Wie können Sie Dialog und Beratung nutzen, um große Gruppen zu moderieren?

Dialogue is more about creating an environment of equality. Everyone gets an opportunity to express their views and ideas get discussed. Sometimes solutions to seemingly impossible situations can come out a simple thought.

Dialogue and deliberation are powerful tools for facilitating large groups. By creating a safe and inclusive space, we can harness the collective wisdom of diverse perspectives. Dialogue encourages active listening, empathy, and understanding, fostering a culture of curiosity and respect. Deliberation, on the other hand, focuses on collaborative decision-making. It involves thoughtful analysis, weighing options, and finding common ground. To effectively facilitate large groups, we must establish clear guidelines, encourage equal participation, and ensure everyone feels heard. By combining dialogue and deliberation, we can generate innovative solutions to complex challenges and build stronger communities.

Dialogue as a communication tool is about rapport between two or more individuals in conversations. The principle of 'Give and Take' through a meaningful exchange of thoughts, ideas, words, feelings(dialogue involves an intensity in the exchange, be it through feelings words or simply by creating an pulsating environment. In literature, dialogue has a dramatic intensity . In a corporate environment, dialogue is a beautiful tool that can encourage large groups to interact meaningfully. A good facilitator can make a difference by encouraging people to speak and share. Deliberation is controlled and serious, needing facts, figures and analysis. Large group deliberation is an orchestra, not drama. Deliberation can come after dialogue.

I like to think of the following: -Just because you're a natural leader, it does not mean you lead solely. Invite co-creation. -Don't wear your leadership mask too tight. Accept vulnerability -Have a structure but allow flow depending on what the group needs -Practice "WAIT" why am I talking vs listening more

I tend to think of dialogue as a listening and learning process. Learning about the subject matter, about varying opinions, and about the common ground and significant differences. Dialogue should always precede deliberation. But the dialogue does not have to happen within the large group setting. It can be through small team meetings, emails, newsletters, subdivided groups, or even while chatting at the water cooler. In short the discussion has to be current, "alive", and considered important enough to spend the time clarifying the subject.

Before deliberating, there must have been dialogue happening. These discussions will usually be the content to be deliberated. However the process (the "how to") of the deliberation must be clear and concise. If it was not identified in the dialogue phase, then the deliberation should clarify the goals, and pros and cons of the decision to be made.

Again, in the world of the Shingo Model, we think of this as "Reflection." Often, participants have had their epiphany or "ah-ha" moment. We use reflection to help them crystalize the insight which has percolated to the top of their consciousness. We do this by asking questions during the reflection time that encourage deliberation and have them write down their responses. This is for them and not us as facilitators. We give them adequate silence to thoughtfully consider (deliberate) the answers to the questions we pose, which are designed to help consider the insights or "ah-ha" moments at a deeper level and further consider to make them actionable and practical.

Deliberative dialogues are typically described as a hybrid between consultation and research. A means by which people with diverse views seek to find shared understanding of a particular problem, thereby finding common ground for possible courses of future action. To successfully achieve this process a problem statement for discussion needs to be in place to refer back to by the group. At the outset suggested ground rules for the session are set out and signed off by the group. Typically these will cover positive group meeting behaviours including active listening, question/ analysis techniques. Particularly, how to partake in meaningful dialogue from opposing positions to fully engage in a meeting which reaches a well informed decision.

This is where you're in danger of "ideas by committee" or watering down/homogenising thinking so much you end up with weak insights. Building protections against this is the hard bit of facilitation and in my experience, it's at this stage I've had/seen it go the most wrong.

Dialogue is where the learning takes place for the participants. Deliberation is where it is considered as actionable and practical.

Listening is such an underrated skill in dialogue. Disciplined thinking is also often.lacking when it comes to deliberation...

For facilitators of the Shingo Institute workshops on the Shingo Model, we have a "script," which facilitators must consider, learn and understand. This is how we prepare. However, preparation to facilitate should no different than preparing to go to the "gemba; the place where the actual thing is happening." You should go fully prepared for what you expect to learn, but you should also be prepared to detach from that preparation when you see an opportunity to "pull the thread," that leads to more relevant and deeper learning. This, in my opinion, is the best way to prepare.

One aspect to remember as a facilitar engaging in dialogue and deliberation is to manage biases towards the output. For example..... What may resonate with you may get more airtime than someone else. The way attendees offer their thoughts means others could get left out. When topics get majority responses from the group means someone else's idea may not be heard. It's a tricky role to get the best out of the group, but it reaps some great rewards.

1. Ideal Results Require Ideal Behavior 2. Purpose and Systems Drive Behavior 3. Principles Inform Ideal Behavior What are the results you require for your participants? What is the purpose of the facilitation and the construct you will use to drive it? What principles will you invoke to ensure that nurture behaviors that will drive the desired result? This is a fundamental aspect of how to facilitate anything, including dialogue and deliberation.

Consider different communication styles as well. Some people may be more comfortable in smaller groups or may prefer to be a bystander to see how politics play out before taking a stand. Facilitating discussions means observing who isn't participating, what their body language is like, and figuring out how to draw them into the conversation so others don't dominate and bias the conversation.

When dividing a large group into smaller groups, consider grouping them into teams of 6-8 people. This is the "magic number" for effective group interaction. Smaller than this and you might get a lot of redundancy between subgroups. Also you will have less variety of opinions in each subgroup. Larger than this and some people will not express their opinions, or worse, will not be heard. Whether engaging in dialogue or deliberating, once the key players have been chosen, you want their maximum positive involvement.