I'm going to begin by saying that those who wear the label "facilitator" find themselves in many different situations. So to talk of the rules in facilitation may be reassuring but it is also useless. For every rule, there is a conceivable circumstance when it should be broken. Instead, there are patterns for facilitation Things that work. Sometimes. For you. What I would suggest here is that Johnnie is offering a set of patterns that work for him.
If you put a gun to my head and asked for a formula, I'd probably talk about the power of invitation. Set everything up as voluntary; avoid insisting people attend, frame it all as an invitation. So if I ever do a warm up game, I always say one way to play is just to sit out and observe (funnily enough, it seems that then more people are willing to join in).
Yes! Much prefer a voluntary approach to things. If people don't want to participate, that's OK. This does imply upfront work and preparation in setting the invitation up. I've not been involved in a full-blown open space but from what I've heard, this is where a lot of the effort goes - in creating the right environment for people. And then letting them get on with it.
Then as you slip off the safety lock, I'd probably splutter about Harrison Owen's motto of "one less thing" if you're facilitating. See how little you need to do to guide the group, organise less, and practice sitting with "awkward silences". We tend to associate creativity with adrenalin and inspiration with stimulation. In one of the most satisfying groups I worked with recently, we had lots of natural pauses for reflection, as well as long breaks. Those pauses are often punctuated by someone with something really interesting to say - usually much better than any facilitatory effort I might make.
This is something I am increasingly drawn to. Shutting up. Seeing how little I can say. I don't do stacks of facilitating but even when talking to people, silence can be powerful. Just sitting with it. The temptation for me is always to rush in - as if by speaking I am staying in control or justifying my existence. And it's not required.
Something interesting happened recently. A friend asked me to mentor him. I was a little surprised by this as he is older and more experienced than me. I said: I don't have anything to tell you. He said: That's not what I want. He actually wanted someone to listen to him. And ask the occasional question. So that's what we've done. It's been fun so far and I think I have probably learned more than he has (but don't tell him that).
The best facilitators have always blown me away with the questions they ask (I have maybe asked 2 or 3 really good questions in my life so far). And I think that often comes from their presence. By being there, the question itself is not forced but naturally emerges. But it may not come out straight away. Several attempts may be required.
In a brainstorming context, if there's time, maybe get people to do writing activity alone. I think introverts tend to get excluded by loud, frantic workstyles and if we give them a more reflective approach, it's more inclusive.
This something that I worry about. As an introvert myself, I often need a bit of space to ponder what I'm doing and why. I like the idea of rhythm here - high-energy group pieces mixed with individual activities. That was something I tried with the KM & Change session - I wanted people to reflect individually before getting into the group fray. I think the concept was sound but the execution was a bit wonky on my part.
My default response in difficult situations is "Can you say more about that?"
Which is always an excellent move. But it requires some poise - my immediate reaction when "threatened" by a challenge is to respond offensively. Rather than accepting it for what it is. I'm getting better at this though. Their is a confidence required to respond with acceptance to a challenge - i.e. the realisation that I am not under threat but rather in a state of play. Relish the moment.
Finally, I suppose I'd invoke Gandhi on being the change you want to see in the world, and being aware and present to what the group is doing, reflecting some of that awareness back to the group; tending to avoid setting myself up as the deliverer of outcomes so the group shares responsibility for what happens.
Not much I can add to that. Pretty spot on. Johnnie has indicated (whether it was a blog post or skype convo, I can't recall) that he sees the role of facilitator as preventing other people from being in charge rather than actively wielding power. And in doing so, everyone else has to take responsibility for what's going on - rather than have someone else to step in as a parent. Sometimes I get impatient or nervous and then the desire to control others kicks in. Which is a bit tedious.
I have a lot of sympathy & enthusiasm for Johnnie's patterns. I suppose ultimately I want activities like brainstorming to be more like the process Johnnie describes - but that no doubt outs me as the closet anarchist that I may secretly be.
N.B. If you're encouraging people to be creative then the role of the facilitator as cheerleader is an important one: "That idea is fantastic. But it could be even crazier..."
Posts
