Power of Positive Paraphrase in Group Process Facilitation

In south-east Europe, where passions run high about almost anything, intensity in a multi-stakeholder strategic dialogue can be huge. So is reliance on a father figure to show direction, provide answers, and intervene in conflicts. 

When one of the participants expresses a strong negative judgment about the topic, the others, or the process, electric tension lands in the group, and SOS glances are sent to the facilitator: ‘What are you going to do about it!?’
 

Zooming in: compassion for the passion underneath the challenging message

When something controversial is said in the group, a lot of passion is stirred: in the person saying, and in the recipients of and witnesses to the message.  So much passionate energy that often goes wasted as facilitators try to appease it, redirect, or even neglect!

Facilitators’ responses in such situations vary; from avoiding, appeasing, persuading, paraphrasing, teaching to asking questions to the speaker or the rest of the group.

I‘ve always been interested in harnessing the passion underneath the hard-to-hear expressions; to catalyse connection and generate better options together.

For me, it all starts with perception. Do I choose to see the participant as the ‘problematic person that is causing unwelcome disruption to my process plan’? Do I innerly put the blame on the toxic work environment, on society, collapsing values in this world...?
Do I choose to see myself as ‘responsible for the good behaviour of the group’? Maybe even ‘incompetent to navigate group process in good ways...’?

If so, than my facilitator response might be on the fight-or-flight spectrum: either patronisingly ‘teach’ the participant to behave better (for example in line with the guidelines set at the start), or steer the debate somewhere else (re-focus the purpose or topic, etc)

Complex multi-stakeholder processes, where lots of natural conflicts of interests occur, are ultimately about catalysing collaboration, hopefully in ways that reclaim our trust and joy in working together across differences and divides. So my intervention might better model that: stimulate greater understanding and interconnectedness.

 

Power-over                                                                         Power-with

Fight / flight                                                                          Staying with

Avoiding                                                                                'I see you’

Fixing, patronising                                                                 Empathy for positive essence

(‘I know what’s right’)                                                            (I ckeck for accuracy)                   

 

How to do this?

From my practice, I see two parts:

(1) Inner work: genuine empathetic inner inquiry as to what might be a positive essence disguised in the hard-to-receive message – what is really, really important to the speaker?

(2) Outer work: paraphrase the positive essence and check for accuracy

 

Connection first, solutions later: stop to greet humanity within

 

(1) Inner work: empathic perception the other(s) and myself

Everything – every decision that I take – stems from the lens through which I perceive the world, the people, myself. In facilitation work, perception is already an intervention. Moreover; it can be chosen; and evolved through practice.

The perceptive lens that I have trained myself to choose in facilitator role is that of radical empathy: the actions that we humans take are attempts to meet our basic human needs, such as safety, freedom, peace, belonging, mattering, being seen and valued ... This is true for any context of life/work; also for a difficult-to-receive message or behaviour. The message harbours deeper qualities/needs/values that are important to the person, or to the group they represent; even though expressed as judgment, shaming or blaming.

This lens has been inspired by nonviolent communication, Carl Rogers’s person centered theory, narrative shifts, and various partnership-based models of collaboration.

I call it empathic perception because it extends beyond the rational interpretation of what was said: it contains a welcoming inner openness that is extended to the ‘difficult participant’. A sense of warmth and expansion that I experience when faced with a challenging message.

(2) Outer work: paraphrase challenging message into positively articulated qualities/values/needs underneath; and check for accuracy

 

A doable way to acknowledge the passion present in an intense interaction is to paraphrase back the underlying positive essence (qualities, values, needs) hidden under the hard-to-receive message.  

In my experience, this is a ‘small-size’ intervention that has major implications for the quality of dialogue. First of all, it releases tension in the group: when the author of a difficult-to-receive message is truly seen for what is deeply important to them, they tangibly relax, and become more open. Similar release happens in the group: they can now connect to the deeper humanity of the speaker. The shift from judging to really seeing the other is palpable, creating an open field from which new possibilities can emerge.

For this effect to happen, a basic structure is helpful that pierces through the hard-to-receive message into the positive essence with which many people can resonate (even if they don’t agree with the position that the speaker holds).

When I translate the hard-to-receive message into a positive paraphrase, I innerly use three key filters that help me structure my intervention (directly inspired by Miki Kashtan’s Convergent Facilitation model):

• unearth a noncontroversial essence underneath the spoken words (that generates resonance: others can recognize some value in it);
• use positive articulation (what is wanted rather than what is not wanted);
• balance between abstractness and concreteness (concrete enough to spur understanding yet open enough to allow for a variety of tactics to actualize the essence in later future-planning process)

OK, this all sounds nice – but how does it work in real life?

Real-life application: powers beyond power plants

Imagine you are facilitating a strategic dialogue on the use of energy resources in a geographical region by 2050. The stakeholders include:

• Power producers (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, sunlight, wind, hydro ...)
• Transmission grid operators
• Environmental NGOs
• Scientists
• Regional government officials

A lot is at stake: power (literally); money; jobs; environmental hazards. Lots of organic tensions between parties that by their nature/mission have conflicting interests.

 

Scientist’s view

At the start of the workshop, a senior scientist with multiple PhDs, and a member of a cross-sectorial committee on energy future in the country, stands up, looks at you as the facilitator, and says with indignation:

“What are all these people doing here?! I’m not going to discuss energy future of the region with people who don’t distinguish a Watt from a Volt!”
 

Facilitators use a variety of interventions:

• Avoid: wait that somebody else in the group (possibly one of the key organisers) replies.
• Refer to the higher purpose of the gathering: “The purpose of today is to hear a variety of views, in order to understand the big picture and create really robust solutions.”
• Offer a seemingly empathetic acknowledgement, and then go on as if nothing happened: “I hear you; and the plan for today is ...”
• Refer to the communication guidelines for the gathering: “Let us be reminded that today, we aim to capitalise on the diversity that is present in the room, listen with openness and curiosity, and look for common ground ...”
• Ask a question: “What would it take for you,  to be willing to engage in a productive dialogue with other stakeholders today?”
• Appease: “My role as facilitator is to ensure that we maintain a productive and relevant dialogue today ...”
• Summarising what was said (in a variety of ways; from repeating the same words to various levels of interpretations)
• ....

Experience tells me that if a strong judgmental remark is not acknowledged, the frustration that is fuelling the remark will resurface later: either openly, as another attack on people, content, or process; or covertly, by disengaging from the conversations.
Also: frustration breeds frustration; and such a remark naturally generates more frustration – in this case on the part of all the people who interpret the scientists’ words as an attack to them, diminishing their role in the process (environmental activists, local government officials, business representatives ...).
The sooner the frustration is addressed, the quicker the group can go forward.

 

Stay with, acknowledge, check back – using an appropriate level of concreteness

“What are all these people doing here?! I’m not going to discuss energy future of the region with people who don’t distinguish a Watt from a Volt!”

Here are some options how to paraphrase in a way that acknowledges the person (ranking from concreteness to abstractness):

1. Is it important to you that scientists decide on best energy strategy for the region?
2. Is it important to you that the decisions are based on well-researched data and scenarios?
3. Is it important to you that the decisions are based on relevant arguments?
4. Are trust and safety important to you?
    

1)  All these choices acknowledge the participant: he’d probably say ‘yes’ to any of these interventions; and experience some relief because he is being seen for what is important to him.

2)  Not all of these interventions generate resonance and build bridges though. Option I is too concrete: it points to excluding the NGO, government and business people from further energy strategy co-creation. If the facilitator chooses this paraphrasing option, then these stakeholders will react with indignation; and more tension will be generated.

3) Option IV is too general to catalyse real understanding. Everyone longs for trust and safety (and peace and love and freedom); so no real reconnection across divides catalysed here.

On a scale from very concrete to very abstract, it’s most constructive to strike a good-enough balance between abstractness and concreteness. In this way, the speaker has a sense of being understood; and there is still  enough openness for creating concrete tactics later that would honour not only the speaker’s values but also those of all other present in the room (to be identified later in the process).

Options II and III both nurture understanding and openness for a variety of solutions.

4) Another important guideline is to stay with what the person has said – don’t go wild and expand the pool of possibilities in ways that convey your ideas rather than those of the participants. You are a warm resonant witness, not an idea generator. Paraphrasing is powerful; so choose your intervention with wisdom and care.

So don’t say: “Is important to you that the scientists prepare four possible scenarios, and then invite other stakeholders to assess them?”

5) Ultimately: when people gather, the dynamic is complex, messy, and fluid. These guidelines are therefore guidelines, not rules.

 

Regional government’s view

“You environmentalists don’t care about people – just about the planet! If we close the coal mine, and the coal-fired power station, thousands of people will lose jobs.”

Some possible paraphrasing options (ranking from concreteness to abstractness):

1. Is it important to you to keep the mine and the power station operating so that people have jobs in your region?
2. Is it important to you that people in your region have jobs?
3. Is economic vitality of the region really important to you?
4. Is the well-being of people in the region important to you?

Options II and III (a) generate resonance in the group and (b) build enough common ground from which later in the process solutions can be generated: there are many strategies and tactics for generating economic vitality and jobs – besides keeping the coal mine and the power plant in operations.

 

NGO view

“You are so narrow-minded. You only care about your own profit – and don’t see the damage that this has on people’s health. Let alone on the health of all other species on this planet. Aren’t you able to see how this ultra-capitalism is wrecking the future of our grandchildren?”

Some possible paraphrasing options (ranking from concreteness to abstractness):

1. Is it important to you to close the mine and the power plant?
2. Is it important to you that – when deciding on an energy strategy – a comprehensive set of factors that affect the quality of life  are taken into account; not just economic profit? Would you also like to consider long-term consequences of the decisions made by this group?
3. Would you like to ensure that - when deciding on energy strategy - the broader impact on the quality of life is considered, such as people’s health, environmental impact, resources for future generations...?
4. Are health and safety important to you?

Again, the paraphrases along the center of concreteness and abstractness might be most effective.

 

Through the years of facilitating dialogues across differences and divides in a variety of settings – from nation-level policy dialogues to corporate to educational to community settings -, I have found the skill of positive paraphrasing to be one of my key allies. It gives me courage and confidence to meet any conflict with presence, curiosity, and respect for the hidden humanity.
Moreover, the deeper qualities/needs/values that are underneath judging, shaming and blaming, once unearthed and articulated, are a real gift to the author of the difficult-to-receive message, and to the group. They help forge connections on the deeply human level that is often buried and forgotten (and wasted!) in cases of superficial argumentative debates of the pro–contra type.
Once the key deeper drivers in any given conflict are identified (for all parties present), a solid common ground is established from which sustainable solutions can be generated.