On more that once occasion in my consulting practice I have been called into projects somewhere in the middle of the process.  At such times, I feel like the relief pitcher being called in when the arm of the first pitcher is failing.  In these situations,  clients often talking about the first facilitator’s wild pitches, consecutive walks or even the occasion “grand slam” error.  The challenge of walking into a project in mid-process is that the psyche of the team is often shaken and the progress to date ranges from “behind schedule” to “disarray.”   While this post does not present an exhaustive discussion of why facilitation fails, I would like to suggest four facilitator archetypes that can help guide the the hiring of a facilitator and prevent facilitation failure.

At the outset, let us be very clear.  Facilitation is a totally unregulated discipline.  No training, degree or certification is required for a person to consider him/herself a facilitator.  Indeed, of the training and certification programs that do exist, many can be misleading as they often are bought for a price, have a nominal process of vetting of skills and are perpetuated by the mere payment of annual dues and/or training fees.  Further, what actually constitutes strong facilitation skills is not very well defined. As a result, many portray themselves as a facilitator because they have dry erase markers and three books on their shelf.  One book focuses on ice-breaker activities, the second focuses on team-building activities, and the third focuses on running effective meetings.  In this context the due diligence for preventing facilitation failure becomes critical.  One way to think about assessing potential facilitators is to consider the dimensions of Breadth of Skills and Depth of Experience.

Breadth of Skills: When interviewing potential facilitators it is important to ask candidates to describe their breadth of skills.  Be cautious of facilitators who have trouble with this question.  There are many facilitators who get stuck using one or two strategies.  In these cases, the facilitator is like a carpenter who only has  a hammer is in his/her toolbox.  After a while of just carrying a hammer then everything starts looking like a nail.  Facilitators should be able to describe with confidence a broad array of facilitation methods and models and connect their knowledge with actual clients.

Depth of Expertise: The second dimension in the vetting process is to explore the experience and expertise of the facilitator. Not all facilitation is equal. The complexity and the content of a facilitation process should drive the selection of a facilitator.  The conventional wisdom is that facilitation is impartial and agnostic, however, it is my experience, that failure to account for the content expertise and technical knowledge of a facilitator can lead to mediocre outcomes –if not outright facilitation failure.

A useful way to think about these to dimensions is to place on a horizontal axis of low to high the dimension of Breath of Skills and on a vertical axis of low to high the dimension of Depth of Experience & Expertise.  In this way, you create a two by two matrix.  Each of the four matrix quadrants represents a different facilitation archetype that can be defined as follows:

Entrant (Low Expertise – Low Breadth of Skills):  At face value one might ask themselves why they would ever consider hiring a facilitator in this quadrant.  However, when the outcomes of the facilitation process have lower consequence or value and/or the facilitation process is predefined or routine, it might make sense to utilize a facilitator in this quadrant.  For example, for routine team or staff meetings and agency might use inexperienced internal facilitators as a way to build the  facilitation skills of staff or team members.  Or in cases where the “stakes are low” but an impartial/outside facilitator is required to give some neutrality to the process, an agency might be able to hire an entrant at a lower consulting rate.

Generalist (Low Expertise – Higher Breadth of Skills): When meeting process and the accuracy of the proceedings are important outcomes then an agency might consider a generalist facilitator.  A generalist can employ a variety of facilitation methods and tools to ensure a well managed meeting.  Noncontroversial community dialogues, focus group facilitation, and operational planning staff retreats, might be examples of facilitation processes that require strong generalist facilitation skills to ensure process and narrative outcomes that are meaningful. Facilitators in this category should be able to substantiate experience in  a range of facilitation techniques that represent inclusive and participatory facilitation processes as well as strong post facilitation documentation.

Specialist (Higher Expertise – Lower Breadth of Skills): While content expertise may not matter in the lower tier of the matrix, there are times when knowledge and content do matter.  For examples, technology planning, executive transitions, implementing a capital campaign are facilitation processes that require more than an impartial facilitator.  Such specialized facilitation requires knowledge and judgment in addition to basic facilitation skills.  Hiring a facilitator in this quadrant values his/her specialized knowledge more than a broad range of facilitation skills.  A highly customized and tailored facilitation process might be sacrificed for the application of knowledge and content to a more generic facilitation process.

Sector Expert (Higher Expertise – Higher Breadth of Skills): The final cell in the matrix is the combination of high expertise coupled with the deep breadth of facilitation skills.  In my view the sector expert differs from the specialist in that the sector expert has cross disciplinary content expertise in addition to a deep range of facilitation skills.   The sector expert has a handle on the facilitation tools and processes required to create a customized and tailored approach to facilitation.  In addition, the sector expert has deep cross-sectional knowledge that can shape the content and knowledge base of the assignment.  A sector expert brings expertise to such complex processes as strategic planning, public policy change, or partnerships and mergers.

These four facilitation archetypes are by no means complete or definitive but rather the the archetypes provide useful heuristics when considering a process of hiring a facilitator.  While the “cost of hiring a facilitator” is a Google search term that drives a lot traffic to a couple of posts that I wrote on that topic (post 1 & post 2), it is my belief that considering the cost of a facilitator as a primary determinant is short-sighted.  More critical to hiring a facilitator is the matching of facilitation skills, process, and content depth to the task at hand.  To this end, considering the four facilitator archetypes is a useful frame for facilitator hiring success.

As always, your comments are welcome.

Recently I was asked to facilitate a meeting that was designed to be a reflection on the first year of implementing a new strategic plan.  The goal of the meeting was to think about the progress made over the course of the year, discuss the achievements, challenges, and lessons learned so that the management team could create a meaningful operational plan to guide the coming year.  What interested me in this project was the focus on reflection.  As a facilitator, I consider the use of words as important, and I find that reflection is a term that is often used but rarely defined.  On many occasions, reflection is used to describe any discussion that considers what has happened.  But to simply use the term reflection as a moniker for “looking backwards” misses the opportunity inherent in the concept of reflection.

As an educational construct, reflection is more than just looking backwards. There are lots of great books and articles on the academic practice of reflection so this is not a deep exploration of the topic.  However, for the sake of this post, I would define reflection as the process of considering past experiences through our personal worldview and then, based on that process, let the reflection either reinforce or change our perspective. Reflection inserts our personhood in the interpretation and meaning of the past.  Considering this deeper appreciation of the concept of reflection, one can see that facilitating a group to simply looking back at the past year and listing lessons learned is not necessarily engaging in the process of reflection.  Reflection, as a facilitation skill requires the design of a process that is experiential and not only considers what happened, but connects the “what happened” to an internal “what does it mean to me” and “how does it is inform” the forward direction that follows?  So what does facilitating reflection look like in practice?

Let me come back to the meeting I facilitated.  The initial outline I was presented with was to systematically look at four strategy areas of the past year and engage the group in the process of: a) reviewing the strategy, b) considering the supporting data, c) discussing lessons learned, and d) offering course corrections.  Actually it is a great group process outline to cover a wide terrain in a short period of time but it was not quite a process of reflection.  So I modified the process to look like this:

Review of Strategy Plan and Data:  Each of the strategy areas was introduced in the context of what was in the strategic plan, the accomplishments and challenges of the last year and a review of the supporting data.

Reflective Discussion:  The discussion portion of the process shifted from a straightforward consideration of lessons learned and became a reflection based on three questions that included:

1. Related to this strategy area, what about the last year did you appreciate the most and why?
2. Based on what occurred in this strategy area over the last year, what do you aspire to see happen during this next year?
3. What common themes does this collective group conspire to make happen in the context of the next year’s operational plan.

By framing this conversation using evocative words like appreciate, aspire and conspire, the conversation shifted from listing accomplishments and lessons learned to a discussion of “where there was energy,” or “where we can celebrate.” Further, the words appreciate, aspire and conspire were represented on the Process Visual (posted on the wall), not as three sequential questions but as a circle, to encourage iterative processing rather than linear processing.  As a result, the discussion was positive, lively and frank.  More importantly it was personal and aspirational as well as pragmatic.

Listing Key Concepts:  As each strategy area was discussed, themes and ideas spun off naturally and were listed as key concepts that were further blocked into “key implications” for the operational plan.

Summarizing Direction & Corrections:  The final step in the process was do one final reflection activity. After two and a half hours, we had a 4’ x 10’ dry erase board covered with concepts across four strategy areas, with color-coded implications for the operational plan.  The final question asked the group to zoom back to the overall strategic plan and consider one last time, “based on coming out of the first year, where do we need to conspire to make a difference for the coming year?”  As this question was pondered, a short list of critical priorities was drawn out of the group’s personal reflections.  These priorities were then rank-ordered and the evening of work, felt complete.

Rather than serving as a cookbook for “how to facilitation a reflection process,” I simply wanted to use a recent experience to illustrate an approach to facilitating a reflection process.  The point, I am trying to make is that when we use the strategy of reflection then we need to consider carefully how to connect experience with personal thoughts, feelings, and frames of reference.  This approach differs from listing, comparing and prioritizing by engaging an inward thoughtfulness that seeks meaning more than order.  Again, I used group discussion emphasizing evocative questions.  Equally effective could have been pairing participants and asking each to tell stories, drawn from the past year, related to the strategy areas and then reconvening to share stories.  Yet another approach could have been to send each person to different parts of the building for 30 minutes of journaling reflective thoughts and reconvening to share notes.  Whatever the method, from the facilitation skill perspective, reflection needs to be recognized as a theory-based learning construct that is a constructivist process of moving from experience to future direction on a road that goes through our personal and collective perspectives and points of view.  Indeed, the power of reflection lies in that individual and collective pathway of our shard experience.

When facilitating for collaboration the first task is for the stakeholders involved to understand and agree to the model of collaboration. In this process, a key role of the facilitator is to clearly describe models of collaboration and have a toolbox big enough to implement the models based on the customized and tailored needs of the group. At this deeper level, collaboration models typically have distinct organizational and governance structures attached and, in some cases, have legal structure implications. My intention is clearly not to offer legal advice but to simply introduce five models of collaboration that can serve as the basis of collaborative groups and teams.

Coalitions: The most readily assessable model of collaboration is the community coalition model. In a community coalition the focus of the collaboration is to concentrate the collective power of the members and focus it on action. Typically coalitions have membership guidelines, operating procedures and often bylaws, governance structures and elected leadership positions. There is a fairly large literature base and many textbooks describing the process and functioning of effective coalitions. Collaboration is based on shared goals and vision related to the action agenda. At times, coalitions use structured memoranda of understanding to help operationalize the collaborative process. A Google search will turn up numerous references for developing coalitions. One succinct primer on coalitions was developed by the Prevention Institute.

Communities of Practice:  Collaboration based on the concept of “communities of practice” involve the creation of a “learning guilds” that support the development of shared expertise and competencies. Developing collaboration around this model primarily focuses on distributing knowledge, competency and building networks between people. While the concept of communities of practice has appeared in the knowledge management literature for at least two decades, Etienne Wenger is one theorist that clearly develops the theoretical framework for this model.

Cooperatives:  A third model for collaboration is found in the concept of developing a cooperative. The drivers for cooperatives are seven principles relating to membership, control, participation, autonomy, learning, networking and social responsibility. Through co-ownership and participatory governance, a cooperative model has potential to encompass both learning and action. The University of Wisconsin has a great resource center dedicated to cooperatives.

Cohousing: At first glance the model of co-housing communities might seem a bit abstract to apply to the business or nonprofit sector. Cohousing is a property ownership and management concept where groups of individuals co-own homes that have elements of both social contact and individual space. Typically, cohousing communities have common facilities such as open space, courtyards, play space, and, in some cases, even shared living space like a communal kitchen. The governance structures for co-housing communities are egalitarian or even Socratic and emphasize problem solving and unanimity. Leaping to inter-agency collaboration, governance around shared values and interest in commons can be powerful. In a day when agency mergers increasingly being seem as a way to keep similar mission driven organizations viable, a co-housing model may be an instructive alternative that allows agencies to retain independence by designing and operating collaborations out of a shared space. A resource on Cohousing is the Cohousing Association of the United States.

Industry Clusters: A final model for collaboration to consider is found in the concept of industry clusters. Industry clusters are basically the associations of companies that share the same maket-space in a particular geographic location. The concept is to create a critical mass of related technologies, workforce and suppliers linked by buyer-seller or peer-to-peer relationships. The intended outcome is that “firms and workers in an industry cluster draw competitive advantage from their proximity to competitors, to a skilled workforce, to specialized suppliers and a shared base of sophisticated knowledge about their industry” (Reference: Oregon Clusters Website). Collaboration in an industry cluster approach balances the needs of individual companies and organizations against the larger need of the entire market with the goal of creating a network effect where the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.

There is a myth perpetuated that “collaboration is an unnatural act” but thinking about the models and process of collaboration is, at its core, systems thinking. If we are intentional about imagining what collaboration could look like, it can serve as a frame for a strategic conversation about the role collaboration plays in strengthening the capacity of stakeholders as they seek to expand, grow and achieve a common mission.

As always your comments are welcome

(1)One critical texts that needs to be on your shelf is Michael Scharge’s book No More Teams!: Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration.

There is an old truism that states, “If the only tool that you have in your toolbox is a hammer then everything starts looking like a nail.”   In my experience that least productive meetings are those that apply a hammer to every group process.  The typical hammer process is linear.  Start large using brainstorming to get all the ideas exposed ==> Narrow the universe by sorting using prioritization, or Delphi rankings ==> Evaluate the remaining options using pros/cons, strength/weaknesses, ==>  Decide by consensus or majority vote.  Move on.

.

However, several years ago when I doing a foundation-to-roof, green remodel of a gutted house out on the coast of Oregon, I learned to appreciate the need for a large toolbox.  On more than one occasion when I used a hammer although a more precision-based tool was needed, it  produced outcomes that were mediocre at best.  The same is true for meeting facilitation.  The concept of “broad – narrow – decide” is a wonderful tool to help your team make decisions, but would be a relatively ineffective technique for resolving conflict or fostering empowerment.  So it is important in planning for facilitation, that you consider the outcome being sought and then match the facilitation process to the outcomes.

.

I would like to offer five archetypes of facilitation processes that can be helpful to consider when structuring meeting and group processes.

.

Decision Process:  This is the typical “let’s get things done” facilitation that is narrowly described above.  Depending on the immediacy of the decisions that need to be made, the facilitation process can be as straight-forward as “broad – narrow – decide” or more complex such as a scenario planning model, a pathway model or analysis model.

.

Generative Process: There are times when the outcome of a meeting in not to end up with a decision but rather involves a shared understanding or an exploration of a topic for the purpose of creation.  For example, facilitating a team meeting that has as an outcome a shared sense of vision and mission, might be structured around dialogue techniques or reflection exercises.  Generative meetings are process oriented and the outcomes are typically organic in nature.

.

Collaborative Process:  A third process archetype is when the outcome of the meeting is to develop collaboration.  A collaboration process may have decisions connected to it such as “we will decide if we can collaborate on advocating for policy change,” or “collaborate together to build a mixed use rental housing complex.” However, the overarching meeting focus is creating shared space, expectations and commitments.  The strategies to get there might include dialogue, power analysis and asset mapping or at the negotiation end of collaboration might include interest-based problem solving or even structured mediation.

.

Empowerment Process: Often teams talk about empowerment but in reality, empowerment takes time and involves giving up control over the outcomes.  Inherent in the concept of empowerment is a people-driven process.  The group participants start with dialogue and more importantly listening and internalizing their power to take personal and social action.  In that context, the group can better consider and understand the external and internal forces that will confound their change efforts, and move towards action planning based on their self-realization, analysis and power.   Strategies for empowerment might include, using empowerment education models, Socratic group process, or as a slight variation an Open Space technology model.

.

Disruptive Process: A final archetype for group facilitative process involves actively challenging the dominant framework. A disruptive dialogue process challenges, questions, and critiques the traditional theoretical perspectives and practices. It is based on the recognition that there is often structural privilege and a power imbalance that perpetuates and institutionalizes oppression, racism, and other forms of injustice.  Facilitative strategies that can be disruptive include dialogue, advocacy, organizing, and action research.

.

These five archetypes are not presented to be an exhaustive encyclopedia narrowly defining the universe of group process but are simply a tool to challenge the monochrome decision-making framework that is often applied undifferentiated to every group process.   The point being made is that strong facilitation and process recognizes that there is a critical need to match facilitation strategies with the established goals and outcomes of the process.

.