GROUP FACILITATION – A STAGE VOICE MAY BE ESSENTIAL

As a group facilitator in the Denver Metro Area, I am usually in a room with upwards of twenty people who are there because they disagree to a greater or lesser extent concerning the topic under discussion.  Often, despite ground rules, many decide to talk at once.  This makes for poor understanding and lessens the chance of any decisions being made.  Usually, over the years, I haven’t had the luxury of an amplification system.  So, when I speak as the process manager for the group, the members need to listen.  For some groups, an appeal to their sense of fairness and decorum may be enough.  At other times, more is needed.

Several years ago, I was tasked with facilitating a group of rural homeowners who lived on “ranchettes” (typically 5 or 10-acre horse properties) and representatives of a mining company wishing to expand its clay mining operations located on the other side of a steep ridge.  The purpose of the meeting was to allow the mining representatives to tell the nearby homeowners about their plans and to allow those neighbors to ask questions about the proposal and express their concerns with it.  The homeowners had the usual concerns about noise, dust, vibration, light pollution, hours of operation, and general disruption of their quiet, semi-isolated living environment.

Most of the residents of this community had resided there for many years and knew their neighbors well.  Some got along, and others did not.  Although they were united in their unease with the proposed change to the nearby mining operation, they were in some disagreement about what concerned each of them.  This resulted in continuing loud discussions around the table.

My attempts to appeal politely to everyone to tone down the level of the dialogue to allow the intended exchange of information were ignored in the din.  Being relatively new to the conflict resolution business, I wanted to stick with “the book” and try to not overtly insert myself into the discussion.  However, since there was no real organized discussion going on, I decided to use the “stage voice”.  I did not quite shout, but I projected clearly over the din and said something like “Hold on, here!”

I was somewhat surprised when the room quieted almost completely.  I then advised the group that the meeting could not proceed in this fashion if anything was to be accomplished (allowing the volume of my voice to diminish from the level of my previous attention-getting statement, but not back to a conversational level).  One or two of the group pointed out that they had been meeting about one thing or another for years, and that the simultaneous shouting was how they always conducted their meetings.  My reply was: “Well, that’s not how I conduct my meetings, and I’m in charge of this one!”

After that, the meeting went forward as originally intended.  The miners informed the residents of their plans.  The residents informed the miners of their concerns.  By the end of the meeting, everyone had reached an agreement that the mine could be expanded if certain conditions were met (restricted hours of operation, dust control, etc.).  This not only made the miners and the residents happy, it made the County Commissioners very happy when no one attended the ensuing public hearing except the representatives of the mining company and citizens who endorsed the plan being presented.

Although I have very seldom since had to resort to the full “stage voice”, I have learned that a commanding tone from the facilitator can go far in helping people talk to, and listen to, each other in a meeting.  Then, things get accomplished!

GROUP FACILITATION – WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THEY DENOUNCE YOU TO THE PRESS?

If you are a group facilitator in the Denver Metro Area who works on public policy or major environmental concerns you will eventually be denounced to the press.  One of the parties at the table or the group he/she represents will decide that some action you have taken indicates your bias for another faction, or (more likely) that person will see some advantage in calling into question your neutrality.  The precise motivation doesn’t matter (and you’ll probably be well aware of the motivation, anyway).  You will have to deal with it when the press contacts you, or, in the present electronic news environment, when the press repeats the charge on line.

This happened to me when I was facilitating a long-term information exchange issues group relating to a proposed large crushed rock quarry.  I was the neutral facilitator under contract to a county government to run the informational meetings.  The proponent was a very wealthy landowner, and the opponents were nearly all well-to-do professionals.  Each person at the table (totaling about 25, counting homeowners, consultants, attorneys, the county geologist, planners, etc.) was very passionate about the proposal (either “yea” or “nay”) and willing (and able) to do whatever it took to win.  The group met about twice per month for nearly two years.

A leader of the group of opponents was a well-known attorney who had years of experience in tough business negotiations, and was always looking for leverage.  As a neutral, I didn’t take actions giving him such leverage.  So, I received a call from a newspaper reporter stating: “Attorney John Smith (obviously not his real name) says that you an agent for developers.  What do you say?”  It’s no secret that the press thrives on a high level of controversy – and group facilitators do not, especially when it involves them.  The worst thing to do is to say you have no comment.  We’ve all seen what is made of such statements by the press.  So, what did I do?

Even though this was relatively early in my career, I had anticipated press contact about my work with the group and had already consulted with a colleague who had long years doing public process.  She coached me in the use of the significant-sounding non-response: “I understand that people in the issues group will have opinions on how I do my job as facilitator and I have no way to control what those opinions are.  I am simply doing my best to be a neutral and facilitate the ongoing discussions among all of the members of the group.”

This was not immediately satisfying to the reporter, but her further questions did not induce me to expand upon my statement.  As I remember it, there was no resultant story in the newspaper, and Mr. Smith did not pursue the matter.

One of the strategies of opponents to public policy initiatives or major development activities is delay (more on the tactics of delay in a later article).  Destruction of the credibility of the facilitator (with the resultant need to find another facilitator) and/or engagement of the facilitator in a very public fight with one faction at the table are recipes for delay.  A facilitator must expect these tactics and be ready for them.  Many such incidents may not end as cleanly as this one did.