Task forces, commissions, committees, and councils are composed of a select group of people charged with reviewing, discussing, and providing input and/or recommendations on a select topic.
This resource provides guidance for anyone who is serving as a facilitator for a task force or similar body. It can be useful to get outside help for these types of projects. MAD consultants can serve in a variety of roles on task force engagements—as neutral facilitators of the task force and its process, as researchers to bring information into the process, as writers to synthesize information and draft reports, and as project managers to ensure the task force stays on track.
The topic and subsequent charge of a task force are usually developed by a person of authority (e.g., Legislature, Governor, Commissioner) who is interested in gathering advice on the specific issue. The charge is frequently outlined in legislation, through a governor’s order, or from a commissioner’s directive. It provides a purpose and scope for the group and frequently identifies the organizations or entities that compose the membership. The charge may also identify the agency that is responsible for the oversight of the task force, staff and other resources available to the group, and the deadline for receiving recommendations.
Task force membership is usually defined in the charge, which identifies specific organizations, members of the public, points of view, and/or elected officials. If membership is not outlined in the charge, the responsible agency should identify the key points of view to be heard and what organizations, entities, or individuals can represent those perspectives. Try to maintain a membership between ten and twenty people—larger groups can be a challenge to engage in productive conversation. Additional perspectives or voices can be added through focus groups, listening sessions, surveys, or other information-gathering techniques.
The agency that has oversight for the task force usually convenes the group, coordinates meetings, provides for technical expertise, and delivers the task force report to the appropriate recipient. The task force will convene over a period, depending on the time frame in the charge. Most task forces will follow a similar process of:
Organizing the group’s structure and task
Building common knowledge among group members
Identifying viable options to address the issue(s)
Reviewing options and developing recommendations
Drafting those recommendations into a report, reviewed and approved by the members, to advise the appropriate entity or entities.
This step is accomplished in the first couple of meetings. The task force should review their purpose and scope outlined in the charge. The key points can be put on one page and used as a handout or poster at every meeting to help the group stay focused over time.
Second, outline to the task force what is planned to do to complete their task. It can be flexible and general, but it will give members a sense of where they will be going. A “road map” outlining the five bulleted points above is sufficient to give them a sense of where they are going.
Third, develop ground rules. The ground rules can be as broad or specific as the group demands. Provide the task force with a starting point and allow them to add, modify, or clarify as needed.
One key area to identify is the decision-making process (or processes) that will be used for the group to decide on their recommendations. Task force members need to know the decision process as they start their work. A wide variety of decision-making options exist, from Robert’s Rules of Order to the variety of consensus processes—all can work. The general path should be clear, even if all of the decision-making details haven't been worked out. As an example, a common decision-making process that allows flexibility is:
“Consensus is the process—a participatory process by which a group thinks and feels together, en route to their decision.” Sam Kaner, PhD
Techniques: verbal agreement, “does anyone object to this?” 5-Finger consensus
Level 2: “Super Majority” (formal decisions)
Super majority defined as 70% of participants accept decision, with option for dissenting opinions.
Level 3: “Options with Majority or Less Support” (no formal decision but with opportunity to provide options and feedback)
Provides feedback by identifying options and pros and cons raised.
Finally, if needed, this is a good time to allow the task force to reflect and discuss the charge, as a group. If the purpose and scope are sufficiently clear, this may not be needed. However, it is always good to confirm that all the members have a basic understanding of the group’s charge.
Task force members come with a wide range of knowledge, information, ideas, opinions, and questions about the issue(s) or topic(s) they are to address. Building common knowledge can be time consuming. Remember, the goal in this step is to help the task force establish a common understanding so they can accomplish their charge. It is not to resolve differing points of view. At times, task forces tend to “study a problem to death” and not have time to focus on options to solve the problem. Usually, no more than one-quarter of task force meeting time should focus on building common knowledge.
Identifying task force member interests can help focus the conversation and move it beyond established positions. The concept comes from the book Getting to Yes, which states: “The basic problem in negotiation lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears. Such desires and concerns are interests. Interests motivate people: they are the silent movers behind the hubbub of positions. Your position is something you have decided upon. Your interests are what caused you to decide.” The exercise asks members to identify their key interests to the issue before them. These are identified, discussed, and themed into broader task force interests. These interests can help focus the information gathered and ultimately help the group evaluate and come to agreement on their recommendations.
The next step is to identify information the task force collectively needs. Information can be provided by various experts, members of the task force, and agency representatives. A facilitator has several options available to solicit input on information needs: they can facilitate a discussion where members can identify what information they would like to have, group those into common themes, and identify presenters, etc., for each of the themed areas. Also, “idea worksheets” can be made available at each meeting so members can identify additional information needs. Again, time will determine how much information the task force can gather. A brief overview of most topics is sufficient for the members to grasp the idea.
This step can be blended with the next step of developing options to keep the process moving. New information (or new understanding of information) leads to new ideas; ideas can raise questions and the need for additional information; this new information can lead to new ideas, and so on.
Ideas for options can come from anywhere. Frequently, the initial options reflect well-worn positions and have already been discussed. Be sure to ask for other, new, or creative options that address the various interests identified earlier. In discussing options, keep a lookout for themes that arise in the members’ conversations—they can lead you to a starting point for potential areas of agreement. Try to crystalize those themes for the group, to help focus the discussion and help build momentum for the ultimate agreement. This is a good time to go back and reflect on the interests identified earlier and home in on those options that satisfy the most interests or provide insight on ways to refine the options.
If the issue is new and/or ideas have not been fleshed out, small groups can be used to further explore and develop options for the full group to discuss. The “idea worksheet” mentioned earlier and an “option worksheet” may be of value. The small groups can boil down the options to a few, making it easier for the full task force to discuss.
As the task force (as a whole or through small groups) focuses on viable options, keep watch for those ideas that have “energy” in the group. This is where members are engaged and conversation is not forced. These are usually where recommendations develop. Start with the ideas that seem to have general agreement with the members. Frequently, these can be approved by a voice vote or head nods of the members. It is important to get the group agreeing on something before moving on to more challenging options.
With the challenging options, write down (on a handout, flip chart, white board, etc.) the language to discuss or at least the main points. This will give the members something to refer back to and edit as needed. Work through the key points and combine, remove, change, and edit as needed. This is hard work for the members so take breaks frequently. In this step, it is a balance of keeping the conversation going but giving members time to think and consider ideas. Trust the group and help them understand the solutions they are creating.
As recommendations start to crystalize, check with the members to gauge their support for the idea(s). Fist-to-five is a common technique to measure support for a recommendation: five fingers is full support and a fist is a veto. If you have a bunch of threes, fours, and fives, you have a solid recommendation. If you have a blend, from one to five, ask the members who express less support what can be done to improve the recommendation. It is important for the other members to listen to understand the minority view and ask clarifying questions, rather than argue a different position. Many times a person expressing a minority view can come to support the view of the larger group if they know their view has been truly heard and understood. Or, the larger group will see a way to accommodate the minority view, if they fully understand it. If you have a number of fists, ones and twos, determine why there is little support. If it is worth continuing on the topic, keep going. If not, move to another recommendation or option.
As recommendations start to take shape, the decision-making process outlined early on in the ground rules becomes valuable. The members will have some understanding (you may need to remind them) of how they need to proceed to formalize their recommendations. If the decision-making process is the three-level option (identified earlier), ask members to see if they will all accept the recommendation. Recommendations can be adopted on a voice vote or simply head nods—just make certain no one opposes the recommendation. If there is opposition, see what can be done to have that member or members become supportive. If that is not possible, the second level of decision-making can be used. Have the task force vote on the recommendation and see if it makes the super-majority threshold. If it does, allow those opposing it to write a letter or comment on why they oppose it. Do not attempt to write this for them. This is the members’ issue, not the facilitator’s. The comment or letter can be added to the report either in the recommendation section or in the appendix with a reference next to the recommendation it comments on. Try first to adjust the recommendation to meet their concerns. Use the comment or letter as a last resort.
Finally, if the task force cannot agree on one or more recommendations they do have options that can help advise decision makers—level 3 in the decision-making process. The options can be stated and the task force can identify the pros and cons of each. Additionally, they can identify the key reasons why they could not come to agreement. These points can be listed in the report.
The report writing should be worked on all through the process—don’t wait until the end. Some items can be written after the first meeting (i.e., background, organization structure). Frequently, there is a time crunch at the end to get everything reviewed and written. It is imperative that the report writing should be done as early as possible.
Report formats can depend upon the topic and its complexity, but common contents include:
Executive summary
Introduction and charge (including brief explanation of context)
Methodology
Background/further explanation of context
Information gathered and reviewed
Public comment (if applicable)
Recommendations
Appendices
The draft recommendations section should be reviewed and approved by the task force members before the report is final. If there is time, hold a final meeting to review, revise, and edit the recommendation language. To some members, what looked good in an outline format may come across differently in a narrative format. Remind the members that this review is to refine or clarify their decision, not to change it. However, it is possible for a task force to have a last-minute breakthrough on a recommendation that may solidify support. At this time it is valuable to be flexible. If a final meeting is not doable, the review can be done via email with any changes communicated to the full membership for final acceptance.
Task forces are not created around easy issues that have a simple solution. They are created to tackle difficult issues that have been around for a period of time. Frequently, people have had a chance to crystalize their positions and advocate for them. Their arguments may have been well-developed and solidified through public debate. Members need to be encouraged to become curious again on the topic. They need to move their thinking away from advocating for a position to being inquisitive about their interests and the interests of the other members. They need to listen again for what brings value to the variety of members on the task force. Reminding them of the ground rules and to keep listening to each other becomes a constant task—they do not need to give up what they want, but they should open up to what others want and build their solution(s) for mutual gain.
