Use Shared Agreements or Ground Rules to Enhance Teamwork and Conversation Clarity (Facilitation Friday #11)
Succinct principles + behavioral examples = better discussions and decisions.
Imagine trying to drive in a different country without any knowledge of their speed limits or road rules and on highways and streets with no traffic lights or signage. Mayhem and accidents would likely abound.
Yet something similar happens daily in hundreds of meetings when individuals from different departments, teams, communities, or organizations convene. Lacking shared “rules of the road,” people engage as they see fit. This often leads to inadequate input, unproductive conversations, and ineffective decisions.
Defining norms for discussions and decisions helps people understand and enact who they aspire to be and how they will engage with each other. Shared agreements for engagement help create a more equitable, inclusive, and safe climate for individuals to freely speak their truths.
These agreements are called many things: group norms, ground rules, participation guidelines, et al. This essay uses various terms interchangeably. I favor shared agreements because it stresses that these are shared commitments to which participants have agreed and for which they are accountable to each other.
Regardless of what they are called, I find them most effective when they combine succinct written principles with behavioral examples (either documented or simply discussed). Providing both allows participants to commit to the central idea of each agreement, as well as its practical behavioral application.
Three key considerations for using shared agreements
1. Will you provide a draft set of agreements or work with participants to create their own?
Whichever approach you pursue, participant ownership of the agreements is vital. As author, speaker, and consultant Patrick Lencioni notes in his book The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business, “If people don’t weigh in, they can’t buy in.”
Considerations for which approach to select include:
the existing familiarity and trust among participants
the work the group is to do and the desired results
how frequently the group will interact over time
the needed amount of weighing in and buying in, and
the time available to spend on this effort
My loose rule of thumb? The more ongoing the group, the more I'll go on about norms and likely work with them to develop their own list of shared agreements. I find 5-7 agreements works best, but your mileage may vary.
Provide draft agreements for consideration.
When time is limited, you might suggest ground rules from one or more existing sources like those listed above. Note: the source texts contain more narrative than what I’ve excerpted. If you do, invite additions or modifications before asking participants to individually affirm their commitment to the final list. This helps prevent individuals feel they are complying with your rules rather than owning and committing to the group's agreements and peer-peer accountability.
Some organizations or communities have existing core values that you could help a group modify for use as discussion ground rules. Ask the group how these values apply (surfacing the behavioral definitions) and if any additional norms or agreements need to be made given the specific purpose for which they have convened (strategic planning session, all-staff retreat, et al).
Facilitate the group developing its own agreements.
Developing ground rules can provoke hesitance or mild resistance. Some participants see them as unnecessary or “touchy-feely.” Others previously have experienced significant time invested in developing shared norms that subsequently were rarely referenced or applied, something I think of as facilitator malpractice.
To address these issues, I generally begin with a very brief discussion of the following question: When you've been part of a group that produced some amazing results, what helped make that possible? Inevitably, individuals often cite clear roles and responsibilities, shared goals or direction, and an understanding of how to work with each other.
These responses naturally lead to the next question: Given the work that we are here to do, the results you wish to achieve, and the existing relationships you have with each other, what agreements or ground rules would help ensure better discussions and decisions? I believe the initial preface is important because it acknowledges that the norms are to help support the work and achieve the desired outcomes. They are an intentional means to the end.
Three common ways to develop shared agreements are:
brainstorming as a large group
small group brainstorming followed by large group discussion and selection
individual brainstorming and noting ideas in writing that are then clustered into common themes for large group discussion prior to finalizing a list of ground rules
You could begin the process prior to the first meeting or conversation, anonymously collecting and aggregating individuals' ideas via an online survey. I often use an online tool to generate a word cloud of their responses. This visual help the group quickly see some of their suggested values and norms. If already know and trust each other they could potentially use an online shared document to draft agreements.
2. How will you and the participants reference and use the agreements and hold individuals accountable for honoring them?
Rarely using any determined group norms does a disservice to their value, as well as the group's development. Draw on them whenever useful, but definitely reference them to help recreate the safe climate when the conversation temperature increases: “I can tell people have some strong opinions on this topic. Before we go any further, let's quickly revisit how we agreed to talk with each other.”
To further instill ownership among members in ongoing teams or work groups, I often ask every individual to volunteer to be the "conscience" or “caretaker” for one of the agreements. They commit to championing their agreement and calling attention to it when individuals apply it well or stray from its possibilities. Now everyone has a specific vested interest in the agreements.
Finally, holding individuals accountable for applying the shared agreements should neither be your sole responsibility as the facilitator nor should it have an overly punitive tone. Like the proverbial “swear jar,” some groups experience success with creating playful enforcement mechanisms that may even produce a humorous response. Get creative!
3. How and when will you help the group assess how well their efforts have aligned with the agreements?
Over time shared agreements can progress from a newly embraced habit to an effective operating system deeply embedded in a group’s muscle memory. Transitioning between those two states requires periodic self-assessment and goal-setting.
How often you might facilitate some evaluation again depends on how regularly the group may interact. If facilitating a board of directors that meets only three times a year, I’d likely have them self-assess at the end of each gathering. A staff management team that meets bi-weekly or a committee that meets monthly might only require quarterly assessments.
Regardless of frequency, I generally invite three levels of reflection:
individuals assess their own behavioral alignment with each agreement (how well did I do?) and identify areas for improvement.
the group assesses its cumulative behavioral alignment with each agreement (how well did we do?) and identifies areas for improvement.
the group identifies how my facilitation might further support alignment with the shared agreements
The next time the group convenes remind them of their assessment output and their stated intentions for improvement.
Bottom line?
In order for us to successfully do things with each other, it helps to first clarify how we want to be with each other. Creating shared agreements enacted through individual commitment and peer-peer accountability is one approach that can almost immediately lead to better discussions and better decisions.
Getting in Action
Generate a list of possible agreements you can draw from when offering suggestions to groups. Look to the resources cited in this post or others you might find online.
Think about groups in which you participate or facilitate and the agreements that seem to be in use, even if they are not explicitly noted as such. How might you surface others perceptions in this regard and help advance the documentation (or development) and meaningful application of shared agreements.
Identify conversation contexts that may require the introduction of an agreement specific to its purpose; i.e., a strategic planning retreat, a budget review meeting, et al.
Related Reading
Create an Equitable, Inclusive, and Safe Climate (Facilitation Friday #5)
© Facilitate Better and Jeffrey Cufaude. All rights reserved.
To affordably license this content for reprint on your site or in electronic or print communications or to contact me regarding customized facilitation skills workshops or consultations, complete this form.