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

Type of interventions used by facilitators: process versus content, implicit rules versus explicit rules

Types of products: verbal versus visual, idea based versus story based, instrumental versus developmental, and facilitator-owned product versus groupowned product

Types of audiences: monochromatic versus polychromatic, large groups versus small groups, single party versus multiple party, and hierarchical versus egalitarian

Approaches to Design

One of the issues facing a facilitator is how group process will be designed. I present three spectra having to do with design: prestructured versus self-organizing, scripted versus emergent, and serial threads versus parallel threads.

Prestructured versus Self-Organizing Structured, or perhaps more accurately, prestructured facilitation occurs when the facilitator designs the meeting or workshop usually in consultation with the client before the workshop begins. In selforganizing designs, the participants determine the content, usually in relation to a focused question, and create the process by which the meeting is done.

Examples of prestructured designs are the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) Technology of Participation (ToP) Methods (Spencer, 1989; Stanfield, 2002) and Joint Applications Development (Rottmann, 2001). In each of these approaches, the facilitator, in discussion with the client, determines the sequence of the workshops or meetings, prepares specific interventions beforehand, and trusts the process. A facilitator who trusts the process understands that the sequence of steps planned for in the workshop will enable the group to come to an effective conclusion without modification during the meeting. Not trusting the process leads to trusting your feelings or immediate impressions or intuitions and using personal concerns as a basis of intervening. The facilitator then follows the planned sequence of the process of the meeting regardless of things seemingly going wrong. This does not imply that things will not go wrong or that the facilitator will never change the process, but generally the planned procedures result in the desired outcome.

Examples of self-organizing designs are Open Space Technology (Owen, 1997), Dynamic Facilitation by Jim Rough (2003), and the ICA’s Problem Solving Units

(“PSU Manual,” 1996). In these approaches the participants determine during the session the specific topics, how they are treated, and who deals with each one.

Scripted versus Emergent Scripted facilitation occurs when the facilitator or a design team writes out a script for the facilitator. The emergent design approach usually begins with an exercise or icebreaker or some other way of engaging the group. Then, depending on how the group responds, the facilitator (perhaps in consultation with the group) proceeds based on intuitions about what the group needs.

Several facilitators seem to be emergent, but when they are observed over several workshops, their process does not vary. They are, in fact, scripted without the burden of writing.

The ICA’s ToP Methods were scripted at their inception. In the strategic planning method (“Convoy Course: Lecture One,” 1996; “NINS,” 1996), word-for-word scripts were written for the facilitator. While ToP facilitators today have great latitude in revising the process on the spot, they still tend to let the process carry the group through difficult moments. They also have a number of memorized “short courses” that they can draw on, if necessary. These “short courses” are contexts, additional explanations, instructions, and even funny stories making some point. These facilitators seldom intervene outside the script. The advantage of scripted programs is that all of the dynamics of the process are thought through in great detail beforehand. This helps bring high intentionality to the process. The disadvantage of this approach is that being too tied to a script can prevent responding sensitively to the group.

Dynamic Facilitation is probably the best-known emergent form of facilitation. The introduction phase of Open Space Technology is quite standard: the facilitator explains four principles and one law. The principles are: “Who ever comes is the right people. Whatever happens is the only thing that could have, Whenever it starts is the right time. When it is over, it’s over” (Owen, 1997, p. 95). The one law is “the Law of Two Feet, which says that if, during the course of the gathering, any person finds him or herself in a situation where they are neither learning nor contributing, they must use their two feet and go to some more productive place” (Owen, 1997, p. 98). The actual work is more emergent because after the topics are determined and rooms and times allocated, there is no further guidance from the facilitator. The advantage of this approach is that the immediate requirements of

the group can be met. The disadvantage of this kind of approach is that if poor meeting practices are the norm in the group, they will continue in the small groups. Disadvantages of facilitator-directed emergent forms are that it requires a great deal of skill, discipline, and experience and a huge repertoire of techniques.

Serial Threads versus Parallel Threads Some facilitated meetings have a single topic or “thread.” Although there may be several stages and preliminary or intermediary products, the meeting has a single focus and results in a single, integrated product. A serial thread meeting might have several threads in a sequence. Parallel thread meetings take on several topics or intermediary products simultaneously.

Open Space Technology is an example of parallel thread facilitation. Topics are identified in a plenary session, and times and locations are posted. All of the work on these topics takes place at the same time. After the work is done, reports are presented in a plenary session (Owen, 1997). Serial thread methods can be used in a parallel way. I have used After Action Review, a method for debriefing an event, project, or campaign (M. Jenkins, 2002; Hoskins, 2002; Signet Consulting Group, 2000) for multiple threads. The whole group was instructed in the five steps of the After Action Review process: (1) What did we intend? (2) What actually happened?

(3) What did we learn? (4) What will we do differently next time? (5) Who should we tell? Individuals then volunteered to work on one of several topics, and the groups reported conclusions from their workshops.

Some techniques use a combination of singleand multiple-thread thinking. In the grassroots community improvement planning sessions, Human Development Project Launch Workshops, six intermediate products were created in the course of five days: vision, contradictions, proposals, tactics, implementaries, and organization. During the last five of these stages, each of the five teams worked on different topics that came from the product of the previous stage. A vision, for example, might have twelve elements, and each specialist team would be given two or three to look for blocks to their realization.

Scale of the Problem

Although not all facilitation is problem solving in intent, the vast majority of planning sessions are located within some understanding of the scale of the problem being faced. Each decision-making process occurs in a set of boundaries that determine how much of the group’s organization is to be dealt with in the process.

There are three dimensions to this. One-off events versus long-term series of interventions are about how far into the future the interventions will be planned for. Narrow versus wide scope is about how much of the organization or social unit will be within the mandate of the meeting. Symptomatic versus causal is about how deep into root causes the group will look.

One Off versus Long Term Most approaches to facilitation focus on a single event. These often operate out of the assumption that single events can result in long-term, sustainable change. A project to select and introduce a new telephone system can lead to lasting and more effective communications. Other facilitators understand that in doing one-off events, they are creating temporary solutions that are not sustainable and in fact may be detrimental to sustainable change. The event may be a strategic planning session or a single team-building or planning day (in Europe, often called an away day), or some other relatively short-term program. It can last from three to four hours to several days. These events can be planned well in advance and followed up weeks or even months later.

Long-term approaches to change recognize that a great deal of time is needed. Planning for major infrastructure developments takes into account that decades may pass before even beginning to implement a plan and the goal is realized. In some cases, the change process itself may take a long time. Collins (2001) points our that companies that make the transition from good to great companies take years before the change process is noticeable from the outside.

One-off methods include Future Search, Strategic Forum, and SimuReal (Holman and Devane, 1999). In each case, a planning process ranging from a few days to six months is required before the event. The follow-up ranges from none to preparing facilitators, follow-up events, and tracking changes in the organization. Regardless of whether the planning and follow-up is brief or extensive, these methods focus on a single event.

The Whole System Approach and appreciative inquiry are examples of methods that are designed specifically for long-term change. (See Chapter Twelve for additional insight regarding long-term change.)

Narrow versus Wide Scope The breadth of the issue that the meeting is dealing with also affects what approach the facilitator needs to take. Narrow-scope planning looks at some part of the work of an organization or community. It could

be an implementation plan for a project or planning how to increase repeat sales for a particular retail outlet. Wide scope would look at comprehensive community development issues or a complete redefinition of a company’s direction. Somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is strategic planning.

The scope of the problem sets boundaries for what can and cannot be discussed. Assumptions about where the discussion can start in a narrow scope are different than with a wide scope. The narrow-scope project planning methods assume that the project itself is valid and its goal is fixed and not to be challenged. Changes in scope can be made but normally are not. Project planning methods such as JAD and ToP Action Planning are more useful in a narrow-scope planning process.

In wide-scope projects, everything imaginable can be discussed. For example, in a community development project week-long planning event I helped lead in Vogar, Manitoba, one idea that was seriously considered was to move everyone to Winnipeg and destroy the community. Methodologies such as Future Search, the ToP Environmental Analysis (Spencer, 1989), and the Human Development Project Planning (Mathews, 1996) process of the ICA would tend to be more effective in a wide-scope program.

Symptomatic versus Causal Another spectrum that has to do with the scale of the problem could be called symptomatic versus causal or shallow versus deep. In treating a common cold, it is often most effective to simply reduce the symptoms of the cold while the natural immune system deals with the infection. In many cases, the client only wants or has a mandate to deal with the symptoms.

In-depth organizational or community transformation looks at processes of eliciting a collective will, developing shared universes of discourse, building individual and corporate capacity, and changing behavior. In these cases, no single intervention or type of intervention is sufficient.

Dealing with causes requires a rather complex diagnostic model such as systems thinking. Morgan (1986) suggests three approaches to systems thinking: autopoiesis, mutual causality, and dialectic change. The two systems most used by facilitators are mutual causality, advocated by Peter Senge (1990), and dialectic change, which can be traced back to Taoism through to Hegel and Marx. Process consulting often uses systems thinking. One example of dialectic change is contradictions, as used by the ICA in its strategic planning process, which was developed from Mao Ze Dong’s book On Contradiction (1999). Other diagnostic tools

that are of use to facilitators are the Social Process Triangles and its derivatives (Jenkins and Jenkins, 1997) and Motorola’s Six Sigma (I Six Sigma, 2000).

An alternative to sophisticated diagnostic tools are methods that provide enough insight into the underlying causes of issues, such as DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control), an incremental process improvement method using Six Sigma tools. Five Whys (I Six Sigma, 2000) and the fishbone method, when appropriately applied, can develop insights into underlying causes.

Type of Interventions Facilitators Use

A third set of spectra has to do with the kinds of interventions the facilitator will make in delivering the process. The process versus content continuum has to do with the division between the sequence of activities used by the group to process information and to make decisions and the actual content of the discussions and decisions. The second spectrum, implicit rules versus explicit rules, assumes that there are rules governing behavior. The question is how explicit those rules should be.

Process versus Content The process versus content discussion is perhaps the most frequent one among facilitators. When should a facilitator act as a content expert? While few facilitators would suggest that a facilitator should be a pure content expert, many would share their thinking about the topic of the meeting or provide information that is not otherwise available to the group.

As soon as the facilitator supports or promotes a position, whether it is his own or the position of a faction within the group, he has become a consultant or advocate. A common way to deal with this situation is for the facilitator to announce that he is stepping out of his role as facilitator and stepping into a role as content expert.

Pure process facilitators never make content suggestions; they work only with the meeting process. They manage information flow and treatment, idea generation, development and evaluation, group and individual emotions, decision making, and group spirit.

It can be argued that all facilitators make some content interventions. They ask questions about content such as, “Could you say more about that?” or “Could you give an example of what you mean?”

Implicit Rules versus Explicit Rules Implicit rules assume that the existing principles of behavior operating within the group are of a standard such that the

group can function in a healthy way. Few formal methods advocate relying on implicit rules, but many facilitators operate this way in practice.

Explicit rules are the basis of a model of effective behavior. Without them, it is not possible to add value to the client. They are also the basis of diagnostic models and models of intervention. They provide a structure within which more important issues can be discussed. They also enable the group to hold the facilitator accountable to them (R. Schwarz, e-mail to Group Facilitation, May 23, 2003). Explicit rules of participation and interacting in the meeting are usually agreed to and posted in the meeting room. There are three approaches to this: rules that are agreed to in the contracting process, rules that the facilitator suggests to the group, and rules that are created by the people in the meeting. Both implicit and explicit rules expect the facilitator to model behavior that is consistent with the rules.

Some methods use explicit rules (Schwarz, 2002). In this method, the rules are required by the facilitator and agreed to before the meeting. Owen (1997) uses four principles and one law. Most methods that I am familiar with do not require a specific set of rules, but when rules are made explicit, the participants in the meeting create them. (See Chapter Nineteen.) One approach that does not use ground rules is Dynamic Facilitation by Jim Rough, who argues that rules prevent transformation: “Ground rules evoke critical thinking and encourage self-censorship, both of which are an anathema to creativity and transformation” (Rough, e-mail to Group Facilitation, May 24, 2003).

One of the issues that facilitators face is how to “enforce” the rules. Part of the process of enforcement has to do with calling attention to someone who is ignoring the rules. This intervention is often sufficient to correct the behavior. If it is not, the facilitator (or the group) must decide if the infraction warrants an additional intervention; finally, the intervention is carried out. Some facilitators leave enforcement in the hands of the group.

Types of Products

The products produced by facilitators vary quite a bit. The verbal versus visual spectrum ranges from written reports to a series of drawings. A list of interrelated concepts results at one end of the idea-based versus story-based spectrum and a number of individual or collective narratives at the other end. In the instrumental versus developmental spectrum, the products range from a concrete artifact to

improved group dynamics. The “owner” of the product is considered in the facil- itator-owned product versus group-owned product spectrum.

Verbal versus Visual By far, most facilitators at least begin as verbal facilitators. They use flip charts, cards, or computers to record and process the ideas that emerge in the meetings. The reports are written; no pictures, drawings, or other visual images are used. There is a trend toward visual facilitation. Horn (1998) argues that a new international visual language is emerging that includes shapes and images. Facilitators in cross-cultural situations or multilingual workshops can use this visual language.

Pure visual facilitators use only drawings. Some facilitators toward this end of the spectrum use a single word or a phrase to help participants recall the context in which the picture was drawn. An example of this end of the spectrum is the work of Reinhard Kuchenmüller and Marianne Stifel (n.d.) of Visuelle Protokolle of Munich, Germany (see Chapter Twenty-Three). They begin with drawings and then add text if it is needed. Nearer the text end of the spectrum but still visual are graphic facilitators like David Sibbet (Grove Consultants International, 2003), who uses a predrawn image on which text is recorded (see Chapter Ten). Somewhere in the middle is the work of Gareth Morgan (1993). He uses visual metaphors to develop self-awareness. This approach can act as a bridge from verbal to visual.

A trend toward using other senses in the facilitation process is also developing. For example, Lego Serious Play is another visual and tactile approach to facilitating team building, strategic and project planning, product development, and innovation and branding strategy. Participants use Lego pieces to create a visual image of the answer to a question posed: Opportunity or challenge? (To see the way Lego pieces are used in planning, go to http://www.seriousplay.com/.)

Music is often used at the beginning, end, and during breaks to create an atmosphere. Some discussions have been held between Imaginal Training (verbal facilitators) and Visuelle Protokolle (a visual facilitation company) to experiment with using music as an integral part of the facilitation process. The combination of music, images, and concepts seeks to deepen the thinking and enhance the creativity of a group.

Idea Based versus Story Based Stories and storytelling are increasingly being recognized as an important tool in business. Stories are being used in induction training (Ransdell, 2000), knowledge management (Brown, 2001), and

problem solving (Watkins and Mohr, 2001). Story-based facilitation is growing in importance.

Idea-based facilitation focuses on discrete concepts being developed by the group. Story-based facilitation uses the personal narratives of the participants to create an understanding of the focus issues. Insights into issues and possibilities are gathered by drawing lessons and developing interpretations from the individual narratives (Denning, 2001).

Most facilitation methods—JAD, ToP, and GOPP—are idea-based methods. Cards, flip charts, and white boards are used to capture concepts. In some cases, these concepts are combined into higher levels of abstraction. In other cases, one or more are selected to be further refined.

Appreciative inquiry is a good example of a story-based facilitation method: “Appreciative Inquiry asks people to tell their stories about what works, to share their connections with others where they have been at their best, to talk about what is life giving and equitable. It assists people to imagine their organizations and communities in more affirming ways and to envision policies, practices and behaviours that promote equity and that enhance the life giving forces in relationships” (Stewart, 1995). Based on the way the stories describe an organization’s present situation and its perception of the future, the appreciative inquiry facilitator helps create verbal images for the new organization. Yet even these images are always accompanied by the images and language used in the stories (Watkins and Mohr, 2001).

Instrumental versus Developmental Instrumental facilitation focuses on producing a concrete product. It is task oriented. Developmental facilitation focuses on improving the interaction, communication skills, and decision-making skills of the participants. Roger Schwarz’s work includes basic facilitation (instrumental facilitation) and developmental facilitation. With instrumental facilitation, the group uses a facilitator to temporarily improve decision-making processes to solve a concrete problem, such as developing a project plan. When the plan is developed, the facilitator’s work is completed. The diagnostic tools used in this kind of facilitation ask, “Is the group accomplishing the goal of the meeting?” Interventions are aimed at enabling the group to make the best decision possible. Interpersonal relations are dealt with only when they are blocking the realization of the task.

A number of methods lie at the instrumental facilitation end of the spectrum. GOPP, ToP, Future Search, and JAD have already been cited. The vast majority of

facilitation is task oriented. The growing demand for facilitator training has increased public awareness that facilitation is a necessary skill for leading meetings and may well result in a growth of interest and a diversity of new techniques for developmental facilitation.

Developmental systems of facilitation focus in part on the sociopsychological dynamics in the group processes, asking participants about their feelings and motives while sharing observations about relationships and communications within the group. The facilitator may suggest exercises to practice new ways of interacting. In these approaches, interpersonal relationships are seen as the key to long-term group effectiveness. Their aim is to reduce dependency on external facilitators over the long term. While accomplishing the task is important in these systems, the group’s work is secondary to improvement in the group’s dynamics. (For a fuller description, see Schwarz, 2002.)

A Dutch method of developmental facilitation is intervisie, or peer consultation teams (Werkgroep Docenten Onderwijszaken, 2000), which tends to be oriented toward personal growth in the working environment. It is used for team and personal development and for sharing learning in a number of Dutch companies.

Another aspect of this is the difference between workshops and dialogues. Workshops in the sense that I am using the term have concrete products, such as a plan, model, or set of priorities. The goal of the workshop is a product. Dialogue sessions often result in new understandings or awareness but little that is tangible. The goal of a dialogue is the dialogue itself. “Usually people gather either to accomplish a task or to be entertained, both of which can be categorized as predetermined purposes. But by its very nature dialogue is not consistent with any such purposes beyond the interest of its participants in the “unfoldment” and revelation of the deeper collective meanings that may be revealed. These may on occasion be entertaining, enlightening, lead to new insights or address existing problems. But surprisingly, in its early stages, the dialogue will often lead to the experience of frustration” (Bohm, Factor, and Garrett, 1991). Factor (1994) would even argue that having a facilitator in a dialogue is problematic. (For a different view of the dimensions of task and relation in group process, see Chapter Nine.)

Also, concern for task versus relationship can be viewed as a function of the group’s cultural context. (For more information regarding this perspective, see Chapter Sixteen.)