No competent builder would choose to use a hammer to drive a screw. We all know that success depends on choosing the right tool for the right purpose, applied with an adequate amount of skill. We must be clear about what we are trying to accomplish, know enough about what the available tools can and can’t do, and have the skill to use them properly. This is as true of facilitation tools as it is of construction tools.

This post will help you decide when and how to use a “Plus/Delta” (+/Δ) by being clear on the intended purpose, tool capabilities and skill required to get value from its use.

Purpose

It is helpful to understand the history of the +/Δ Analysis tool, as applied to meetings and group/team processes.

In the 1970’s, Michael Doyle and David Straus wrote and published their classic little yellow book, “How to Make Meetings Work”. As Architects, they noted how design and construction projects were filled with conflicts – as was much of society as we were coming out of the upheaval of the movements of the 60’s and the end of the Vietnam War in the 70’s. People needed to work together, which of course means holding meetings. But people hated the meetings they had to attend, including Doyle and Straus. They set out to discover what was going wrong, what was the root cause, and what could be done to turn things around.

They started by asking people the simple question, “What goes wrong during your meetings?” No matter who they asked, or what the meeting was, essentially the same issues got brainstormed over and over. Examples included:

• We don’t know why we are meeting or what we hope to accomplish
• There is no agenda or time allotments
• Roles and decision-making are unclear – what is ok and what is not?
• Someone dominates, gets off track, holds a side conversation, withholds information, etc.
• People are treated without respect, not listened to or publicly embarrassed
• Ideas are not captured or get lost – there are no agreed action items or accountable follow through
• We get into too much or too little detail – we act too quickly or get stuck in analysis paralysis.

I expect all of these maladies sound very familiar and that you could easily add 5-10 more.

What you may be missing is the common thread in all these meeting problems. They have nothing to do with what the meeting is about – the “Content” of the meeting. All of them have to do with how the meeting is planned and run – the meeting “Process”. Doyle and Straus observed that many meetings have no agendas at all, and when they do, they are mostly a list of topics (meeting contents), often with no proposed meeting process or even desired outcomes. They concluded that a root cause of most meeting problems is “Process Blindness” – a condition cured by developing “Process Awareness” and designating a meeting role, the “Neutral Facilitator” to manage the process.

The late 1970’s and early ‘80s was also the peak of interest in Total Quality Management (“TQM”) which preached “Continuous (Quality) Process Improvement” (“CQI”). W. Edwards Deming, one of the fathers of CQI and Plan-Do-Check-Act (“PDCA”), notes that you cannot improve a process that you cannot measure. For the “Plan” and “Do” elements, Doyle and Strauss created an agenda template that specified desired outcomes, meeting topics and explicit process steps and timing for the agenda (the Plan), facilitation and participation in the meeting (the “Do”). The next question was how to implement the “Check” and “Act” (i.e., take corrective action)? Note that this was a decade dominated by “Alphabet Soup” slogans.

Strategy

The solution seemed simple: the facilitator and participants made the process explicit early and often, and did course corrections with new process agreements throughout the meeting. At the end, do a quick review (“check”) to see how it worked. Analyze what participants said and review any good suggestions at the beginning of the next meeting so participants could “Act” on the proposed improvements.

They started by doing a simple, “what worked?” and “what didn’t work?” brainstorm. Because most organizations have their own politics and leaders at all levels can have sensitive egos, the idea of a “+/-“ left some folks feeling reluctant to speak truth to power or offend their colleagues with perceived criticism. The “+/-“ got changed to “+/Δ” – “what worked?” and “what could we improve?” Who could argue with continuous improvement?

LCI Founders, Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell, attended intensive facilitation skills training at the consulting and training firm founded by Doyle and Straus. They knew a good thing when they experienced it and incorporated the +/Δ along with many other best practices.

Forward to today. The +/Δ has become commonplace behavior, but too often it is disconnected with the original purpose: meeting process improvement. We need to get back to some basics: only spend time in meetings on things that add value.

Tactics

Good brainstorming takes skill. In any brainstorming exercise, the better the leading questions, the better the responses. Most of us have gotten lazy and only ask, “Any plusses?”, “Any Deltas?”. Pluses and Deltas about what? What were we trying to achieve? What was our plan? What was required of the Leader, the Facilitator and the Participants for the whole thing to succeed? Did it work? Could it have worked better? That is what we are looking for. What do we actually care about?

To improve the quality of the feedback, improve the quality of the questions. First, think about critical success factors that make a meeting great. Here are some suggestions:

• Clarity of Purpose, Outcomes and Agenda Topics and Process
• Preparation and Meeting Logistics
• Agreements made and re-made about what we are talking about and what process we are using at each point in the meeting
• Focus, clarity, usefulness of everyone’s input
• Inclusion of and respect for the input of all
• Quality and Commitment to agreements/decisions
• Quality and utility of meeting content
• Sticking to topic and time agreements, with clear adjustments when needed
• Sense of achievement and value for the time we invested.

Add your own Critical Success Factors to this list. Watch and listen to how things went and then tailor your +/Δ brainstorming to the areas that were of concern in the last meeting, or that you picked up on and want to reinforce or change. Leading questions to get useful feedback might include, “How did we do at making sure everyone participated?” “What were the most valuable parts of this meeting, and what were least valuable?” (Note that what was not valuable to one person might be very valuable to another, which may be important feedback in and of itself.) “How did we get agreement on actionable next steps?” “How do you feel about the time you spent in this meeting?” Be courageous.

Change it up. Ask for feedback on Post-Its®. Suggest a two-minute discussion in pairs to come up with one improvement suggestion. Create and use a “Great Meetings Checklist” of best practices. Remember that the goal is to get information that leads to greater productivity and meaningful participation. Don’t be rigid about a “+/Δ”. If you had feedback from a previous meeting, put it on a flipchart or screen at the beginning of the meeting and check back at the end. Did we improve? How?, or why not? Encourage candor without derision or attack. Reinforce that the time and brainpower of everyone in the room are incredibly valuable, and our goal is to have a great time doing meaningful work together.

Finally, check your commitment to use the feedback you get. If you are not willing to invest the time and effort to improve your meetings and teamwork, don’t go through the motions for no reason. The actions of a meeting leader will demonstrate either a commitment to excellent meetings and teamwork, or make a lack of such commitment obvious. Be purposeful about improving your meetings and you will get valuable results.