Conditions

The first question to be answered is: Is LSI the right appropriate approach for the situation (Schruijer 2001, Bunker & Alban 2006, Weisbord & Janoff 2008, Sorrow 2006). Huxham & Vangen (2000) state that multiparty collaboration is the right choice only when there is no other option left. The benefits must outweigh the costs (Polanyi 2002) because large group meetings are supposed to be expensive and time consuming.

Context/Task: LSI is the right approach

The task is important

• A leader with an itch to scratch, a compelling business purpose
• An urgent problem or issue, business as usual is not a viable option
• A super ordinate goal or shared concern
• Multilevel issues
• The expected benefits must outweigh the costs

Stakeholders need each other to succeed with this task

• No one of the stakeholders can do alone what they can to together
• Need for joint problem definition and strategy in diversity and conflict
• A basic willingness to work together, awareness that collaboration is necessary

Situation is complex and/or uncertain

• A high level of fragmentation
• Uncertain, fast changing situations
• Multiple complexities and ambiguities to deal with, nobody could possibly know all the details or the answer
• The change is transformational
• Unprecedented or breakthrough changes call for unprecedented or breakthrough action

Contra indications context/taks

• Issue is not important to anyone
• Task is abstract and likely to lead to talk without action
• One way in information transfer is required (confidentiality, loss of face, knowledge transfer)
• Individual professionals can solve the problem
• No opportunity for change, by lack of resources, energy, time or lack of actual influence

Client: Leaders support the LSI approach

Leaders are willing to collaborate, to share power

Leaders:

• Have good intentions
• Are credible, no hidden agendas
• Show willingness to work from a shared power base to achieve shared ownership
• Believe that collaboration is more likely to stimulate follow up
• Tolerate uncertainty, be able to stay with “not knowing"
• Minimize the influence of power differences and adopt a neutral position
• Allow local control and establish clear boundaries
• Are willing to live with the outcome

Leaders are willing to spent time and money to do it “by the book”

Leaders:

• Are prepared to support follow up, carefully balancing between to much and to little support
• Act as a champion who sponsors the process, or want to involve a champion
• Show commitment and persistence

Political climate: enough trust to start

• Leaders realize and acknowledge that trust is unlikely to be present from the start
• Conditions for trust building are created by providing a minimal structure
• Careful considering of cross cultural communication
• Degree of negative stereotyping between groups does not prevent participation of specific stakeholders
• Willingness to opt for a different way, despite political vulnerability

Contra indications client

• Highly-charged political situations; fight-flight behaviour, apparent indifference
• Leaders delegate the process to subordinates and show up only at beginning and/or end
• Focus on personal gain, win-lose dynamic
• Sponsor wants to squeeze work in too short time
• Fast cycle of leadership succession
• Withdrawal behaviour: declining attendance at planning meetings
• Unspoken agenda: ongoing negotiation and discussion outside the planning group about the central issue
• Communication with responsible staff is done by an intermediary, such as a project leader

Consultant: Facilitators are skilled to conduct an LSI

Facilitators make and keep a clear contract with the client

Facilitators:

• Insist on adequate time with client to clarify the contract, and discuss implications for the process and for follow up
• Work on alignment with (top)leaders, share information openly before the LGI: in a workshop/meeting with the management team to demonstrate the principles and implications for personal roles and follow up
• Help to set clear goals, by starting with solid understanding of what is to be accomplished with the interaction; the task is well defined
• Bring and keep the principles of LSI front and centre
• Focus on the bigger process, not on an event or method
• Help to create clear boundaries that create a meaningful playing field: enough room for people to play, but people do not get lost; balancing top-down and bottom-up decisions
• Help leaders manage their anxiety about uncertainty of the process and loss of control
• Avoid the “they won’t come dialogue”, people nearly always come once they know the importance of the task and who else is coming
• Build follow-up into their fee structure, at least an evaluation meeting, and offer advice and consultation in ways to increase diffusion and support sustainability

Facilitators gain credibility, managing expectations

Facilitators:

• Make a conscious choice for application of LSI, making the aims of the LSI explicit
• Check and explore each other’s assumptions about LSI
• Don’t raise expectations they can’t fulfil, they aim for good enough rather than for unrealistic outcomes
• Are always able to explain why they are doing what they are doing (methodical reasoning) in everyday language
• Show energy and decisiveness
• Show positive personality, appearance of trust, maturity, calmness, integrity

Facilitators are aware of their own role

Facilitators:

• Are conscious of their impact on the system, from the start
• Are aware of own assumptions about change and the role of knowledge
• Know their own strengths and weaknesses, facilitation is preferably done with two facilitators who complete each other

Facilitators believe in the principles of LSI

Facilitation of an LSI is a “hands off” approach (Weisbord & Janoff 2008). Their role is to create and contain a holding environment to work in a collaborative task system (Schruijer 2001; Owen 1997)

Facilitators:

• Adopt an open system perspective, paying attention to fragmentation and limitations
• Recognize and respect diversity
• Believe that ordinary people can engage in productive dialogue
• Take contributions of participants seriously, so they do not prompt, correct, or interpret people; all participants are seen as experts
• See themselves as co-investigators
• Focus on possibilities for the future, not on problems now and in the past
• Seek to alter conditions rather than behaviour
• Promote and teach self-management

Facilitators have skills to work with large groups

For some LGIs a facilitator has to be trained and have a lot of experience in working with group dynamics (FS, SC, RTSC). For other LGIs is stated that anyone can do it after reading and following the guidelines. Anyone can host a World Café (Brown 2005), or facilitate an Open Space (Owen 1997) after reading the guidelines. For this research project the focus is on an LSI process for sustainable change, not on a productive LGI as event. I think that for all LGI methods facilitators have to have some skills to work with large groups.

Facilitators:

• Are tolerant for ambiguity
• Have the objective to accept people as they are, not as facilitators might wish them to be
• Work on staying calm, to contain “messiness” long enough to prevent premature structuring
• Can contain frustration projected onto them
• Are prepared to let go of their need to control the change process, but hold on to a vision during ups and downs of the project
• Are able to deal with differences and competitive attitudes in a constructive way, in function of the jointly defined goals
• Are experienced enough to deal with the circumstances
• Are trained to work with large groups

Contra indications consultant

• Facilitators want to sell LSI
• Facilitators use abstract jargon, do not search for connection to the needs of the client
• Facilitators take an expert role, believing they have the right answers