Employing Differences, Episode 148: Is this process worth it?

Paul: 0:08

Welcome to Employing about exploring the collaborative space between individuals.

Karen: 0:14

I'm Karen Gimnig.

Paul: 0:16

And I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 0:18

Each episode, we start with a us. This week's question is, Is this process worth it?

Paul: 0:27

One of the things that Karen and any group, is how is that group working in a way to achieve the results it wants to achieve. When we talk about process, what we really mean is ways of working and being together. The ways in which we do the things that we do together and. We realized that we probably pay more attention to that than a lot of people do, because of our training, because of the work that we do. And oftentimes we find in groups, a lot of people are really focused on the outcomes of a particular process or of a particular way of working together. They're really thinking about'what do we need to get done' and aren't necessarily thinking so much about how they're getting that done. Or if they are, they're thinking about,"Well, what's the thing that's going to get us the result quickest, or with the least amount of argument?" Or like they're really thinking about'what's a process that will lead to the outcome'. And what we have sometimes been very frustrated by, and noticed a lot, particularly when we're in a group, is the effect of using that process on the group. So, not just 'what is the result that it gets us', but'what is the effect' that doing that, doing those things in that way, is having on the group, on the continued group working relationship. And sometimes we have to ask the question, "Yeah, we're using this process to get this result, but is this process worth it?"

Karen: 1:53

Yeah. And I think, as Paul said, time, you see this more. And I will say my frustration level, I think, gets higher the more I know about it. And some of it's because I see how it could be different. Like, I see options that the people I'm working with often just don't see. And I think that if you haven't done a lot of study of facilitation and different processes and different possibilities. One of the early on mistakes in this, I think, is that we just rely on what we know and what we know. Largely, in most organizations that I've seen, we either know what we've done before. Something along the lines of Robert's rules is common or you know, "We're going to have a meeting and everybody's going to, you know, raise their hand if they want to talk and get called on". Looks a lot like third grade actually. And you know, maybe with some hierarchy in it. And we do that because it's what we know. The other reason we do it is because we feel safe. And often with that, I see people talk longer than they might because when they hold the floor. They feel safer. They feel effective. They also talk longer when they're writing. So you see policy documents that are very long winded and also quite often with fairly hierarchical, legalistic, judgmental, even language built into them. And I read those as safety mechanisms. We're doing that because "I'm afraid that if I'm not that way, people won't agree with me.""I'm afraid that people will argue with me." "I'm afraid that somebody will misinterpret the policy if I don't write out every imaginable contingency related to it." And so that sort of what we're afraid of pushes us back to what we know. And rather than thinking, "Oh, maybe this isn't really working", or "Maybe I'm not going to get the safety that I want out of this", or "I'm not going to get the result that I want out of it". Rather than going, "Oh, maybe this process isn't the right process, I should go look for a different process." We double down in what we know. And so we have more meetings. And we write longer documents. And we talk more, or that kind of thing, is a pattern I see a lot. And people say, "But we have to!" And quite honestly, my internal, and sometimes what I say out loud is, "Okay, you may have to, but I don't." And I check out. And I think I probably check out more verbally like I say it as I do it. But I think a lot of times we lose group members because the process itself just isn't worth it.

Paul: 4:40

Yeah. And I think that is the That happens. And I've been, you know, that's a thing that's happened to me. One of the groups that I'm part of needed to go through a regular process of revising some of their governing documents. And they asked for volunteers to serve on a committee who would actually go do this. And I said, "I would love to do that because there are some things that I really think should be changed." That this was an opportunity to provide a viewpoint that I didn't think had really been represented before, and I really wanted to do it. And then the process that was being used to actually revise them? Was just- I found it utterly frustrating. And I found myself having to bring so much energy to actually try to be involved with it. And there was just enough other stuff going on in my life at that time that was also a demand on my energy. I just said, "You know, it's not worth it to me and we'll see what actually comes out of it." And I don't necessarily blame anyone for that. And I can still be frustrated by it and go, "Oh, boy. Like I really you know, I would love to actually be able to be involved. And it's just not worth it to me right now." And I think that happens with a lot of people in those types of situations. And then people, you know, people check out. So, they don't get involved. They're not involved in the process because the process isn't conducive to them being involved. And then they're unhappy with the result that they get. We've talked a little bit about this before, about how when you're delegating stuff off to a subcommittee to go do something, the committee has to be really careful about making sure they don't run too far down the road before checking back in with the main group. But if they do right, they come back with a result that the group no one really likes, but no one wants to prolong the process. And so they go, "Okay, fine." And I think that's the other big cost, right, is that, you know, people check out and then we get resentment. And we get policies that don't actually, results that don't actually work for people, but that no one is willing to stop because they see the effort required to actually do something about it.

Karen: 6:42

Yeah, I see that pattern over And I think a word I want to add in to this is "buy in". That, you know, I've seen it happen around mission statements. I've seen it happen around policy in various ways. And places where you know and things like that. What the paper says? Actually means nothing. It's what people will do with that. It's not the fact that we have a mission statement we can put on our website. I mean, maybe there's a marketing value for that, depending on what your project is. But in terms of the functionality of the group, that's not actually useful. It's the idea that we are all bought in. We are all invested in a shared vision of what our mission is. And if the process of getting to the mission statement has disconnected people and exhausted people and, you know, and folks have sort of said,"Okay, well, I'll still be part of this group because I believe in it, but I'm not actually engaged in participating in this, that or the other parts of it because it's just too tiring."

Paul: 7:43

Mm hmm.

Karen: 7:44

That in fact, even the outcome, statement or the policy or whatever, that was the goal. Yeah, we got it on paper. But we didn't get it in, as you might say, 'people's hearts and minds'. We didn't get it in a way that shows up then in people's behavior, or that results in compliance or support of whatever the thing was that we were working toward. So I think the costs are pretty substantial even to the theoretical outcome.

Paul: 8:11

Right! And I think if I had a here, you know, what I would really wish for is for people who are either proposing or running processes, you know, in a group, to be aware of the effect that it's having on the group itself. On the functioning of the group, on the dynamics, on all those things. Because I think people would make different decisions if they recognized that. Now I'll actually put two caveats to that. One, I think that like if I could wave a magic wand, and just have people be aware of the effect of anything on group dynamics, that would be great! Because it's not specific to process work, but it's the, you know, a greater awareness of'how is the group functioning as a whole' I think is a useful thing. You know, And then I think the the other piece around that is that I think the other reason why you touched on this at the very beginning, why- even when we're aware that this is having this effect on this group, why we continue to do it is because we don't know we have other options. And so I guess that would be the other part of this. I just I wish people had a greater awareness of what the effect of this is. And then, could recognize that they could do something different. That they had other choices about what to do. Because I think we get into a situation where we go, "Yeah, no one's enjoying this. And I think this is doing long term damage to the group." And we're going to keep doing it because we don't realize that we have a choice about it. I think it's the lack of awareness of the effect, and the lack of awareness of options, are two of the big contributors to us using processes that aren't worth it.

Karen: 9:48

Yeah, and sometimes the lack of We don't know of a different facilitation method or that kind of thing. Sometimes it's within the structure of the group. You know, I've seen groups that, for example, had "We have a three-step proposal process and every proposal has to go through the three-step process." And it turns out there are a lot of proposals that don't need that. Like it's a perfectly good process. I'm not objecting to a three-step proposal process for a process, for a topic, that's worth it. But very often we do a one-size fits all. And again, because it feels safe, nothing's going to get snuck by anybody because we make sure it gets discussed at multiple meetings and so on and so forth. But actually there's a lot of stuff that it's okay if it slips by because we think it's not contentious. We think it's, you know, like we think everybody's okay with it. They probably are. A little transparency, "We move along", is probably fine. And so one of the things that I just want to point to as a common source of this is we put in place rigid processes. We actually require of ourselves processes in a 'one-size fits all' kind of approach. And one of the cures is to trust each other enough. To trust our leadership enough, to trust our facilitators enough to say "Some things absolutely need a three-step or a ten-step process to get the buy in." To get the sharing of ideas, to get alignment, that may be lacking. But some things are really,"Hey, I have this idea. Anybody object? Okay, good." And that's enough. Like, and right. Like, and it really is enough. Like it is efficient and it moves things along. And there is some discernment about that. And you'll guess wrong occasionally and have some cleanup to do. But the willingness to have that flexibility, it adds some vulnerability which we know almost always benefits relationships. And it gives us the ability to work with each topic in the way that works for that topic. Instead of trying to pick one way that always has to work for the group, which I think is rarely successful.

Paul: 11:53

As long as I've got my magic other thing that I would really wish for is that. We would reflect more often. On the need for more flexible process. How is this process working for us right now? You know, and in some groups that I work in, right, they really do have this idea of a'tiered process', right? Stuff that's just super simple. It only just needs to do it. And this is the criteria for like what makes it simple, like what, encoding some of that discernment. We know that things like this, you know, "Stuff that costs less than $500 doesn't need to go through the procurement process", "Stuff that fits around here and these people agree, then we don't need to deal with the whole three-step proposal" sort of thing. But having some warning signs of being able to go, "Oh, actually, maybe we do need the bigger piece around this, you know, can be really useful." But oftentimes, groups only get to having that through that process of reflection. Of having gone- you know, it usually it happens, there's no process. And then something bad happens and we get this super heavyweight process that then gets extended over time. And then, often, the useful'swing back the other way' is going. Well, rather than just abolishing that, how can we start to put in place something where we say, "You know, we don't always need that, but it is useful sometimes." "How can we know a little bit better?" and "how can we articulate the better knowing of that?" This shows up in some meetings in some of the groups that I'm in as well. Where there are some things where it's like,"This is non-controversial and we know. And this is how we know it's non-controversial. And if there's any sign of controversy, then we'll do it the other way." If anybody says, "Actually, I do want to talk about this because I have this kind of concern, then we'll go into the other process." But oftentimes groups only get there because they reflect on how this is or isn't working for them. And not just when it's terrible!

Karen: 13:47

Yeah. So we started today with worth it?" And this is one Paul and I would love the groups that were participating in, or working with, to really ask themselves a lot. This is one of those questions that the value actually that we're pointing to is ask the question, "What is the impact that the process is having?" and "Is that the impact that we'd like it to have?" And we tracked that. We often use processes that are familiar and that feel safe. And very often those result in more rigorous process, more lengthy process, more lengthy documents, more detailed policy, all that stuff. It's familiar because it feels safe when the actual result of the process is we're using are that people get less engaged, less interested in participating and less willing to buy in or participate or, you know, engage with whatever decisions are made. And so we end up with both a process that did some damage to our relationships and engagement in the group. And also, an outcome that doesn't have the meaning or usefulness that we envisioned it having. And really the magic wands that we're looking for are around reflection. Pause and think about "What is the impact that we want to have?", "Are we really having it?" And flexibility. That lengthy processes absolutely have a place, but they aren't in every place. And with that, some discernment about 'which are the places' and'how do we know which are the places'. And to have some conversations about that. And some trust in facilitators and leaders who have and are thinking about these things, and are on the lookout for signs that, "Oh, we're shortcutting this too much, we need to go to a longer process." And if we can do that, we're likely to have better engagement in everything that we do.

Paul: 15:35

That's going to do it for us Until next time, I'm Paul Tevis.

Karen: 15:39

And I'm Karen Gimnig. And this has been Employing Differences.