Hogging the Discussion A discussion thread from the Electronic Discussion on Group Facilitation: Process Expertise for Group Effectiveness http://www.albany.edu/cpr/gf Compiled by Rosa Zubizarreta Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:42:34 -0400 From: Margo Menconi Subject: Hogging the Discussion I am at a conference where I am very frustrated that in discussions one person seems to hog the discussion. The facilitators don't seem to know anything about not letting people just give long-winded lectures in a discussion group. This is really frustrating. I feel like I am the only one here that doesn't know that you are supposed to try to limit input, bring everyone in to the discussion, and not let one person monopolize the conversation. When I have tried to say something about this no one seems to appreciate my concern and they think that I just want to talk. They are willing and eager to just listen to one person hog the conversation. I can't tell you how frustrating this is. Nothing like being on the participant end of things... I guess doctors make bad patients too. Margo Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 16:27:00 -0400 From: Ned Ruete Margo wrote of her conference: > The facilitators don't seem to know > anything about not letting people just give long-winded > lectures in a discussion group. Okay, so this is another argument FOR accreditation. ;-) Ned Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:34:48 -0600 From: Jessie Orlich on 01/08/2002 2:27 PM, Ned Ruete at nruete@csc.com wrote: > Margo wrote of her conference: > >> The facilitators don't seem to know >> anything about not letting people just give long-winded >> lectures in a discussion group. > > Ned comments: Okay, so this is another argument FOR accreditation. ;-) > > For once, I do not agree with Ned. One most certainly does not need accreditation in order to know how to stop long-winded participants! Very very weak argument Jessie Orlich Costa Rica Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:12:36 -0700 From: Bill Harris Jessie Orlich wrote: > For once, I do not agree with Ned. One most certainly does not need > accreditation in order to know how to stop long-winded participants! Very > very weak argument I agree, Jessica, although I sensed Margo was complaining that the facilitator didn't even know you should try to stop such long-winded behavior, not that the facilitator couldn't do it. Borrowing from Rich Heiland, another facilitator, I sometimes toss out a ground rule of "No speeches," where a "speech" is anything longer than 2 minutes. People usually chuckle and get the message, and they use that as a tool to help control the long-winded contributions so I don't have to (at least as much). Bill -- Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 07:57:11 +1000 From: Denis Cowan G'day. I see this issue as a participant's responsibility. Regards denis denis cowan , brisbane , australia. fax ** 61 7 32681869 tel ** 61 7 38363056 email: cowandp@bigpond.net.au Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:08:03 EDT From: Deborah Levine I work with people many of whom are low-income, poorly educated, and relatively unsophisticated community activists. Long-winded and highly emotional speeches are virtually a cultural phenomenon. They don't respond well to the usual ploys for limits. Any suggestions? Deborah Levine Communications Prose Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:54:26 -0600 From: Sunny Walker This is strange, in that I agree with both of you. Accreditation isn't a need for a good facilitator, never was. The point is to be sure someone IS. The first time I saw the model (which was so excellent, I got certified and then became an assessor), I went in with two questions: If you are good, will you pass (easily) and if you aren't, will you fail? Well, you don't fail the first time, but get deferred with an incredible amount of helpful feedback (you get that feedback when you pass, also). AND the answers to my questions were what I was looking for. You CERTAINLY don't need accreditation (or certification, I'm always mixed up on what's correct -- I think it depends on the country!) to know how to manage a group and limit the dominating, long-winded "hogs." However, if you don't know it is a key to better participation from the whole group and have a clue how to do it, you aren't likely to pass. Today, I got an email from a ToP trainer (Technology of Participation, developed by ICA) wondering why I hadn't suggested ToP as an answer to a recent question. I guess I don't want to sound like it's the only relevant tool, because that's not what I think (though I'm also a ToP trainer and spent 18 years with ICA full-time). For THIS question however, i.e. "hogging the discussion", ToP methods are an excellent choice. They are the foundation of my facilitation design (more like building blocks) and I almost never have a discussion hog. The group DOES self manage an errant member, if someone gets on a soap box. Sunny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jessie Orlich" Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 2:34 PM on 01/08/2002 2:27 PM, Ned Ruete wrote: > Margo wrote of her conference: > >> The facilitators don't seem to know >> anything about not letting people just give long-winded >> lectures in a discussion group. > > Ned comments: Okay, so this is another argument FOR accreditation. ;-) > > For once, I do not agree with Ned. One most certainly does not need accreditation in order to know how to stop long-winded participants! Very very weak argument Jessie Orlich Costa Rica Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:30:54 -0700 From: Dutch Driver Deborah, I see you made it! Welcome to the fray. Here is my take on this phenomenon. When I used to teach public speaking to college students, I more than a few instances of this and was able to fashion some sort of theory for it. In many instances, it is one of the few times at that point in their lives when the student has been given the power of a public forum...meaning they think someone is going to by gosh LISTEN TO ME. In rare instances when there is also personal and highly charged emotional content...I think the power of a public forum merges into a cathartic moment. Having had one of these moments myself...I wish I could explain it...perhaps it is a 'rites of passage' type of social interaction. Reminding me that freedom of speech is not a right--it is an earned privilege. I was not allowed much control over this within the form of a classroom, I have learned since that it is a major component of strategically designing the group's social interactions as an attempt at control. Reminding me that facilitators also have agendas that are outside of content. ______________________________ Great Optimism, Dutch Driver Choragus Consulting San Bruno, CA Cell: 650.333.6475 Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:40:33 -0600 From: Sunny Walker And we can remember we "heard it here first"! Thanks, Dutch. Sunny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dutch Driver" snip: Reminding me that facilitators also have agendas that are outside of content. Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 10:43:54 -0400 From: Ned Ruete Deborah writes of her client population: > Long-winded and highly emotional speeches are > virtually a cultural phenomenon. They don't respond > well to the usual ploys for limits. Any suggestions? This phenonmenon is not limited to the demographic you mention. I find it rampant among highly-educated and highly-compensated professionals -- in many cases, this tactic is what got them promoted. Here's what I do: Write things down and hang them on the wall. People like to see their words up where everyone can see them. When a long-winded and emotional speech doesn't result in anything that can be put into group memory, but short, to-the-point, constructive comments and ideas do, people start modifying their behavior to get the reward. All of this is based on the "Jack Ryan's Grandmother's Rule." The underlying concept of the Tom Clancy book, _Debt of Honor_, is an old saying Jack Ryan attributes to his Grandmother, "If you don't write it down, it didn't happen." I sometimes use that as a ground rule, and give the background. Of course, as Dutch points out, sometimes they need to be heard. What I do early on, when speechifying is really venting, is write down what I think is the key point they are making, and then when they stop for breath read back that key point, give them a chance to modify it (which may get back into another cycle of speechifying -- take a deep breath and go with it), and when I have it right, move on. In converting their speech into bullet points in the group memory, I am implicitly saying (and sometimes I say it explicitly) that the truest measure of having been heard is that they contributed something to the lasting record of the meeting. I am validating their need to be heard by providing concrete evidence that they have been. Gradually the speeches get shorter and the contributions get more to the point. Of course, if "poorly educated" means "illiterate," then writing things down may not work... Ned Ruete Waterford, CT USA Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:06:22 -0500 From: "Priscilla H. Wilson" We call Ned's recommendation..."going visual." It is very helpful in a lot of different situations as well as with the long-winded. Priscilla Wilson Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:15:36 -0400 From: Sarah Murison Deborah writes of her client population: "Long-winded and highly emotional speeches are virtually a cultural phenomenon. They don't respond well to the usual ploys for limits" To which Ned responded: "This phenomenon is not limited to the demographic you mention. I find it rampant among highly-educated and highly-compensated professionals -- in many cases, this tactic is what got them promoted." I agree with both points, and with the point that in most cases people actually have to vent whenever they feel heard. Research would probably show a strong correlation between poor presentation skills in society at large, and generally appalling listening skills (if anyone knows of such research I would love to know about it). Venting is such a paramount need that it is often a good idea to build it into the workshop agenda (at the beginning). The issues that emerge usually make very good raw material for grounding discussion throughout the workshop. Nevertheless, good presentation and summarizing skills are so important in both work and community activism (Ned's correct point about promotion not-withstanding!), that in some cases it may be worth making these the subject of discussion, as a form of action learning. I and my colleagues quite often start a workshop, on whatever topic, by indicating that, as time is short (which it always is) we are also going to work on being succinct, presenting in such a way that our points will be remembered, active listening (and perhaps other related skills), and that the workshop process will itself provide the opportunities to practice the skills. We also give guidance on good practice and feedback, both to the group and individually if requested, and a good deal of peer learning always emerges. This approach requires team facilitation however, and is not really effective for workshops of less than three days. Sometimes there is resistance at first because many people are not aware of the value of strong skills in these areas (or the costs of their absence), or their own shortcomings, and may perceive the issue as trivial or marginal. However, there has not been a single case in which participants have not really appreciated it, and felt considerably empowered by the end of the workshop. It seems that almost everyone feels uncertain in these areas, under the surface. A simpler approach would be to include these issues in the ground rules, related to the shortness of time, and need to be fair to all. This gives the "permission" to discuss the issues as they emerge during the workshop, perhaps when someone makes a particularly concise and telling intervention. Less impact, but there can be quite a lot of "aha's" Sarah Murison Montclair, NJ 07042 www.capacitydevelopment.net Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 13:18:43 -0400 From: Ned Ruete Sarah wrote: > good presentation and summarizing skills are so > important in both work and community activism > (Ned's correct point about promotion not-withstanding!), > that in some cases it may be worth making these the > subject of discussion, as a form of action learning. Sometimes the behavior that gets rewarded is not the behaviour that is most effective but the behaviour that most follows the accepted, expected norm. In this case, breaking the behavior means breaking the expectation. For an organization with a poor meeting culture, it becomes necessary to make it clear that this is NOT just another meeting and participants are not expected to do what they have always done. How do I do that? It will probably not surprise people that I (drum roll, please...): Write things down and hang them on the wall. Before the participants ever arrive, I paper the walls with objectives, agenda, work products list, ground rules, models, parking lot, action item sheets, big blank areas for an affinity exercise (ToP equivalent: a sticky wall), and other artifacts of what we are going to be doing. I will often put a greeting sheet on an easel and put it right in front of the door (a greeting sheet being a set of instructions on what participants can do to get centered on the work ahead while waiting for the meeting to start -- make a tent card/name tag, read the objectives, make a new friend, make a poster for their introduction, start thinking about the first framing question, ....). These are things all of us do in one form or another, but once I reframed their purpose to include the defying of expectations, I found subtle ways to use them to increase the effect. Ned Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 12:30:06 -0700 From: Rosa Zubizarreta Ned wrote: >Of course, as Dutch points out, sometimes they need to be heard. What I do >early on, when speechifying is really venting, is write down what I think >is the key point they are making, and then when they stop for breath read >back that key point, give them a chance to modify it (which may get back >into another cycle of speechifying -- take a deep breath and go with it), >and when I have it right, move on. what Ned described seems very similar to the Dynamic Facilitation approach. I am sometimes able to interrupt a long-winded speech gracefully by saying something along the lines of "excuse me, i want to make sure i am able to hear and record what you have said so far, and i am starting to lose the thread"... which then provides me the opportunity to reflect back, synthesize, and help the person feel heard. One comment: my experience with low-income folks has been that they generally appreciate seeing their words written down -- maybe ESPECIALLY folks who are not literate. Of course, this probably depends on HOW it is done... but i've found that folks can proudly point to their contribution on the chart paper and "read" it back to you... and, indeed, in an educational context, this can be an effective component of literacy development. best wishes, Rosa Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:40:53 +100 From: Jan Haverkamp Ahoj Sarah and others, > A simpler approach would be to include these issues in the ground rules, > related to the shortness of time, and need to be fair to all. I have worked with sets of ground-rules (of course, learned it even when still on university), but i must say that my ground rules have been dwindled to agreement that we are in this all together, and that mobile phones should be switched on vibration or off. Whether or not starting in time is added depends on cultural background (sometimes not in the rules, but rather as a special task for one of the facilitators :-) ). I have left slowly more and more rules out, because people were starting to use the rules as reasons, instead of feeling responsibility for the process and seeing what the reasons for the rules were. Any other experiences on this? jan haverkamp This > gives the "permission" to discuss the issues as they emerge during the > workshop, perhaps when someone makes a particularly concise and telling > intervention. Less impact, but there can be quite a lot of "aha's" > > > Sarah Murison > Montclair, NJ 07042 > www.capacitydevelopment.net Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 21:40:53 +100 From: Jan Haverkamp Ahoj Denis! > I see this issue as a participant's responsibility. Maybe you Australians indeed can do that. I have worked with an Australian organiser who also expected that... in Ukraine and Bulgaria. That did not really work out. It depends very much on how the participants stick in a certain authority pattern or expectation whether they will take that responsibilty. We discussed it before, but i know that when i am not facilitating and "consuming facilitation" from someone else, i can easily fall into the the ass-hole role of someone talking too much. And (unconsciously) fully expecting that the facilitator will cut me short when i start being a nuisance for the process... I suppose that some participants also live in this expectation. That is for me the reason to start a process very strongly with getting common responsibility for the process... and during the process motivating participants to take this responsibility. By the way - this only will not help against people who we in ZHABA have (unfortunately and of course age-discriminatory as well as gender discriminatory) started to call SOMs - originating from Stupid Old Man... for at least two of our facilitators (including me) one of the biggest facilitation night-mares. SOMs are the older professor types that have been educated into an authoritarian position (soviet marxist-leninist style) and that can completely ____ __ the process by steady authoritarian interventions. Ned already described several things i also use how to tackle that situation, but still... every time it happens to me, i need a few very very deep breaths... Maybe we should change the name from SOMs to Hogs :-) cau! jan haverkamp Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 19:59:50 -0400 From: Margo Menconi Deborah Levine wrote: > >I work with people many of whom are low-income, poorly educated, and >relatively unsophisticated community activists. Long-winded and highly >emotional speeches are virtually a cultural phenomenon. They don't respond > >well to the usual ploys for limits. Any suggestions? Deborah, Actually, I've been really struggling with this. In 2 days 4 of the 5 groups I was in had long-winded speakers, all with different "leaders"/facilitators. I tried to comment on it, but got no response. Also, in ALL of these particular cases they were males, some from the 1st world and white and others from the 3rd World. In one discussion no one said anything, until we ran out of time and then a couple of people were frustrated that they didn't get to tell their stories. I'm not sure I've figured it out. Is this a phenomenon common to Open Space Technology? Margo Menconi Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:17:51 EDT From: Deborah Levine I'm glad you brought up the issue of gender. Having worked most of my adult life representing the Jewish community where women are strong but the authority is male-oriented I decided to experiment last year and fopunded the Women's Council on Diversity. I pulled together women from diverse backgrounds: Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Jews, Native Americans, African Americans, and a mixed bag of faiths: Seventh-day Adventists, Baptists, Bhuddists, Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Hindus, etc. This is an experiment to build a common language and presentation mode that would maintain the integrity of each tradition and a sense of comfort for the women while probiding a powerful interface with the mainstream. I ama convinced that a major part of the problem of discussion imbalance is gender conditioning. As you can imagine, I am having problems keeping the funbding of this experiment going especially in a small Southern city, but I think that the locale makes the experiment all the more valid. I am far from this up at the moment but somewhere down the line I guess I should. Your thoughts? Deborah Levine Communication Prose Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 09:59:18 -0700 From: Sterling Newberry Deborah, I wish to send my support to you in tackling this issue. I've personally found it to be difficult to address at times. Recently a colleague and had some success working with a group where gender issues were important in terms of women in the organization feeling heard. One way we handled it was for my colleague (a woman of color as it happens) to speak with the women in private encouraging them to speak up in the moment during meetings we facilitated, and to let them know we would help provide a safe place for them to do so. Then, while I was facilitating the next meeting, interrupting the brain storming session to address what one woman identified as a male colleagues veiled criticism of the women in the group disguised as a generalized statement. The ensuing discussion brought out views from the women and responses from the men, which were more revealing of underlying issues than in past meetings. My colleague and I both used this type of intervention several times during three days of meetings, with interruptions in the agenda to address what was happening in the moment (and not just by women staff members), and then returning to the agenda. We of course let everyone know we would do this sort of intervention before hand. The women all reported after the meetings were over that they felt better able to express themselves in the meetings. I don't expect this was "the answer" to the problem, however it does seem to have helped. Sterling Newberry THE OPEN DOOR Conflict Management Services sterling@mediate.com www.mediate.com/opendoor (510)234-4066 Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2002 22:01:40 EDT From: Deborah Levine Such difficult issues! I think a safe haven like the one you supplied can be very helpful but I think many women who are frustrated at not being heard need additional skills to speak up in the first place. They are used to communicating amongst themselves and not with the higher levels of the power structure since their invisibility is a common tool of the power structure. In the process women can create a mode of communication that is virtually a different language/culture. I am experimenting with creating a communication mode within a workshop or organization that would span the cultures while maintaining individuality. I want to make sure to minimize backlash. The perception of women can quickly turn from "nice" to "bitchy and whining." Once the consultant leaves and the women try to do the same thing on their own the perception can become a real obstacle. I almost hesitate to reassure women to overcome their fears because the fear is like the canary in the mine - a good warning of dangerous waters, to mix my metaphors. What has been your experience in follow-ups? Deborah Levine Communication Prose Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 07:14:18 -0400 From: Margo Menconi Within the community of " low-income, poorly educated, and relatively unsophisticated community activists" there are also "hierarchies" and power structures, agendas, etc. Have you noticed any trends, such as those with little power seeming to want to take advantage of the opportunity to assert themselves (perhaps OVER - as in power over - others or just get heard)? Is it that those with power, the "head activists" feel threatened by an open discussion forum? (Or males by female participation) Or something else? I think if you can discern the root cause, especially if it is a common feature, try to address the root cause. Maybe you actually need to open space for certain groups to be able to give long-winded speeches. I think understanding why it is happening might be an issue. My thinking is also to try to work with the culture of the people you're working with, especially if you're dealing with a fairly homogenous group, be it by ethnicity, profession, socioeconomic status, gender, or whatever. Sometimes imposing pre-set facilitating rules might be counter-productive. This is true in considering learning styles for education or pre-existing social structures for community development, etc. as well as facilitation. Margo Menconi Margo Menconi 4612 Spruce Street * Philadelphia, PA 19139 * USA Phone: (215) 474-8017 E-mail: malyme@hotmail.com "War is an instrument entirely insufficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) >From: Deborah Levine >Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 22:08:03 EDT > >I work with people many of whom are low-income, poorly educated, and >relatively unsophisticated community activists. Long-winded and highly >emotional speeches are virtually a cultural phenomenon. They don't respond >well to the usual ploys for limits. Any suggestions? >Deborah Levine >Communications Prose > Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 07:33:31 -0400 From: Margo Menconi Jan Haverkamp said: "But this is one of the reasons that Open Space not always will work. There are the cultural backgrounds that we have to take into account. In traditionally authoritarian organised cultures, Open Space will only give more power to the authorities in the group. I therefore hardly ever use only Open Space here in Central Europe, but start in a more structured setting up to the moment that i think that the authority power structure is sufficiently broken to do a part Open Space... On the other hand, in cases of only a few authorities in a very large group, Open Space may function very well, provided that the group does not clog around the authorities... " Me: I'm wondering if Open Space has similar properties to the Free Market approach to economics: it provides opportunities for those with resources to increase them and for those with fewer resources to get stomped on. It seems, too, that for Open Space to work there has to be a spirit of cooperation. If there is competitiveness, the process will be undermined. What do you think? Margo Menconi Margo Menconi 4612 Spruce Street * Philadelphia, PA 19139 * USA Phone: (215) 474-8017 E-mail: malyme@hotmail.com "War is an instrument entirely insufficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 08:15:10 -0500 From: "Cerva, Jack" Howdy All Couldn't 'lurk' any more, tried but cannot. As Ned, Margo, Sunny and others have noted, certification has its place helping us define the skills and competencies of our profession. It also gives credence to facilitation as a professional discipline. Like Sunny, I think I am pretty good at it, but I would love to 'certify'. And, yes, professional facilitation does offer tools and techniques for intervention with 'hogs', as well as snakes, elephants, tigers, chickens, monkeys, and hyena. However, I wonder if this is a facilitation, consulting, or management question? Who called the meeting, what was their expectation, who wrote the agenda, who invited the animals (or did they come in disguise, and then revealed their true self). If this is truly a facilitation question: what type of contracting was done early on, what were the answers from the sponsor/client about role of facilitator, what say did the facilitator have in the agenda? In other words, either facilitator did not have a clue (ala Margo) AND/OR equally the sponsor/project-meeting leader didn't, (sponsor wants someone who will help with the meeting logistics, room arrangements, note taking, administration and they heard they should have a facilitator). If the facilitator had a choice, after some contracting would they have taken the job? Would sponsor except the terms from a 'contracting meeting' with the facilitator, (i.e. who is responsible for what when, role clarity/expectations). If there was an opportunity for contracting, and these 'facilitators' honestly call themselves facilitators--then they failed early on. However, I do not know that some people/facilitator just didn't volunteer to help out and got thrown into a situation that was over their heads; was the sponsor happy with their work? Maybe the sponsor was quite happy with some people dominating the discussion. My point, we are struggling to develop standards, certification, competencies, training etc ourselves; people from other fields, know the word facilitator, but often have less of a clue than many 'wanna-be' facilitators, and often these line managers are the ones setting up the meeting. Facilitators need to be bluntly honest up front, often with internal or inexperienced facilitators, its often hard to say "no" to the boss, or intervene especially if the other animals are bigger/older (especially true in Asian cultures). Forgive me if some of this was covered in earlier discussions, I am high above the earth or water now, hoping the pilot is a well informed manager, not a hog (can listen when she needs to) in route to US for meetings. Welcome your comments. Jack D. Cerva Office (66-2) 230-3360 Mobile(66-1)936-3997 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:55:58 -0400 From: Margo Menconi In my case, the main facilitator was really pretty good. When we broke up into the discussion groups (this is in Open Space) according to what people identified as areas of interest, generally the person who initiated the group led the discussion and took notes. These were NOT facilitators as we use the term. At one point I commented that one person (a male from the 3rd world) was talking a lot and maybe we could open it up for discussion rather than just listen to him. Others said he wasn't talking so much and that it was just that he was speaking through a translator. Nevertheless, his comments took up about 1/3 of a flip chart page before anyone else said anything. I felt like they were defering to him, much as one would to an expert. Finally, towards the end everyone else started talking more. I did manage to pull the gal in (also from the 3rd world) to the discussion by asking her what she thought and indicating that I thought she should be part of the discussion too. (She wasn't really a facilitator - just the one who initiated the topic for discussion). Margo Margo Menconi 4612 Spruce Street * Philadelphia, PA 19139 * USA Phone: (215) 474-8017 E-mail: malyme@hotmail.com "War is an instrument entirely insufficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 09:31:39 -0700 From: Dutch Driver In a series of recent workshops where I was a participant, Sam had us break into pairs to practice our active listening skills. Several times when I was the speaker, I had to remember that my partner was supposed to be acting as a co-participant in the exercise. The reason? I taught public speaking for several years to university students. I have adopted the habit of mentally arranging my topics and points for presentation on the fly. I suspect that another subset of discussion hogging participants may also be using this approach. It becomes ingrained and second nature when I am not in a conversation. Yet, it might also appear as a domination strategy when in my case it wasn’t my intent. All leading to those participants experienced in holding the attention of an audience (facilitators as group participants?) can take a “vacation” and help their audience practice active listening skills. Now, I get to a question. How can the active participant speaker encourage active listening in her audience when a quick in-service training on active listening is not a part of the meeting design? ______________________________ Great Optimism, Dutch Driver San Bruno, CA Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:53:15 -0400 From: creative connections Designating a keynote listener has helped get the balance back for some groups we have worked with. Jennifer LaTrobe creative connection consultants Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 12:07:32 -0700 From: Dutch Driver Jennifer, Could you provide more information on the mechanics of using a keynote listener? ______________________________ Great Optimism, Dutch Driver M.A. S.Un.Dial. Choragus Consulting San Bruno, CA Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:19:00 -0500 From: Mary Jackson This is one of my favorite topics, because I think there is so much beyond the problem description. How do you define "talking too much"? We don't seem to mind so much if we agree with the speaker. [grin] Or if the speaker is speaking well. Or is even on point. If you want to shut someone down for speaking too much or being disorganized, start writing every word they say. It's effective, but it is CRUEL. I think doing this is abusive facilitation, because you hold the person up for ridicule. I would have to be pretty personally angry with a participant to consider doing this, and then I would need to figure out what MY problem is. I find it more useful to worry about keeping everyone participating than to worry about stopping one person. I think we can say "he talked too much" when we really mean "he offended everyone and got them to shut down." Or "he was off topic." Or "I didn't get my turn." Or "no one asked my opinion because they were listening to him." Or "I have my own ideas about how a meeting should run and it didn't happen my way." When I hear concerns about the amount of time, rather than the substance, that signals to me that we think an objective is for each person to have a chance to speak, like at a city council meeting. In those situations, the speaking limits are clearly defined and enforced ---- which makes me think that if they AREN'T defined and enforced, time limits may not be relevant. So the problem is not how much someone talked. Several years ago, I facilitated a group that had one talker. Rhonda would answer every question, no matter to whom it was addressed. But everyone in the group knew she was like that --- including the session's sponsor --- and yet she had been included in the group. Which told me that she had valuable contributions. Rhonda's "too much talking" did not prevent the group from achieving its goals. I'd say, "Susie, can you tell me...?" Rhonda would answer. I'd ask Susie what she could add. The purpose of the session was to capture all of the requirements for a new process. We did not include Rhonda in the next session, where we looked for possible solution --- where her style would have been a problem. She was "far too critical to department operations to be away from the office every session." ;-) We brought her back into the group to evaluate what the others planned, where her style of thinking with her mouth worked. I'll tell you --- I didn't do much reframing, feeding back, or recapping with her there. My job was to watch all the other faces for any resistance, and draw out other positions. These days, I take action if someone is straying from the objectives of the activity (and I apologize for not setting up the activity properly, no matter how well I did --- it's not that YOU talk too much, I wasn't clear). Or I ask the entire group to try something different, take a different perspective. Or I use my timer to end an activity, take a brief break, and then I start a new activity. I NEVER address a single participant's inability to be concise as anything other than my facilitation failure. They are who they are; I'm not hired to make them be someone else; I AM hired to make the event work. And if one person is hogging discussion because he feels he has specific expertise, I'll write a task on the to-do list to get that info; congratulate him; and reframe the current session to make better use of everyone else's time. And recognize that I missed a prep step in the project. The session time should be reserved for work that needs the group. Granted, most of my sessions are measured in days, not hours. And I am usually able to scope out my participants, and plan for their short-comings. It seems to me that if you have a short session, and success is dependent on all participants having the right communication skills, and you can't control who the participants are, you're going to have a problem. When a client suggests putting me in this situation, I put on my consultant role and explain what we can do to increase our chance of success: "Here is what we are likely to be able to achieve within your constraints [define a reasonable session objective] and here is where we go after this session [define the whole program]." I think "talking too much" is a manifestation of some other problem, which is why it is so difficult for facilitators to address ---- you can't have a repeatable approach to solving a problem if it isn't a single problem. That's why I can't answer the question "what do you do if someone talks too much?" Michael Wilkinson taught me "conscious prevention, swift intervention, clean resolution." Once I let someone manifest "hogging the discussion", I've already lost swift intervention. And I've clearly blown prevention. Which makes this all MY problem, not the participant's ---- and while I can't fix other people, I can take responsibility for my own failings and come to a clean resolution: one that gets the session back on track to its [agreed upon] objective. Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 23:49:40 -0700 From: Rosa Zubizarreta >If you want to shut someone down for speaking too much or being >disorganized, start writing every word they say. It's effective, but it is >CRUEL. I think doing this is abusive facilitation, because you hold the >person up for ridicule. I would have to be pretty personally angry with a >participant to consider doing this, and then I would need to figure out what >MY problem is. I've never seen anyone do this, and i have to say i quite agree with you. My own comments about the effectiveness of writing to help people feel heard were in the context of writing down EVERYONE's contributions, which is what we do in Dynamic Facilitation. I assumed that Ned was talking about the same thing... of course singling someone out would be completely inappropriate. but even more importantly, i think one's intention and sincerity are really the point. I've never encountered anyone who did not appreciate feeling heard, or was unable to relax once they felt they had successfully accomplished their goal in that regard. >I find it more useful to worry about keeping everyone participating than to >worry about stopping one person. > absolutely! >These days, I take action if someone is straying from the objectives of the >activity (and I apologize for not setting up the activity properly, no >matter how well I did --- it's not that YOU talk too much, I wasn't clear). >Or I ask the entire group to try something different, take a different >perspective. Or I use my timer to end an activity, take a brief break, and >then I start a new activity. I NEVER address a single participant's >inability to be concise as anything other than my facilitation failure. >They are who they are; I'm not hired to make them be someone else; I AM >hired to make the event work. And if one person is hogging discussion >because he feels he has specific expertise, I'll write a task on the to-do >list to get that info; congratulate him; and reframe the current session to >make better use of everyone else's time. And recognize that I missed a prep >step in the project. The session time should be reserved for work that >needs the group. these seem like very helpful suggestions... i especially appreciate the underlying perspective of taking responsibility as a facilitator. i don't think i expressed myself so clearly, but i was pointing in the same direction when i said that i will sometimes let a person know that i am having difficulty tracking what they are saying, in order to request a short pause and the opportunity to reflect what they have said so far, before inviting them to continue... i think it really helps to make it about our own needs, instead of any criticism of another. >Granted, most of my sessions are measured in days, not hours. And I am >usually able to scope out my participants, and plan for their short-comings. >It seems to me that if you have a short session, and success is dependent on >all participants having the right communication skills, and you can't >control who the participants are, you're going to have a problem. When a >client suggests putting me in this situation, I put on my consultant role >and explain what we can do to increase our chance of success: "Here is what >we are likely to be able to achieve within your constraints [define a >reasonable session objective] and here is where we go after this session >[define the whole program]." > ...critical contracting skills, and a very helpful description thereof... >I think "talking too much" is a manifestation of some other problem, which >is why it is so difficult for facilitators to address ---- you can't have a >repeatable approach to solving a problem if it isn't a single problem. >That's why I can't answer the question "what do you do if someone talks too >much?" > well, i think you have made a very helpful offering along those lines. there is one point where i do differ however... in my experience, "talking too much" seems to be, more often than not, simply a manifestation of not feeling heard. As such, i take it as a signal that i need to listen more deeply, in order to help someone feel heard. Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:24:43 +0200 From: Jon Jenkins Dear Denis and all Denis wrote: > I see this issue as a participant's responsibility. The "this issue" is participants in a meeting hogging the discussion by making long speeches. Does this mean that you as facilitator have no responsibility for enabling everyone an opportunity to participate? If I understand the issue correctly the group did not take responsibility for dealing with the "Hog". I have know situations where the group refused to take responsibility for dealing with the "Hog". It seems to me that there are approaches for dealing with the issue preventative and curative - please forgive the language if it is offensive. Preventative: As a facilitator you can set or get the group to set guidelines, as Bill is suggesting with "no speeaches" and you can create behaviour norms by using methods like the Basic (Focused) Conversation Method which implicitedly enables participation by all and limits speeches from potential "Hogs" (aren't we all in some context or another?) There are other things that are done before the "Hog" syndrome happens - preventative. Curative: As a facilitator you can intervene in a number of verbal and nonverbal ways when a "Hog" launches (not lunches). You can begin nodding slowly and increase speed until the speaker realizes that they have said too much. You can walk toward them. You can say thank you when the pause for breath. You can explain that we would like to hear from everyone so please limit what you are saying. There are more forms of interventions that can enable the person to limit what they have to say and the group to deal with long speeches - curative. Other models for dealing with "Hogs"? best Jon C. Jenkins Imaginal Training Groningen, The Netherlands www.imaginal.nl The "International Facilitator's Companion" Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 09:49:11 -0400 From: Wayne Nelson At 10:24 AM +0200 8/9/02, Jon Jenkins wrote: „ You can begin nodding slowly and >increase speed until the speaker realizes that they have said too much. You >can walk toward them. You can say thank you when the pause for breath. You >can explain that we would like to hear from everyone so please limit what >you are saying. >Other models for dealing with "Hogs"? How about: "OK, let's hear from peple who have not spoken recently." "Thanks, now let's hear from someone on the other side of the table." "Great. We'd like to hear from everyone an this. Someone else. . . . " Obviously, the best time for dealing with these things is before the conversation begins. A set of participation guidelines posted on a flip chart provides a reference point that you and group members can go back to when someone does go on too long. "Too long" and "hogging the discussion" are pretty subjective and definitely related to the context and the culture. I have facilitated a lot of sessions where one of the culturally embedded participation principles is that you can not interrupt someone until they are finished speaking. People find their own wisdom and if they don't, the group more or less ignores them. Sometimes ideas get repeated and that becomes a key to finding consensus. Sometimes people just blather. Their input is respected and if there is wisdom in it, it gets picked up by someone else. I've been in others where people are so badly burned by people who dominate the discussion that anything more than a sentence is considered bad practice. The conversations tend to be quick and snappy, but they are often filled with "off the top of the head" thinking and cliches that have little meaning. I often have to ask, "Could you say more about that, please?" in order to get some real dialogue going. To me, the key is focusing on the group 's culture and its objectives rather than their specific behaviours. Wayne Nelson - 35 Westlake Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4P7 - 416-690-0762 Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 10:46:30 -0400 From: Margo Menconi >To me, the key is focusing on the group 's culture and its objectives >rather than their specific behaviours. [Wayne Nelson] Me: I think that this is often crucial. For example, if you are bringing together pre-existing groups or individuals representing pre-existing groups, you might have individual personalities and interests, but there might also be power issues represented in how much someone talks or people from certain groups talk. The purpose of the meeting might also make a difference. In some conflict resolution meeting there are specifically designated spaces to let individual parties explain their views at length, for example. But laying some initial ground rules which seem reasonable/acceptable to everyone should eliminate a lot of problems. Being able to analyze why a problem like this (hogging) crops up seems to be crucial to deciding what to do. Who is talking so much, why they're talking so much, what they're saying, how the others are reacting, why they might be reacting that way, etc. are all issues to be considered. Margo Menconi Margo Menconi 4612 Spruce Street * Philadelphia, PA 19139 * USA Phone: (215) 474-8017 E-mail: malyme@hotmail.com "War is an instrument entirely insufficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:22:55 +100 From: Jan Haverkamp Ahoj Margo, I waited for someone else reacting on this, but nobody did, so... > I'm wondering if Open Space has similar properties to the Free Market approach to economics: it provides > opportunities for those with resources to increase them and for those with fewer resources to get stomped > on. > > It seems, too,that for Open Space to work there has to be a spirit of cooperation. If there is > competitiveness,the processwill be undermined. No, it doesn't. The main reason being that Free Market is a myth and Open Space a possible and plannable reality There are only very few markets that are really fully transparent and open to all sides. 99,99% of the markets either know a non-fully opened demand or offer side or are not fully transparent. This introduces incredible power differences... Open Space in principle offers full transparence, if good reporting (in written form) is well organised. There has to be a spirit of co- operation, but above all there has to be a basic openess to process. This can include competition (if it enriches the process) or elements from outside that foster co-operation (for instances the introduction of corner embassadors that stay with one corner for, say, five hours and then start walking around and listening into other groups, sharing the experience of the group they have been with before)... I find Open Space more open to good process than Free Market :-) Allthough in both, US americans seem to be able to push their agenda better ;-) But where it is easy for me to get Eastern Europeans to speak up in an Open Space setting, it is very difficult to promote Tatranky against Mars bars... cau! jan haverkamp Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 23:22:55 +100 From: Jan Haverkamp Ahoj Mary Jackson, > This is one of my favorite topics, because I think there is so much beyond the problem description. Thanks very very much for your input - there were some really nice moments into this. A few remarks were triggered, however. > These days, I take action if someone is straying from the objectives of the > activity (and I apologize for not setting up the activity properly, no > matter how well I did --- it's not that YOU talk too much, I wasn't clear). > Or I ask the entire group to try something different, take a different > perspective. Or I use my timer to end an activity, take a brief break, and > then I start a new activity. I NEVER address a single participant's > inability to be concise as anything other than my facilitation failure. Allthough there are circumstances under which i'd say you are too hard on yourself even in the US of A, i'd say i share your basic premise in this. However, i think that indeed in the USA, where there is a certain deeply rooted attitude of "talking things out", of "doing things democratically' (whatever that may mean), your approach may be the right one to most situations. In other cultures, where hierarchies, authority and honour play a more important role, the situation may be quite different, and process intervention to balance out the power-overweight of one participant may be necessary. Never by personally shutting someone up, i agree, but i think that Ned's 'trick' with starting to write up the main points is a very legitimate tool to structurise an unstructurised single authority input as well as give others the possibility to give feedback on that. That said... > They are who they are; I'm not hired to make them be someone else; ... and here i find myself often in a very different situation. From the moment i started working in Central and Eastern Europe (in 1987), i *was* hired "to make them someone else" - or rather make higher participation in society - call it "democracy" - root in the countries i worked in. And allthough i hate the amount of imperialism that has come from countries like the US or Germany or the Netherlands into the region, the basic of "getting people to talk for themselves" is for me still in the entire region a kind of missionary credo. Probably more in the sense as local priests in Brasil and other Latin American countries that started with educacion popular projects in the 1950s and 1960s saw this as their missionary credo. The request for this change also does not only come from the "imperialist western so-called- democracies" (as some critics here formulate it sometimes), it above all comes from an increasing amount of people that start to believe that it is better to have many people involved in making society flow (i consciously avoid here the words "running society") - that is from local groups and NGOs... Back to US and West-European reality... look at our clients there, look at our participants there. Indeed, in the eyes of the clients we might not be hired to change people, or maybe only to change the people they want to see changed. But in the eyes of the participants, it *may* be important that some behaviours (sometimes of the client even!) over time are changed as a result of our facilitative effort - from the perspective of optimal power- and authority-balances in positive change processes. And that brings us back to the whole discussion of neutrality of facilitation... Facilitation is about change, is about people, is about good and better and sometimes about bad. I think it is important not to loose sight on the bad while covering it with "my mistake" or "this is not a problem but a challenge" talk, but be as conscious as possible of the choices made in the process... I think we learn more from trying to find the underlying problems all around when a process is bogging down and not only look at our own failing as facilitator. I personally also have that leaning (of sometimes too fierce self-criticism), but mostly a careful culture-, power- and group-analysis puts that into perspective a bit. And when there is a real Hog... well... in two occasions we even had to ask them to stand-aside for the rest of the process... on request of the other participants, by the way... I don't really feel that that was my fault - addressing the real problem, the root, would take years and years of group-psycho-therapy as one renomated Eastern German psychiatrist once said about the attitudes in the former GDR after the soft revolution... (Hans Joachim Maaz, i forgot the title - have it at home, 1990) > I think "talking too much" is a manifestation of some other problem, which > is why it is so difficult for facilitators to address ---- you can't have a > repeatable approach to solving a problem if it isn't a single problem. > That's why I can't answer the question "what do you do if someone talks too > much?" And here i could not agree more :-)))) Jan Haverkamp Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 10:16:35 -0500 From: Mary Jackson I've realized that one reason I don't have a problem with discussion hogs is that I have a nasty personal habit of interrupting people if they don't show any sign of stopping talking on their own. "Interruption" includes the techniques Jon mentioned, like walking toward the speaker. Not a good thing in personal conversations; extremely useful in facilitating. I do think it is important to nip the problem early. Once you allow a participant to be seen (by the group) as a discussion hog, you have to be really subtle in changing the behavior. It's cruel to expose a person's bad habits. Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:06:40 -0500 From: "Paula M. Diller" >It's cruel to expose a person's bad >habits. Sometimes it is more cruel not to expose a person's bad habits. By exposing, I mean providing matter-of-fact, specific feedback, with an invitation for change. I have seen too many people suffer great emotional pain in the long run because the people around them, including their managers, lateral colleagues and direct reports, refused to give them the information they needed in order to *choose* to make a change. Instead, the people around them maligned them behind their backs, worked around them as if they were rocks in a stream, attempted to manipulate them with falsehoods, or shuffled them around and up to "special projects" or other gilded exiles. But the end result is so often the same - a dispirited, wounded human being who feels betrayed, misunderstood and ill-used. . I propose that in most cases, when we withhold difficult feedback it is to protect ourselves, not the other. We just tell ourselves that we are protecting the other (which sentiment, itself, is patronizing and disempowering, although arguably well-intentioned). Thus far, I have not explicitly told a group member (in front of or outside the group) that I believe (s)he is monopolizing a conversation. I haven't yet felt the need, although that may just be a rationalization on my part. I use some of the interventions that others have mentioned, such as physically moving closer to the talker, or saying things like "I'd like to hear from some others now," or gesturing to another group member, asking, "Bill, what are your thoughts on this"? or noting, "I think I've captured your thoughts here on the flipchart; did you want to clarify what I've written or add something new"? These have been effective for me. I also agree with some previous posters that the other group members have a responsibility to balance the participation. I watch for hands that go up, verbal attempts to add a comment, eye contact that group members make with me. I support these cues by thanking the talker, and recognizing the new participant. If the talker is able to pause for a breath or finish a thought, then I verbally recognize the new participant. If the talker has the lungs of an Andean and speaks in a stream of consciousness, this is more difficult; in those cases, I may physically walk over to stand by the would-be new participant and extend my hand in his/her direction, which gives the talker pause, or else I simply interrupt the talker as gracefully as I am able, turn to the new person and ask for his/her thoughts. If all the other group members were to merely sit there and make no attempt, however infinitesimal, on their own behalf, then my view is that that's a choice they've made. I'm the *facilitator,* not a parent or a babysitter. Paula Diller Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:26:07 -0400 From: Jo Nelson As a non-linear response to this thread.... I have deduced a theory from my experience that 95% of people who "hog" discussions do so because they do not feel they are heard, even and especially when the group believes they are the only ones who are ever heard (because they stop listening). My response is to make sure that each person is listened to and heard. This may include restating their key point and then respectfully cutting someone off. Or it may be using cards or some other technique to record their ideas and include them visually. I may ask the group to pay close attention to that person for a few minutes or for a specific insight. This simple approach of respectful listening deals with 95% of all hogging. Of the other 5%, 3% simply don't have good "off" buttons (like me - this could be restated as "don't know when to shut up"). We appreciate a facilitator or the group saying "we hear you, give us some time now, please". This is best done with a respectful teasing manner. 2% may have destructive intent. I'm not sure there is any way to deal with that except containing it. Jo from the (mobile) desk of Jo Nelson ICA Associates, Inc., 579 Kingston Rd., Toronto, Ontario M4E 1R3 Ph. 416-691-2316, ext. 230; Fax 416-691-2491 "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead