Home Page

Sounding Board

Books

"The Facilitator Toolbox"

Chapter Four: DEFINING ROLES:
Facilitators, Team Leaders, and Hybrids of Every Shape

from
How to Grow Effective Teams
And Run Meetings That Aren't a Waste of Time
© by Ends of the Earth Learning Group 1998

by
Linda Turner and Turner

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One

Chapter Two

Chapter Three

Chapter Four

Chapter Five

Chapter Six

References and Copying Rights

Summary of Chapter Four

TEAM LEADER PREPARES FOR THE MEETINGS FACILITATOR RUNS THE MEETINGS. FACILITATING TEAMS THAT DON'T HAVE FORMALIZED ROLES REQUIRES A CONTRACT. TEAM MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEAM SUCCESS

Calls and cancels meetings Makes sure people are following through on commitments Makes proposed agendas and reviews agenda items before meetings for appropriateness Proposes a process for approaching problems and improvement projects Gets release time for team members Acts as default spokesperson for the team. Is in charge of meetings Makes all proposals Raises conflict Gets groups unstuck Does not vote and remains neutral Works outside of meetings to improve group process The QUALITY ADVISOR is the "expert" who teaches philosophy, group process, tools and techniques. The SCRIBE keeps the minutes and documents of the team and constructs the storyboard. The QUALITY MONITOR is a neutral observer who works with the facilitator to improve group process. TEAM MEMBERS are co-facilitators and co-leaders. The TEAM SPONSOR gives the team clout. SMALL TEAMS AND SUBCOMMITTEES. Roles may merge, but there still needs to be an official facilitator and team leader. Chapter Three Review

QUICK READ THERE ARE NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED TEAM TITLES AND ROLES FORGET "ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER."

DETAILS We have to start by warning readers that there is no universal agreement about team roles or titles. We are going to put forth here our recommendations with the understanding that readers may choose to rename positions and/or merge roles into hybrid positions. In a continuous improvement environment, such experimentations should be encouraged. Please share with us your experiences so that over time we can adapt our own thinking to the experiences of the many teams operating out there. (Contact us at our Sounding Board There are four basic roles on a team: team leader, facilitator, scribe, and team member. There are two other common roles especially in large or beginning teams: quality advisor and quality monitor. While not formerly a member of a team, a seventh role called team sponsor is also a critical role. The team leader and facilitator are typically appointed by the individuals who set up the team. In more advanced groups, teams sometimes elect the team leader and facilitator rather than having them appointed. For beginners, it is easiest to start with appointed leaders. The scribe is usually recruited by the team leader. The quality monitor is used only for large groups and as a training position for "wanna-be-facilitators." The quality advisor is usually a temporary member who helps set up the team. In some organizations, the team leader role is combined with the facilitator role. It is also common for facilitators to be quality advisors. In a traditional committee or team, there would be a moderator or chair in charge of running the group. Success of the team would be primarily the responsibility of that individual. Usually agendas would be set by that person and held to tightly. Discussions would be limited to topics picked by the chair. Sometimes in traditional settings, Robert's Rules of Order are used. Majority votes can be used under Robert's Rules of Order to overrule chairs, thus making the chair position less powerful than in hierarchical committees.

SUCCESS SHOULD NOT BE MEASURED BY HOW MANY CONFLICTS WERE "WON." TEAM LEADERS DON'T HAVE TO BE SUPERVISORS.

Even in such cases, however, the chairs are typically parliamentarians who know how to game the system. More significantly, compromises are frequently reached with which a significant minority will be unhappy. Individuals will mark the success of such teams by how many votes they, as individuals, "won." On an empowered team, success of the group is a joint responsibility held by everyone. There is no one who has the corresponding authority of a group chair. Instead power is split over the group. Leaders are responsible for seeing that group decisions are implemented and that group process is an honest open one. When effective, gaming is minimized, and the team as a whole is focused on getting good data and a realistic idea of what is really going on. Individuals will mark the success of such teams by how well the team was able to reach consensus and resolve underlying conflicts. This is a very different goal than "winning" conflicts. TEAM LEADER The team leader is frequently the highest ranked supervisor on a team, but that isn't necessary. As long as someone is willing and able to take on the responsibilities of team leadership, that individual's normal job title is not relevant. This means that CEOs could be team members of teams whose team leaders are the lowest ranked individuals in the organization. Team leader is not a title every organization chooses for the roles we describe here. Sometimes this position is labeled chair, moderator, and in some cases, the roles of team leader are merged with those roles we assign the facilitator. Some organizations have two co-facilitators who split between them the roles of team leader and facilitator.

WITHOUT A TEAM LEADER LOOKING OVER PROPOSED AGENDAS AHEAD OF TIME, THE PACE WILL BE MUCH SLOWER. SOME ISSUES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR TEAMS.

Be careful not to confuse the roles of these positions with the traditional use of them. The team leader has several responsibilities. The team leader calls and cancels meetings. When scheduled meetings are going to have too many people absent, the leader can cancel the meeting and reschedule another. The team leader makes sure people are following through on their commitments. The team leader makes sure the group has a proposed agenda with which to work. This function includes reviewing proposed agenda items before meetings in order to assure that these items are appropriate topics for the team, and to assure that agenda items are formatted following team ground rules Agendas may simply be the agenda agreed to at the end of the last meeting. Not uncommonly, however, people encounter issues in-between meetings that they want raised. They should contact the team leader and get these items added to the agenda. It will save much team time if team leaders review these proposed agenda items in order to determine if the items: (a) are appropriate for the team as a whole, (b) have necessary data and information included with them, and (c) have been "written up" in a manner that is consistent with team ground rules. Write-ups and Ground Rules are discussed in Chapter 5. (Note: many teams assign this role to the facilitator instead of the team leader, or the task is jointly done by facilitator and team leader.)

TEAM LEADERS SHOULD NOT "DICTATE" THE PROCESS, BUT SHOULD PROPOSE A PROCESS. TEAM LEADERS CAN ASK FOR HELP FROM TEAM MEMBERS.

Ideally the agenda should have suggested times on it so that the group can determine if their agenda is reasonable. When these pre-approved times are reached, the group must decide through consensus if it wants to keep talking or move onto the next item. If the group keeps talking, it must decide what agenda item is being dropped or reduced in time. Some teams will have a 24-hour rule which requires that agenda items be added at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Other teams are comfortable with adding items when they meet. The team leader proposes a process for approaching problems and improvement projects. The process proposed may be as simple as: [1] Define the problem, [2] Gather necessary information, [3] Brainstorm ideas, and [4] Choose the best idea. Or the process may be quite complex including detailed steps to be followed. Detailed proposals are the norm for cross-functional teams that are created for dealing with specific projects. These proposals would be brought to the first meeting of the team. The advantage of having the team leader propose a process is that it gives team members something to which they can react instead of trying to "invent" a process on the spur of the moment. If team members are given the proposed process with the proposed agenda before meetings begin, much time will be saved because team members will have a chance to think about the proposal and come up with suggestions for improving it. Final processes like final agendas are decided by consensus. The team leader's proposal is not set in stone, but rather is a device for speeding up overall team activities. Team leaders uncomfortable with developing proposed processes can recruit whatever assistance they feel is needed. There is nothing wrong with a team leader saying: "Help, I don't know how to do this."

FEW SUPERVISORS ARE NEUTRAL ENOUGH TO BE FACILITATORS. FACILITATORS RAISE CONFLICT RATHER THAN AVOID IT.

The team leader helps get release time for team members. If a team member needs time for research, customer-supplier interviews, or attending other meetings, it is the task of the team leader to figure out how this will happen. This may require talking with supervisors of the team member. The need for the team leader to intervene in such cases will vary from organization to organization. Lastly, the team leader acts as the default spokesperson for the team. Many times the team will need to report its activities to a Steering Committee, other groups within the organization, or a supervisor. The team can designate anyone to do this task, but in cases where no one is designated, the task falls to the team leader. FACILITATOR The facilitator position is the most stressful position on a team. Because the facilitator needs to be neutral, few supervisors can take on the role. In small groups or with rare individuals, the team leader role and facilitator role can be handled by the same person. Ideally, however, the positions should be separated. The facilitator has several specific functions. The facilitator is in charge of meetings. This means people speak only when called on by the facilitator. While the team leader proposes an agenda for the group, the facilitator leads the team in a discussion of the proposed agenda ultimately leading to revision-- when necessary-- and final approval by consensus. The facilitator makes all proposals before the group. These proposals are the equivalent of motions in traditional committees. There is no "seconding" of motions. Instead, the facilitator determines what the group will be discussing and voting on at any given time. After hearing all arguments regarding a proposal, the facilitator will attempt to fashion a new proposal that will be acceptable to all group members.

REFLECTION IS A KEY FACILITATOR TOOL. FACILITATORS SHOULD SUMMARIZE THEIR PERCEPTIONS AS TO THE NATURE OF DISAGREEMENTS.

Facilitators can ask for advice from the group at any time. They can for instance ask, "Does anyone have an idea for a proposal?" or "Does anyone have a suggestion for what to do next?" The final decision about wording of a proposal or the next course of action is the facilitator's. Team members will have the right to veto proposals if they don't like them. The facilitator raises conflict.At any given time, there may be hidden agendas or hidden issues that are making it impossible to reach consensus. The facilitator needs to raise this conflict to the surface. This is not the same thing as creating conflict because the facilitator is simply getting onto the table underlying differences that are not being expressed. Raising conflict is done in two basic ways: reflection and summarizing. The facilitator will either "reflect" or ask others to "reflect" what some group member has just said. Reflection consists of three parts: the "receiver" of the message states in their own words what they heard, the "receiver" states any unexpressed assumptions they "heard" along with any inferences (especially concerns), and the "sender" then corrects any misinterpretations. In communication, people make more inferences and interpretations based on body language and verbal tone than they do on verbal content. Therefore facilitators should reflect body language and tone as well as content. For instance, a facilitator might reflect the CEO's crossed arms and grimace as being indicative of disapproval and anger. The CEO can then either agree with the interpretation or revise it as appropriate. One CEO we reflected in a meeting informed the group that he wasn't feeling angry. Instead he was feeling disappointed in his own performance after hearing how poorly his people thought of him.

FACILITATORS ACT AS COACHES OUTSIDE THE MEETINGS. FACILITATORS DON'T VOTE AND DON'T EXPRESS OPINIONS.

Getting the hidden assumptions and inferences into the open will greatly assist the process of reaching consensus. The other method of raising conflict is for facilitators to summarize why they think a group is stuck and unable to reach consensus. This summary is then "tested" by asking each group member if they agree or disagree with the facilitator's summary. The resulting discussion typically gets the underlying conflicts into the open. The facilitator helps groups get unstuck. Sometimes discussions will seem to circle endlessly or groups will become divided with strong emotions on both sides. The facilitator will need to determine the underlying cause of disagreement that is dividing the group Depending upon what is causing the disagreement, facilitators have several approaches that can be taken. For instance, facilitators may ask each side to tell what evidence or information will convince them to change their minds. This question is asked of every person on both sides in order to determine if there is critical information which could be sought that will break the logjam. People frequently discover they are more close-minded than they realized when they can't come up with any information that would influence them. Or facilitators may ask people to state in their own words what they believe is the goal of the group. Commonly group members may have been working with different assumptions about the underlying purpose of the group. The facilitator does not vote. Facilitators must be neutral which means they cannot vote on outcomes. In quality circles, facilitators sometimes worry about this because they too will have opinions about proposals. On the whole, they will discover their concerns are shared by other people and will get expressed. If facilitators have strong opinions and feel they cannot remain neutral, they should take off their "Facilitator Hats," and ask someone else to take over for a specific issue. Someone in the group can fill in, or, in some cases, facilitators will have to be brought in from other departments or even from outside the company.

QUESTION:"WHAT ABOUT FACILITATING TEAMS THAT DON'T HAVE FORMALIZED ROLES?" SHORT ANSWER:"WRITE A CONTRACT SPELLING OUT YOUR ROLES."

Lastly, the facilitator works outside of meetings to improve group process. This may require talking to individuals outside the group about ways in which individual contributions can be improved. Some people are too domineering. Others are too quiet. The facilitator needs to talk with these people in private one-on-one discussions. Sometimes this is done in conjunction with the team leader. FACILITATING TEAMS THAT DON'T HAVE DON'T HAVE FORMALIZED ROLES. Sometimes facilitators are asked to assist teams that do not have the formalized roles and ground rules we spell out in this book. When that happens, the first thing the facilitator should do is to write a contract with the group which recognizes that people must raise their hands and be called on by the facilitator in order to speak, the facilitator is the only person who can make proposals, and the facilitator can request people to reflect what they have heard. While this is not an ideal situation, it is a doable one and is a "first step" for many organizations toward creating effective teams. QUALITY ADVISOR The quality advisor is the "expert" that the team can rely upon to help with group process, statistics, and other tools. Quality advisors are sometimes called quality coordinators or internal consultants. More informally, anyone who is "one chapter ahead" of the group can be a quality advisor. In some organizations, the positions of facilitators are merged with quality advisors. Quality advisors assist in setting up teams. They may role model the facilitator role and/or team leader role. They are a resource that the team can fall back upon for help when it becomes stuck. Many facilitators and team leaders will grow into becoming quality advisors as they get sufficient experience under their belts.

THE SCRIBE KEEPS TRACK OF GROUP PROGRESS. BEING A MONITOR IS GOOD TRAINING FOR FACILITATOR WANT-TO-BE'S.

The quality advisor is also the person who usually provides the just-in-time training of philosophy, techniques, and tools. SCRIBE The scribe keeps the minutes and documents produced by the group. Keeping a good record of progress is essential. The scribe frequently constructs storyboards that are ongoing live histories of group process. Storyboards are usually kept on public walls where group members can see their progress over time. The importance of these storyboards should not be downplayed. In the heat of the moment, groups commonly become frustrated by lack of progress. When they can look at the storyboard, they can see that short term frustrations lead to long term improvements. The scribe position is sometimes a rotating one that changes from meeting to meeting. Some facilitators will have scribes do all the writing on flipcharts during brainstorming and other activities. Other facilitators will want to do all the writing on flipcharts themselves QUALITY MONITOR The quality monitor is a neutral assistant to the facilitator. When groups get larger than about ten to twelve members, quality monitors should observe the group process in order to give advice to various team members and the group as a whole on how to improve. Monitors do not vote nor participate in discussions. It is common for facilitators-in-training to first start out as quality monitors. The quality monitor measures the group process for things like: are some people dominating and others simply coasting, is conflict being raised, are some people too aggressive and in need of lessons in tact, are discussions repetitive and/or off-track, are people respectful of one another or do some people talk out-of-turn, is fear a problem, is consensus "real" or simply a compromise with which few are really happy, is the facilitator being effective, and so on?

IF YOU DON'T SPEAK UP, DON'T COMPLAIN LATER. TEAM SPONSORS GIVE THE TEAM POWER.

Feedback by the quality monitor should be both in-the-meeting when issues involve the entire team and one-on-one in private outside the meeting. The quality monitor works closely with the facilitator and team leader. TEAM MEMBER Team members are co-facilitators and co-team leaders. That means that when they feel underlying conflict needs to be raised and the facilitator hasn't done that, each team member is obligated to speak up. That means that when the ground rules of the team are not being followed, each team member has an obligation to object. Beginning groups commonly give all the credit (or blame) for how well meetings went to the facilitator. This is a mistake. The facilitator is no more responsible for how well a team meeting went than any team member. Because each team member has veto power, every one of them must take responsibility for group decisions, group agendas, and discussions that go awry. TEAM SPONSOR Team sponsors are necessary in large organizations because of "power problems." The sponsor is someone who has enough organizational clout so that when the team encounters resistance either from departments who don't want to share information or who block implementation of changes, there is someone the team can turn to for assistance. If team membership includes enough "high powered" individuals, there may be no need for a team sponsor. In small organizations this is typically the case.

SMALL TEAMS ALSO NEED DESIGNATED FACILITATORS. ROLE CONFUSION NEVER HELPED ANYONE.

SMALL TEAMS AND SUBCOMMITTEES We have listed four basic roles for every team: Team Leader, Facilitator, Scribe, and Team Member. Some teams are so small that there aren't enough people to assign a separate role to each person. This is particularly true when teams break into subcommittees of two to four people for working on pieces of an overall project. In such cases, many people ask us, "Do we still have to assign roles?" Our answer is, in loud bold print, "Yes, even small groups need a team leader, facilitator, and scribe." The difference is that one person can wear all three hats and probably no one can facilitate with complete neutrality. Unless the team feels the lack of a neutral facilitator is getting in the way, they should do their best even with the small numbers. The facilitator will frequently have to take off the "facilitator hat" in order to offer opinions. The team still should have a formal agenda, and they still should take minutes. Their ground rules will probably be more relaxed, and meetings will be less formal. But, and this is critical to remember, someone must still take on the duties of team leader, facilitator, and scribe. If those are not specified ahead of time, then either someone will by default take them on or, more likely, somewhere down the road, conflicts will develop due to role confusion and eventually someone may ask, "Who died and made you God?"

NEWBORN'S LESSONS IN HOW TO KILL TEAMS:

What happens when team meetings don't start on time?

CHAPTER THREE REVIEW

1. Decision Mode 1, "Individual without input" should most frequently be made by. . . .

A. . . . .supervisors, but not others. Only supervisors should be permitted to make Mode 1 decisions.

B. . . . .front line employees who are faced with "moment of truth" situations. The more important a decision, the less likely it will be a Mode 1 decision.

C. . . . .no one. The organization should mandate that all decisions be with input or by consensus.

2. When team members are silent in response to the question, "Does anyone want to comment on my proposal?" that silence should be interpreted as meaning. . . .

A. . . .the team members agree with the proposal.

B. . . .the team members have no opinions or don't care about the proposal.

C. . . .nothing. Silence may mean approval, disapproval, or the team members haven't yet formed an opinion. Each team member should be asked what the silence means for them.

3. Consensus means. . . .

A. . . .a majority wants to do something.

B. . . .no one expects a catastrophe to occur even though some people may think this is not the best choice.

C. . . . everyone has agreed that a decision was their first choice.

ANSWERS

1. "B" is correct. Moments of truth are those situations with a customer which demand immediate action. Front line employees should be empowered to deal with these situations. Later on, the decisions can be discussed in order to make better decisions in the future.

2. "C" is correct. It is common for beginners to misinterpret silence as meaning approval. Rarely is that case.

3. "B" is correct. Some people answer "A" because usually the consensus decision is the majority opinion. That is not always the case, though. If even one person thought a decision would lead to disaster, then the team must talk through the concerns and come up with other options.