Mythbusting: What facilitation IS and ISN’T

So what do you do, exactly?

It’s a question all facilitators get – from friends, from family, from new connections at networking events … There’s not an easy way to describe group process facilitation – especially if someone has never worked with someone like me. But here’s a closer look of what my job is and isn’t.

What’s your organization looking for? This quick list might help get you closer.

  • For facilitators

If you’re a facilitator, I invite you to take a look and see if you find it to be true in your own experience (are there any I missed that you encounter?).

  • For prospective clients

If you’ve been told your group might benefit from facilitation, but aren’t quite familiar with the process, I’m hoping these descriptions help give a better picture of what we do, what we don’t do, and the value we can ultimately bring to your group.

A quick note

Please keep in mind, it’s never a bad thing to ask a question. So, even if you got it wrong – don’t let that stop you from asking a different one! Keep asking away.

I’m happy to share and curious to hear what you think and always happy to explain more about what I do. Here we go.

Facilitation is NOT…

Counselling

I get this question a lot. People ask me often whether I feel like an Oprah or Dr. Phil when groups are sharing difficult truths, grievances, frustrations and the like.

paolo-nicolello-1127477-unsplashAnd it’s true, many of the exercises I lead participants through can feel therapeutic, simply because it gives a space and a process for people to talk about topics or opinions that perhaps aren’t often sought – or as openly received as they are during a facilitated workshop.

Yet, here’s the big difference between my work and those professionals who offer professional counselling advice: I do not deliver feedback.

Through careful questions, I open the floor for people to speak and act as a neutral observer, repeating back what I’ve heard to make sure I’ve understood.  Sometimes I’ll ask the group to repeat back what was said to ensure the group understands.  At no point am I weighing in with my opinion or in judgement of what has been said.

In this way, facilitation is a bit more like coaching, encouraging a group to work together to arrive at their own unique solutions or end points.

Consulting

I’ve written before about the differences between what I offer and the services a consultant can bring to an organization.

Consultants are hired for their knowledge and expertise in a particular field. The consultant often goes into an organization to discover the organization’s circumstances and then offers their assessment of the situation and skills to address. Instead, I’m hired to help teams discover their own thinking.

Crowd management

If there are a few “strong personalities”, that round out a team and seem to be paralyzing progress, I’m often asked  to help bring the naysayers on-side.

jordan-300359-unsplash

Oh, dear! What a responsibility, to transform a vocal dissenter into a compliant team-player. Unfortunately, no, I cannot offer this service.

But. (Don’t worry, there is a “but.”)

Instead, I create processes that create space for everybody else. So those loud, scene-stealing, types aren’t erased or transformed, but rather, come into context, as everyone else (even the shy, quiet types) are given a time to speak, and have their chance to own the conversation.

When you create this type of situation, everybody else gets louder and the “loud voice” becomes noticeably quieter simply for lack of airtime.

Interestingly, the so called “loud voice” are often loud because they don’t feel heard.  So really demonstrating that I have heard them goes a long way as well.

Bringing a group to a pre-decided endpoint

Similar to the above point, I’m not a wrangler. Sometimes a client will approach me to let me know s/he has already made a decision and needs someone to help bring all others on-side, to bridge the understanding and pave the way for a new world.

This is awkward.  If the decision is already made and we’re pretending that it’s a participative decision, then it is better if I walk away. It goes against my ethics to run a manipulative event.

nathan-shively-57964-unsplashIf, however, the decision is not fully made and there is genuinely a role for the group in making the decision, then I create process that allows the group to participate within the defined boundaries, acting as the neutral process support to get there.

Another alternative, if the decision is made and we need to group to understand the decision, why it was made and explore implications and impacts or perhaps begin planning for implementation – then this is also a great role for a facilitator.  What we aren’t doing is “forcing compliance”.

Training

This is a bit of a fine line. Yes, you can use a facilitated process to help people discover a new topic or subject area, and there is definitely such a thing as a facilitative trainer,  but no, I myself am not an expert in a subject or here to help others learn how to perform a new task.

(Unless the topic is facilitation – in that area I am qualified as a formal trainer!).

I remain neutral on all content. If there is a subject matter expert present, who needs help leading a group through a certain type of process, I can aid in that journey, but the content will never be a facilitator’s to own or pass along.

The bottom line

Ultimately, I can help groups come to a resolution around a problem, area of tension, or difficult question. But I’m not counselling, training, executing crowd management skills or manipulating a group to do it.  Facilitation is about offering good process that taps the wisdom of the group, enables the group to discover its thinking, and lets the group itself discover that they had the answers all along. And honestly? I can’t think of a more rewarding job than that.

Us versus them: How facilitation can help pull back siloed thinking in the workplace

Polarized thinking, or the idea that there are good guys and bad guys, winners and losers, in every situation, is a common thing I see among teams in all different types of organizations.

When working through a planning or decision-making process, an all too often side effect of passionate professional minds – coupled with limited time and resources – can be fierce loyalty with one “side.”

Too often in a professional setting, teams of colleagues can form into camps, seeing themselves as the heroes, fighting the ‘right’ fight at the expense of another group that’s working towards different goals.

The cause

What causes this sense of “us versus them” in the corporate world? It’s human nature to bond with those who you work closely with – especially if they think the same as you.

The symptoms

chris-chow-1133102-unsplash

But problems begin to emerge when you start aligning too tightly with your own team to the point where you close your mind to the opinions of others and maybe even treat them a threat to your own objectives.

Power struggles often hatch when employees or team members feel like they’re competing: for scarce resources, for pride, power, prestige, time, ownership, budget, headcount… you name it.

The prognosis

The concept that in order to be right, someone else has to be wrong, or that we’re too busy to check with others, or that ignoring others means we don’t have to take them into account, can be a damaging one.

A division of teams into separate silos can lead to inefficiencies, lost productivity, slumping morale, duplication of efforts, confusion of responsibilities, and more.

At its best, a misaligned organization squanders time, skills and talks ‘past each other’, and at its worst, can lead to a toxic work environment, leaving people feeling like their fighting for their lives or being unfairly targeted.

What’s the cure?

Professional facilitators like me are trained to help people listen, hear and understand each other. It sounds straightforward, but when a team’s reputation or an individual’s career prospects are on the line, (as they might perceive it), it’s easy to let the basics of considerate, authentic two-way communication fall by the wayside.

Fortunately, there are plenty of tools that facilitators can use that work as a powerful antidote to the “us versus them” mentality. See this in your organization? Here’s how a facilitator might help restore balance.

annie-spratt-604131-unsplash

  1. Constructive listening

Participants in my sessions have told me time and time again that this technique is surprisingly useful.

I ask two people to sit with one another at a table, desk, on a bench, etc. I ask one to talk about their opinion, or the issue at hand. For two minutes straight they just talk, and the other person does nothing but listen. (They can take notes, but are encouraged not to respond in any way.) Then, flip it. For another two minutes the other person speaks and the first speaker just listens.

In a larger group session, I mix the partners up and start the two-minutes listening/two-minutes speaking exercise again. Now, that’s four minutes, six minutes, eight, that you’ve just listened to someone else.

Sound easy right? In fact, it feels quite unusual at first – to not offer response or ask follow up questions. But, even so, I encourage you to take the time and make the space to try this, as prescribed, and see what comes up.

  1. Asking the right questions

Another technique I love is called the Interview Matrix. In this exercise, there are four, straightforward, but unique questions that are posed. The questions are open enough that anyone can respond. Every person is assigned one of the four questions and is given note paper to record the responses of those answering their question. Through a round-robin process, each person will receive three answers to their question, and will also respond to the other three questions (six rounds if you’re doing the math – three rounds as a listener and three rounds as a respondent). Generally, I allot about five minutes per round.

Again, with this exercise, you are creating a situation where people must listen. Sure, they may have objections, questions, frustrations running inside their heads, and that’s OK! At very least, everyone gets the opportunity to put their stakes on the table, and have their voice heard. After that, a discussion can be had, where everyone is starting with the same information. A common response at the end of this exercise is “I heard so many different perspectives.”

  1. Good cop, bad cop

Ritual dissent is a similar active listening exercise that I often use. Here, a person presents an idea (related to the task, question or issue at hand) to a small group of people.  In the first round, the group that was presented to is instructed to only give negative feedback. The presenter then tweaks his/her proposal and moves on to another small group to present it again. This time, listeners are instructed to only give positive feedback to their presenter.

This is a way for the presenters to hear input they might never otherwise hear (i.e. an ally or team member being forced to consider if there are any downsides to an argument, or a non-supporter having to dig deep to find a bright side to the presenter’s argument). This is just another way to get different types of feedback in the open for consideration.

Real, meaningful change

These exercises are all great for sharing perspectives and generating discussion in a room. And while they are strong steps in the right direction, sometimes the hardest part is getting participants to consider a change on the inside – to consider that their view might not be the right one.

This is where I come in.

The neutral stakeholder

In the book The Third Side, William Yuri talks about the necessity of “cooperating to compete.” He identifies the importance of the third side, people who have a stake in the outcome, but don’t necessarily have a side. These people may enable process, idea sharing, shuttle diplomacy, or clarification as an example.  In my case, I provide the neutral process that allows a group to arrive at an outcome. My purpose is to help the group achieve the best outcome for the group, as decided by the group.

Consensus as the answer

To me, and my fellow professional facilitators, there is no right or wrong answer; rightness is whatever consensus the room reaches. But rather than simply encouraging a mob mentality, or agreeing for the sake of agreement, I consider a successful consensus one that’s arrived at only after everyone had been led through a fair and transparent process where all participants have equal say.

Funny enough, I’m often invited to facilitate group discussions or planning sessions where my client is hoping I can bring over difficult personalities or strongly opinionated naysayers to a certain side. They hire me with the intention of reaching a specific outcome at the end of the day.

I tell that that, in fact, I’m not there to lead the discussion in a certain direction, or manipulate the outcome. I’m there to make sure the group lays their thoughts, ideas and opinions on the table for others to hear, so that a well-informed opinion can be reached – among all.

The result? Even if the group doesn’t land where the client is expecting, they usually tell me they are happy with the group’s decision. They are satisfied because the process was clear and they watched the engagement and support happen along the way. This, they often agree, is more important than the nature of the outcome.

What’s the point?

Having someone leading the discussion who has a strong incentive to find resolution (a.k.a. the neutral facilitator) can be extraordinarily helpful.

This is the person who can focus on bridging understanding, motivating the room to a space where everyone can agree – even if that means ceding some of the power, the prestige, the budget, the headcount – the rightness – that some may be holding on to as the thing that will save them from the punishment of being wrong.