Are your team planning sessions not getting the results you expected? Is it because the same few people in the room seem to be the only ones contributing fresh ideas? Well, it may because these people are unintentionally dominating the sessions in a way that shuts others off from the creative process, to the point that others think it is better to be seen supporting that person ideas, rather than to risk presenting their own. If this is the case then try this technique to see if you get a better result.
Let’s say there are nine people involved in a planning session and that two of these, for various reasons, good or bad, might dominate this session – (Matt & Joan). The nine people are told that they will be split into three groups (Red, Blue, Green) and that each group will be given a different business issue to work on. During the time they have together, they are to go through a process of generating some ideas, agreeing on one to take forward, and developing some actionable steps to put their adopted idea into action. They will then need to present this back to the entire group for review and discussion. Now to level the playing field we will allocate each person a number (1,2 or 3) and then split them into their respective groups and commence the process.
At some point during the process a halt is called – okay let’s not call it a halt, as it is not a coffee or toilet break, it’s a micropause – while you tell to them that people with the numbers one need to move in a clockwise direction to the next group, and those with a three are to move in an anti-clockwise direction to the next group. Those with the number two are to remain where they are. It is important someone remains with their original group to maintain continuity. Now have them continue where they left off.
Again at some further point during the process call for another rotation, repeating the same sequence as before. At the end of the final session, this is the group makeup that will present the plan back to the entire group.
How does this approach solve the original problem? Well by moving people around during the sessions it limits people’s ability to dominate and influence the output of each group. A dominant persons input into any one group is limited to one-third of the total time it takes to define the plan, and they are only one voice of seven people who will have input into it; it levels the playing field. Conversely, if you did not rotate the group, then they have 100% influence across the group they are in and be one voice among three.
Here are some additional tips if you are going to experiment with this process.
- Don’t make a dominant person stay with the group (e.g. a 2), you need to rotate them or it defeats the purpose
- Don’t have too many rotations as it will also impact planning, have enough to stop anyone from dominating
- Don’t participate as a group member, act as a roving facilitator and observer; and if you see someone dominating a group, then trigger a rotation
- The length of time in between, and number of rotations is not an absolute; for instance, if you are brainstorming you may have more during that time
- Don’t divulge the real reason for this approach, that is a bit like calling your bank to say you’ll be popping over in 5 minutes to rob them
- This works best if you get the lay of the land in terms of the mix of players beforehand, so do your homework work first. Who the experts, who are the more senior people etc. Who is likely to lead and who is likely to follow.
- Have fun.
Because the groups rotate this effectively means everyone has input into each group’s plans. This can make presenting back to the whole group easier, as less time is spent on ‘explaining the concept’ and more getting input and feedback. You may find criticism more constructive, given everyone ultimately had an input into each plan.