The facilitator's responsibility?
How much responsibility does a facilitator take on for what happens in a room with a group with whom he or she is working? This is something I think about quite a bit depending on the kind of relationship, the longevity of it and what the task in hand is.
I am a believer in keeping the planning conversations about the process in the room and out loud. Any other approach infantilises clients and results in the facilitator having more control than s/he needs to. If the ultimate aim of the process is to generate action then this set up can stifle that before you even begin.
The “difficult” or “angry” person in a group is the place where this approach is really tested and I’ve worked with this in myriad ways over the course of my consulting career. Now if I’m working over an extended period of time then I can process what that hostility may be communicating on behalf of the group. You need a good working alliance and time and space to do that kind of work. If I am in a situation where I have a short amount of time and a clear piece of work the group needs to engage with then my approach is more direct.
If someone is “interrupting” the task of the group by complaining (usually about a deficit of some kind) then instead of dealing with them directly about it I put the following into the room.
I appreciate the fact that people feel comfortable speaking freely about what they wish to talk about
However, the context for the meeting is that we are here to discuss the following items – and then I refer to the invitation or agenda.
There are resources available to the group including my facilitating skill, time, physical resources etc and they need, as a group, to make a choice about how they want to do that. We can talk about what’s “not” happening or we can talk about what is….They can choose to change the agenda and focus on other items and I will willingly go with them there and facilitate that discussion. What I am not willing to do is make a decision for them and then find out that many people in the room are disappointed that we didn’t talk about the agenda which was agreed.
I generally find that putting that out into a group does several things
- It respects the diversion from the topic at hand, and the person who is brave enough to say out loud what some people may not be able to articulate.
- It puts responsibility for the content of the conversation where it belongs – with the group
- It puts responsibility for the context and boundary of the conversation where it belongs – with the facilitator
- It engages with the participants as adults, with choices about how they use the resources available to them
- It requires action on the part of the group, which if the outcomes of the meeting are to be successful will require the same kind of action.
The alternative is for the facilitator to take all the responsibility which in turn means that you prevent a group from learning how they choose to include and exclude.
So far I’ve never encountered a group that hasn’t been able to engage with that task and make a decision about how to continue to work together.
As a fellow cat herder, I agree that group consensus is always key. I find many groups look to me as the facilitator for decisions, and I have to remind them that they are charged with that responsibility and my role is to maintain order, ensure we follow the (agreed) agenda, and make sure everyone participates without any one person dominating (or words to that effect).
Typically this also includes lassoing them in when they stray from the day’s topic, but since a lot of what I facilitate is highly technical in nature, it isn’t always easy for me to tell when a conversation is off the mark. I have to ask the group if this conversation is something relevant to the meeting’s purpose (after commending them for the excellent dialogue), or should we park it (I keep a flipchart page labeled “parking lot” for issues surfaced that need to be captured but don’t need to be discussed that day) for discussion after the meeting if there’s time. Having some place to capture the off-discussion seems to satisfy the groups I’ve worked with and essentially honors that discussion. Those topics, however, are rarely followed up on after the meeting, but I do include them in the report that follows the meeting.
Posted by Gary | April 28, 2006 11:05 AM
Interestingly I don't see it as a consensus issue at all. I see it more as a group taking responsibility for what they put into the discussion. They can disagree or agree - for me, the important thing is about having the discussion and making a decision about it. On another level the way in which something like this gets processed by a group is huge information that can be fed back and used later about how they "actually" work together as distinct from how they "think" they do!
Posted by annette | April 28, 2006 11:34 AM
As a point of clarity, by consensus I didn't mean that they all agree, but that if the group decides (by consensus) that they want to pursue a topic, I'll generally let them after reminding them one more time of the agenda, timing, etc., etc.
We sometimes do Team Health Checks where we survey team members ahead of the meeting (both among a team's members and with members of other teams who work with them), then use a portion of the time for them to discusss the outcome of that survey. Really surfaces the differences between how they think they're perceived to be working and how the others really see them working.
Posted by Gary | April 28, 2006 5:27 PM
that's back to my Lost in Translation post then - assuming we were talking about the same thing! Thanks for the clarification. By the way, what kinds of questions to you ask teams and I'd be interested to hear more about the Team Health Check report?
Posted by annette | April 28, 2006 5:33 PM
Gary,
I'm interested in your imagery: "cat herder" and "lassoing". They're new to me. I love vivid images. Actually I also like blurred ones too. So I should have said I love new images...
Where do they come from?
Posted by omaniblog | April 28, 2006 7:48 PM
There's a great book called Imaginization by Gareth Morgan which is all about the power of creative metaphor for describing organisations - check it out.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/076191269X/qid=1146254005/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5766982-6922324?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
Posted by annette | April 28, 2006 7:56 PM
omaniblog:
When I first started faciliating, someone showed me a cartoon that depicted some cowboys on horseback, trying to round up the herd...only it was a herd of cats. And as cats are, they were going every which way. The imagery fits some groups because it seems like a lot of energy is spent simply "rouding up" the participants, and like cats, you get a few back in the room and while you're finding the others, a few more wander off.
Posted by Gary | April 28, 2006 8:49 PM
Gary,
Thanks. It's taken me a few days to come back: finding it hard to keep up with all this inspiration.
I smile as I read your image of "rounding up" participants. It makes me think of how easy it is for people to go wandering, even when they are in the room.
Sometimes you'd almost will them to go wondering, and stop being here. Other times you'd wish they could be more here. And then, when I'm at my best, I take them exactly as I find them.
Posted by omaniblog | May 4, 2006 12:56 PM