Difficult Discussions?

Do you shy away from difficult discussions?

With the right preparation, facilitation, and environment, they might be the catalyst for finding better solutions… and get people’s buy-in to implement them.

When you’re passionate about something and “throw” yourself in, good things happen (we often hear).

In 2019, I’ve started and coordinated a project for the Systemic Issues and Social Change Working Group of Toronto South Local Immigration Partnership (SISC WG TSLIP). It’s been awhile since I dreamed of working on such collaborative projects, which can have an impact at the systemic level. So I dived in fully and, to my surprise, the project won the TSLIP Coordination Project Award for that year.

What helped that project win?

A) It started with the idea that finding solutions that lead to positive change comes from bringing the different “stakeholders” at the table to discuss, brainstorm solutions, and get involved in creating a way forward.

From a system coaching* perspective:

By “stakeholders” I mean people who have different roles and responsibilities—within a team, organization, or are part of different organizations—and have something in common. In that winning project, we organized a forum (as a working group) and invited representatives of employers, immigrant-service providers, professional associations, and immigrants… to share challenges, best practices, and brainstorm potential solutions on how companies can hire, retain, and advance more internationally trained professionals. There was a common goal.
Each participant was part of at least one subsystem (organization) that belongs to the bigger system the immigrants are part of while striving to build their Canadian careers. I’m talking here about interconnected systems and subsystems, although many look at them as silos: employers, agencies, professional associations, immigrants, Canadians, etc.
Making “stakeholders” involved in the problem-solving and the strategic planning process is a great way to expand their awareness by listening to each other’s perspective. The solutions that come out from such increased awareness could benefit all. Because people understand more facets of the problem – adopting that eagle eye perspective (systemic thinking) that leads to better solutions– instead of focusing on finding each other’s faults or getting stuck in their respective silos.
Bringing the “stakeholders” together in a facilitated environment is also a way to get their buy-in. They will be more willing to be part of the implementation phase—which is not usually the case when the decisions are made without consultation or imposed from the top down. Why? Because when we’re invited and allowed to contribute to the discussion, we feel valued for being asked to share our thoughts, ideas, and suggestions. It gives us a sense of ownership. So we’re more willing to help in one way or another, even if the solution chosen to be implemented is not what we suggested. We’re human beings, not just inanimate chess pieces.

2) It’s possible to have crucial conversations with positive outcomes

“You can’t bring employers and immigrants at the same table”—I was told several times before—“they’ll start blaming each other, which will lead nowhere.” People with such a mindset are (unconsciously) deepening the gaps between those silos (subsystems)—gaps that become less and less visible without an effort to see the bigger picture of what’s going on at the systemic level (which includes those subsystems).

From a system coaching perspective:

Even some subsystems pretend they function well, that cannot last forever if the system’s gaps are deepening. Sooner or later, the gaps will affect the subsystems if no one addresses the issues that caused or maintains them.
To engage in crucial discussions effectively, the preparation phase and timing are important. And so is having facilitated discussions in a supportive and collaborative environment. It leads to positive outcomes for what some might consider being difficult discussions (and avoid them) allowing the gaps to get deeper, instead of addressing them).
To facilitate the desired results, I applied system thinking and coaching techniques, combined with a results-oriented approach, to each phase of the project.

Before the forum…

To “set the stage” for a collaborative and supportive environment, which makes people feel at ease to open up and contribute:

I wrote the invitations for each type of stakeholder in a way that highlighted how they can benefit by attending this forum, and the potential impact of their contribution on bridging the unwanted system gaps—which could also have a positive outcome (like a boomerang effect) on themselves and their organizations.
To make sure the conversations flow smoothly, I prepared facilitation guidelines and asked the SISC WG TSLIP team members to take on the facilitator role, one for each table. Being a big working group with a diverse attendance, we planned to have the discussions only in small groups. With those guidelines, all facilitators were prepared to address the common issues that might occur (e.g. someone talks too much, participants start to debate and no longer focus on the objective of the discussion).
To get all participants on the same page, I also prepared a few rules for attendees—which attendees agreed with at the beginning of the event. That made the facilitator’s role easier, because they could refer to these rules if needed to get the discussions back on track.
To build momentum, I structured the forum discussions in three sequential sections and prepared a few questions for each as discussion starters. The section topics: 1) Challenges they face (each table had representatives of the same type of stakeholder, e.g. “employers”); 2) Best practices (same type of stakeholder at the table); and 3) Suggestions for improvement (tables have representatives from different type of stakeholders). Also, there was an opportunity to share in the large group the main ideas generated at the tables after each session. This way, the first two sessions broadened the participants’ perspectives—which was beneficial for the last session, when they brainstormed suggestions for improvements.
And, of course, we prepared the other logistics required to run such an event (venue, refreshments, etc.).

During the forum

I took on the MC role (no one else wanted it) and overseen all activities from a “system” perspective. Here, the “system” was the forum itself—it had a desired outcome (to make participants share ideas and brainstorm solutions) and many “subsystems” that interacted during the 3-hour event. My role was to make sure everything runs smoothly and address any issues that might occur, so the “system” functions well.
I loved the energy in the room. Everyone was engaged, contributing with ideas and suggestions. Facilitators did a great job, same for the note takers from each table.
We ended up with tons of useful ideas and suggestions for improvement for all stakeholders, and how to tackle the systemic gaps identified during the forum discussions.

After the event

The participants liked the event. 98% of them wanted to get involved in the next stages of this project. Some mentioned that a longer event of such a sort would be even better.
I’ve compiled the results into the report Hire-Retain-Advance Internationally Trained Professionals (FORUM REPORT). It was reviewed by the SISC WG team and the TSLIP Newcomers Council, then distributed to the forum attendees and other organizations.
Working on that report with my “system thinking” hat on was also an interesting experience. Correlating the findings, and putting things in perspective, revealed additional gaps and unexpected ways of improvement.

What happened next?

Like the participants, I too was looking forward to the next phase of that project. Unfortunately, the organization that financed it had run out of funding for it. There are no follow up initiatives—as far as I know—that will take the outcomes of that forum into an action plan that could lead to the positive changes envisioned by the participants.

However, that didn’t make me give up the belief that such facilitation style—based on system coaching concepts and techniques—is valuable and transformative. Bringing together different stakeholders—who have a common focus—to discuss, brainstorm solutions, and take actions that lead to change at various levels (individual, interpersonal, organizational, and systemic level) is beneficial.

In January 2021, I’ve started the Introverts Academy—where I apply this eagle eye (system thinking) and a multi-disciplinary perspective to everything we do. Our approach is balanced: we want to normalize introversion and create a collaborative environment at all four levels—individual, interpersonal, organizational, systemic—which allows both introverts and extroverts to collaborate better and contribute to building a better future for all of us.

Yes, you’ve read correctly. Even at the individual level there’s work to do, otherwise there wouldn’t be so many people stressed, frustrated, anxious… Maybe I’ll talk about the inner systems and subsystems another time. I love the “inner team” we all have!

During the last two weeks, I did a series of informational interviews with HR specialists, recruiters, and mid-level managers—to better understand the challenges companies go through these days, and how the Introverts Academy and my system coaching & multidisciplinary background can help them.

It soon became clear to me that organizing a monthly HR working group—based on the principles and strategies I’ve shared above—could be beneficial to find solutions to current issues and help companies adjust to the future of work. This new initiative fits well with the first three impact levels mentioned above—and, indirectly, at the systemic level (through the ripple effect this group’s activity could have).

I passed the ideas through some of those I interviewed, and they all like it. So here I am, organizer of a new initiative, to facilitate crucial discussions that need to take place:

HR Working Group: Adjusting to the Future of Work.

The group is on Meetup.com under the same name (and accepts new members), and we also list the monthly meetings on Eventbrite. I’m happy that Liliana Nakamura, MBA, CHRP, PMP accepted to co-facilitate the group discussions with me.

Now back to you:

What do you resonate with from the ideas I shared above?
Any other suggestions on how do you handle difficult discussions?

——-

I’ve published this article first in Eagle Eye (System Thinking), my biweekly LinkedIn newsletter. You can subscribe here.

Let me know if you have certain topics you’d like me to cover in other articles. They probably won’t be so long. 🙂

Are we connected on LinkedIn? My profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gabrielacasineanu

Gabriela Casineanu, MSc, MBA, ORSC
System Inspired Coach • Visionary Strategist
Award-winning author: My books
GabrielaCasineanu.com
IntrovertsAcademy.org

*System coaching is a shorter version for Organization and Relationship Systems Coaching (ORSC™), which is an integrated and robust coaching model based on Systems Theory, Process Work, Family Systems Therapy, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Quantum Physics, Co-Active Coaching™, and more. At its core, ORSC™ is the study of Relationship Systems Intelligence™.

Difficult Discussions?