If you're hired on to moderate a discussion, then you are hired on to moderate a discussion. I'd imagine it's the same for most facilitators and consultants. The authority that decides to hold the meeting arranges for me to be there, and ultimately signs my paycheck.
There is potential for a very difficult situation here. A good moderator is seeking the input of everyone in the room. A good moderator is mitigating the damaging behaviours in the room. What if that damaging behaviour is coming from that authority; CEO, Manager, or whatever? The task of moderating in this circumstance becomes considerably more delicate and challenging.
Part of my mandate (and philosophy) is to pursue the collective intelligence of a group. If a manager has a predetermined solution or outcome that she/he wishes the group to get to in a scripted meeting, then I would explicitly say that they should find somebody else to facilitate the process. But whether or not this leader is fixated on bringing everyone on board with a farce of a meeting, and no matter how enlightened and altruistic they are, they do have an opinion. As a moderator; limiting pontificators, grenade-throwers, and other counterproductive personas, trying not to show preference to the authority is a difficult predicament.
They are usually expert at what they do, but that's not the problem. The problem is that if you question or moderate this person, you're jeapordizing the relationship that is ultimately paying you for your efforts. I try and inform these people that they are equally as subject to moderation before the meeting, but I can't help but feel some bias.
For the love of god, somebody please comment. I believe that the moderator/facilitator role is to act in the interest of outcomes, but what is the best way to do this without upsetting the authority in the room? Not every leader is the ideal change agent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have to agree with your position. But you make identifying the authority figure's personal agenda appear to be an easy behavior to identify. What is the process for determining if the authority figure is indeed truly collaborative? what questions do you ask that aim at finding out "are you going to derail this meeting with your own solution". From the start point i battle with opposing the decision maker, but it needs to be clearly laid out from the start your inetntions as a moderator. The value a non biased, collaborative moderator can offer is almost limitless, but it can be a hard sell.
dasbooth,
Everyone has a personal agenda, not just the authority figure. Identifying what that is can be easy or difficult. It depends on the person and situation. I think we have to be careful not to "battle" the decision maker any more than anyone else in a meeting.
To your point, I think that setting the stage and establishing early on what the moderator's purpose and approach is is crritical. In doing this, the questions that can be asked in the advanced phases can be as simple as "would you be open to me challenging your inputs, position, and possibly even decisions?"
Definitely a hard sell. I have used the approach of building the case for collective intelligence and citing examples of successful collaborative efforts where admirable leaders stationed their egos to the benefit of the outcome.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment