Unwilling participants

[Elizabeth_Gray]

This is very last minute, I apologize but the meeting I'm facilitating was just set up for tomorrow--Thursday afternoon March 12.

What should I watch out for--what can you do as a facilitator--when the likely expected outcome of a meeting is that a group refuses to participate?

We have a management group faced with decisions regarding significant budget cuts--what's new, eh? We have a labor group that, for recent history, has enjoyed extremely successful contract negotiations that gave them salaries, benefits, and working conditions envied by their peers in other organizations across the state and even nationally (USA). And just before the economic crisis, they even voted to reject a contract. The stated reason was that "the price point wasn't high enough for the concessions they were giving.

But times have changed. And, we have new management leadership--a very charismatic, likeable person. When she first met with union representatives, the need for immediate cuts was a topic of discussion. When she expressed the intent to solicit their input and work with them, their answer was "It's your problem to manage the budget, not ours. We will attempt to get as much money as possible for our members." In her lifetime career experience in this industry (fire services) she had not seen such antagonistic labor-management relations.

She is now asking me to facilitate a formal meeting to once again request their input, and help prioritize options regarding mandatory budget cuts.

If they DO agree to engage, then we'll do a either a stepwise prioritization or nominal group technique (depending on the number of ideas), using a list we provide plus asking for their additional ideas.

The expected result, however, is that they will
a) say that budget cuts are out of the question because it will endanger the safety of firefighters and citizens; and
b) refuse to participate further

The Fire Chief is OK with that; she doesn't want that result, but she's prepared for it. She can say that she tried.

As a facilitator, is there anything I can do to help this situation? Is there anything I should avoid?

Thanks for any and all ideas.

Elizabeth Gray
Austin, Texas USA

[Gary_Rush]

Hello Elizabeth,

Sounds like fun :(. I have three suggestions for you.

1 - do what I call "M&M's" up front. You pick 4 volunteers - 2 from union and 2 management. Ask them to come up front with their chairs. Face them off - 1 union and 1 management. Pour candies (e.g., M&Ms or any other small candy) on the table. Tell them that they need to earn them by arm wrestling - they get one piece of candy every time that they get the other person's arm down. Give them 1 minute to see who gets the most. They will wrestle. After a minute, stop them and bring up your documenter/recorder and show the group how it's done - you get ready to arm wrestle and don't resist each other going back and forth picking up all of the candy. This shows that when you cooperate, you get the candy. When you don't you get very little.

2 - Ask the group what an acceptable outcome is at the start (agreement, dictating, etc.) and hold them to that.

3 - To help get them to see each other's point of view, use this exercise that I got from Sam Kaner - it's called "Impact on your job":
Do the following:
• Identify which Participants are likely to be affected by the proposal or proposed solution. Ask for a volunteer to be the focus person.
• For 5 minutes, have the group brainstorm answers to the question, “If we implement our proposal, how will it affect this person’s job?” Use ground rules: no discussion or disagreements during listing.
• When 5 minutes are up, ask the focus person to come to the front of the room. She or he educates the group by elaborating on the answers she or he thinks are important. Questions from the group are welcome.
• Repeat with another focus person until the affected Participants have had their turn.
• Debrief at the end to see what insights were gained.

Hope this helps some. Good luck.

Ciao,
Gary

[Sunny_Walker]

Elizabeth,
I just saw your post. I know firefighters aren't the easiest to facilitate, even under the best of circumstances, so first off, here's wishing you the best of circumstances!

My quick first thought was to begin with a description of "worst case scenario" relative to outcomes. Then get agreement on what the various stakeholders could/would be willing to do to get a better scenario.

Final agreement on a "best case scenario" would be amazing.

In full support of your intentions,

Sunny

[Cameron_Fraser]

One of the things I admire about my colleagues is the willingness to help. Gary and Sunny's suggestions are well thought out and worth consideration and so I need not delve into that any further. I will, briefly, play Devil's Advocate.

You may be wise to consider fleeing the whole thing. I am reminded of a situation I faced recently where I was working with a group that was behaving very much like they were in conflict...lots of reluctance to make decidsions...lots of revisiting work over and over again. I finally pointed the behavior out and suggested the behavior was a result of the looming deadline they were all facing as a result of a government decision.

There are a number of factors that make this session very risky for you as the facilitator and, ultimately, for the group. Certainly it sounds like things could get worse before they get better:


This has all the hallmarks of an entrenched conflict...the earlier wins in contract negotioations...the recent rejection of a contract offer. One of the things I was taught very early about conflict is that any mediation/facilitation of conflict must be done with participants who are willing to be there. Any effort to create participation on the part of those who don't wish to could exacerbate the situation.
The approach of "using a list we provide plus asking for their additional ideas" runs the risk of compromising your neutrality to the point of making your relationship with the union reps very difficult.
The Fire Chief's point of view that "She can say that she tried" doesn't feel very indicative of someone committed to finding a solution.
On the solution front I would suggest a couple of things: That you try pointing out to both sides they are under the gun because of outside factors. Taking it out on each other doesn't help. (I'm sure you can put it much more eloquently than that. Secondly that you take the long view. If this is a one time only thing I'm not sure there will be much you can do to help. If this is the first of several then perhaps you have a shot.

If it is of any encouragement at all, here is a "could be worse" story. A firefighter I once trained in facilitation once told me a about a situation between a fire chief and a union group he was a part of. It was a mandatory monthly meeting and they were looking to improve things. The union group knew it was going to be challenging when the chief walked into the room, sat down, swiveled his chair around so his back was to the group and said "I may have to meet with you....that doesn't mean I have to look at you."

Best of luck...I hope you will post what you decide to do and the lessons learned.

[JuliaYoung]

I agree that this is an interesting problem (more than an intellectual one for Elizabeth for sure!). I also second Cameron's comments about sometimes, as a facilitator, it is best to say "no." I remember one of Peter Block's rules of contracting that says a consultant/facilitator should say "no" if they think that there is less than a 50% chance of success. Given the situation and the timing this may well be/have been one of those times.

As I pondered the problem (too long to help Elizabeth I am afraid) the principles of Interest Based Bargaining (IBB) came to mind. This is a process of focusing both sides on their interests and concerns, acknowledging these as real and legitimate and then working together to come up with a joint solution that can address all these issues. A hostile situation often leads to demands, taking of positions and assumptions about the "other side." IBB is designed to remove emotions from the discussion, acknowledge very real concerns on both sides and work together objectively on what is really important.

One web site where this process is discussed is http://www.maine.gov/mlrb/pom/ibb.htm (http://www.maine.gov/mlrb/pom/ibb.htm).

Warm regards,
Julia

Julia Young
Facilitate.com
San Francisco, CA
+1 415 647-1335 office
Julia.Young@Facilitate.com
www.Facilitate.com - Visit our new web site!

FacilitatePro 10.0 - web collaboration tools for high performance meetings, any time, any place

[Elizabeth_Gray]

This group is incredible--your responses helped me validate my approach, and gave me a few extra ideas to use. Here's a brief report. I apologize for length; I do not have the time to condense and re-write, and I really feel it is important to let you know what happened.

Lesson One: Clarify meeting purpose by asking about risks.

The meeting was planned mostly without my participation: I was told "Here's the presentation; we're doing the first few pages, and you will present the rest." Meeting objectives were related secondhand, and not very clearly. Just before the meeting, I was fortunately alone in the hallway with the Fire Chief, and so asked her "What is the worst thing that could happen in this meeting?" I've learned to use that question as a project manager to project sponsors. It really helps cut through the bullshit [sorry, I looked up synonyms in the thesaurus and it doesn't list that word!!] to help you clarify what is important. She told me the worst thing would be that they refused to participate.

So knowing that, I advised her, when starting the presentation, to be sure and ask them "What do YOU want to get out of this meeting?" That helped establish their ownership in the meeting--the union responded that they wanted to know more about the decision-making options and process, which was a good start.

Lesson Two: Focus on values, not costs.
The discussion was degrading into a lot of not-useful back and forth about the cost of various options: "If we cut X, we can save Y amount." It was turning into an unstructured review of the cost of fire department operations, rather than a discussion about policy choices.

To redirect the discussion, I listed the key budget cut options on a whiteboard, and told them we were going to do a stepwise assessment of which options were preferable. ("If you had to choose between No. 1 and No. 2, which would you choose? Why? What if you had to choose between No. 1 and No. 3? etc. etc.). When I did that, they protested--they wanted to keep talking about costs. Then one of the management team who was in uniform [important: I am a female civilian, not a male civil service firefighter, so I am not nearly as credible, in their eyes] emphasized that it was not about a choice between costs, it was about value choices: "What are your values? Why would you choose No. 1 or No. 2?" That really helped return the discussion to a more fruitful focus.

Lesson 3: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; be realistic

This group has a long history of antagonism. They've spent the past nine months sitting across the table from each other only to end up with a contract that was voted down. So this meeting was not going to change all that. Hence I didn't use the arm wrestling M&Ms suggestion--although I might use that in other situations. But I did use the suggestion about reminding everyone "We are all under the gun for reasons we cannot control; let's recognize this is a difficult situation for everyone." That little bit of empathy did seem to help.

Management feels like they did meet their key objectives of allowing the union to give input, and understanding more about the union's position. It is clear the union does not consider themselves a partner in solving this problem, but maybe that will come slowly and gradually.

Again--your suggestions were helpful, encouraging, and gave me confidence that I was on the right track. The meeting definitely could have gone worse, and I think I added value by preventing that.

Elizabeth

[Elizabeth_Gray]

And here's a follow up for Julia:
I couldn't say "no" because my boss was telling me to do it. And no, I didn't feel like I was being set up to take the fall.

The City of Austin has followed IBB for several contract cycles. This past contract cycle, however, the union declined to use that approach.

Elizabeth

[keehn_Dane]

Elizabeth,
Want to thank you for posting the question and then coming back and posting the results. Very instructive. And very courageous of you given that you walked into a situation where the parties had a long history of antagonism, the meeting objectives weren't very clear to you beforehand, you weren't given full control to run the meeting, and, you didn't have any contact with union folks before hand!

From your post, I can't tell if you are going to be called on to facilitate with this group in the future, but if you are, I would suggest behind the scenes, one-on-one work would prove invaluable. There is no reason I know of that the work you were, and perhaps are, trying to do has to all be done in an open session.

And tell your boss I say you deserve a raise.

Dane

[JuliaYoung]

Elizabeth

Sounds like you approached and conducted the meeting admirably.
Congratulations. Thanks for sharing the outcome - your description is very informative.

[Cameron_Fraser]

Elizabeth,

Well done and thanks for posting back....its helpful to see the whole cycle from initiation to results

[Gary_Rush]

Congratulations Elizabeth - good job. Thank you for sharing what happened - it helps complete the thread.

Ciao,
Gary

[Tristan_Forrester]

Fascinating stuff Elizabeth, and thanks for letting us know how it went.

I've only just read this thread today, but there are two things that really stood out to me:


1. You said, "We have a labor group that, for recent history, has enjoyed extremely successful contract negotiations that gave them salaries, benefits, and working conditions envied by their peers in other organizations across the state and even nationally".

It strikes me that the labor group has in fact been rewarded for the negotiating approach they are taking. What are the consequences for them not coming to the table? Are their any?


2. Which brings me to your BATNA. This is an element of interest based negotiations - at least as I understand it from Ury and Fisher's "Getting To Yes". Your BATNA is your 'best alternative to a negotiated agreement' and it's critical to be clear what yours is, because it helps you understand the reality of the situation (your 'silk purse from a sow's ear' point).

But it's also useful to uncover the other side's view of _their_ BATNA, and to see the extent to which it accord with reality. It's surprising how in particularly entrenched negotiations, both sides can have quite distorted views of what will happen if they can't agree. It's sounds like the labor org's view of their BATNA is currently something like, "We don't have to agree to anything, because the organisation won't do anything, and so we'll still keep getting the same pay and benefits." It may help bring them to the table if they realise that this is not their real BATNA, ie that there will be negative consequences for the organisation, and ultimately for them, if they don't come to the table. Assuming, of course, that these consequences exist! And of course, based on past experiences they might not actually believe you!!

Regards
Tristan

[Elizabeth_Gray]

Tristan,
Very perceptive of you: the union's current stance--and BATNA--seems to be "if we refuse to negotiate, we won't really lose anything". As I told the Fire Chief after the meeting, they are still in the "anger and denial" phase; they do not appear to believe that meaningful budget cuts are really necessary. And indeed, why should they--they have escaped unscathed so far.

So this is really about the first stage of change: accepting that you have a problem (i.e. accepting that yes, there really is a limit to what fire services citizens will support with their taxes, so that we cannot continue business as usual).

I am awaiting the next installment in this drama with some curiousity, and a bit of trepidation, if I am asked to facilitate any further.