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

Facilitator-Owned Product versus Group-Owned Product In some meetings, the group serves as a source of ideas. The facilitator may be the team leader or manager. The facilitator is responsible for the product, usually to her boss, and is using group facilitation to reach that objective. In group-owned products, the group is using the facilitator as a tool to reach some objective for which they are jointly responsible. In these cases, any of many methods of facilitation can be used.

The primary difference between these two kinds of ownership is the problem of detachment (Jenkins and Jenkins, 2002). While all facilitators have to be careful to remain neutral in any of the meetings they facilitate, the problem multiplies when the facilitator is the manager or team leader. The end product reflects on the effectiveness of his or her work. The manager also understands the problems and has opinions—sometimes strong ones about the topic. By being manager, she is responsible for the content and results, and by being the facilitator, she is responsible for the process. The capacity to let go of the content and the results is a difficult discipline. Some managers choose not to put themselves in this kind of position, but many have to, and many just do. In order to be effective facilitators, these managers need to develop skills such as maintaining detachment.

All facilitators have the problem of maintaining some professional stance while leading a group. Facilitator ownership can cause some conflicts with the ethical requirements of being a facilitator. The IAF Code of Ethics states:

We practice stewardship of process and impartiality toward content.

While participants bring knowledge and expertise concerning the substance of their situation, we bring knowledge and expertise concerning the group interaction process. We are vigilant to minimize our influence on group outcomes. When we have content knowledge not otherwise available to the group, and that the group must have to be effective, we offer it after explaining our change in role (International Association of Facilitators, 2004; see Chapter Thirty).

Types of Audiences

The final set of spectra has to do with the kind of group that is being facilitated. Some groups talk one at a time, and some speak all at once. This is considered in the monochromatic versus polychromatic section. Groups as large as five thousand

participants pose one set of issues for the facilitator that are different from groups of three or four. This is looked at in the section on large groups versus small groups. The single-party versus multiple-party spectrum refers to the differences between relatively homogeneous groups committed to the same values and goals and ones with differing interests, intentions and understandings of the issues. Finally, the differences in facilitation groups that are highly hierarchical and groups with a flat hierarchy are dealt with in the hierarchical versus egalitarian spectrum.

Monochromatic versus Polychromatic This spectrum is closely related to that of serial versus parallel threads, which is the result of the combination of choices of the assignment giver, the group, and the facilitator. In this spectrum, it is a cultural difference. In some groups, one person at a time speaks; they follow a logical progression of ideas and become uncomfortable when a meeting becomes “disorganized.” Other groups are uncomfortable with linear thinking and the convention of one speaker at a time. They deal with all issues, solutions, constraints, and anything else all at once.

Methods that work well with monochromatic audiences are the ones that have a lot of structure and follow an obvious process, such as ToP, JAD, and After Action Review. Polychromatic audiences appreciate methods that can take into account more chaotic situations, like Dynamic Facilitation and Open Space Technology.

It is possible to use methods that are more suited to monochromatic audiences with polychromatic ones. I was part of a team of facilitators facilitating a community development project in the Abruzzi region of central Italy. I was leading the economic development team and was being assisted by a businessman from Milan, who was also translating. When we posed the first question to our team, thirty people stood up and began shouting. I looked at my colleague, and he rolled his eyes as if to say, “Don’t ask me; you’re the facilitator.” We agreed that as the shouting was going on, we would capture as much as we could on flip charts and stop the group every few minutes and summarize what we had captured and ask for more. It was a chaotic meeting, but in the end, it worked.

Large Groups versus Small Groups Large group facilitation faces four issues: the dilemma of voice, the dilemma of structure, the egocentric dilemma, and the contagion of affect. The dilemma of voice is that only a few can talk and many are silent, resulting in the experience of not being recognized or heard. Some

people may feel intimidated by the number of people. To succeed in large groups, the facilitator needs to use small group technology in creative ways. The dilemma of structure is that if the group experiences too little structure, things seem chaotic, out of control. If there is too much structure, however, members of the group feel manipulated and their behavior controlled. Sophisticated use of structuring subgroups, discussions, and reporting at an effective minimum is required. The egocentric dilemma is that, on one hand, people tend to believe that their own perception is reality. On the other hand, larger groups tend to offer interaction between many more diverse, contradictory perspectives than do small groups. The facilitator needs to manage the team composition, reporting formats, and group reflections to realize effective products (Bunker and Alban, 1997).

The differences between facilitating large and small groups are mostly in the areas of logistics, visibility, group dynamics, and facilitator skills. A few examples may be helpful:

•Moving 250 people from one plenary room to small subgroup rooms takes much more time than moving 20 people.

•Microphones need to be accessible to everyone, or else the facilitator needs to repeat every comment.

•Electronic projectors or very large printing is needed if everyone in a plenary session is to be able to read the brainstormed items or to follow a presentation.

•Effective use of individual, small group, and plenary dynamics is critical. Special care is needed to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to participate and to experience that their contribution has been heard and considered if not used.

•The facilitator’s capacity to listen to the whole group rather than a few is important. In small groups, it is possible to intervene directly with an individual. In large groups, this is not possible, leaving interventions to be focused on representatives of types of participants or stakeholders.

•Ground rules may not be necessary in managing the behavior of a group of 10. With 250 people, they are much more important.

Open Space Technology, Real Time Strategic Change (Holman and Devane, 1999), and ToP Methods have successfully been used in large groups. These are “methods for involving the whole system, internal and external, in the change

process. . . . The key similarity is that these methods deliberately involve a critical mass of people affected by change, both inside the organization (employees and management) and outside it (suppliers and customers)” (Bunker and Alban, 1997, p. xv).

GOPP is limited to about thirty people. Intervisie is usually limited to a maximum of six people. The reason is that every participant is expected to use a minimum of thirty minutes in the discussion, so a six-person meeting requires more than three hours.

(For more information on facilitating large groups, see Chapter Fifteen.)

Single Party versus Multiple Party Single homogeneous work groups share a common task and common starting points. They have shared values and goals. Teams have a foundation to build agreement on in the meeting. Multiple stakeholder groups are made up of different vested interests, values, and often organizations. In these types of groups, a common ground needs to be built first.

The ICA’s project planning method, ToP Action Planning, assumes concrete agreement about the goals of the project. The method enables the group to work through how it will be accomplished. The focus of the workshop is developing the actions to do the project.

Two dangers of all group decision making but especially single-party groups are groupthink and the Abilene paradox. The facilitator has a responsibility to the group to help them prevent both.

Groupthink is the result of the normal process of seeking conformity and unity. The group sacrifices good sense in order to maintain internal peace; the result is poor decision making. A classic example of groupthink is the process of giving approval for launching the space shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986, which exploded shortly after take-off (Rounds, 2000).

“When organizations blunder into the Abilene paradox, they take actions in contradiction to what they really want to do and therefore defeat the very purposes of what they try to accomplish. It is a symptom of the inability to manage agreement— not the inability to manage conflict” (Cunningham, 2004).

GOPP is especially designed for multiple stakeholder groups. It is used to create agreement between different parties about what is to be accomplished by the project and what activities will be carried out to achieve the project’s goals. The danger in multiple stakeholder groups is that individuals or subgroups fix on positions

and refuse to find ways to reach agreement. (For more information on this topic, see Chapter Eight.)

Hierarchical versus Egalitarian Groups that are very hierarchical may have difficulty in developing a dynamic of free-flowing ideas. Members often defer to more senior members of the group or wait until their seniors have expressed their opinions. The way the meeting is conducted in these situations depends on the nature of input needed and desired by all participants. A format in which the senior individual defines the problem at the beginning of the workshop, then leaves the group to work out suggestions, and returns to hear their reports is common in our experience of this type of situation. It is important for the person in authority to inform the group what she has done with their input.

Groups that are more hierarchical need to be facilitated with care by those from more egalitarian cultures. In some situations, the boss needs to give permission to participate. I did a strategic planning workshop at a vodka distillery in Poland in which all of the workers were reluctant to suggest anything other than agreeing with the factory manager and one or two other managers. At the suggestion of my Polish cofacilitator, we asked the senior manager to tell people that he expected them to contribute their own ideas during the workshop. Although this did not change the hierarchy, it did result in lots of participation on the part of the workers.

Other methods are available to the facilitator when facilitating more hierarchical groups. When dividing the group into teams, for example, put the senior people in one group and less senior members in others. The facilitator can ask the most senior member to make a presentation supporting the workshop and evaluate the work at the end of the program. And in cross-cultural situations, it is wise to check with people who can provide a bridge between the two cultures.

In groups with little power distance among the participants, the decisionmaking process is necessarily more participatory in nature. Here, individuals must be consulted about a decision, whether in its general direction or sometimes even the details. In extreme examples of this kind of group, every individual needs to speak about every issue even if the person’s point has been made more than once before. Here the facilitator has to devise a process for managing a great deal of

input and ongoing group reflection. The facilitator’s job is to enable everyone to have time to speak, which is usually best done in small groups. When asking for additions, it is good to suggest that you want ideas that have not been presented before. More care than normal needs to be paid to timekeeping.

CONCLUSION

The spectra suggested in this chapter have several uses. Facilitators can reflect on each of these spectra and consider in what range they normally operate. This offers them the opportunity to decide in what directions they would like to develop. Some facilitators might want to develop from one end of the spectrum toward the other. By doing this between several polarities, they gain greater flexibility in their capacity to work with clients. A wider range of clients is then available, as well as a wider range of services for current clients.

Trainers of facilitators can gear their training in more flexible ways. Facilitators can be evaluated based on this system of spectra. Specific skill sets and competencies can then be more accurately targeted for trainees. Specialist facilitators can deepen their skills around a specific set of locations within sets of spectra. These specialists, such as visual or large group facilitators, can develop markets around specific benefits to clients. These spectra also offer organizations a way of selecting what kind of facilitator with which they would like to work. And a facilitator’s selection of methodologies can be done with greater sensitivity by determining where on these spectra an upcoming program needs to be located.

Change is what facilitation is about: transformation, participation, and process. It is about altering the way decisions are made and who makes them. The old hierarchical worldview is giving way to a more inclusive, less arbitrary one. Responsibility for decisions is being driven further down the social and organizational hierarchies in the hope that decisions can be made more quickly and more in line with operational requirements. The problems facing organizations and communities are far too complex to be dealt with by a single person. Alignment of the members of a group is becoming an important factor in raising the quality of their decisions. The profession of facilitation is one of emerging disciplines responding to and giving shape to these trends.

In these sixteen spectra, the breadth of the discipline of facilitation is obvious. My hope is that these spectra will offer a way of defining what facilitation is about.

others, practice, feedback, teaching, and publishing their ideas within the facilitation community.

This chapter shares many strategies that seasoned practitioners use to build their facilitation expertise. These strategies are based on the answers to an informal electronic survey sent once in October 2003 to practicing facilitators from three communities: (1) those who earned the Certified Professional Facilitator (CPF) designation from the International Association of Facilitators (IAF; see Chapter Twenty-Six), (2) those who participate in the Professional Experts Group on Facilitation through the National Speakers Association (NSA), and/or (3) those who participate in the IAF-sponsored electronic discussion group. In all, there were 250 CPFs, 132 NSA members, and 800 electronic discussion group participants. There was some duplication of names within these three communities, for an estimated total of 700 potential respondents. These communities were selected because of my personal knowledge of the quality and caliber of the respondents and easy access to the e-mail list. The candidates were solicited only once by e-mail, with two weeks to respond to the survey. (The complete survey text is in Appendix 28A at the end of the chapter.)

A total of 125 practicing facilitators responded to the survey, which consisted of thirty-eight questions. The survey drew extensively on Parisse and others (2003). This chapter discusses each of the major strategies identified in the survey. Interspersed in the findings are quotations from individual respondents (primarily from North America) whose comments were particularly insightful or reflective of the comments submitted in general. (The overall results can be accessed at http://www.surveymonkey.com/Report.asp?U=29145365059.)

TRAINING

On average, seasoned facilitators attend a formal training, course, or workshop once a year. Typically, they attend formal training more frequently in the early stages of their practice and then tend to taper off as they became more experienced and comfortable in their role. After a while, they attend only sessions that are of specific interest, are geographically desirable, or complement their existing skills, often including different disciplines. One facilitator said, “I take on workshops I have never done before. I try not to use the same old approaches every time (although, trouble is, they usually work!) . . . and I transfer skills from other disciplines e.g. clinical psychology, family and group systems, conflict resolution.”

Many facilitators prefer “hands-on, interactive seminars that present new methods and techniques and provide useful materials.” When attending training, they come prepared to engage the instructor as well as participants and may have very specific learning objectives that may (or may not) be published in the course brochure. They do not leave until their personal objectives are fulfilled.

Many have established a practice to reinforce the learning. For example, one facilitator writes a “mini retrospective after each workshop. I note the key learning points for myself and put it in my Palm [to review later].” Another said, “I try to find ways of using them in events that I facilitate as soon after as possible.”

Classroom Training Providers

The following organizations were cited the most often as offering “the best training/seminars” in facilitation (the entries in this and other lists are cited in the order in which they were most often mentioned):

Community at Work (www.communityatwork.com)

Community Store (www.thecommunitystore.com)

Franklin-Covey (www.franklincovey.com)

ICA Associates (www.ica-associates.ca)

Interaction Associates (www.interactionassociates.com)

Goal/QPC (www.goalqpc.com)

Grove Consultants International (www.grove.com)

Roger Schwarz and Associates (www.schwarzassociates.com)

H. H. Owen and Company (www.openspaceworld.com)

Participative Dynamics (www.participative-dynamics.com)

Electronic Media

With the advent of high-speed Internet connectivity, facilitation training providers are turning to electronic media to deliver their programs remotely. They range from fairly simple technology such as teleclasses (training conducted using conference call capability), video teleconferencing (VTC), Web-based seminars (often referred to as Webinars), and live Web-based training (WBT). Regardless of the specific format, electronic media eliminate travel for participants and the facilitator, increase

access beyond typical participants, consume less time away from daily activities, and offer easier and less expensive follow-on sessions to increase the transfer of training.

One facilitator extols the virtues of electronic media: “Many facilitators live in remote locations and do not have the luxury of time and/or money to travel to conventions or trainings across the country. Teleclasses and Webinars offer a viable alternative.”

Because facilitators highly value face-to-face interaction, it is absolutely crucial to choose a training provider who is substantially skilled in facilitating interaction in the electronic medium.

National and Regional Conferences

Facilitators attend national and regional conferences, workshops, and sessions to enhance their professional development and learning. The respondents most often attend those sponsored by:

International Association of Facilitators (www.iaf-world.org)

Canadian Institute of Cultural Affairs (www.icacan.ca)

American Society for Training and Development (www.astd.org)

OD Network (ww.odnetwork.org)

International Federation for Professional Speakers (www.iffps.org)

Association for Quality and Participation (ww.aqp.org)

American Society for Quality (www.asq.org)

Association for Conflict Resolution (www.acrnet.org).

Professional Organizations

In addition to attending national conferences and workshops, many facilitators also participate in these professional organizations at the national, regional, and local levels. Participation ranges from simply attending the meetings to holding a leadership position within the organization; presenting at a local, regional or national program; and chairing a national or regional event.

Many facilitators participate in regional professional organizations or networks as well. While this list is ever growing and changing, some of the more steadfast North American networks are: