Mary wrote: Does having a ground rule about storming out of the room make sense?

Mary's hypothetical is unfortunately quite real. I have found that there is no "silver bullet" solution since it depends entirely on the context.

Where such an incident occurs spontaneously out of the proceedings, it is possible to ask participants how they would like to handle the situation, however the danger is that the balance of the process may be compromised in terms of its prime objectives.

I have found that the following issues impact the answer to this situation:

1. Is this person the sponsor of the facilitation session? If so, then you have a real problem and you have embedded emotions/issues that will not be resolved at the facilitation session. If not, then this person will continue to undermine the outcomes of the session.

2. Is the sponsor of the facilitation present at the session? If yes, then you ask him/her how they would like to proceed. If not you probably need to continue with the agenda and deal with the individual or the issue of non-co-operation "off-line" with the sponsor.

3. How critical is this individual within the organisation/context? Is he/she a gatekeeper of the solution/s proposed or likely to be proposed? If yes, you have a problem. If the walk-out occurs before "next steps" and "action plans" are developed, then the group should strategise the action plan on a contingency basis (i.e. as if the trouble-maker helps, and if he/she impedes)

4. Is the session a "pure" facilitation or is it a mediation? If it is a mediation, and if the walk-out person is a key stakeholder, then the session must stop.

5. A way to minimise the risk of such an event, is for the facilitator to interview each participant in a one-on-one confidential interview prior to the session. Such an interview should attempt to surface issues related to the session objectives, expected outcomes, and participants. The issues raised in such interviews should be discussed with the sponsor and may be incorporated in the session design. For example, if there are serious issues that, if not resolved, would undermine the session's objectives, or impede their solution, then an "issues session" might be scheduled at the top of the program to get the issues resolved (or at least acknowledged) prior to the solution formulation. Conversely, the solution of the issues may form part of the action plan (by agreement of participants). In this way, the issue is acknowledged and the group has permitted its solution "off-line". Anyone who refers to the issues during the session is then advised that the issue has been acknowledged but will be dealt with after the session. If the session action item/s depends on the outcome of the issue, then the solution of the issue must precede the commencement of the action plan. If the issue solution will determine whether you proceed with the action plan, then say so, and incorporate a review step immediately after the issue solution has been determined in order to review the action plan - ideally with the same participants.

6. What is the objective of the facilitation? Does the walk-out impede the objective? Ask the group. If no, continue with the session. If yes, then ask the group how to "deliver" the session objective in light of the walkout. The challenge is to deliver the session objective. Allow the group to strategise this question, but don't allow the session objective to be compromised.

7. If this walk-out behaviour is seen to successfully derail progress and if the objectives are thus thwarted, then you deliver to participants an additional dysfunctional strategy that they can use in the future. Conversely, if the session objectives are still achieved despite the walk-out, then the message that you convey to others is that this strategy is pointless.