The Facilitator: How to Lead a Group to Make Better Decisions? | Will Jeffrey | Skillshare

Playback Speed


  • 0.5x
  • 1x (Normal)
  • 1.25x
  • 1.5x
  • 2x

The Facilitator: How to Lead a Group to Make Better Decisions?

teacher avatar Will Jeffrey, Professional Agile Trainer

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Watch this class and thousands more

Get unlimited access to every class
Taught by industry leaders & working professionals
Topics include illustration, design, photography, and more

Lessons in This Class

10 Lessons (32m)
    • 1. Introduction

      6:41
    • 2. Participatory Decision Making 1 Intro

      2:00
    • 3. Misunderstandings about the Process of Group Decision-Making

      4:36
    • 4. The Struggle to Integrate Diverse Perspectives

      5:09
    • 5. The Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making

      3:45
    • 6. Part II: Participatory values

      1:43
    • 7. The Four Participatory Values

      2:06
    • 8. How Participatory Values Affect People and Their Work

      2:06
    • 9. Benefits of Participatory Values

      1:46
    • 10. Conclusion

      2:19
  • --
  • Beginner level
  • Intermediate level
  • Advanced level
  • All levels
  • Beg/Int level
  • Int/Adv level

Community Generated

The level is determined by a majority opinion of students who have reviewed this class. The teacher's recommendation is shown until at least 5 student responses are collected.

58

Students

--

Projects

About This Class

Participatory Decision Making is a creative process to give ownership of decisions to the whole group, finding effective options that everyone can live with.

Change has changed. The amount of information and speed of information flow have outpaced our organizations’ abilities to filter and make sense of available facts and take good decisions. Therefore, we need to look at our decision making systems and optimize them to meet today’s challenges. Traditional management hierarchies are especially struggling with this. Agile approaches provide a good starting point, but often come to a limit when agile is hitting the constraints imposed by traditional hierarchies. In many cases, this is perceived as a choice between either strong hierarchical leadership and low participatory decision making or weak hierarchical leadership and strong participatory decision making.

Participatory Decision Making: How to lead & facilitate a group to make better decisions?

Working with a group is often challenging. There seem to always be difficult characters to deal with, and you often end up working with people who are in conflict with one another, or worse, in conflict with you. But the promise of group participation is still alluring: smarter and more effective decisions, designed by and supported by the people who have to implement them.

Understanding group dynamics is an indispensable core competency for anyone; whether facilitator, leader, or group member, who wants to help their group tap the enormous potential of participatory decision-making.

So how can you design participatory processes that can effectively engage the group in decisions? How can we harness participation to achieve goals and benefits, but avoid the pitfalls?

You will find the answer of these questions in this course. To that end, we are going to talk about how to ease and facilitate participatory decision making to take better decisions.

We focus in this course on dynamics of group decision-making and participatory values to reach goals. These items are going to be discussed:

  1. Misunderstandings about the Process of Group Decision-Making: the difference between divergent and convergent thinking will be explained.
  2. The Struggle to Integrate Diverse Perspectives: one key point to facilitate participatory decision making:  understand the challenge for a group to integrate diverse perspectives. A series of stop-action snapshots of the process of group decision-making is presented.
  3. The Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making: we introduce and explain the Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making. The 5 stages are described, and what is the role of the facilitator for each of those.
  4. The Four Participatory Values: you will see why and how a full participation, a mutual understanding, inclusive solutions & a shared responsibility are mandatory values for a group to make good decisions.
  5. Impacts of participatory values on people and their work: we compare differences between business as usual discussion with Participatory decision-making for each participatory value. And detail the impact on people and their work. 
  6. Benefits of these values for individuals, groups & agreements. 

More to come:

  • Facilitating the divergent zone
  • Facilitating the groan zone
  • Facilitating the convergent zone

Enjoy this course!

Meet Your Teacher

Teacher Profile Image

Will Jeffrey

Professional Agile Trainer

Teacher

Will has over 20 years of Software Development experience with his last 15 years in the role as Project Manager, Scrum Master and Agile Coach Master.

He managed or facilitated projects of different scale, project size from dozen man-days to hundred man-years.

He has trained & coached hundreds of professionals, including senior leaders in Fortune 500, startups, and entrepreneurial companies, to accelerate their impact and influence, and grow into their next-level of authentic and inspired leadership.

He now splits his time coaching executives, managers, as well as building up Scrum Masters, Product Owners, and Agile Coaches internally.

 

What Are Will's Core Skills

• Certified Scrum Master (10+ years running Web, Desktop & Mobile projec... See full profile

Class Ratings

Expectations Met?
  • Exceeded!
    0%
  • Yes
    0%
  • Somewhat
    0%
  • Not really
    0%
Reviews Archive

In October 2018, we updated our review system to improve the way we collect feedback. Below are the reviews written before that update.

Why Join Skillshare?

Take award-winning Skillshare Original Classes

Each class has short lessons, hands-on projects

Your membership supports Skillshare teachers

Learn From Anywhere

Take classes on the go with the Skillshare app. Stream or download to watch on the plane, the subway, or wherever you learn best.

Transcripts

1. Introduction: participatory decision making is a creative process to give ownership of decisions to the whole group, finding effective options that everyone can live with, change has changed. The amount of information and speed of information flow have outpaced our organizations abilities to filter and make sense of available facts and take good decisions. Therefore, we need to look at our decision making systems and optimize them to meet today's challenges . Traditional management hierarchies are especially struggling with this. Angela approaches provide a good starting point but often come to a limit when agile is hitting the constraints imposed by traditional hierarchies. In many cases, this is perceived as a choice between either strong hierarchical leadership and low participatory decision making or weak hierarchical leadership and strong participatory decision making. Most companies today are still organized as hierarchies as the predominant organizational approach. This structure was invented hundreds of years ago, helping societies and organizations to become more productive in a hierarchical organization. We have appointed formal leaders with a clearly assigned responsibility and authority, usually called managers. At the same time, the world has developed and looks quite different than at the time hierarchies were invented for a long time, the hierarchical approach could cope with that development. But the time has come where we see more and more of these organizations struggle with change. What happened? As a number of people have found, change itself has changed. Changes happening faster than ever before. That in itself has been a prevailing phenomenon for quite some time. But change of the outside world has become faster than hierarchical organizations can follow internally. A root cause is the increased speed at which new information has spread. Hierarchically structured organizations assume that the appointed leaders, with their responsibility and authority, are able possibly after consulting co workers to take well informed sound decisions. However, with the emergence of the Internet and the widespread of mobile communication technology, the number of information providers and spreaders has grown exponentially. Anybody can be a content or information provider. Everybody can learn from everybody. There are tons of information and also tons of misinformation digesting all available information. Filtering the fax, making sense of it to take the needed high quality decisions is a bigger challenge than ever. The amount in speed of information availability has exceeded human and organisational capabilities to cope with it, of course, companies air reacting and adapting to this increasing challenge. As an effect, decisions get more and more distributed in today's organizations. It would just take too much time in our fast paced world to get all decisions made or approved by formal leaders. Only so many informal leaders emerged. We can see from our companies that essentially anyone in an organization could take leadership and drive decision making within an area. This is sometimes done in a well structured way, for example, via clearly defined roles. Often, however, these non appointed leadership roles are not empowered well in the hierarchy. Let's take a closer look at the challenges. The speed challenge. Today's need for speed is very difficult to achieve using traditional organizational setups . Decision making in traditional hierarchical structures means that people in the company need to turn to their bosses for permission and decision unexpected things due to the high pace in the modern world that has two consequences, bosses get overloaded with requests to take decisions or provide guidance. Consequently, decisions and guidance come relatively slow. To gain speed, organizations need to start empowering people to act and decide locally and autonomously the autonomy challenge. The obvious next question is, doesn't it result in big chaos when everyone can take their own decisions? Of course it can. But that question is not a constructive one. A more constructive question would be what is needed to enable people and teams to take their own local decisions in such a way that we do not end up in a chaos on company level. The answer is alignment. If people and teams are aligned on the overall vision and direction, they can take their own decisions without creating a big chaos. The alignment challenge so how to create alignment and what to align on? Generally, alignment can only be achieved if people have constructive interactions. So you need a structure enabling the needed interactions and a culture of sharing diverse perspectives, discussing them respectfully and coming to joint conclusions that everybody can and will carry forward. That structure and culture can then be used to first agree on what needs to be aligned on and then started lining. How could that work? Practically group decision making remains the best hope for solving difficult problems. The benefits of group decision making have been widely publicized, better thinking better by in better decisions all around. Yet the promise often fails to materialize. Many decisions made in groups are neither thoughtful nor inclusive. They are unimaginative, watered down mediocrities. Why is this so? To a large degree, the answer is deeply rooted in prevailing cultural values that make it difficult for people to actually think in groups without even realizing it. Many people make value judgments that inhibit spontaneity and deter others from saying what is really on their minds when it's done well. Group participatory decision making remains the best approach for solving difficult problems. There is no substitute for the wisdom that results from a successful integration of divergent points of view. Successful group decision making requires a group to take advantage of the full range of experience and skills that reside in its membership. This means encouraging people to speak up. It means inviting difference, not fearing it. It means struggling to understand one another, especially in the face of the pressures and contradictions that typically drive group members to shut down. In short, it means operating from participatory values. The facilitator is the keeper of the flame, the carrier of the vision of a fair, inclusive and open process This is why many facilitators help their groups to understand the dynamics and values of group decision making. They recognize that it is empowering for participants to acquire common language and shared points of reference about their decision making processes. The aim of this course is to enable you to master these two aspects, which are group dynamics and participatory values. You will be able to apply these principles during your meetings and also to transmit them to your collaborators and partners. This will allow you to make the most of your time in meetings and stop wasting your time. 2. Participatory Decision Making 1 Intro: hi. Everyone working with a group is often challenging. There seemed to always be difficult characters to deal with, and you often end up working with people who are in conflict with one another or worse in conflict with you. But the promise of group participation is still alluring, smarter and more effective decisions designed by and supported by the people who have to implement them. Understanding group dynamics is an indispensable core competency for anyone, whether facilitator, leader or group member, who wants to help their group tap the enormous potential of participatory decision making. So how can you design participatory processes that can effectively engage the group in decisions? How can we harness participation to achieve goals and benefits but avoid the pitfalls? You will find the answer of these questions In this course to that hand, we're going to talk about how to ease and facilitate participatory decision making to take better decisions. We focus in this course on dynamics of group decision making. These three items are going to be discussed one misunderstandings about the process of group decision making. In this part, we're going to detail some misunderstandings about the process of group decision making the difference between divergent and convergent thinking will be explained to the struggle to integrate diverse perspectives. In this second part, one key point to facilitate participatory decision making is discussed. The need to understand the challenge for a group to integrate diverse perspectives. A series of stop action snapshots of the process of group decision making is presented, and three the diamond of participatory decision making. In this final part, we introduce and explain the diamond of participatory decision making the five stages air described, and what is the role of the facilitator for each of those? 3. Misunderstandings about the Process of Group Decision-Making: in this part, we're going to detail some misunderstandings about the process of group decision making. This picture portrays a hypothetical problem solving discussion. Each light bulb represents one idea. Each line of light bulbs and arrows represents one person's line of thought. As it develops during the discussion as diagrammed, everyone appears to be tracking each other's ideas. Everyone goes at the same pace, and everyone stays on board every step of the way. A depressing Lee large percentage of people who work in groups believe this stuff. They think this picture realistically portrays a healthy, flowing decision making process. And when their actual experience doesn't match up with this model, they think it's because their own group is defective. If people actually behaved as the diagram suggests, group decision making would be much less frustrating. Unfortunately, real life group stone operate this way. Group members are humans. We do go on tangents. We do lose track of the central themes of a discussion. We do get attached to her ideas. Even when we're all making our best effort to keep focused and stay on track. We cannot change the fact that we are individuals with diverging points of view. When a discussion loses focus or becomes confusing, it can appear to many people that the process is heading out of control. Yet this is not necessarily what's really going on. Sometimes what appears to be chaos is actually a prelude to creativity. But how can we tell which is which? At times, the individual members of a group need to express their own points of view. This phase is called divergent thinking. At other times, the same people want to narrow their differences and named the discussion toward closure. This is convergent thinking. Let's discuss differences between these two types of thinking processes. Our brains work in two ways. Our right brain is creative, artistic and solution generating. This is the part used in divergent thinking. On the other hand, when converging, we're using our left brain, which is logical, analytical and solution. Reducing both convergent and divergent thinking play important roles in finding the best solution to a problem. Convergent thinking is often used in accordance with divergent thinking, convergent thinking, convergent thinking is the ability to find the correct solution without having a creative approach. A person is a convergent thinker when his sole aim is to find the best correct answer to a question he will think in a way that is direct, precise and time effective. He will use his knowledge on that topic or refer to other solved answers and improvise it to get the best suitable solution or create one of his own. Depending on the stated facts and information on the given problem, convergent thinking comes to people who notice that their consciousness focus and targets on the problem they're solving. Convergent thinking is highly preferable when methods are required to be reapplied and worked on again in a better manner to get a single, unambiguous answer. The most important thing with this kind of thinking is that the solutions come very quickly and precisely divergent thinking the ability to think out of the boxes divergent thinking, a divergent thinker thinks in a way that would include all the possibilities to get to a solution, giving creative ideas to make it work. This kind of thinking comes in a free flowing manner with no limitations to time and imaginations. The bondage of time doesn't appear here, giving the person complete freedom to think about innovative and extraordinary ideas producing new results every time. He may or may not get the best solution, but various other ideas are sure to be conceived. Divergent thinking comes naturally to a person who has a creative mind but can also be induced and put into practice by the art of relaxing one's mind with sleep, humor or even alcohol. Divergent thinking is related to creativity and is always required in creative fields. Convergent thinking is used in accordance with divergent thinking. One new, creative, innovative and vague ideas are presented as a result of divergent thinking. Systematic, procedural, precise and time effective. Convergent thinking is required to work on the results of divergent thinkers, scrutinize and reaching an ambiguous answer While we generate alternatives and divergent thinking in convergent thinking, we evaluate them while the discussion is free flowing and open when diverging key points air summarized when converging, while diverse points of view were gathered during diverting phase. We want to have them sorted ideas into categories during converging. While divergent thinking involves suspending judgement, Exercising judgment is expected in converging thinking 4. The Struggle to Integrate Diverse Perspectives: one key point to facilitate participatory decision making is to understand the challenge for a group to integrate diverse perspectives. Let's discuss it now. Some years ago, a large, well known computer manufacturer developed a problem solving model that was based on the principles of divergent thinking and convergent thinking. This model was used by managers throughout the company, but it didn't always work so well. One project manager told that it took their group two years to revise the reimbursement procedure for travel expenses. Why would that happen? How does group decision making really work to explore these questions in greater depth? We are going to present a series of stop action snapshots of the process of group decision making. The early rounds of a discussion cover safe, familiar territory. People take positions that reflect conventional wisdom. They rehash well worn disagreements, and they make proposals for obvious solutions. This is the normal and human way for any problem solving discussion to begin. The first ideas we express are the ones that are easiest to think about when her problem has an obvious solution. It makes sense to close the discussion quickly. Why waste time? There's only one problem most groups try to bring every discussion to closure this quickly . Some problems have no easy solutions. For example, how does an inner city public school prevent campus violence? What steps should a business take to address the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce ? Cases like these require a lot of thought. The issues are too complex to be solved with familiar opinions and conventional wisdom. When a group of decision makers has to wrestle with a difficult problem, they will not succeed in solving it until they break out of the narrow band of familiar opinions and explore a wider range of possibilities. Unfortunately, most groups are not very good at cultivating unfamiliar or unpopular opinions. Now and then, when the stakes are sufficiently high and the stars Aaron proper alignment, a group can manage to overcome the tendency to criticize and inhibit its members. On such occasions, people tentatively begin to consider new perspectives. Some participants might take a risk and express controversial opinions. Others might offer ideas that aren't fully developed, since the goal is to find a new way of thinking about the problem. Variety is obviously desirable, but the spread of opinions can become cumbersome and difficult to manage. Then what, in theory a group that has committed itself to thinking through a difficult problem would move forward and orderly, thoughtful steps. First, the group would generate an Explorer diverse set of ideas. Next, they would consolidate the best thinking into a proposal. Then they'd refine the proposal until they arrived at a final decision that nicely incorporated the breadth of their thinking. Does it work that way? In real life? In practice, it can be hard for some people to stop expressing their own opinions and shift to listening to and understanding the opinions of others. And it could be particularly challenging to do so when a wide diversity of perspectives are in play. In such cases, people can get overloaded, disoriented, annoyed, impatient were all of the above. Some people feel misunderstood and keep repeating themselves. Other people push for closure. Thus, even the most sincere attempts to solve difficult problems can and often do dissipate into confusion. Sometimes one or more participants will attempt to step back from the content of the discussion and talk about the process. They might say things like, I thought we all agreed to stick to the topic, or does anyone understand what's going on here? Groups really respond intelligently to such comments, especially ones that sound like cranky rhetorical questions. More commonly, a process comment becomes merely one more voice in the cacophony yet another poorly understood perspective to be absorbed into the general confusion. At this point in the process, the person in charge of a meeting can make the problem worse if he attempts to alleviate frustration by announcing that he has made a decision. This is a common mistake. The person in charge may believe that he has found a perfectly logical answer to the problem at hand. But this doesn't mean that everyone else will telepathically grasp the reasoning behind the decision. Some people may still be thinking along entirely different lines. This is the exact case in which the person in charge appears to have made a decision before the meeting began. Why did he tell me I'd have a say in this matter when he had already made the decision. Thus, a good faith effort to streamline a rambling conversation can lead to distrust and even cynicism. Obviously, there's something wrong with the idealized model in real life groups do not automatically shift into convergent thinking, even after spending substantial time and divergent thinking activities. Most groups who make it that far will run into obstacles like those noted on previous slides. In other words, they can easily get stuck in their divergence. None of this is modeled in the diagram shown above what is missing. The next part of this course will explain it. 5. The Diamond of Participatory Decision-Making: In this final part, we introduce and explain the diamond of participatory decision making. A period of confusion and frustration is a natural part of group decision making. Once a group crosses the line for marrying familiar opinions to exploring diverse perspectives, group members have to struggle in order to integrate new and different ways of thinking with their own. Struggling to understand a wide range of foreign or opposing ideas is not a pleasant experience. Group members can be repetitious, insensitive, defensive, short tempered and more. At such times, most people don't have the slightest notion of what's happening. Sometimes the mere act of acknowledging the existence of the Grown Zone can be a significant step for a group to take. This is the diamond of participatory decision making. It was developed by Sam Caner with Letty Lind, Katherine told E. Sarah Fisk and Dwayne Burger. Facilitators come use the diamond. In many ways, it's a lens through which a facilitator can observe and react to the communication dynamics that occur in meetings. It can also be useful as a road map for designing agendas, especially to anticipate and plan for challenging conversations, and it could be used as a teaching tool to provide group members with shared language and shared points of reference that enable them to be more adept itself, managing their meeting processes. Fundamentally, though, this model was created to validate and legitimize the hidden aspects of everyday life and groups expressing differences natural and beneficial. Getting confused is to be expected, feeling frustrated. His par for the course building Shared understanding is a struggle, not a platitude. Let's discuss the facilitating of the five stages of the diamond of participatory decision making business. As usual, the team comes up with obvious solutions to the problem. They refrained from taking risks or being ambitious. Ah, facilitator should pay attention to the quality and quantity of each person's participation . If not, everyone supports the proposal, the facilitator can help the team to break out of the business as usual zone and move into the divergent zone divergent zone. In contrary to the business as usual, zone feelings air different in the divergent zone, people can be playful, curious, nervous. The facilitator has to help the team and expressing their divergent points of view by using brainstorming or go rounds. He has to help each person to express their thoughts clearly by using, mirroring or paraphrasing, everyone should feel comfortable expressing their point of view, groans own once the team has expressed all points of view. Often conflicts come forward. Do do not understanding each other's perspectives. It feels uncomfortable and stressful. People do not see the light at the end of the tunnel anymore. The task of a facilitator is not to prevent teams from entering the grown Zone, but to support people in their effort to understand each other's perspectives. He has to assure the team that by going through this painful stage, they will eventually be able solve. The problem is a group the team can start on, working on a shared framework of understanding which will lead them to the convergence zone convergent zone. Now that everyone has a shared framework of understanding, discussions go smoother. Everyone gets the feeling that they are making progress again. People are enthusiastic and committed. The facilitator should let the team use their renewed energy to the fullest and get out of their way. Nonetheless, he should guard that every proposal is one that covers everyone's interests, closures own. Finally, a decision has to be made. The facilitator has to guide the team in making that decision. It has to be clear to everyone what the decision embodies and how it is supported by all an agreement scale can help to pull the support of a decision. 6. Part II: Participatory values: As already explained, participatory group decision making is an opportunity for everyone in the group to have a chance to speak their mind, where differences of opinion are valued rather than feared. We wanted to foster an environment where group members do their best to understand one another, especially in the face of pressure or when contradictions arise. This process takes time and needs careful facilitation so that each member of the group feels heard. Divergent opinions and ideas are allowed to surface and where final decisions reflect a wide range of opinions. In this part, we will discuss needed values. For meet this goal, we're going to focus on how full participation strengthens individuals, develops groups and fosters sustainable agreements. We focus in this course on participatory values. We will be discussing three items in this part. The four participatory values is the first item discussed. This part describes the four values that are mutual understanding, full participation, inclusive solutions and shared responsibility. Then, in the second item, we will explain how each of the four participatory values affect people in their work. You will see why having a mutual understanding is important to reach a sustainable agreement. You will understand why full participation strengthens people. You will get the need of inclusive solutions to reflect the true picture. And finally, you will understand why developing a shared responsibility makes a difference. And lastly, we will see benefits of participatory values. You will see how he sees values lead to an improved thinking, a greater commitment from individual members and better decisions. 7. The Four Participatory Values: in this part, we're going to detail some misunderstandings about the process of group decision making. The first value is full participation during participatory processes. All members are encouraged to be actively involved during the meeting and to say what's on their minds. This strengthens people in several ways. Members become more courageous and raising difficult issues. They learn how to share their needs and opinions. And in the process they learned to discover and acknowledge the diversity of opinions and backgrounds of all members involved. The second value is mutual understanding. In order for a group of stakeholders to reach a sustainable agreement, the members need to understand and accept the reasoning behind one another's needs and goals. A basic sense of acceptance and understanding allows people to develop innovative ideas that incorporate everyone's point of view. The third value is inclusive solutions, inclusive solutions, air wise solutions. Their wisdom emerges from the integration of everybody's perspectives and needs. These solutions have the advantage of reflecting the true picture and the perspectives of not only the powerful and influential, but also of the truth held by the marginalized in the week. As veteran facilitator Carolina State's puts it, everyone has a piece of the truth. The fourth value is shared responsibility. During participatory processes. Members feel a strong sense of responsibility for creating and developing sustainable agreements. So they make every effort to give and receive input before final decisions are made. They recognize that they must be willing and able to implement the proposals they develop. This contrasts sharply with a conventional assumption that everyone will be held accountable for the consequences of decisions made by a few key people. 8. How Participatory Values Affect People and Their Work: in this part, we're going to detail some misunderstandings about the process of group decision making. The first value is full participation during participatory processes. All members are encouraged to be actively involved during the meeting and to say what's on their minds. This strengthens people in several ways. Members become more courageous and raising difficult issues. They learn how to share their needs and opinions, and in the process they learn to discover and acknowledge the diversity of opinions and backgrounds of all members involved. Second value is mutual understanding. In order for a group of stakeholders to reach a sustainable agreement, the members need to understand and accept the reasoning behind one another's needs and goals. A basic sense of acceptance and understanding allows people to develop innovative ideas that incorporate everyone's point of view. The third value is inclusive solutions, inclusive solutions, air wise solutions. Their wisdom emerges from the integration of everybody's perspectives and needs. These solutions have the advantage of reflecting the true picture and the perspectives of not only the powerful and influential, but also of the truth held by the marginalized in the week. As veteran facilitator Carolina stays puts it, everyone has a piece of the truth. The fourth value is shared responsibility. During participatory processes. Members feel a strong sense of responsibility for creating and developing sustainable agreements. So they make every effort to give and receive input before final decisions are made. They recognize that they must be willing and able to implement the proposals they develop. This contrasts sharply with the conventional assumption that everyone will be held accountable for the consequences of decisions made by a few key people. 9. Benefits of Participatory Values: in this part, we're going to detail benefits of participatory values. What are the benefits of these values for a participatory group Decision making When done well, participatory group decision making creates a deep respect for individuals and their points of view. The search for synergies and overlapping goals constraint thin the power of the group as a whole. Participatory decision making takes time and requires patients flexibility and a high tolerance for ambiguity in order to allow the decision making process to evolve and solidify. In the end, the benefits are clear, improved thinking, greater commitment from individual members and better decisions. The participatory values we've discussed provide the members of a group with a set of grounding principles for conducting their meetings. Adherence to these values produces significant results, stronger individuals, stronger groups and stronger agreements. Let's list benefits for each one of those stronger individuals. Improved leadership scales, stronger power of reasoning, more confidence, more commitment, better communication skills, greater ability to assume broader and more difficult responsibilities. Stronger groups, greater ability to utilize multiple talents, access to more types of information. Development of a respectful, supportive atmosphere, clear procedures for handling group dynamics, increased capacity for tackling difficult problems, stronger agreements, more ideas, higher quality ideas, better integration of diverse goals, wiser decisions, more reliable follow through. 10. Conclusion: to summarize, Let's review the characteristics of participatory group decision making. Everyone participates. Everyone is given time to think and fully express their thoughts. Everyone listens fully and without judgment. Differing opinions Air expressed freely. Members can accurately represent different points of view, even if they don't agree with them. A decision is not made until all group members understand the reasoning. When a final decision is made, it still reflects a wide variety of viewpoints. As already mentioned, understanding Group Dynamics is an indispensable core competency for anyone, whether facilitator, leader or group member who wants to help their group tap the enormous potential of participatory decision making. When people experience discomfort in the midst of a group decision making process, they often take, it is evidence that their group is dysfunctional. As their impatience increases, so does their disillusion with the process. Many projects are abandoned prematurely for exactly this reason. In such cases, it's not that the goals were ill conceived. It's that the grown zone was perceived as an insurmountable impediment rather than as a normal part of the process. This is truly a shame. Too many high minded and well funded efforts to resolve the world's toughest problems have foundered on the shoals of group dynamics. So let's be clear headed about this. Misunderstanding and miscommunication are normal natural aspects of participatory decision making. The Grown zone is a direct, inevitable consequence of the diversity that exists at any group. Not only that, but the act of working through these misunderstandings is what builds the foundation for sustainable agreements without shared understanding. Meaningful collaboration is impossible. It is supremely important for people who work in groups to recognize this. Groups that comptel a rate the stress of the Grown Zone are far more likely to find their way to common ground. And discovering common ground, in turn, is the precondition for insightful, innovative collaboration. Only then can the group progress and make good decisions. Thank you again for attending until next time Bye for now.