We were working with a meeting planning team in Singapore to design a large group communications meeting for 300 people. We noticed right away that the team was not as participative as groups in the United States. When we asked the group directly for input or posed a question we would be met with blank stares. We did find that if we posed specific questions to a group and then gave them time to talk about it as a group, they became more participative.

As the group progressed they began to design a meeting that was significantly different than we would have considered acceptable in North America, since it was heavy on presentations and Q&A sessions on the first day. The second day was a lot more interactive and typical of what we would normally do on both days. At this point we cautioned the group that they might need to have a balance of working sessions intermixed with the presentations on day one. The group was insistent that this was the right design for "their meeting" and we were willing to trust the group's wisdom.

As it turned out, the planning team designed the perfect meeting for their culture. The disucssions on day one provided a common understanding of the issues facing the organization and set the state for extremely interactive and energetic sessions on day two. The American manager of the facility was shocked at the level of active participation from his employees and the creative ideas they came up with to improve quality and reduce cycle time at the plant.

• They designed a format to our specific situation using people in our organization and the talent of our stakeholders to achieve our goals.
• I liked their views on the involvement of our workforce.
• They have extensive expertise in whole systems change and had a very strong referral.
• We liked the process they defined using people, process and technology and how they all have to work together.
• We were impressed with their level of expertise in design and large scale meeting intervention and facilitation and their ability towork at all levels of an organization—especially the senior level.
• They very quickly resonated to what our challenge was.

Did they and their work meet your expectations?

• Yes. Our organization was disjointed and operated by crisis. They helped us achieve order and focus and eliminate resistance.
• Yes. They were able to get people on board—even resisters!
• Yes. They facilitated major meetings and involved all of us. We are now a model for other plants.
• Yes. They quickly assessed our culture and environment and were very adept at getting people to work together.

What are PDA’s strengths?

• They can deal effectively with people at all levels of the organization.
• Their knowledge of and approaches to group facilitation.
• Honesty. Fairness. Intelligence. They are sharp!
• They have a cadre of highly skilled, intelligent people who can come in and really make it a shared project.
• They are highly collaborative and strategically involve the work force.
• Their process road map is very clear. They go through the steps and don’t shortcut them.
• Flexibility. They quickly adapted to our culture.
• They didn’t let us off the hook—thank heavens!
• They work well with teams. They can lead AND follow.

How did PDA differ from other outside consulting groups you have used?

• They were not one-trick ponies.
• They customized their approach to work with us.
• They are very outcome and performance focused.
• They were flexible and adaptable to our specific needs.
• They were consultative and problem solving rather than coming in with a pat answer.
• I felt we could trust them.
• They really know how to deal with the people.
• Their process is great and their ability to implement through people is one of their unique qualities.
• They were focused on results—on organizing around the work.
• They were less formal—more practical—more dedicated.