Adaptive Facilitation

If the facts of the case make it seem sensible to talk about the issue with a large number of people (~15) at the same time, because one assumes that a solution can be found in the abundance and synergies of the different points of view. Talks of this kind usually get completely out of hand without appropriate facilitation, consume many times more time and often leave the participants dissatisfied and without certainty that they have defined tangible next steps. This is where Adaptive Facilitation helps.

When the context reeks of every proposed solution bringing a rat’s tail of disadvantages, the team discusses in circles and the feeling creeps in that no matter where you reach you will only make it worse. This is where Adaptive Facilitation helps.

Many different experts are trying to find a solution to a very complex issue.

This is often because the previous facilitation was not able to support the participants to have a common view of the shared views. This is where Adaptive Facilitation helps.

Adaptive facilitation tries to quickly find an initial solution with many people “on the matter”, with which the participants dare to continue. Conflicts that focus on the relationship level can degenerate into pseudo-conflicts on the substance. These conflicts should be dealt with using the usual methods and assistance.

Adaptive facilitation has a bias towards consensusT, i.e. trying to find an initial solution as quickly as possible that everyone can live with, i.e. no longer has any objections. However, this is the death of all innovative and “radical” ideas. Although these can be tested well with Adaptive Facilitation for the reactions of others, they should be decided differently. For example, through a consultative individual decision or Integrative Decision Making (IDM).

Adaptive Facilitation is not a substitute for creative workshops/procedures in which, for example, Double Diamond or Design Thinking is used to try to solve a customer problem from many different perspectives with the appropriate time, creativity and a sequential approach, or to innovate in other contexts.

Sometimes a consent (“no one has an objection to trying something”) alone is not enough, as it would be more beneficial for the participants to negotiate a consensus (“everyone is in favour”). Something very exciting is happening here: On the one hand, in teams we have a tendency to decide much more by consensus (“participatory trap”) than is necessary for productive collaboration, and at the same time we usually do not have the tools at hand to bring about a solution that is as close to consensus as possible. A double predicament, but another topic.

An example of a context that suggests a consensus-based solution is the decision on how to organise a team event. Here, everyone should be involved as much as possible and feel maximally comfortable. One method to reach this consensus is systemic consensus building.

Turn all contributions into challenges, ideas for solutions, concerns & objections or information & points of view.

Any contribution that expands the content of the discussion is placed by the facilitator in real time in one of the quadrants.

• Challenges (H)
  Solution ideas (L)
  Concerns & Objections (B)
  Information & Perspectives (I)

included.

If the discussion is very complex, we need an overview of the collected facts and perspectives. Especially when we want to solve a problem together, it is most efficient if we know what we actually want to achieve (challenges), how we can best get there (solution ideas), what we should consider (concerns & objections) and what information is still relevant (information and perspectives).

For the sake of efficiency during the meeting, the Principle 3. transcript important for during, less for after still applies.

This is the basic principle of Adaptive Facilitation.

3. note taking important for during, less for after

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D1-D5

See Principle 3. note-taking important for during, less for after.

It doesn’t matter who uttered what. Works with linear lists that are consistently numbered and continued.

Each of the four quadrants H, L, B, I is a numbered list. Contributions are added to the lists in the order in which they are mentioned. An author of the contribution is not named.

Apart from that, the following applies: Principle 1. Make everything visible in four quadrants.

Numbering makes it easy for participants to relate the contributions to each other: “We should try L2 and L5, this addresses B2 and solves H1.” This is where the participants’ spatial memory comes into play.

The lack of reference to names avoids status conflicts that are not conducive to the goal. Each contribution is one among many, without it mattering who it came from. This also makes it more difficult for “ad hominem” arguments to be made, which determine the relevance of a contribution on the basis of the contributor.

This is the basic principle of Adaptive Facilitation.

Principle 1. Making everything visible in four quadrants.

Addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D2, D7

No difference.

The facilitator usually arranges the contributions automatically into the four quadrants without asking and uses the wording of the participants if possible.

The transcript is framed from the outset as a “memory aid”, which explicitly has no protocol character.

The participants are asked to follow the transcript and to intervene if there are discrepancies in the content or if they feel they have been misunderstood.

This results in 2. Numbered lists without personal reference.

Challenges (H) are an exception. Here the facilitator helps the contributor to find an appropriate “How do we make it so that …?” formulation when a problem is raised and also proactively suggests challenges that he or she has heard from the conversation and has the participants confirm them as relevant. (Principle 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges).

The only binding things in the transcript are the solutions and commitments marked in green, for example, which are the actual outcome of the discussion. (see 10. Regular check for solutions by objection and 14. Differentiate solutions by commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none) .

In order to keep the overview, 4. make visible where “the discussion” is centred.

When we want to solve a problem together, the most important thing is to find a (first) solution – and not to log the way to get there. Our brain works associatively and to solve a problem it may be necessary to think two contradictory thoughts at the same time and see where that takes us. A “protocol” of the conversation not only has no added value, but also paralyses creative solution finding, as conflicts arise that would not have been there in the first place without a protocol. (“That’s not what I said!”, “I don’t want that in the minutes!”).

If we regard the perspectives and contributions as fleeting, associative intermediate stations, we can move much more quickly along them towards the solution and in the end confidently forget the way there. Moreover, no one gets into the predicament of having to justify a contribution afterwards or having to think about this inhibiting thought (“Watch what you say!”) during the discussion.

Ask the participants whether they will be sent “the minutes” afterwards. Here it makes sense to point out to them that they receive the transcript as an aid to memory – but that it essentially corresponds to the understanding of the facilitator. Resilient solutions, on the other hand, are explicitly developed by means of 10. Regular checks for solutions by objection and marked as a binding result by means of 14. Differentiating solutions according to commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none.

2. Numbered lists without reference to persons

4. Making it visible where “the discussion” is located

8. Affirmative formulation of challenges

10. Regular check for solutions by objections

14. Differentiate solutions according to commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D1, D3

Structurally little, temporally enormous.

In Dynamic Facilitation, the facilitator asks for each contribution whether it has been reproduced correctly in writing and asks the participant to confirm its content.

In the business context, conflicts are often not of the emotional and entrenched scope that Dynamic Facilitation tries to solve in my understanding. On the other hand, we have the time factor breathing down our necks, which we take into account by framing the Adaptive Facilitation transcript as a memory aid and only communicating the solutions that have been worked out as decided. This makes it easier for the participants to “live” with one or the other formulation of the facilitation.

The elements that are in focus are visually highlighted to make it easier for the participants to think and to know which “puzzle pieces” are being talked about.

If the discussion condenses in the context of some concrete list items, these are temporarily highlighted visually by the facilitator. In the OneNote app, for example, the categories “yellow” and “green” are assigned to the key combinations Ctrl+1 and Ctrl+2, respectively, in order to quickly highlight the focus of the current audio track.

“Green” could be used, for example, only for Principle 10: Regular check for solutions by objection.

Relatively quickly the lists of the four quadrants become very long, especially since we 1. make everything visible in four quadrants as well as 15. (let) the problem move back and forth.

If a participant now refers to several different contributions, it is very helpful to highlight them visually in the facilitation, so that on the one hand the thinking process of the speaker is supported, but also so that all the other participants can see which pieces of the puzzle are being put together here.

This relieves the mental burden and helps all participants to listen, think and understand.

T: “L2 is not so bad as a first approach, because it takes B3 and B4 into account and addresses H2. We should add L4 and then it will be enough.”

M highlights the contributions L2, B3, B4, H2 and L4 visually and sees what happens.

Often it is possible to move seamlessly into 10. Regular check for solutions by objection without having to unmark the solution again.

Often, however, the participants will not use the indices of the contributions (B2, L4 …) but will respond to content that has already been expressed. Here it will help if the moderator also listens with an ear to the content and can still assign the corresponding indices himself and highlight the contributions accordingly.

1. Making everything visible in four quadrants
10. Eegular check for solutions per objection
15. (Let) the problem move back and forth (let it)

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D1, D2, D3, D6, D8

In its original form, Dynamic Facilitation works with four flipcharts, which are continued on and on. The methodology does not envisage highlighting contributions visually during the discussion.

Views each challenge as an entry point into a complex of issues.

You don’t have to rack your brains about whether you are dealing with the supposedly “one right” challenge at the moment, you simply start with one that is in the room. Should the challenge sharpen or change in the course of the discussion, add these as further challenges.

The 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges applies here.

When it comes to complex or messy situations, the issues are usually inextricably linked. Especially when emotions are involved, the entry point (“proxy problem”) is far away from the actual problem to be solved and only in the discussion do we work our way closer to the core. We have to 15. (Let) the problem move back and forth.

M or T are struggling with whether it is really the right thing to talk about at the moment. → Don’t hesitate, just get on board!

8. Affirmative formulation of challenges
15. (Let) the problem move back and forth

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D4, D6, D8

Similar.

Give the floor to the participant who is most concerned.

Once we have found a thematic entry point according to the principles 5. Any entry point and 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges, the facilitator starts by asking who is particularly concerned about the topic and gives the floor to that person.

For participants who are particularly emotionally involved in the topic under discussion, the 17. Principle of emptying takes effect.

Since the issue being discussed is “about something” (see 7. “Steaks on the grill” – It must be “about something”), there is usually also at least one participant who has a particularly developed opinion on the topic. This person will usually bring out a lot of details that will make the wheel turn in the discussion and provide the other participants with the necessary context. At the same time, when this person has finished, it will be all the easier for him/her to “hear” the contributions of the others if he/she knows that his/her views have been heard.

M thinks about how she can best get the discussion going. She resists the impulse to give the floor to the participants one after the other, but asks concretely: “Who is most concerned here?” If several people ask to speak at the same time, she supports them with an order.

1. Making everything visible in four quadrants
5. Any entry point
7. “Steaks on the grill” – It has to be “about something”
8. Affirmative formulation of challenges
17. Principle of emptying

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D5, D6

No difference.

The topic must be important enough for everyone present to invest time in it.

Dynamic Facilitation is not only suitable for complex and messy situations – it also presupposes them. It is less suitable for low-threshold topics or issues that many participants are indifferent to.

In order to find a relevant but arbitrary (“contigent”) entry point, Principle 5. Any entry point applies. Arbitrary entry point and as an input interface, Principle 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges also applies.

Only if the issue to be resolved is very important to those present is there enough energy for change and creative potential that can be used through the procedure. Adaptive Facilitation can help to really “hear” the other person for the first time and to work out the core of the common challenge(s), especially in situations that are getting bogged down.

There are issues in the room that have a longer history or have reached a level of complexity that you don’t know exactly where best to tackle them.

5. Any entry point
8. Affirmative formulation of challenges

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D6, D8

No difference.

Formulate problems to be solved consistently affirmatively as challenges in the form “How do we manage that…?” and avoid negations.

Formulate problems to be solved directly into challenges and include them in the list of challenges (H). Formulate them affirmatively or avoid negations: Instead of “How do we manage not to lose the customer?” formulate “How do we manage to keep the customer?”

If participants have difficulty avoiding the negations, ask: “What instead?”

You originally started the discussion with 5. any entry point and 7. “Steaks on the grill” – It has to be “about something” but continue through the rest of the discussion using this principle.

Language creates reality. The formulation of the challenge is the first mental step towards finding a solution. The affirmative (positive) formulation automatically expands the solution space. Our brain cannot process a “not” cleanly – if we want to avoid something, we should also avoid it linguistically.

T: “We never manage to deliver on time because we always test way too late!”

M: “That is, a challenge you see could be ‘How do we manage to have testing completed on time?'”

Or: M ‘translates’ automatically and includes the above challenge in the catalogue.

5. Any entry point
7. “Steaks on the grill” – It must be “about something”

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D4, D6, D9

No difference.

Improvements and modifications of contributions by other participants are added as separate list items.

Very often, solution ideas are modified by the participants or “corrected” from their point of view. The original (i.e. the criticised) solution idea is not touched by the facilitator – not even in consultation with the author – but another, separate solution idea is added to the catalogue on the basis of the improvement brought forward.

For the sake of clarity, reference can be made to the original solution, e.g:
Solution ideas (L):
…
6. L4 + Improvement X

Communication regarding “Which of the two ideas do we now send into the race?” creates an artificial and non-goal conflict, which is avoided where the modifications seamlessly find their own place, like all other contributions, in the quadrant Solution Ideas (L).

In 10. Regular check for solutions by objection, one will not decide against but in favour of a solution anyway.

If someone vehemently objects to a solution idea, it will be made visible as concerns and objections (B) anyway and thus enrich the overall view.

T: “I don’t think L4 will work without us involving Department X in addition.”

M adds the next free list item “7. L4 + involvement of Department X” to the quadrant Solution Ideas (L).

10. Regular check for solutions by objection

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D1, D6, D7, D10, D11

No difference.

After (approximately) fixed time slices, a first attempt at a solution is made and (by the participants) selected ideas for possible solutions are raised and checked for objections.

After 10-20 minutes (it depends on the context and is left to the experience of the facilitator), an attempt is made with the participants to find one, a selection or a combination of solution ideas from the quadrant of solution ideas (L) that are “good enough” to start.

In doing so, all solutions that are still highlighted by the Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred, are “reset” and the participants are asked whether one solution from the selection already looks viable enough against the background of what has been said.

If one is named, it is highlighted in yellow according to the Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred and asked whether there is an objection.

If there is one, the arguments raised are placed as usual in the 1. Make everything visible in four quadrants (presumably Concerns & Objections (B)) and any alternative solutions are included in the quadrant of Solution Ideas (L) according to the Principle 9. Only add, do not correct. The marked solution is unmarked and the initial question is repeated.

If finally a solution is identified from the solution ideas (L) in this way for which there is no objection, it is marked green and Principle 14. Differentiate solutions by commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none is applied.

If no solution can be found even after several attempts and with time running out, the facilitator adds the challenge (H) “How do we manage to pursue this question further in a meaningful and efficient way?” (or similar) and thus identifies a solution at the meta-level. Here, there should probably be no problems in defining the next step.

In the case of very charged or complex topics, it may make sense to give preference to the 17. Principle of emptying and first give the floor to everyone who is important.

Last but not least, if there are a lot of contributions and long lists, the participants may feel overwhelmed by the abundance of different points of view and silence and oppression may prevail. This is where Principle 18. Hold the silence and help overcome the paralysis comes into play

If there are a lot of perspectives on the table after an intensive discussion, it is usually possible to find an initial solution that is good enough to continue.

Note here 16. Holistic consideration ←→ point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”.

There are already some solution ideas (L) and a generous or a time slice agreed by the participants has already been spent on discussing the topic. There is little new content or the facilitator has the impression that a ping pong has developed between participants (see 13. Stop the ping pong).

If the participants are overwhelmed or frustrated, it may be necessary to hold the silence and help overcome the paralysis.

1. Make everything visible in four quadrants
4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred
9. Only add, do not correct
13. Stop the ping pong
14. Differentiate solutions by commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none
16. Holistic view ←→ point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”
17. Principle of emptying
18. Hold the silence and help overcome the paralysis

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D6, D8, D9, D11, D12

One of the main differences. Dynamic Facilitation calls for a lot of time for the initial clarification of a very hardened conflict. The book talks about a series of appointments lasting several hours each.

This is partly due to the fact that Dynamic Facilitation in its original version also deals with very sensitive issues and lives by the principle that each of the parties involved should speak up about the issue under discussion until he or she can think of nothing more to say. The authors call this principle “deflation”. In Adaptive Facilitation, for reasons of efficiency, we rely instead on 13. Stop the ping pong and 10. Regularly check for solutions by objection, in order to guide the group more quickly to an initial solution that is sufficiently resilient in the business context.

Furthermore, Dynamic Facilitation is explicitly against asking for consensus in order to avoid the risk that a solution is decided on but not supported by all because of “group think”. Dynamic Facilitation, on the other hand, trusts that given enough time and when everyone has said everything, the next sensible step will fall like scales from the eyes of the participants. This is what the authors call a “breakthrough”. In Adaptive Facilitation, on the other hand, we use 10. Regular checks for solutions by objections.

Supporting participants who repeatedly raise the same concerns to find the right words (for them) for the concerns & objections quadrant (B).

If there are participants who repeatedly raise the same concerns in a variation or 1:1 during the discussion, it can help to give these participants a special hearing.

The facilitator marks the contributions according to the Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred in the quadrant ‘concerns and objections’ (B), which she thinks she has formulated in the sense of the participant. She asks if she has noted them down correctly and if the reference goes beyond what is already there. Perhaps a different formulation would make it clearer what the participants are talking about?

The moderator then leaves the relevant contributions highlighted for a while according to the Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred.

This principle correlates strongly with the 17. Principle of emptying.

When participants repeatedly raise their concerns, it is usually because they are (unconsciously) worried that they have not been sufficiently heard or understood.

This is also a hindrance for the participants themselves, because as long as they feel they have not been sufficiently heard, they cannot sufficiently hear the solution ideas of others and relate them to the problem.

Therefore, it is beneficial to the common goal if the facilitator ensures that the participant feels heard and understood.
The energy released by this (which was previously trapped in objection thinking) can then be redirected into solution ideas with the Principle 12. And if it were only up to you?

T: “The developers don’t need another hurdle that slows them down!”

M notes this very thing in (B) as B6.

A little later, T again: “Everything must not be left to the developer! Otherwise he won’t get anywhere!”

M marks B6 and asks: “Do you see your objection already sufficiently formulated here or is something still missing?”

T: “Yes, it can’t be that we developers are overwhelmed with more and more regulations. I can’t read half a manual every morning to know what I’m allowed to do today!”

M writes in the meantime B9: “The developers must not be prevented from developing by a regulatory overhead!” and asks for confirmation whether it meets his concern. M lets B6 and B9 be highlighted for a while by the Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred.

Depending on the context, M could now empathically assume from this the additional challenge “How do we make it so that developers are not prevented from developing by regulation overhead?” using Principle 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges. M could then use 12. And if it were only up to you? to work out initial attempts at solutions with the participant.

4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred
12. And if it were only up to you?
17. Principle of emptying

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D1, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9

Similar.

Participants who invest themselves in the discussion are regularly asked: “And if it were only up to you?”

In cases where a participant repeatedly

• repeatedly criticises solutions that have been put forward,
• repeatedly expresses concerns,
• only “pokes around” in the solution space in a very abstract way

he/she can be challenged with questions like

• “And if it were only up to you?”
• “If you were allowed to decide completely, what would you do or arrange first in concrete terms?”
• “What do we need instead?”
• “What should we do instead?”

are accompanied into the solution space.

Solutions are formulated affirmatively/positively together with the participant, i.e. negations are avoided.

This does not mean that the whole conversation always has to move into the solution space, see 15. (Let) the problem move back and forth. With participants who are strongly entrenched in problem thinking and their concerns, special focus beforehand on 11. Only when you have been heard can you listen.

Sometimes during this dialogue further challenges can be indirectly named or empathically assumed by the facilitator, see 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges.

Thinking in solutions is usually not something we have learned.

Here, support can be given at several points at the same time.

Reasons for this can be, among others

• that we are still mentally moving in the problem space and only see and inwardly name what all must not be. → What instead?
• that we censor ourselves and do not give ourselves the mandate in a larger group to propose a solution. → If it were only up to you?
• that we suspect a solution on the horizon but have not yet looked at it more concretely. → What would you do or arrange first in concrete terms?
• if we do not yet feel heard in our concerns. → 11. Only when you have been heard can you listen.

Here it makes a big difference to the discussion if the facilitator, as one of their main tasks, helps to generate solutions. The more solutions there are, the more wisely decisions can be made and weighed up at the end.

T: “I can only repeat myself, we must not forget that care must be taken that X does not happen to us!“

M applies 11. Only when you have been heard can you listen.

T: “If we communicate it like this, we are already threatened with a wave of complaints!”

M: “How should we communicate instead? If it were only up to you?”

T: “We have to improve the communication between the teams somehow!”

M can, for example, set another common challenge (“How can we improve cross-team communication?”, see 8. Affirmative formulation of challenges) or invite T to be more specific: “If it were only up to you, what would you do first in concrete terms?”

8. Affirmative formulation of challenges
11. Only when you have been heard, you can listen
15. (Let) the problem move back and forth

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D4, D6, D7, D9, D10, D11

No difference.

The facilitator indicates how many more participants will have their say before a first, concrete attempt at a solution is made. Ping pong between participants is interrupted.

When the end of the time slice is reached and a 10. Regular check for solutions by objection is due, the discussion may still be far from dying down. Here it can be announced how many participants are still to come. If numbers are used in the chat, which participants who want to speak “draw2 “, it can be announced that only participants up to the number x will have their turn.

This will usually not prevent participants from drawing further tickets x+1 to x+n. Here, the moderator can explain why he/she wants to cut off the discussion. It is left to the experience of the moderator and also depends on the dynamics among the participants whether the 17. Principle of emptying is preferred here.

Conflicts are communication and communication never stops unless it is actively stopped. Objection A is followed by clarification B is followed by objection C is followed …

It is a fallacy that after a “last sentence on this” from participant 1 or the “one thing” that participant 2 still “has to get rid of”, the topic discussed would not also stimulate participants 3-n to give impulses.

In order to do justice to the principle 16. Holistic view ←→ point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”, it is often sufficient to simply find a first solution that is “good enough”. Therefore, in Adaptive Facilitation, time is also the limiting factor at some point. Nevertheless, the 17. Principle of emptying may be considered at this point.

T1: “One more thought …”

T2: “But I have to say …”

T3: “However, this completely ignores the fact that …”

T1: “I can’t let that stand …”

…

10. Regular check for solutions per objection.
16. Holistic view ←→ Point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”.
17. Principle of emptying

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D10, D12

See 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

Dynamic Facilitation gives the ping pong the change to turn into a “breakthrough”. Furthermore, Dynamic Facilitation basically relies on the 17. Principle of emptying. We do not take the time in Adaptive Facilitation.

If a solution was decided by objection, it is checked again whether it is a joint commitment or represents a concrete ToDo.

If one or more solutions have been found through the 10. Regular check for solutions by objection, they are checked again to see if they are a joint commitment or a concrete ToDo.

In the case of a joint commitment, it is asked once again whether everyone has understood it and whether it makes sense to stick to it against the background of what has been discussed. If this is affirmed, the contribution is ideally marked as a commitment. For example, in OneNote with a keyboard shortcut with the category “green tick”.

In the case of a ToDo, a specific hat-wearer from the group is needed. Even if the executing authority/expertise is not present, someone is needed to take responsibility and clarify the issue accordingly. It is therefore asked at this point for such a hat-wearer. If no one is found, the solution is not pursued and unmarked again. A possible hat-wearer is asked whether he or she believes to have sufficiently understood the solution for which he or she takes responsibility, or whether he or she still needs information or contact persons afterwards.

If it makes sense, the solution can be briefly differentiated with the hat wearer on the spot into What, What exactly, What for, First step, First step until when – or the hat wearers are asked to document their understanding of the measures they have taken directly after the meeting, see also 3. Transcript important for during, less for afterwards.

Commitments do not necessarily need a hat-wearer but rather the confirmation of all those who want to keep them.

ToDos, on the other hand, need a hat-wearer. The principle of asap = never and all = none applies here.

If there is no concrete hat-wearer, the “diffusion of responsibility” will strike and in the end no one will do it. The same applies to “asap” – without a concrete completion date for the first step, there is a high probability that nothing will happen.

So always with to-dos:

• concrete hat
• and in case of doubt (but binding) afterwards: First step + target completion date

Due to the Principle 3. Transcript important for during, less for afterwards, hat wearers can still derive their to-dos from memory directly afterwards and fix them in the final protocol.

M marks one or more solutions green according to the Principle 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

Now it is up to you to decide what this means in concrete terms and who will take over a ToDo or take responsibility for it.

3. Transcript important for during, less for after
10. Regular check for solutions by objection

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D1, D11, D12

In Dynamic Facilitation, the facilitator does not ask specifically for a solution to be fixed, so as not to risk a false consensus or Group Think. In Dynamic Facilitation, the facilitator trusts that the participants will achieve a breakthrough on their own and that they will assemble a common solution from the solution ideas and reach a consensus on their own. At this point, the facilitator explicitly asks again if something has been overlooked in order to actively invite dissent. This is meant to further increase the viability of a solution.

In Adaptive Facilitation, on the other hand, we try to find a balance between our internal circumstances, which sometimes demand a quick solution, and the risk that the solution has not been decided completely freely by Group Think.

However, in my experience, when participants repeatedly do Adaptive Facilitation, they become more and more accustomed to the methodology and breakthroughs from Dynamic Facilitation are more likely to happen because they are familiar with the procedure and know how to work collaboratively, with the support of the facilitator, towards an even more viable solution.

However, in the initial facilitations, we accept that the facilitator may play “midwife” because of the time and repeatedly invite them to actively try to find a solution.

This is one of the most fundamental differences to Dynamic Facilitation.

The participants are not guided or restricted in terms of content. If new challenges arise, different altitudes or an oscillating change between problem and solution space, this is explicitly desired.

Facilitation does not control the content in the form of “Let’s talk about X first” or “Let’s get to the solutions later and understand the problem first”, but encourages the participants to place whatever they think is helpful at the moment.

The facilitator trusts that the participants, who are experts on their topic, will (re)move in a self-organised way in the direction that makes sense to them.

This is one of the core elements of Adaptive Facilitation. A complex and knotty problem cannot be forced into a linear discussion corset and must be viewed holistically. This requires that one leaves oneself the freedom to constantly change the challenge (i.e. the problem) and to switch back and forth between problem and solution space (association: left / right) and different flight altitudes (association: up / down).

Many solutions evoke follow-up problems, many challenges I have to look at from different altitudes, different things are important to the participants due to their expert backgrounds, muddled situations usually manifest themselves through a proxy problem, whereas it is actually about something completely different, etc.

By 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred and 10. Regularly check for solutions by objection, the extent to which what is currently being discussed helps the participants move forward is checked regularly anyway.

Note here 16. Holistic consideration ←→ point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”.

M notices that participants are moving in different “spaces” – i.e. some are still trying to understand the problem while others are already busy spinning solutions. M is tempted to linearise the process and let the participants e.g. first define the problem and agree on a common goal.

M recalls Principle 15. (Let) the problem move back and forth and lets the participants run free, supported by Principle 4. Make visible where “the discussion” is centred.

4. Make visible where “the discussion” is.
5. Any entry point
7. “Steaks on the grill” – it has to be “about something”
10. Regular check for solutions by objection
16. Holistic view ←→ point irritation = solutions that are “good enough”

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D3, D4 – D8, D10, D11

No difference.

Adaptive Facilitation brings together two opposites: A holistic analysis of the issue and a selective irritation to solve the problem. It thus turns conventional problem-solving approaches on their head, which (for lack of a better methodology) only look at issues selectively, but then try to solve them holistically. This usually ends in disasters.

During the discussion it is explicitly desired to: 15.( Let) the problem move back and forth.

In turn, we try: 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

The holistic part is further promoted by the 17. Principle of emptying, but at the same time makes the need for the Principle 18. Hold the silence and help overcome the paralysis more likely.

In order to understand a complex or messy issue as well as possible, we should look at as many perspectives as possible at the same time. We look at the problem like a ball, which we move back and forth, turn and turn, look at from above and below, throw at each other, hold against the light, etc. We can also look at the problem from different angles.

Only when we have looked at as many perspectives and related problems as possible can we make a wise decision as to where the greatest leverage for a first attempt at a solution might lie.

And it is precisely this attempt that we can only verify by trial and error before we aim for further steps or even a (supposedly) holistic solution. Because after the first attempt at a solution ( = an irritation of the system), we have a completely new set of circumstances to look at.

After an extensive discussion and more than 30 ideas for solutions (L), the participants try to build a very complex solution with many subsequent steps and “log in” according to the Principle 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

Here it can help if the facilitator defines responsible persons and first steps according to the Principle 14. Differentiate solutions by commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none and points out that all subsequent steps should be made dependent on the result.

4. Make it visible where “the discussion” is centred
10. Regular check for solutions by objection
13. Stop the ping pong
14. Differentiate solutions by commitments and to-dos: asap = never & all = none
15. (Let) the problem move back and forth (let it)
17. Principle of emptying
18. Hold the silence and help overcome the paralysis

Keep addressing the dysfunctions (see above): All.

In my understanding, Dynamic Facilitation in the original actually tries to find a more holistic solution. I don’t think it makes sense. I think it makes more sense to make a push after a detailed consideration and then see what happens.

If the circumstances make it seem appropriate, either all participants or the participants who are particularly concerned are given the floor until they can think of nothing more to say.

According to the assessment and experience of the facilitator, all or some participants are given the floor until they can think of nothing more to say.
Here, too, the facilitator can continue to play “midwife” by repeatedly asking in a solution-oriented way: “What else?”.

The facilitator protects the participants and does not allow any interruptions.

Here, the following continues to apply: 1. make everything visible in four quadrants.

Particularly if a participant signals that it is very important to them to have their say on an issue, it can make sense to build a protective space for them in which they can talk until they can’t think of anything else to say.

For some topics it may even make sense to give this shelter to all participants.

The 17. Principle of emptying is an extension of Principle 11. Only when you have been heard can you listen and it is only used in exceptional cases according to the assessment of the facilitator, as it is very time-consuming.

One or more participants are highly emotional about the issue and the issue has already left some rifts.

The hoped-for benefit of deflation and the associated debate on the matter is, according to the assessment of the facilitator/participants/commissioners, in proportion to the time to be spent on the 17. Principle of emptying.

1. Make everything visible in four quadrants
11. Only when you have been heard can you listen
15. (Let) the problem move back and forth

Further addresses the dysfunctions (see above): D7, D9, D10

The 17. Principle of emptying is an integral part of Dynamic Facilitation and is what makes the corresponding sessions so time-consuming. Dynamic Facilitation starts with each participant in turn having their say and “emptying themselves”.

In Adaptive Facilitation we deliberately break with this in order to more efficiently bring less complex and less messy situations to an initial solution in an economical way. In Adaptive Facilitation, not everyone necessarily gets to speak, but we trust the participants to contribute to the discussion when they can, depending on the topic and the altitude (see 15. (Let) the problem move back and forth).

It is up to the facilitator to allow quieter participants to speak.

After the initial configuration of the quadrants, the participants often feel overwhelmed by the sheer sum of conflicting perspectives and show frustration. Here it is up to the facilitator to assess whether it is more appropriate to keep the silence until the participants break through it themselves, or to be a little more active in 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

By 1. Make everything visible in four quadrants, an overwhelming list of conflicting views on a topic is generated by the participants with the help of the facilitator. There often comes a moment when everyone has first got rid of everything that was important to him or her, when one looks consciously and openly at the four quadrants for the first time.

Many feel overwhelmed and frustrated by the sheer number of perspectives and express this quite directly.

Here it is up to the facilitator to wait until someone picks up on one of the solutions mentioned and addresses the group with the question of whether this seems like an appropriate first step. Ideally, after a long discussion and the principle of 15. (Let) the problem move back and forth, it is crystal clear to the group what they should do.

Here, however, the facilitator – especially if the participants are not yet familiar with the methodology – can also ask: “If you look at the solution ideas (L), is there perhaps already something there?” This leads directly into 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

Especially when the 17. Principle of emptying has been applied, there can be an overwhelming abundance of perspectives. But even otherwise, the many perspectives are enough to give the participants the impression that nothing can be done with so many different interests. This manifests itself in a sudden paralysis of the previously very dynamic conversation.

In Adaptive Facilitation, there are at least two reasons for the perceived paralysis:

The first is due to the fact that the participants are often new to the methodology or at least unfamiliar with it. At this point, they often hope for control by the moderator and the question “Where do we go from here?

The second cause is the circumstance, also called the “yuck phase” in the original Dynamic Facilitation, that the participants feel overwhelmed in terms of content and emotion by the many pieces of the puzzle.

From the outside, it is difficult for the facilitator to judge which cause is predominant here. Therefore, in Adaptive Facilitation we deliberately break with the “keeping quiet” situationally to ensure that the participants realise that they are still in the driver’s seat and can help themselves to the solution ideas (L) at any time to build a solution.

If they have internalised after a few sessions with Adaptive Facilitation that they have a great steering influence, it is more likely that the original “yuck phase” is also predominant and it makes more sense to hold the silence until the participants break it themselves.

Case 1:

We assume that the participants are not yet at all familiar with the methodology and have generated a great wealth of perspectives. If silence now sets in for the first time, it may make sense to actively transition to Principle 10 Regular check for solutions by objection in the facilitation.

Case 2:

The participants are already sufficiently familiar with the methodology through some use cases and there comes a moment of silence in which the participants look at the many perspectives that have been generated up to this point. In this case, it can make sense for the facilitator to hold the silence and wait until a participant takes the initiative and raises a solution idea to a concrete solution proposal. Now the facilitator moves on to 10. Regular check for solutions by objection.

10. Regular check for solutions by objection
17. Principle of Emptying

Further addresses dysfunctions (see above): D6, D8, D9, D11

In the original, this is a concrete phase in the facilitation of Dynamic Facilitation and is called the “Yuck Phase”. This is meant to reflect the helpless feeling of the participants because of the many different perspectives that have to be overcome.

In my understanding, Dynamic Facilitation is very clearly in favour of keeping the silence until the participants break it themselves.

I think it is useful to assess, depending on the context, whether facilitation is allowed to provide some start-up support here. Sometimes it is due to the shortness of time and unfamiliarity with the methodology that the participants do not “help themselves” to the solution ideas (L).

(The “yuck phase” is not the same as the “groan zone”, which occurs when participants move from a divergence phase to a convergence phase – e.g. in a Double Diamond. In Dynamic Facilitation and Adaptive Facilitation we constantly switch between divergence and convergence, or the actual convergence only takes place at the very end, when solutions are “logged in” by means of a 10. Regular check for solutions by objection).