HOW CAN MEETINGS BE STRUCTURED TO ACHIEVE CONSENSUS ON IDEAS THAT MIGHT RESONATE BROADLY AND DEEPLY AS THE COMMUNITY SPIRIT?
Holding the Meeting to Develop Consensus on a Tentative Local Spirit
The agenda for the meeting might be constructed by starting with typical aspects of a facilitated meeting to gain consensus (time to get acquainted, introduction of participants and affiliations, goals, etc.) and then adjusting the agenda to incorporate features responsive to the obstacles to reaching consensus on a community spirit that will resonate. Facilitator notes (such as those immediately below the agenda) provide a checklist for adjustments. Having a number of experienced facilitators involved allows for additional adjustments during the meeting.
Here’s an illustrative agenda for a one-day meeting, with notes that anticipate challenges such as those listed above:
SAMPLE AGENDA
8:15 Breakfast
8:45 Participants find places at tables
9:00 Welcome.
Participants introduce themselves by name and affiliation.
Ground rules. History of project.
Purpose of the session and overview of day.
9:20 Small group idea generation
Review the ideas and select top 4
10:20 Break
10:30 Large group review and discussions of small group work
11:30 Small group discussions on whether to change or elaborate on top four ideas
12:00 Lunch
12:30 Large group identifies common themes, combines similar ideas, discusses, and prioritizes.
1:30 Implications for the community: Small group discussion of next steps: What can be done to check to see how this spirit resonates? To share this community spirit?
2:30 Large group discussions of small group results.
3:15 Summaries of what was accomplished and what will occur after the meeting.
3:30 Adjourn
NOTES FOR FACILITATORS
In general: Using experienced facilitators for small group meetings can help to encourage collaboration, ease tension or disagreements, and make participants feel that their opinions are valued and that they have reason for optimism about the initiative. Finding volunteer facilitators may be easier than it appears; mediators, teachers, attorneys, and others may have experience in facilitation.
Breakfast: Hand out nametags. Use a buffet and free seating to facilitate mingling. Assign a co-facilitator to seek out each attendee and introduce that person around.
Find places at tables: Set table for 6 to 8 persons to engage each person in discussion. Arrange name tents to produce diver- sity at each table. Include a table facilitator and recorder at each table.
Welcome: To make this quicker, hand out a list of participants and affiliations. Put on a slide (and send ahead) the ground rules, emphasizing that statements won’t be attributed to a person without permission. Make especially clear that the spirit is aspi- rational in nature, not merely a description of what has occurred, and illustrate the importance of the task through examples.
Project optimism that this group can make that contribution.
Small group idea generation: To encourage reflection, ask each person in the small group to write silently for five minutes, listing in a few words several ideas for the community spirit. (To help recorders quickly group ideas on flipchart paper, ask par- ticipants to use a felt tipped pen to write each idea on a separate large post-it note.) Then ask each person to express one idea that has not yet been presented, going around the table until the recorder has all ideas posted. To facilitate creativity, facilitators can participate by suggesting tentative or rough ideas that encourage others to improve on those ideas and model an openness to other ideas. Discuss the ideas, asking which ideas best fit the six questions from pg. 5 above (which can be kept on a slide). Compliment the group on progress. Select the top four ideas, perhaps by asking each person to put a dot or check mark next to four or five that they think are most effective. Post the top four ideas for the larger group.
Break: Suggest that people review ideas emerging from the other small groups while on break..
First large group discussions: A spokesperson from each small group presents the top four ideas. Discuss the ideas present- ed. Compliment the group on progress.
Second small group discussions: To encourage elaboration and also the beginning of consensus among the larger group: Were there ideas from the other small groups that anyone wants to include on this small group’s list? Perhaps divide into pairs to elaborate on revised list of top four ideas. Post the elaborated ideas. Discuss and modify. The facilitator can again press on the six questions from Part II to help identify the strongest candidates. Compliment each group on progress.
Lunch: Suggest that participants wander and read ideas posted by each group. A buffet lunch facilitates speed and mingling.
Second large group discussions: Combine the top ideas on a separate flipchart or slide, without listing which group originated the idea to free people from supporting “their” group’s ideas. Facilitators can use various devices for recording preferences for the combined-idea list. The group may discuss as it looks at the results, perhaps deciding to combine three or four ideas into a single community spirit. Take a break when consensus is reached.
Small group discussions on next steps: Use the same idea generation methods as in the 9:00 discussions. Celebrate the progress that the group has already made. Record the ideas for sharing.
Identifying Meeting Challenges and Procedures to Overcome Them
The research discussed on pages 8-10 can help to identify the challenges of gaining consensus on a statement of community spirit. Many of these challenges will be familiar to experienced facilitators, but some may be novel. For novel challenges, you may want to try out facilitation approaches in small group settings before holding the meeting at which you hope that a tentative consensus on a community spirit will emerge. You might make a list of challenges and then a meeting feature that you can try out during the small group meetings as a means for overcoming the challenge, as was done in the chart below. For example:
Challenge: Participants might devolve into arguments about whether the community is living up to the suggested spirit.
How to Overcome: The facilitator can ask participants to think in terms of what sorts of aspirations for the future will help to grapple with the ongoing effects of problems in the community as well as how any statement of the community spirit can acknowledge both past failures and how the spirit claims for its future the values implicit in those instances when the community was at its best.
Challenge: Participants might not understand the importance of making the community spirit pertinent to current community challenges.
How to Overcome: Prepare participants on this point. Project criteria from pg. 5 for a strong spirit on a large screen during the meeting.In preparing for the American Spirit conference, facilitators held seven small group meetings to establish and refine a process for effective group discussion of shared American or community spirit. Central to this work was the question of whether a small group of diverse community members, within an hour, could come to meaningful agreement on at least one candidate for a spirit and, if so, what process would be most effective for conducting such conversations. The small groups revealed overwhelming participant interest in seeking agreement on a shared community spirit in the face of current societal polarization. Many of the facilitators noted that the conversations were substantive, candid, and guardedly optimistic. Ultimately, the small groups gener- ated useful substantive suggestions to inform the conversations of participants in the one-day meeting. They also provided key insights into how conversations around shared identity should – and should not – proceed.
The focus groups each consisted of 3 to 6 participants and 1 or 2 facilitators. Participants were selected based on their knowledge of the community (whether the U.S. broadly or Columbus, Ohio specifically), potential diversity of viewpoints, and likelihood of being thoughtful and respectful in the conversation. Facilitators began preparing participants by explaining the purpose of the project in their initial invitations to participate, encouraging participants to reflect on spirit candidates that they thought could resonate broadly, and directing them to the preparation site on TheChisel.com.
Given the wide range of participants – with some from Ohio, California, Utah, Georgia, Kentucky, and more – the conversations took place in varying settings: some in person, some via video conference, and others via conference call. The groups also varied in their level of political diversity, providing an opportunity to test the process across several levels of likely ideological disagreement. Consistent across groups was the core format used by facilitators, consisting of:
A brief overview of the project and conversation ground rules; Individual introductions by participants:
An opportunity for participants to present initial suggestions for a shared American or community spirit; Conversation-inducing questions by the facilitator; and
Open-ended discussion.
Generally, facilitators took a passive role, intervening to encourage the critique and development of the initial ideas proposed by participants. As facilitators applied this framework in each setting, they gained valuable insights about the positive outcomes and opportunities for improvement of the process, each charted below.
Small group facilitators analyzed the results of the seven small group meetings and met with facilitators to identify strategies to improve the large group meeting process. The first chart below lists the positive outcomes and the second chart identifies poten- tial obstacles and opportunities to improve for the large group meeting.
Positive Outcomes from Small Group Sessions Observation: All facilitators noted a general tone of respectfulness.
Related Design Feature: Participant selection based on this attribute. Ground rules.
Observation: Many facilitators observed a willingness to “dig deep” and constructively push back on idea proposals.
Related Design Feature: Ground rules encouraging respectful critique.
Questions such as “Can you imagine a stakeholder who might take issue with this point?”
Observation: Participants came prepared with thoughtful proposals.
Related Design Feature: Use of the preparation site on TheChisel.com.
Invitation by the facilitator to reflect on and prepare proposals in advance of the meetings. Participants often knew the facilitator and felt some obligation to come prepared.
Observation: Participants contributed diverse viewpoints.
Related Design Feature: All participants were allowed to propose ideas before beginning a more focused discussion. Many groups had politically diverse participants.
*An important “tailwind” in building participant engagement was the fact that many felt exhausted by the amount of political polarization and were excited to have a productive forum to discuss ways for the community to move forward.
Obstacles in Small Group Meetings and Opportunities to Improve for the Large Group Meeting
Obstacle: Some participants offered little push-back/development of proposals (groupthink).
Problematic Design Feature: Political/ideological homogeneity in some groups. Facilitator introduction that emphasized agreement.
Opportunity: Facilitator can model or further encourage constructive disagreement with ground rules and questions. Be certain that each table has viewpoint diversity.
Obstacle: Some groups failed to arrive at a clearly articulated proposal.
Problematic Design Feature: Open-ended discussion format was relied on until there was too little time to conclude. Some facilitators reported an unnecessarily long introduction and initial proposal period.
Opportunity: Consider having a clear period of time at the end of which the facilitator transitions the group from idea generation to idea narrowing.
Prepare narrowing and conclusion-oriented questions in advance. Set aside more time – most of a day – for discussions.
Obstacle; Some groups tended to focus on policy solutions rather than identifying a unifying community spirit.
Opportunity:
Facilitators can prepare to reorient policy discussions with questions such as “What concern underlies these policy positions?” and “What aspirations for the future might help the community work together on solutions to the problems it is facing?”
Facilitators can be clear at the outset about what the final product should look like and post the goal on a screen throughout as well as include it in the written agenda put out for each participant.
Obstacle
Some groups had an unequal distribution of contributions among group members.
Opportunity:
Facilitators can explicitly solicit feedback and encourage all participants to offer ideas and comments. The group discussions can begin with time to write ideas followed by the facilitator going around to solicit one idea from each participant until all ideas are on a flipchart.
Facilitators can provide a space for various contribution styles (real time dialogue, individual reflection then re port-back, etc.).
Obstacle
Certain participants expressed skepticism that any agreement could bridge the political divide.
Opportunity:
Facilitators can craft the introduction to be more clear and optimistic about the expected benefits of the project. Facilitators can be prepared with examples of how a shared vision has helped communities in the past.
The use of multiple facilitators in each subgroup allows the facilitators to offer tentative or incomplete ideas for an American or community spirit that keep the conversation moving.
To show progress, ideas from subgroups can be posted through a joint document projected onto a screen during discussions.