Topic · Collaboration and change

Formats for complex questions in groups

Some questions no one can answer alone, and an answer only helps if everyone stands behind it. Four formats show how groups reach results that hold.

Schedule an initial conversation

On this page

Four formats at a glance

The four formats differ in purpose and group size.

Format	What for	Group
Dynamic Facilitation	a complex problem whose solution needs everyone's agreement	small group or meeting
Target	checking how solid the shared basis of goals and interests is	team, at the start or during change
Solution Circle	leading a team through change, crisis, or a new beginning in a solution-focused way	team
Fishbowl	structuring a discussion in a large group	large group

Dynamic Facilitation: to the wall instead of against each other

Dynamic Facilitation was developed by Jim Rough (USA, 1990s). He called the goal “Choice Creating”: a solution to a complex problem that everyone can agree to. The format does without a linear sequence. The facilitator takes up every contribution and assigns it to one of four lists until a solution becomes obvious to everyone.

	Dynamic Facilitation	Linear facilitation
Process	Every contribution goes on one of four lists, in no fixed order.	First problem definition, then cause analysis, then developing solutions
Effect	Matches how people think, generates creativity and breakthroughs.	The structure inhibits innovation and breakthroughs: People are spontaneous, have impulses, and get frustrated.

Problems

all statements and questions describing problems, general or specific, unsolvable ones welcome too

Solutions

collected independently of the problems; the pile may look chaotic

Concerns

the emotional aspects, visibly recorded instead of passed over

Data

everything else, whether true or false

The core of the format: Participants speak to the facilitator and to the wall, not to each other. In difficult questions, talking with each other often means talking against each other. While one person speaks, the next is already lining up counterarguments, and no one learns anything. Through the four lists, every contribution adds to the whole instead of to the argument. Thoughts and concerns have been voiced and recorded, which makes room for something new.

Don't weigh them against each other

Solutions are not later set against the concerns or graded.

Recognize the moment

At some point, approaches to a solution become obvious. Then everyone notices; no formal decision is needed in the group.

Let the joy happen

The facilitator makes sure everyone can be glad about the breakthrough.

The work uses facilitation cards, a flip chart, and pinboards, ideally four, one per list. The format suits small groups and is also conceivable in a senior-level meeting.

Target: How solid is the common center?

Before a group decides together, it is worth asking how much it actually shares. The target makes this visible. It suits teams at the start and in phases of change, for example when two departments are merged.

no interest partial consensus consensus

Introduction: Explain the process, goal, and topic.
Individual work: Each person writes down their three to five most important goals, interests, and wishes, one per card.
Placing without discussion: Each card is presented, consensus is checked, and the card is placed accordingly in the inner circle, the middle area, or the outer area. Cards are only placed, not discussed.
Evaluating and negotiating: Only now is the picture discussed.

The evaluation follows four questions:

How solid is the common center?
What can be clarified so that more cards move into the inner circle?
What can be tolerated and integrated where interests differ?
What cannot be integrated and needs to be resolved?

What cannot be integrated needs clarification. If that lies outside the group, it belongs with those who decide on it.

Solution Circle: from hot spot to action

Daniel Meier developed the Solution Circle for solution-focused teamwork. It builds on the solution-focused approach of Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg. It is used in change processes, turbulence, and crises, when a team is re-forming, and at the start of new projects. The basic idea: Build on what already works instead of dissecting the past. The past points toward future possibilities.

Clarify the framework: History and agreements, the team's strengths as seen from outside, the roles (the facilitator asks, the solutions come from the team), and the ground rules.
Define the goal: What should be different at the end? How will the team and others notice that it has been reached?
Hot spots: Whatever is disruptive or unsatisfying goes on cards on the wall. Questions for understanding are allowed, discussion is not.
Shining moments: Look for situations in which the problem occurred less or not at all. What was different, and which abilities were at play?
Solved future: If the issue were solved: Where would the team be in a year, what would it do differently, what would others say?
Scale: Where does the team stand today between 0 and 10? How has it managed not to be at 0? How would it notice that it has moved up one point?
Actions: Who does what by when, and how does the process keep going?
Own contribution: What does each person contribute to reaching the goal?

Between the steps, short check-ins help (What has been helpful so far? What will we still achieve today?), as does naming even inconspicuous successes precisely, and deliberate pauses. Good ideas often emerge after a silence, just before a group would give up.

Fishbowl: few speak, all can join in

Large groups face a dilemma: Either everyone speaks, and it gets long and confusing, or only a few speak, and the rest feel excluded. The fishbowl combines observing and participating.

Inner circle: A small group discusses.
Outer circle: Everyone else observes.
Guest chair: Anyone who wants to contribute sits down on the empty chair in the inner circle.
Tapping out: Alternatively, someone from outside takes over the seat of a person in the inner circle.

The fishbowl is suitable when a topic affects many people, for example when a change is presented to an entire department. It can also be used to gather observations before a smaller group continues the work.

Which format fits?

Situation	Suitable format
A deadlocked question where every discussion leads to the same positions	Dynamic Facilitation
Unclear whether those involved even want the same thing	Target
A team is in the middle of change or crisis and sees mainly what doesn't work	Solution Circle
Many are affected, but not all can speak at once	Fishbowl

What it looks like in a company

Leadership team

The strategic question goes around in circles

Every meeting ends with the same arguments. Dynamic Facilitation separates problems, solutions, concerns, and data and takes the opposition out of the conversation.

Merging units

Two teams, one mandate

Before processes are discussed, the target shows how much common center there is and what executive management needs to clarify.

Project start

New team, old experiences

The Solution Circle brings in experiences from earlier projects as a resource instead of dragging them along as baggage.

Change

A department needs to be brought along

A fishbowl gives many people the chance to contribute without the group falling apart.

Limits

Formats do not replace decision rights. A result that everyone finds obvious has to be translated into the organization: Who formally decides, who implements, what changes in structure and processes?
The facilitator needs a clear role. Someone who is a party to the issue will find it hard to keep order without steering. In leadership teams, this often argues for an outside facilitator.
No substitute for working on conflict. When conflicts have escalated far, open formats no longer hold. Then the conflicts themselves come first (see Conflicts in organizations).
No fixed duration. How long a format takes depends on the question, the group, and its history.

The facilitation provides structure, framework, and flow. The solutions come from the participants.

Let's get to know each other.

The first step is clarity: an initial conversation.