Schuman S. - The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation (2005)(en)

2.Prepare time and space to support group process

•Arranges physical space to support the purpose of the meeting

•Plans effective use of time

•Provides effective atmosphere and drama for sessions C. Create and Sustain a Participatory Environment

1.Demonstrate effective participatory and interpersonal communication skills

•Applies a variety of participatory processes

•Demonstrates effective verbal communication skills

•Develops rapport with participants

•Practices active listening

•Demonstrates ability to observe and provide feedback to participants

2.Honor and recognize diversity, ensuring inclusiveness

•Encourages positive regard for the experience and perception of all participants

•Creates a climate of safety and trust

•Creates opportunities for participants to benefit from the diversity of the group

•Cultivates cultural awareness and sensitivity

3.Manage group conflict

•Helps individuals identify and review underlying assumptions

•Recognizes conflict and its role within group learning/maturity

•Provides a safe environment for conflict to surface

•Manages disruptive group behavior

•Supports the group through resolution of conflict

4.Evoke group creativity

•Draws out participants of all learning and thinking styles

•Encourages creative thinking

•Accepts all ideas

•Uses approaches that best fit needs and abilities of the group

•Stimulates and taps group energy

D.Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes

1.Guide the group with clear methods and processes

•Establishes clear context for the session

•Actively listens, questions and summarizes to elicit the sense of the group

•Recognizes tangents and redirects to the task

•Manages small and large group process

2.Facilitate group self-awareness about its task

•Varies the pace of activities according to needs of group

•Identifies information the group needs, and draws out data and insight from the group

•Helps the group synthesize patterns, trends, root causes, frameworks for action

•Assists the group in reflection on its experience

3.Guide the group to consensus and desired outcomes

•Uses a variety of approaches to achieve group consensus

•Uses a variety of approaches to meet group objectives

•Adapts processes to changing situations and needs of the group

•Assesses and communicates group progress

•Fosters task completion

E.Build and Maintain Professional Knowledge

1.Maintain a base of knowledge

•Knowledgeable in management, organizational systems and development, group development, psychology, and conflict resolution

•Understands dynamics of change

•Understands learning and thinking theory

2.Know a range of facilitation methods

•Understands problem solving and decision-making models

•Understands a variety of group methods and techniques

•Knows consequences of misuse of group methods

•Distinguishes process from task and content

•Learns new processes, methods, and models in support of client’s changing/ emerging needs

3.Maintain professional standing

•Engages in ongoing study/learning related to our field

•Continuously gains awareness of new information in our profession

•Practices reflection and learning

•Builds personal industry knowledge and networks

•Maintains certification

F. Model Positive Professional Attitude

1.Practice self-assessment and self-awareness

•Reflects on behavior and results

•Maintains congruence between actions and personal and professional values

•Modifies personal behavior/style to reflect the needs of the group

•Cultivates understanding of one’s own values and their potential impact on work with clients

2.Act with integrity

•Demonstrates a belief in the group and its possibilities

•Approaches situations with authenticity and a positive attitude

•Describes situations as facilitator sees them and inquires into different views

•Models professional boundaries and ethics (as described in ethics and values statement)

3.Trust group potential and model neutrality

•Honors the wisdom of the group

•Encourages trust in the capacity and experience of others

•Is vigilant to minimize influence on group outcomes

•Maintains an objective, non-defensive, non-judgmental stance

473

In some of the spectra, the facilitator chooses where he or she will stand. In other cases, the client and the client’s requirements predetermine the location between these polarities. For example, the size of the group can be expressed in a spectrum between very small and very large scale. Some clients want workshops for groups of two to eight people and never larger than ten. Other clients cater to workshops of as many as five thousand members. Techniques also limit the size of groups. Goal Oriented Project Planning (“The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Upgrading Urban Communities: A Resource for Practitioners,” 2001; GOPP Moderators Association, 2000), a method widely used in the European Community, is optimal when used in groups of around twenty people. Open Space Technology (Owen, 1997) as a methodology works quite well with several hundred people, but I believe it is less than optimal when used with small groups.

The operating style of the facilitator also determines his or her approach to facilitation. Some places on the spectrum are determined by the particular style, training, and expertise of the facilitator. Some facilitators are interested in, even require, more personal contact with each individual in a group. They tend to limit the group size to fewer than twenty people. Others are more comfortable with larger groups.

Each of the spectra has methodological, personal, and client boundaries that define exactly what kind of facilitation will be done and the style of the facilitator. In order to understand these spectra and the dynamic interaction among them, something needs to be said about the context in which facilitation takes place: organizational and behavioral change.

CHANGE

Facilitation is about enabling change—change in organizations, teams, and individuals. To understand facilitation, something needs to be said about the nature of change in groups. Among the many models of change, the one I have chosen for the purposes of this chapter is based on the work of Peter Senge (1990; Senge and others, 1994, 1999), W. Brian Arthur (2000), Joseph Jaworski (Jaworski and Scharmer, 2000), and others (Arthur and others, 2000). While this model is evolving in a number of directions, the draft of Claus Otto Scharmer (2000) is the most useful from my perspective.

Exhibit 27.1 “depicts five levels of organizational reality and, accordingly, of coping with change. The five levels of organizational reality are similar to an iceberg,

in which most reorganization takes place ‘below the waterline.’ The action (at level 0) is ‘above the waterline’ and leads to four underlying levels of reorganization and change. The four underlying levels of reorganization are restructuring (level 1), redesigning core processes (level 2), reframing mental models (level 3), and regenerating common will (level 4)” (Scharmer, 2000).

Level 0, reacting, is the normal day-to-day business of operating within the organization’s environment. A problem or opportunity is perceived, and an action is prepared and implemented. All of this takes place within the existing organizational framework, processes, thinking, and purposes.

Level 1, restructuring, is what is often called organizational change. Departments are created, eliminated, or put together in new ways; new lines of communication are instituted; and new responsibilities are given to and taken from managers. One might see this as rearranging the furniture in a home: change but not deep change.

Exhibit 27.1

Five Levels of Organizational Reality

The redesigning of processes, level 2, is where business process reengineering takes place. The core processes, from initial contact with the client to customer care and follow-up, are reviewed and improved where possible. The organization becomes leaner and more efficient, in theory at least.

Whereas facilitation helps in the change processes of levels 0 to 2 (and many facilitators specialize in these areas), the following processes cannot be accomplished without facilitation.

Reframing mental models (level 3) looks at the assumptions, cognitive constructions, and operating understandings of what the organization is, its purpose, the environment in which it operates, and why it operates the way it does. In reference to the American automobile industry, Senge points to the need for reframing mental models: “Because they remained unaware of their mental models, the models remained unexamined. Because they were unexamined, the models remained unchanged. As the world changed, a gap widened between Detroit’s mental models and reality, leading to an increasingly counterproductive actions” (Senge, 1990, p. 176).

Level 4 is regenerating common will. Even if an organization is operating out of the same set of assumptions and images, the change process may fail. This failure often occurs because of the lack of a shared purpose and a common will. The process of aligning the collective will requires an atmosphere of trust. People have to be able to express what they feel and what they believe without fear of negative consequences. Free choice has to operate. At the end of the process, individuals may leave because they disagree with the direction in which the organization is going, but they do so freely.

Scharmer (2000) writes, “Level 4 regenerating means allowing for flexibility in action, structure, processes, and mental models (levels 0, 1, 2, and 3) by focusing on redefining purpose and uncovering common will. . . . Shifting from level 3 to level 4 involves shifting from reflective learning (Type I: learning from the experiences of the past) to generative learning (Type II: learning from emerging futures). The primary issue at this stage is the need for a sound methodology that takes a team from the reflective space (level 3) to the space of deep intention of will (level 4).”

Scharmer, in a refinement of Peter Senge’s five disciplines (1990), suggests the following disciplines: systems thinking, dialogue, process consulting, parallel learning structures, personal mastery, and presencing. Both dialogue (see Chapter Thirteen) and process consulting (Schein, 1999) can be considered disciplines of

facilitation. Certainly systems thinking is frequently done as a facilitated process (Vennix, 1996). Thus, every manager of a company, governmental department, or nongovernmental organization needs these disciplines in order to manage change. If this is so, why is a profession of facilitation necessary?

Perhaps a metaphor would be useful. The vast majority of health care and prevention takes place in the home without recourse to a medical professional. First aid is done by mom; colds and fevers are fed and starved; basic sanitation (wash your hands before dinner) and nutrition (eat your broccoli; it’s good for you) all take place within the family setting. When the family cannot deal with a medical problem, usually they go to a general practitioner who, using a wider range of skills and technology, diagnoses the problem and offers a cure from a much more inclusive set of possibilities. If the family doctor cannot find a solution, a specialist is brought in. The specialist brings to bear an even more sophisticated array of skills, technologies, and insights to the issue.

Much of this is also true of the future of facilitation. Most meetings, groups, teams, conferences, and town meetings are run and should be run by the manager, team leader, or a team member. Although not all of these people have a rich array of group management skills or an up-to-date understanding of how group decisions are made, they should be able to manage the vast majority of group processes. At this level, the manager is a facilitator (Weaver and Farrell, 1997) who uses basic group planning, development, or interaction skills.

Sometimes a meeting is expected to be more difficult than usual or a special problem needs to be dealt with. Occasionally the person who would normally lead the meeting should or would like to participate without the added burden of facilitating. Some teams have what could be called annual checkups, where a facilitator is called in not to solve a problem the group could not solve but to bring a fresh set of skills to lead the meeting. This is the “family doctor” function of facilitation.

When a group requires more than the normal facilitator can offer, there are specialists who can be called on. These specialties are still being developed; some are emerging. For example, meetings of very large groups require different approaches than small groups do.

Whether a specialist, general practitioner, or someone who is responsible for leading meetings, these people make choices about design, types of interaction with the group, kinds of results, and types of audiences. These choices determine the results of the meeting.

SPECTRA OF FACILITATION

Martin Luther King (1981, p. 13) describes the necessary polarities for creating a spectrum when he said, “A French philosopher said, “No man is strong unless he bears within his character antitheses strongly marked.’ The strong man holds in a living blend strongly marked opposites. Not ordinarily do men achieve this balance of opposites. The idealists are not usually realistic, and the realists are not usually idealistic. The militant are not generally known to be passive, nor the passive to be militant. Seldom are the humble self-assertive, or the self-assertive humble. But life at its best is a creative synthesis of opposites in fruitful harmony.”

In March 2000, a discussion took place on the GRP-FACL listserv (Electronic Discussion on Group Facilitation Process Expertise for Group Effectiveness) on models of facilitation. In this discussion, attempts were made to describe the different aspects of facilitation. James Murphy suggested a series of metaphors (e-mail to Group Facilitation, Mar. 22, 2000). Jim Rough added suggestions (e-mail message to Group Facilitation, Mar. 23, 2000). In the process of this discussion, Ned Ruete (e-mail to Group Facilitation, Mar. 22, 2000) and I (e-mail to Group Facilitation, Mar. 22, 2000 ) developed an eight-dimensional model of facilitation.

I became aware that frequently, the perspectives held by facilitators could be seen as a spectrum between various sets of polarities. Some argue, for example, that it is necessary and correct to offer content suggestions while acting as a facilitator, and others argue that facilitation works only at the process level. While examining my own practice, I discovered that I fell somewhere between these various sets of extremes. I often facilitate meetings dealing with topics that I have no knowledge about at all (for example, four-dimensional seismic imaging, or pictures of geological formation over time) and I have no content to suggest. Yet in areas where I have some expertise, I might share information that does not seem to be available to the group.

As the discussions continued, it occurred to me that a number of polarities existed; in this chapter, I present sixteen. The spectra that inform the profession of facilitation can be categorized as follows:

Approaches to design: prestructured versus self-organizing, scripted versus emergent, serial threads versus parallel threads

Scale of the problem: one off versus long term, narrow versus wide scope, and symptomatic versus causal