Category: Theory

9 reasons you may struggle to bring change – and what to do about it! (Pt 1)

When groups first try a consensus approach to discernment they can come up against obstacles. Today I start to look at 8 struggles that prevent consensus decision-making from being effective. Better still I offer responses to each of them!

Other common resistance points are covered in Chapter 6 of The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together  “Yes ….but …. Addressing Resistance”.

1. Tradition. “We’ve always done it this way. Why change?”

This is a very common explanation for why people don’t embrace change. People know what they like and they like what they know. Yet most people don’t usually put it as bluntly as saying “we’ve always done it this way.”

What we usually see is an inbuilt inertia in groups that make any change difficult. The tracks have been laid down over time and that’s the way things run. So the key to maximizing the chance of change is to explore where these tracks are taking you, or discuss the way decisions are made in other contexts, or introduce key elements of a consensus approach into the established processes.

Identify negative outcomes of current processes

For example, bad feelings after meetings, poor decisions, lack of buy-in, exclusion of some people/perspectives, etc. Use an annual review of the performance of your Board, Committee, Congregation, etc as a context in which to raise a discussion on whether your current approach is working for you. This may start a helpful discussion on what needs to change.

Explore alternatives from other contexts

I wonder if the people who resist consensus in meetings use the same methods/processes to make decisions in families, as a couple, or in business negotiations. Certainly, the western parliamentary approach is in sharp contrast to the way in which other cultures have traditionally made decisions. The issue here is “Whose tradition are we talking about?” It is only one tradition and it is a very narrowly applied practice.

There are many opportunities for continuing education for Boards, Committees and church members in general. Create a learning event where alternative ways of making decisions are explored. Perhaps it could be in the framework of understanding how a different cultural group makes decisions, or a workshop on how to engage in dialogue with family members, or invite a local community action group to talk about their work and how they get to agreements and commitment. Often these groups use consensus decision-making because they cannot force volunteers to do anything that they don’t want to do. The focus doesn’t even have to be on church meeting procedures! You can extrapolate later from the learning into that discussion.

Introduce consensus processes into your current meetings

Consensus building values and techniques can be present in a parliamentary style of meeting. As an add-on they will not change a culture but they can provide a taster of what is possible when change is made. Examples of things that a Chairperson can do include: make sure that everyone understands the issues before starting the debate; include more prayer and spiritual disciplines in the meeting; create spaces where alternative voices can be heard; don’t rush to a vote just because it looks like there is a clear majority; and more. Chairpersons should lead into an alternative experience of Christian community around decision-making. Change can be gradual and incremental – until there is ownership of the decision to make real change.

2. Some people need to “win”

Winning is “fun”. It’s natural that when people value a position that they want to see it happen. I’m sure we have all been in that situation. However what is embedded in this comment is insidious. There are people who actively resist and undermine a move to consensus because they know how to get their way under the current rules. Getting their way has become the prime goal and they do not want to empower others to have a chance of changing the outcomes. They want to keep control.

I have met people like this in local and international meetings. It is both sad, disappointing and serious. Changes in the power balance affect who has influence. Some people get this and try to keep ahead of the curve by shutting down the chance for change. There are solutions but they need to be tailored to your context. If this is your situation maybe you need a coach to help you work it through.

However, in addition to handling the pushback from cynical and frightened power brokers, there are conversations that can be fostered. Even people who like to get their preferred decision in a church meeting are willing to count the cost. Very few people embrace a pyrrhic victory.

I am sure that you have seen many examples of where the “win” that was achieved came at a high price. It could be as serious as people leaving the church, a significant drop in income, loss of morale, the development of factions, or loss of support for a pastor. The losses might be more subtle: the person who stops volunteering, loss of a skilled person on the church Board, people don’t turn up to congregational meetings because of the atmosphere, a negative vibe develops in the congregation, etc.

Maybe the people who think they are winning are not winning at all. Develop a case study on how the handling of a decision led to negative consequences for a congregation or group. It doesn’t have to be from your congregation but if there is a recent example I encourage you to be brave enough to name it. Focus particularly on developing a “ledger” of wins on one side and losses on the other side. Get people to put a value (not all will be a $ value) on the “entries” on each side of the ledger. The lesson that people are encouraged to learn is to be aware of the consequences of their actions and to not just focus on the task of “getting the decision I want”.

A great follow up – maybe at the next meeting – is to explore “What could we have done differently that would have avoided or reduced these costs?” That’s where your knowledge of the whole range of consensus-based discernment tools will allow you to shine. The most comprehensive collection of resources for this is in our book The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together 

3. We don’t need cards because everyone here is able to speak up.

This is quite a common perception. The orange and blue cards are a very important part of the Uniting Church in Australia’s consensus process. They are also used in the World Council of Churches, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and other places. They are also often seriously misunderstood.

The idea in this resistance point is that the cards are the way to get attention so that you can get the floor. So if you believe that everyone is able to contribute due to the healthy culture and processes of the meeting then it seems like you don’t need cards. The cards are more than the equivalent of lining up at the microphone to get the Chairperson’s attention. But let’s start the conversation on the terms that it is offered.

In my experience, such a statement is very rarely accurate. There are always people who remain silent. They do so for many reasons. It is not just because they cannot get the attention of the Chair.

As a test for this hypothesis have a person quietly keep tabs on the names of who speaks, the frequency and time taken by various speakers over a few meetings.  Report on the results.  This could make for an interesting conversation.

However, the cards serve a much richer purpose than indicating a desire to speak. Members are to show a card whenever a person makes a contribution. If they are warm to a comment then they display the orange card. If they are cool to the idea or not persuaded by it they show blue. This process encourages active listening. Also, it allows every person to indicate their perspective – without the need for speaking. In fact, the opposite of the opening statement is true. You actually need the cards so that everyone can contribute!

4. Power imbalances

Power is real and some people have it in groups and others do not. When power is used to limit the participation of all people then consensus discernment will struggle. Not all power is malicious or used deliberately to put people down. Although sometimes it is.

For example:

  • Some lay people don’t think they should argue with Ministers
  • In some cultures women or young people don’t value their voice
  • Patriarchy exists in a lot of churches and oppresses women
  • Language and education can give more power to some participants
  • Knowledge is power – who understands the business or process best?
  • What other examples can you add?
Plan to deal with power

You are very wise not to underestimate the importance of power dynamics. So once you have taken it seriously it’s important to do strategic thinking ahead of time on how to address power imbalances.

There are a number of strategies available in addition to a well led use of consensus processes. Consensus processes make it possible to address power imbalances but they have to be used very well to do so.

Preparation includes thinking about the power imbalances and what strategies can be put in place to limit their power. Examples include: deciding when translation is required; how to ensure everyone has the same information; when small group discussions (maybe in cultural, gender or age groups) can help people to find their voice that can then be fed back into the larger group. As you prepare for your meeting list the power dynamics and line up alongside them the tools that help to overcome them.

Also the leaders must model alternative ways of being in community. They  must demonstrate and support a culture of collaboration and equality.

Conclusion

I encourage you to respond to pushback in a way that is respectful and consistent with the values of consensus discernment. Ask questions so that you understand what they are saying. Probe for what is behind the comments. Assume goodwill until there is a good reason to do otherwise. Strengthen your fellowship in the face of difference.

Once you understand the issue before you there are simple and practical things that you can do that make a constructive response. Don’t argue but rather invite exploration through the types of processes offered in this article.

Change is possible! Next week I’ll look at some other things that may cause consensus to struggle.

‪

Proposals – yes or no?

Proposals – do we really need them?

Proposals /  motions / petitions / overtures / legislation are the words that offer a direction to a meeting. (‘Proposal’ is the word that is used in consensus processes as it is meant to convey that the idea is tentative and open to discussion. So ‘proposal’ will be used here to cover all the different names that are used in various contexts.) They give leadership about the decision that a group could make. Surely they are essential?

I don’t think that proposals are always needed. I have been responsible for preparing papers for many meetings. Some of the most creative and effective decisions have started without proposals.

Proposals – the case against

1. They give extra power to the people who bring proposals

Let’s say a Committee turns up at a meeting with a proposal. What does everyone assume? These people have given this issue a lot of thought. They know a lot more about this than anyone else. Maybe the meeting participants respect the wisdom of this group.

As a result, many people do not feel qualified to speak into the debate. Also if there hasn’t been much discussion in earlier meetings, the participants have given it less thought than the movers.  Consequently, many people don’t feel like they can challenge the ideas of the people who bring the proposal. Therefore they don’t offer alternatives or challenge the ‘wisdom’ of the movers.

Why not? Sometimes it is because they don’t feel qualified. Or perhaps the direction proposed makes their idea seem “too late” to be considered. And sometimes it is because in the church we like to be nice. Pushing back on well-developed ideas is seen, in some places, as being cranky and/or obstructionist. Rather than seeing it as a constructive contribution to the welfare of the group, it is seen as not being nice.

Whoever brings a proposal is given extra influence because of the assumption that they are qualified and thoughtful leaders on a subject.

2. Proposals give movers the chance to focus the discussion

Let’s look at an example. The local church bus that is used to collect neighbourhood kids for Sunday morning activities is now 6 years old. The relevant Committee brings a proposal to the congregation that “The congregation replace the Sunday School bus with one of the same size and model.” The rationale comes with the proposal and advises about the number of miles/kilometres on the clock, the cost of the changeover and the assurance that there are sufficient funds available. A simple financial decision. At least in the mind of the movers!

Now in a consensus discernment process, it is possible to bring all the other considerations to the fore. However, in an issue like this, it makes it hard work to get everything on the table because the discussion starts with a financial proposal. Everyone’s mind is drawn to a discussion of finance and asset replacement policy. The proposal sets the focus for the discussion – it starts the group down a particular path and it always takes a lot of energy to turn in another direction.

What might be some of the non-financial considerations in such a discussion? These are some that come to my mind:

  • Stewardship: How many people use the bus that could not otherwise get to Sunday activities? Is there a more economical alternative?
  • Church values:, eg inclusiveness: Is the current model consistent with the church’s policy on inclusion eg disabled access?
  • Mission: Is this expenditure a priority alongside other ministry needs? Would a different kind of vehicle meet the needs of the Sunday program but also expand how it could be used in ministry?
  • Social justice: What are the work practices of the manufacturer? Do other models provide better fuel efficiency or lower environmental impacts? Does the model reflect the Gospel’s call to live simply?
  • Contextual considerations: Should we buy the car outside of our little town just to save some money or instead support the local economy?

I am sure that you will be able to think of many more issues. And of course that is the beauty of not coming every time with a proposal – others in the group see an alternative place to start the discussion.

By coming with a proposal right at the start of a discussion we can easily miss the more important conversations.

3. Proposals privilege the views of the movers

Another problem with proposals is that the writers get the first attempt at providing a solution. The power advantage and capacity to shape the discussion this gives has already been mentioned. But in a parliamentary style the “first mover advantage” is huge. Every other speaker has to push back against the words that have been provided. At times the alternatives are so complex that it is impossible to draft them as an alternative to what is first proposed.

It reminds me of the game I used to play with my brothers when we were young – king of the castle. We would build a huge sand hill and one of us would take the position at the top. The others had to run up and take control of the pinnacle. If you have ever played that game you know that the person on the top – the king of the castle – has a huge advantage. It’s the same for the people who draft proposals.

Well run consensus processes can overcome this problem but sometimes having no proposal at all is the best way to proceed.

4. Proposals easily set up a defensive position in the movers

Human nature being what it is we find it very easy to be defensive. When most people commit to a view they will want to defend it. In the parliamentary and debating styles of meetings that is exactly what they are expected to do – defend their position.

Consensus processes try to mitigate against that risk by the process that follows the introduction of material. However, proposals by their very nature heard people into camps that support or reject what is offered. The arguments easily become focused on the positions that have been taken and the underlying issues can get lost.

International mediators know the danger of taking positions. In the classic text on mediating disputes Getting to Yes Fisher and Ury argue that the worst thing to do is to turn up with fixed positions. Rather it is much better to explore and understand each other’s interests. These can be hopes, needs, fears, concerns, etc. Proposals are positions. Consensus processes want us to focus on what Fisher and Ury call “interests”. Leaving out proposals significantly reduces the chance of prematurely getting locked into positions and fighting over them.

5. Cultural disconnect

In many cultures, decisions are not made by one group coming up with a ‘good idea’ and then persuading everyone else to accept it. Instead, community issues are broached in a more inquisitive, intuitive, enquiring and open way. Stories are invited from those who gather. The sharing of values, tradition and dreams takes place. Feelings and ideas sit side by side. Then arising from this conversation the key issues are distilled and possibilities surfaced.

Many cultures begin discernment by drawing out the community’s sense of what needs to be addressed. Then they begin to think of options to address them. At this point work can be done to further develop some directions. Depending on the issue the responsibility to offer direction may come from the women, the men, the elders or some other group. The decision on what is to be done may be decided by them or come back for further discussion and decision.

There is also a disconnect between bringing proposals to church meetings and how we operate in the rest of our lives. I don’t know too many people who think it is a good idea to turn up to their children or significant other with a written five-point proposal to which they then present a rationale and invite debate on it. In our relationships, we talk first and develop options later. Why not do that in the church?

Proposals – the case for

Every decision needs to be understood and a clear record of the decision of the meeting recorded. So obviously there will need to be a proposal on which a decision is made. Proposals are a necessary step in that process.

Proposals – at the start of a discussion – make sense when something is procedural (ie that such and such happen in the meeting), formal (eg a vote of thanks) or receiving reports.

It is also useful to include a proposal at the point where the proposal is the result of an earlier more open-ended discussion. After the issues that really matter to people have surfaced, and the directions are becoming clearer it makes sense for a group to go away and document the views that have been raised. A proposal at this stage becomes a servant of the group rather than an unhelpful bind on its imagination.

Also, there will be times when an issue requiring discernment is actually very focused and not complicated. In such situations, it is OK to begin with a proposal. However, it is essential that the deliberation process ensure that all the problems with proposals are taken seriously.

Yes or No?

Proposals assist the efficiency of group decision-making processes. When well resourced with a rationale and a good process they are able to help move things along. They make the record of the decision easier to document.

Nevertheless, the built-in problems with proposals are always there. They should not be ignored. On most occasions, they will need to be addressed in the deliberation phase with well-constructed discussion points and support for a culture of openness.

But there will be times when it is far better to start in a more open way. To go back to our earlier example of the bus. In that situation, the most helpful thing would be to start the conversation with some information about the bus and the way it is used and then move to a discussion starter. The opening might be: “What are the stories that you can tell about the ministry that uses the bus?” Or, “When you hear this report what feelings or questions come to your mind?” Or, “When you hear this report what are the things that you think we should take into account as we decide our next steps?” You can find some helpful information on how to plan a meeting in The Church Guide For Making Decisions Together. 

I encourage you to look at the agenda of your meetings and ask whether it would be better to introduce some parts of the business without a proposal. If it means an extra meeting on a topic then it is worth it. Because when you make sure that you deal with the real issues, generate the most effective list of actions and build support for the final decision – you make better decisions.

Why isn’t consensus embraced?

If consensus is so wonderful then why doesn’t every group take it up? In a recent post, I spoke about 16 wins that come from using consensus-building approaches. So, if it achieves so may good results why is there resistance to consensus-based discernment?

Nothing is broken

There’s an old saying: “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it!” There are many people who think that the parliamentary model works just fine. So they don’t see any point in going to all the trouble of learning this newfangled consensus stuff!

The people who are content with the current approach are the people for whom it works. From the perspective of people for whom English is a second language, the less well educated, women, young people and the marginalized the current way decisions are made is broken. Ask these people if a parliamentary / Roberts Rules of Order approach is good for them.

It is also broken because way too many decisions do not get implemented. The same old issues keep returning. Decisions are made and they don’t get put into effect. Decision-making that doesn’t result in action is broken!

Consensus approaches are resisted because people with influence claim that nothing is wrong. Check it out for yourself – are they right? If you want to encourage consensus discernment processes in your church then start pointing out where the current model is broken.

Fear of Losing Power

As the old saying goes: “winners are grinners”. Who would not be happy with a process that improves their chance of getting what they want? So, naturally, people resist consensus discernment when its introduction threatens their power.

When changes are made in a system the equilibrium is upset. A repositioning of power takes place. There will be resistance from those who fear losing power. Consensus – despite all its benefits – is not taken up because it has enemies.

If you want to encourage consensus do not be naive. Expect opposition and plan ahead for how you can make and support the case for change in a highly ethical way.

Obstacles to Consensus in the Culture

By far the biggest obstacle to the embrace of consensus discernment is culture. Basically, we have it in our head that some things are valuable / sensible / right and others are not.

So in Western culture, we find the following.

  • ideas that are expressed in clumsy ways or tentative terms are regarded as inferior to those presented in clear and assertive words
  • asking questions is seen as nitpicking and a diversion from the main discussion
  • complexity is avoided in favor of pithy statements and confident speeches
  • passion is alright but don’t show too many feelings
  • analysing and exploring implications is seen as going off on a tangent – never regarded as a good thing!
  • being productive / fast is valued whereas going slowly is frowned upon
  • questions are perceived as challenges – as though the questioner has done something wrong
  • presenting an alternative point of view is seen as being negative or a conflict that must be solved as quickly as possible
  • once a majority view is said to exist everyone else is expected to get on board or be seen as a spoiler

Culture is hard to overcome. If you want to bring change you will have to challenge the prevailing culture and affirm its alternatives. Think about some of the ways that you can do this in a meeting. What affirmations can you offer to the people who are devalued? What interventions can you make or statements of another way can you offer? Find and affirm values from the Christian faith that align with consensus approaches to discernment.

Conclusion

Change to consensus needs to happen! There are many good reasons why this is so – at least 16!  Consensus is good for individuals and groups and yet this is not universally recognised. Resistance comes from a lack of awareness of the problems, fear of losing power and the influence of culture.

Support the people who experience the pain of the current approach, educate others about its limitations, take the power issues seriously and teach and model an alternative church culture.

8 Tools for the Mediator Leader

Getting Started

The Mediator leader brings a distinctive mindset, operational style and hopefulness to a conflict. The Mediator is a marked contrast with the Demagogue and the Manager. Mediator leaders are not necessarily professionally trained as mediators. In this context, it means leaders who are seeking to bring disputing parties together by seeking bridges of understanding leading to an agreement. Therefore they must approach conflict in a specific way, and use a suite of skills that build relationships, trust and shared solutions.

The 8 tools used by the Mediator leader are outlined below. They are a brief summary from the book Leading Through Conflict: How Successful Leaders Transform Differences into Opportunities, by Mark Gerzon.

Integral Vision

When a conflict erupts the first thought is to try and calm things down and to fix it as quickly as possible. If you are involved as a leader you see people hurting, the congregation threatening to fracture, funding at risk – it seems to demand action. But the first thing to do is – nothing!

If no one’s life is in danger then take a step back. Unless you take time to understand the whole picture – in all its complexity and inter-related parts – then you will make an inappropriate intervention. The vision required of a Mediator leader is an integral vision – one that integrates the parts of a  conflict into a whole.

The skills required when using integral vision are to question, reject and test the validity of anything that seeks to put dividing walls between the parties. This includes rejecting labels, disrespecting the integrity of those with different opinions and nurturing the webs that connect us.

Systems Thinking

Once you are focused on the whole conflict you need to work at understanding how the parts are connected. So you will look at relationships and history between the parts. You will seek to understand the character, goals and values of the different parties to the conflict. The goal here is to think systemically!

The skills one uses here are probing questions that seek to unpack the relationships that give rise to the conflict. For example: Why does this church always push out its Pastor every 3 years? What is the personal and faith history of the people that are on opposite sides of support for a new building project? What is it in our church’s story that makes change difficult?

Think of integral vision as making sure that you have all the pieces of a jigsaw in front of you before you start. Then systems thinking is searching for which piece connects to the next.

Presence

More than our minds are required to solve a conflict. When you bring all your emotional, mental and spiritual resources to the midst of a conflict – this is presence. A leader needs to be very self-aware in order to be present in a conflict. So s/he needs to acknowledge their fears, anguish, hopes, anger, etc and deal with them.

The goal of presence is to be calm, available, attentive and capable of contributing to the transformation of the conflict.

Developing that ability requires the application of specific skills. Leaders address their emotional response to conflict and learn to be peaceful in it through a variety of strategies. Examples include solitude, coaching, prayer and spiritual direction, feedback from colleagues, intentional 360 reviews, meditation, playing music or creative art.

Calm, attentive persons who can bring the whole of themselves to their role as Mediator leader have presence. Presence is the master tool and makes it possible to use all the other tools. Because it is so very difficult to be this detached when one is very involved in a conflict it is wise to know when to bring in an external mediator.

Inquiry

Accurate and comprehensive data and analysis are essential for understanding. Without understanding it is impossible to transform a conflicted situation. It is amazing how many leaders go ahead with proposals on how to end a conflict before taking all the time necessary to understand it.

Mediator leaders value understanding and will not short circuit this stage. They also know that they do not have all the insights required in order to get a handle on the issues in a conflict. Therefore they seek the opinions of others – parties to the conflict, outside observers, professional sources of data. Mediator leaders understand that quality information is what makes it possible to find solutions that meet the needs of the parties.

Two skills go with this tool – questions and listening. Valuable inquiring questions begin with who, when, where, how, what, why, what else. Because understanding requires taking in information a Mediator leader is a good listener. So they always make sure that they “get it”. Often they will check back with a speaker to be certain that they understand the point. In the listening, they are understanding what is accurate and inaccurate; and monitoring spoken and unspoken communications.

These first four steps are preparation. Constructive, trust-building processes are essential to achieving transforming and positive outcomes to a conflict. Skip them at your own peril.

Conscious Conversation

Mediators know that people have choices about the way that they communicate. Their goal is to create a setting in which the parties can relate to each other is more constructive ways.

The skills involved include reminding, or perhaps educating, participants about the different ways they can use to engage in communications with each other. The range includes verbal brawling, debate, discussion, making presentations, negotiation, offering counsel, and silence. A negotiated Behavioral Covenant can be helpful preparation for dialogue in conflict situations.

By making it possible to have conscious conversations a Mediator leader is offering and nurturing alternative ways for the parties to engage. Thoughtless counter attacks and knee-jerk reactions are replaced with conscious conversations. Then out of these new ways comes deeper understanding and hence new options can emerge.

Dialogue

Dialogue is possible because the first five tools have been employed. The Mediator’s goal in using this tool is to get parties to connect across what divides them. Then from this comes a greater awareness of interests and a catalyst to reduce attachment to the original positions.

The skill required of the Mediator leader is to keep the parties focused on exploring their interests or goals. Usually, people want to focus on their “positions” or strategies that they believe will achieve their goals. Explore interests and not positions.

Interests based mediation or negotiation has been effectively used for many decades in local and international disputes. The classic and still relevant presentation of this approach is by Fisher and Ury – Getting to Yes. This book is an easy to read introduction to the goals and strategies of dialogue.

Bridging

Talk is not enough to resolve a conflict. The participants must do something quite different in relation to each other or in response to the presenting issues that gave rise to the dispute. However, these ideas will not come from the genius of one side or the other. Rather the bridge needs to be built from both sides so that it can meet in the middle.

A Mediator leader is like an engineer who has the drawings and believes in the possibility of constructing something wonderful. However it is the parties that must bring the materials.

The skills that are required are the things that make it possible for the materials to be delivered to the site. They are trust, social capital, respect, healing, empathy, understanding, courage, collaboration, caring, even love. The Mediator leader fosters, protects and encourages these things

When the bridging happens it can come suddenly and surprisingly. At play here is a “fundamental and mysterious truth: the energy between the parties must change in order for conflict to be transformed.” (Gerzon p. 57)

Innovation

Innovation is the breakthrough that now seems to provide an alternative to an ongoing conflict. While such an idea might have been imagined before, it could not be achieved until now.

The Mediator leader sustains the hope of the participants that around the next bend there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Their skill is to help the parties recognise and celebrate the bridge they are building and to affirm and test the innovations that arise.

Equally as important is to make sure that there are very high levels of agreement with the proposed solution. This is more than some parties sitting silently and sullenly while others rejoice. It means testing that the stakeholders will promote the solutions among their constituencies and resource its implementation.

Afterword

Don’t pop the champagne corks just yet! Things sometimes unravel and great hopes are dashed. Your role as a leader at this time is to support the leaders who have seen an alternative vision for relationships in their community. You do this by reminding them of their agreements and how positive they felt. Coach them in how to carry the conversations forward into their constituencies. Maintain the hope and keep pointing out the path that has been created. Within Christian communities, this obviously includes the use of Scripture, prayer and other spiritual disciplines.

These are 8 tools that really work. They have been used successfully in many apparently intractable conflicts – large and small. Remain hopeful, grow your skills and then use them.

Questions that foster conversation

Preparing for meetings – questions matter!

When preparing for an important meeting, most leaders focus their valuable time on preparing the agenda and ensuring that the workspace is ready for participants.  As important as these tasks are to the success of the meeting, there is another task just as important – if not more so. Selecting a good question to guide a conversation and support healthy decision making. In fact, the right questions foster vital conversation and connection!

Asking the right question is not always easy. Some questions are better than others. Sometimes they shut down conversation and creativity.  Questions can create winners and losers by dividing the group.  Often a question is closed – leaving only a “yes” or “no” response available. Yet, the best question will move us beyond a simple “yes” or “no” answer to surface our shared feelings, facts, experience and impact. Learning the difference and applying the lessons will make you a better leader.

Review the following categories of questions and examples to use with your leadership group when working through your next important issue. These questions can foster synergistic conversation and lead to creative options as you search for decisions.

Types of Questions

There are 4 basic types of question that you can ask:

1.  Objective

2.  Reflective

3.  Interpretive

4.  Decision

A good discussion will use each of these types of questions to guide the conversation.

Objective Questions

Objective questions focus on data and facts.  They help focus people’s attention on the relevant details to be considered when making a decision. Here are some examples of an objective question.

  • What opportunities can you see in this situation?
  • Are there assumptions that we need to test or challenge here in thinking about this matter?
  • Why is it important to us to make this decision at this time?
  • Who will be affected by this decision?

Reflective questions

A reflective question will help people get in touch with their internal response to the issue before them for consideration.  Here are a couple of examples:

  • What opportunities can you see in this situation?
  • Is there a part of this proposal that makes you feel like cheering?  Excites you?
  • In a word:  what does it feel like to be in this situation?
  • Does this proposal makes you angry? Sceptical? Frustrated?
  • What does this proposal accomplish for you? Why is it important?
  • Share what has real meaning for you from what you have heard so far?  Have you been surprised?  How? What challenged you?
  • As you make this decision – what values do you hold dear ?

Interpretive Questions

An interpretive question helps make sense or give meaning to the proposal under consideration.  Here are a couple of examples:

  • What is the intent of this proposal?  Please tell us what you see as the key points?
  • What additional questions does this proposal raise for you?  How would you answer them?
  • Will this proposal accomplish its purpose?
  • What has been your/our major learning, insight, or discovery so far?
  • If this proposal is to get your support, what changes do you recommend?
  • What needs our immediate attention going forward?
  • What are the pros and cons of this option?
  • Does this option deal effectively with the issue before us?

Decision Questions

Decision questions draw you closer to a resolution by naming the implications for this new direction.  Some questions in this category include:

  • Share with us what you think it would take to create change on this issue?
  • In this proposal what are you willing to commit to accomplishing?
  • What does this proposal call forth from us?  What is it beckoning us to be or do?
  • How can we support one another in taking the next steps? Can you tell us what contribution you are willing to make?
  • What is the impact of this decision on our life?  What consequences will you need to be prepared to face?

Healthy conversations are nurtured!

It is important to devote adequate time to choosing or crafting questions that can support a group deliberating together on an important matter.  Most leaders simply put a proposal before a group with the words:  “well, what do you think?”  This doesn’t help a group to discuss the heart and soul of an issue or to make a decision that they can live with in the future.

Take adequate time in selecting the questions that will guide your group as it makes its next decision.  Be sure that they include conversation starters that focus on facts, feelings, relations and implementation.  This way you will not need to revisit decisions at a later time for reconsideration.