it works when two factions are refusing to budge. Like it or not, corporations (and churches for that matter) need to stay in business and that means getting people to fall in line behind a decision. When two groups to engage in a 100 years war on a single topic, an organization runs the risk of collapse.
15. Michele said the following at 10:34 AM on Apr 9:
In my experience, a "facilitator" is never used, especially in local government settings like the one described in the article. It's easy enough to do "crowd control" without one if you have enough allies placed throughout a meeting.
I've been on both sides of this kind of meeting and all I can think is that it's good to know how to diffuse it, but it's even better to know how to do it. Try leading a meeting where there is an unpopular vocal minority faction, using the diffusing techniques described to great effect. You'll end up with an unsettled majority and a takeover if you're not careful.
Sorry, I love that Boundless posted this, but I'm all in favor of a majority being able to carry out a stated agenda without Roberts Rules of Order drama and minority faction discontent ruling the day.