Our deepest Self, is a verb

“The Self is a relation, which in relating to itself and willing itself to be itself, is grounded transparently in the power that posits it.”  – Soren Kierkegaard

I have been asked to preview some chapters in a book that a facilitator colleague of mine is writing. She is digging deep into the philosophies underlying the Technology of Participation (ToP) facilitation methodologies to preserve them for future practitioners and facilitators.

While I am delighted to be asked to take a look at her first draft, I confess to being a bit overwhelmed by their depth and more than a bit intimidated by the intellectual breadth of the philosophers, such as Kierkegaard from whose ideals, ToP methodologies have been developed.

The founding philosophies of ToP point to the intentionality of being self, and the attentionality of examining self. They say that we exist as a being; but our acts of examining ourselves; relating to ourselves and making intentional choices about ourselves are the essential components of being. To be, to examine our being, allows for growth, discovery and evolution.

What this really means is being ourselves is dynamic – our Self is a verb.

To quote the author, “When I reflect on myself, I am standing outside my self-in-the-world looking at myself as I am in the world. I can observe my activities, characteristics and experience and the ways I have been with others. I can see what is happening around me and I can sense my own reactions to the events in my life.” 

As complex as these ideas are, they allowed me to fully understand why we do things the way we do, when we use the ToP facilitation methods. One of our go to techniques is the brainstorm, where we ask people to generate ideas, and then we put those ideas, one by one, on a wall. Next we examine the ideas, individually and in relationship to other ideas.

Individual brainstorm ideas

This act of removing an idea from its origins and examining it relation to other ideas allows us to step away from our assumptions around that idea which creates space for something new to emerge. We have actively related our ideas to themselves.

In so doing, we end up with new relationships, new interpretations and an evolved understanding. Our initial idea became a verb and turned into something else.

New interpretation of existing ideas

On a more practical level, if, while I am in the middle of a heated discussion with a colleague, I am able to observe my behaviour and understand my feelings, and I can create a new understanding of my actions (my self, relating to itself) and recognize that I don’t want to antagonize my colleague, I can choose a different approach (and willing itself to be itself). In this manner, I can find a new interpretation of my colleague’s actions which will lead me to a different outcome.

A current term for self reflection is mindfulness, the movement, appropriated from ancient Buddhist roots. The practice of mindfulness involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective. In other words, relating self to itself. Mindfulness has gained popularity as a method to handle emotions, by observing and becoming aware of those emotions.

According to Wikipedia “…studies have shown that mindfulness meditation contributes to a more coherent and healthy sense of self and identity”.

Mindfulness also has a relationship to emotional intelligence which says our emotions are part of our social operating system and our first step in becoming more emotionally intelligent is to be aware of our emotions and our relationship with those emotions. Once we have some awareness we can start to work our emotional skills and become more emotionally intelligent.

I’m certainly not an expert on the subject of mindfulness or emotional intelligence, but the relationship between the philosophies which underpin ToP facilitation methods and what we call mindfulness and emotional intelligence appear strongly related to me.

All of this is a long way to say, without this deeper understanding of the underlying philosophy or why the ToP method requires a specific process, it is easy to write the methods off as overly process centric. It is also easy for anyone to think they can run with them after a brief exposure. The reality is that ToP methods require study, practice and reflection in order for a practitioner or facilitator to become highly effective.

Experienced ToP practitioners will tell you that ToP facilitation methods are their go to methods, that very little rivals their effectiveness. Now that I have a deeper understanding of the philosophies, I am ever more committed to my go to methods.

Full disclosure, I am trained by ICA Associates in Canada on ToP methods and find myself wholly absorbed by their depth.  ICA Associates is Canada’s only trainer of ToP methods

 

 

 

 

 

Training & facilitation: similar but different

Oct 7, 2015

“Is there a difference between a facilitator and a trainer?”  

During a break, in a recent facilitation, a participant began to describe to me, the challenges her organization had experienced delivering a training program. The trainer that was hired didn’t seem to hit the mark for the organization. The participant told me that the trainer did too much talking; didn’t draw out the people in the training session and didn’t create enough dialogue. So I asked the question: “Did you hire a facilitator, or a trainer?”

___

There is much common ground between facilitators and trainers. Many facilitators train and many trainers facilitate. They share over-lapping skills sets. and perform similar activities. Some common traits for both trainers and facilitators include:

  • thoughtful, articulate and responsive to questions
  • able to adapt to the needs of people in the room
  • able to keep participants engaged and interacting
  • able to manage to an agenda 

Trainers are additionally responsible for

  • delivering a specific learning objective 
  • designing and controlling a process
  • managing room dynamics 
  • and bringing content expertise to the discussion

The last point is important – trainers are generally content experts. Their criticality stems from their ability to illuminate content, to aid comprehension of a subject, and to help participants engage with the concepts. This is important and makes them persuasive in their delivery. A trainer will generally be at the centre of any discussion in the room.

Facilitators, like trainers, are responsible for: 

  • designing and controlling a process 
  • managing room dynamics

The roles begin to diverge in how an event unfolds. Facilitators are also responsible for:  

  • tapping into the knowledge of the room to generate the necessary content 
  • listening carefully in order to ask the next question 
  • gaining commitment to action and follow through to achieve a desired outcome
  • remaining steadfastly neutral

A facilitator listens more than they speak. They ask carefully considered questions, aimed at provoking ever more thoughtful responses; allowing the room to discover its wisdom. 

According to ICA Associates, the focus for facilitators is on enabling groups to process their experiences, think things through, form consensus and make plans and decisions. The facilitator’s energy is dedicated to developing process and tools to assist people in achieving their objectives.  

In short – a trainer owns content; a facilitator owns process.

Michael Wilkinson of Leadership Strategies sums up his conversation with a trainer who also facilitates: “I like facilitation, but I love training. Because when you’re facilitating, you really have to listen to them. And that’s work!”

After our discussion, the individual that I was talking with indicated that there was a strong desire in their training program to have the participants share their knowledge; build community and network; and learn from each other. At the conclusion of our discussion, she thought that a facilitator might have been a better choice. They just hadn’t understood the difference.