If you look up the word facilitator in the dictionary, you'll see it described as someone who helps a group of people understand their common objectives and assists them to achieve these objectives without taking a particular position in the discussion.
This role basically did not exist until the middle of the last century, when theorists in the emerging field of behavioral science identified the need for a leadership style that contributed structure to complex group interactions instead of direction and answers.
The work of these behavioral pioneers led to the emergence of a new and important role in which the person who manages the meeting no longer participates in the discussion or tries to influence the outcome. Instead, he or she stays out of all conversations in order to focus on how the meeting is being run. Instead of offering opinions, this person provides participants with structure and tools. Instead of promoting a point of view, he or she manages participation to ensure that everyone is heard. Instead of making decisions and giving orders, he or she supports the participants in identifying their own goals and developing their own action plans.
Facilitation is a leadership role in which the decision-making power resides in the members. This frees the facilitator to focus on creating a climate of collaboration and provide the group with the structure it needs to be effective.
Instead of offering solutions, facilitators offer group members tools they can use to develop their own answers. Facilitators attend meetings to guide members through their discussions, step-by-step, encouraging them to reach their own conclusions.
Rather than being a player, facilitators act more like referees. They watch the action, more than participate in it. They help members define their goals. They ensure that group members have effective rules to guide interaction.
They provide an orderly sequence of activities. They keep their fingers on the pulse and know when to move on or wrap things up. They keep discussion focused and help group members achieve closure. They do all of this while remaining neutral about the topics under discussion so as not to interfere with the decision-making authority of the group.
Facilitators make their contribution by:
Facilitators bring structure to interactions to make them productive. They plan carefully and then adapt as things unfold. For more on how facilitators organize and manage their work, refer to Chapter Three on the stages of the facilitation process.
Facilitators operate by a core set of principles. At the heart of these is the belief that two heads are better than one and that, to do a good job, people need to be fully engaged and empowered.
All facilitators firmly believe that:
In contrast to the traditional model of leadership, in which the leader is viewed as the most important person in the room, the facilitator puts the members first. Members decide the goals, make the decisions, implement action plans, and hold themselves accountable for achieving results. The facilitator's contribution is to provide structure and offer the right tools at the right time.
Facilitating is ultimately about shifting responsibility from the leader to the members, from management to employees. By playing the process role, facilitators encourage group members to take charge.
Neutral, third-party facilitators are asked to design and lead a wide variety of meetings:
The two words you'll hear over and over again in facilitation are process and content. These are the two dimensions of any interaction between people.
The content of any meeting is what is being discussed: the task at hand, the subjects being dealt with, and the problems being solved. The content is expressed in the agenda and the words that are spoken. Because it's the verbal portion of the meeting, the content is obvious and typically consumes the attention of the members.
Process deals with how things are being discussed: the methods, procedures, format, and tools used. The process also includes the style of the interaction, the group dynamics, and the climate that's established. Because the process is silent, it's harder to pinpoint. It's the aspect of most meetings that's largely unseen and often ignored, while people are focused on the content.
When the person leading the meeting offers an opinion with the intent of influencing the outcome of discussions, he or she is acting as the “content leader.” When a facilitator offers tools and focuses on managing member interaction, he or she is acting as the “process leader.”
CONTENT | PROCESS |
What | How |
The task The subjects for discussion The problems being solved The decisions made The agenda items The goals |
The methods How relations are maintained The tools being used The rules or norms set The group dynamics The climate |
It is important to note that, while facilitators are totally unassertive about the content under discussion, they are very assertive in the way they manage the process elements. This assertiveness is needed to deal with conflict, make interventions, and help the group when it gets stuck.
At first glance, facilitation may seem like a rather vague set of “warm and fuzzy,” people-oriented stuff. But as you'll learn, it's actually a highly structured and assertive set of practices with a rich set of tools and techniques. Once you understand these techniques and learn how to apply them, you'll immediately see substantial improvement in the overall performance of any group.
As a facilitator you'll have an extensive set of tools at your disposal. These tools fall into two categories: the core practices and the process tools.
The core practices, which are rooted in the manner, style, and behavior of the facilitator, include:
The process tools, which are structured activities that provide a clear sequence of steps, include:
Understanding each of these tools and how to use them is a vital part of any facilitator's job.
Regardless of the type of meeting they're managing or the specific process tool being used, facilitators make constant use of the following core practices. Of these, the first five are foundational. These are in constant use during facilitation, regardless of what other tools are also deployed.
In addition to the five techniques described above, there are several additional facilitator techniques that make up the core practices.
Facilitators record ideas. Groups need to leave meetings with complete and accurate notes that summarize discussions. Facilitators quickly and accurately record what's being said. Whether they are using a flip chart or electronic whiteboard, they are careful to use the key words that people suggest and organize the notes into related groupings. There is more on recording group ideas later in this chapter.
They synthesize ideas. Facilitators ping-pong ideas around the group to ensure that people build on each other's ideas. In non-decision-making conversations they do this to build conversation and create synergy. In decision-making conversations they ping-pong ideas to allow each person to add his or her comments to the points made by others until they have synthesized a statement everyone can live with.
They keep discussions on track. When discussions veer off track or when people lose focus, facilitators notice this and tactfully point it out. They place a “parking lot” sheet on a wall and offer participants the option of placing extraneous topics on it for later discussion.
They test assumptions. Facilitators outline the parameters, empowerment levels, and other constraints that apply so that they are understood by all. They are always on the lookout for situations in which misunderstandings are rooted in differing assumptions and probe carefully to uncover these.
They manage the group climate. Facilitators help members set behavioral norms or group guidelines. Then they intervene tactfully when they notice that members are not adhering to their own rules. (See later chapters for more on both norms and making interventions.)
They make periodic process checks. This involves tactfully stopping the action whenever group effectiveness declines. Facilitators can intervene to check whether the purpose is still clear to everyone, the process is working, and the pace is effective or to find out how people are feeling.
They give and receive feedback. Facilitators always have their fingers on the pulse of the group and offer their perspective to help the group make adjustments. They are also receptive to input and invite members to point out anything that needs adjustment. At the end of each meeting, facilitators create mechanisms such as written evaluations or exit surveys to capture feedback for ongoing improvement.
Facilitation was created to be a neutral role played by an unbiased outsider. The role of this neutral third party is solely to support group decision making without exerting influence over the outcome. Facilitators, therefore, always focus on process and stay out of the content.
One of the most difficult things about learning to facilitate is staying within the neutrality boundary because facilitators often have insight into the subject under discussion. The issue of neutrality is further complicated by the fact that a lot of facilitation isn't done by disinterested outsiders, but by someone from within the group who has a real stake in the outcome.
This question of whether or not leaders can facilitate their own teams is so significant that an entire chapter of this book has been devoted to exploring this issue. For now, the discussion of neutrality will focus on the assumption that the facilitator is indeed a third-party outsider.
It's important to note that staying neutral is a challenge, even for neutral outsiders! Sometimes group members say things that are obviously incorrect or they miss important facts. In these instances it's very difficult for the facilitator to hold back and maintain body language that hides a bias.
Regardless of the situation, it's important to understand that neutrality can still be maintained by applying specific techniques.
Even though the role is dispassionate, it's important to realize that facilitators don't want to enable bad decision making! If the facilitator has an idea that might help the group, he or she should not withhold it.
If the facilitator thinks that the group is overlooking an idea, the facilitator can introduce that idea as a question that sparks thought. For example, if the group is spinning its wheels because they can't afford new computers, the facilitator can ask: “What are the benefits of renting new computers as an interim strategy?”
Through questioning, group members are being prompted to consider another option, but are not being told whether to accept or reject it. The facilitator's neutrality is maintained because he or she hasn't told the group what to do and decision-making control remains with the members.
If the facilitator has a good content idea that the group should consider, it's within the bounds of the neutral role to offer the group a suggestion for their consideration. He or she might say: “I suggest that you consider researching the pros and cons of renting computers.” Although this sounds like the facilitator has strayed into content, it's still facilitative if the content sounds like an offering, not an order. As with questioning, making suggestions doesn't violate neutrality as long as group members retain the power to decide.
If the group is about to make a serious mistake and all of the questioning and suggesting in the world has not worked to move them in the right direction, facilitators sometimes step out of their neutral role to share information that will move the group to a higher-quality decision.
In these rare cases, it's important for the facilitator to clearly indicate that he or she is stepping out of the role and explain that he or she is now playing a content role. The facilitator might say: “I need to step out of the role of facilitator for a minute and tell you that the office location you're considering is not close to any of the rapid transit corridors planned for the next twenty years.”
Since leaping in and out of the facilitator role causes confusion and distrust, taking off the neutral hat should be done very selectively. This role shift is justified when the facilitator is convinced that the group is in danger of making a major mistake and he or she has information or advice that will save the day.
There's also a huge difference between a neutral, external party asking a question or making a suggestion and a leader who's facilitating doing these things. When an outsider asks questions or offers a suggestion, members feel helped in their decision-making process. When their leader does the same thing, members likely hear an order.
When a group member says something that seems like an excellent point, facilitators can be tempted to congratulate that person by saying “Good point” or “Great idea.” Unfortunately, this is a sure way to lose your neutrality, since it makes it appear that you're straying into the content and trying to influence the group's opinion. To avoid this common pitfall, substitute the word “Okay” for “Good point.” “Okay” allows you to acknowledge that you heard the point, but does not indicate any approval on your part.
Whenever you're tempted to say “I like that idea,” substitute “Do the rest of you like that idea?” After all, you're not there to judge member suggestions, but to help them do that.
Another of the dilemmas related to neutrality concerns whether or not to say “We” and include oneself in the conversation. Here is the simple rule:
Include yourself and say “We” when referring to the process:
Use “You” when referring to the content:
There is a common misconception that taking a neutral stance on the content of meetings means being passive. This is far from the case. In fact, if you operate on the belief that your role is basically unassertive, you'll be in danger of ending up as nothing more than a note taker or scribe, while conflicts rage around you.
While it's true that facilitators should be non-directive on the topic being discussed, they have to be assertive on the process aspects of any meeting. It's within the parameters of the facilitator role to decide all aspects of the meeting process, including informing members how agenda items will be handled, which discussion tools will be used, who will speak in which order, and so on.
This doesn't mean that you shouldn't collaborate with members on the session design. Gaining member input is always a good idea since it enhances buy-in. It does mean that process is the special expertise of the facilitator. In matters of process, it's appropriate for you to have the final say.
Just how appropriate and necessary a high level of assertiveness is can be best understood when a group becomes dysfunctional. In these situations, facilitators need to be firm and act like referees, stepping into the fray to restore order to the proceedings.
A high level of assertiveness on process is especially critical whenever there are personal attacks or other rude behavior. All facilitators are empowered to interrupt and redirect individuals so that their interactions become more appropriate. In the section on facilitating conflict, you'll find more on techniques and language you can use for making interventions and managing stormy meetings. By following these practices, you'll be behaving in a way that's anything but passive.
Some assertive actions facilitators take, when the situation warrants it, include:
A specific style of language has evolved as a part of facilitation. These techniques are especially important when it comes to commenting on people's behavior without sounding critical or judgmental. The main language techniques are:
Paraphrasing involves describing, in your own words, what another person's remarks convey.
Facilitators paraphrase continuously, especially if the discussion starts to spin in circles or if the conversation becomes heated. This repetition assures participants that their ideas are being heard.
Reporting behavior consists of stating the specific, observable actions of others without making accusations or generalizations about them as people, or attributing motives to them.
By describing specific behaviors, facilitators give participants information about how their actions are being perceived. Feeding this information back in a non-threatening manner opens the door to improve the existing situation.
Descriptions of feelings consist of specifying or identifying feelings by naming the feeling with a metaphor or a figure of speech.
Facilitators always need to be honest with group members by saying things like: “I feel exhausted right now” or “I feel frustrated.” This lets other people know that it's okay for them to express feelings.
Perception checking is describing another person's inner state in order to check whether that perception is correct.
Perception checking is a very important tool. It lets the facilitator take the pulse of participants who might be experiencing emotions that get in the way of their participation.
One of the most important mental models in facilitation is that conversations fall into two distinct categories: they are either decision making in nature or not. Each type of conversation has distinct features that dictate the techniques used to manage it. Facilitators who understand these two distinct conversation structures can use them to structure and manage discussions.
Non-decision-making conversations are those in which group members simply share ideas or information. Examples of non-decision-making conversations include:
During non-decision-making discussions, members state ideas, but there is no element of judging or ranking the ideas. The facilitator simply records ideas as they are presented without the need to check with others to test their views.
Decision-making conversations are those discussions in which group member ideas are combined to arrive at either an action plan or a rule that all members must feel they can implement or accept.
Facilitators need to manage decision-making conversations differently because they need to help members arrive at a shared agreement. This involves clarifying ideas, ping-ponging ideas around so others can add their thoughts, making summary statements that summarize the discussion, and recording the group opinion.
In non-decision-making conversations facilitators record what individuals think. In decision-making conversations they record what the group thinks. In summary:
Non-Decision-Making | Decision-Making |
Conversations in which no action plans or norms are identified or ratified Information sharing |
Discussions in which action plans or norms are identified and ratified Interactive discussions where members arrive at a decision |
Facilitator records individual ideas | Facilitator records group opinion |
Brainstorming | List making |
One-way dialogue Facilitator records individual ideas |
Interactive dialogue Facilitator records group opinion |
Anyone who attends meetings knows that things can easily go off track or be stalled if there's the slightest confusion about the goal, how the discussion will be managed, or the empowerment level of the group. That's why facilitators always ensure that there's clarity regarding the scope of the conversation before they allow people to start discussing agenda items. They create this clarity by using a Start Sequence.
Start sequences have three components:
Start sequences can be simple or they can be more complex. They can be created ahead of time by getting input from group members, then feeding that input back at the beginning of a discussion. In other situations the start sequence is created at the start of a discussion. In these instances the facilitator can invite group members to make a statement about the purpose of the session and then test that statement with everyone to ensure a shared understanding.
While group member input is almost always sought to define the purpose, facilitators usually provide the process. This is because group members typically don't have enough experience with process design to propose an approach. Describing the process is important because it helps the participants understand how the topic will be managed.
Clearly defining the time frame for a specific discussion is always a good idea. One of the biggest problems in meetings is that they can drag on. By engaging members in a discussion about time, the facilitator can help members set boundaries. Once members have agreed to time frames, it's also easier for the facilitator to intervene if agreed-to time frames are being violated.
While it isn't always necessary, it is a good practice to write the details of the start sequence on a flip chart and post this in clear sight. This helps to minimize confusion as the discussion unfolds.
Once a discussion is underway, it can easily get sidetracked or stuck, even when there's a clear start sequence in place. This can happen for any number of reasons, including that:
Sometimes there are obvious signs that these things have happened, but there are also lots of times when there are no outward signs that meeting effectiveness is declining. That's why it's vitally important that facilitators periodically stop the action and conduct what is known as a process check.
Process checking is a type of intervention designed to test effectiveness even when there are no outward signs of problems. As with all interventions, the sole purpose of process checking is to restore the effectiveness of the group.
A useful metaphor for process checking is a stop sign. That's because conducting a process check involves stopping the action to shift member focus to the process or how things are going.
There are four basic areas of inquiry in process checking. Facilitators can check just one element, two, three, or all four.
When to check for progress: If few ideas are emerging, when the conversation goes in circles, at periodic intervals, or at points of closure.
When to check the process: When the tool being used isn't yielding results, when it's evident that the designated process isn't being followed, or at periodic intervals.
When to check the pace: When time frames are not being met or at periodic intervals.
When to check the people: When the meeting has been going on for a while, when people grow silent and withdraw, or when people look tired or frustrated.
One of the biggest meeting pitfalls is ending without real closure or detailed next steps. When members leave a meeting without action plans, the entire meeting can feel like a waste of time.
Whether ending a short discussion or an extended meeting, facilitators always provide a summary of key points to ensure that there's a shared view of the outcome.
Even if the session was a non-decision-making session, facilitators should provide a concise summary of what was discussed.
At the end of a discussion during which people shared information, brainstormed ideas, or made lists, it is a facilitator best practice to provide a summary of the points discussed. This allows people to add any points that were missed and it brings closure.
At the end of a session during which group members made one or more decisions, the facilitator needs to not only recap what was decided, but also ratify the outcome and ensure that clear action steps are in place. This can include:
“What sudden shifts could change priorities or block implementation?”
In addition to helping group members summarize and plan for action, facilitators also do some or all of the following to end a facilitation:
For more on ending a facilitated session, refer to page 52.
Facilitation has always been very closely linked with those awkward three-legged easels that are the trademark of the profession. Flip charts were invented by the first facilitators, who were looking for a way to enable group members to see what was being said during discussions.
Today, flip charts are quickly being eclipsed by all manner of electronic boards and sticky wall coverings. While this trend is likely to continue, don't be surprised if those gawky, flip-chart stands stick around as well.
Writing on a flip chart or electronic board requires slightly larger handwriting than normal so people can see the words from across the room. Writing while also asking questions, listening to new comments, and monitoring group body language can be quite a challenge. Don't be surprised if your handwriting suddenly looks like kindergarten scrawl and even familiar spelling is impossible to recall.
Since very few people are able to create flawless flip charts, it's best to relax about spelling and penmanship as long as the main ideas are captured so that they are clear. This relaxed attitude is especially important when encouraging group members to try their hand at facilitating. Just point out that every piece of flip-chart paper has an imaginary spell-check button that automatically corrects all mistakes.
Install an imaginary spell check button on each piece of flip-chart paper. Ask people to accept that hitting the button corrects all mistakes!
Since facilitators always strive to be neutral to ensure that group members control outcomes, it's important to accurately record what people say without editing too much. If the facilitator changes too many words or adds words that he or she personally prefers, group members will feel that the facilitator has taken control of the proceedings. The first rule of recording ideas is, therefore, to faithfully record what people are saying.
Since people say much more than we can record in a few crisp statements, facilitators are always challenged to create a short, concise summary of the dialogue. This is tricky because it necessitates editing, which can lead to inadvertently changing the meaning of what is said.
Skillful facilitators are good at editing so that the shortened statement still manages to be faithful to the original idea. They do this by following these rules:
Rule 1—Use their words—Listen carefully for the key words that participants use and ensure that these words are included in what is written on the flip chart. Reinforce this by saying things like:
Rule 2—Ask permission to change words—If participants struggle to articulate a point or are at a loss to find the right words, offer wording, but get member approval to ensure that what's recorded reflects what people intended to say. Say something like:
A great technique to keep up your sleeve is to ask people to dictate the exact words they want to see recorded. This is useful if you don't understand what they're saying or lost focus momentarily and can't remember what they said. In these situations say something like:
This technique also works when people have rambled or shared long, convoluted ideas. Rather than taking on the task of creating a summary of their comments, ask them to take responsibility for doing this. Say something like:
A flip chart may look innocent enough, but remember that these three-legged beasts can trip you, make your handwriting look like kindergarten scrawl, and make even familiar spelling impossible to recall. See the following chart for definite do's and don'ts about the flip chart.
The most important tip is to write down exactly what people say. While you may need to edit their comments somewhat, be sure to use their key words. If you start to substitute words that you think are better, you will no longer be neutral.
By changing what people are saying you will also be losing their trust. This will make it very difficult to continue to serve the needs of the group.
When you record ideas, remember to use complete phrases. You don't need to write whole sentences, but should avoid cryptic one word notes. If you do this it is very likely that no one will understand what you have written by the next day.
Do learn to talk and write at the same time or the pace will really start to drag. One good technique is to turn to the group and pose a question for them to mull over, while you turn and write.
Making notes on a flip chart can tend to make you stand in one spot with your back to the group. Avoid this if you can by stepping away from the flip chart anytime you are not actively making notes. You should also consider walking around and even moving closer to the person who is speaking. This will make things far more dynamic.
Once you have completed a flip chart sheet, you should always post these around the room. That's one of the great benefits of using old fashioned paper. Then people can see the ideas that have already been discussed and agreed upon by members. This helps the group make progress on their goals. It also lets you look back to past discussions and make sure that those ideas are still in play.
Finally, remember to empower others to go up to the flip chart whenever that's possible. This builds commitment and reinforces the idea that this isn't your meeting.
DO | DON'T |
Write down exactly what members say. While their comments have to be edited somewhat, always use their key words. Check to make sure that what is written captures the meaning expressed. | Write down your personal interpretation of things. These are their notes. If unsure, ask, “What should I write down?” |
Use verbs and make phrases fairly complete. For example, writing “work group” is not as helpful as “work group to meet Monday at 10 a.m.” Always be sure the flip chart can convey meaning, even to someone who was not at the meeting. | Worry about spelling. If you make a fuss, it will inhibit members from getting up and taking a turn at facilitating. |
Talk and write at the same time. This is necessary in order to maintain a good pace. Practiced facilitators can write one thing and be asking the next question. | Hide behind the flip chart or talk to it. Unless you are writing, stand squarely beside it, facing the members when reading back notes. |
Move around and act alive. There is nothing worse than a facilitator who acts as though he or she is chained to the flip chart. If an important point is being made, walk closer to the person who is talking so you can better pay attention. | Stand passively at the flip chart while a long discussion is going on without writing anything down. Ideas don't need to be in complete sentences before recording them. Make note of key words and ideas. Comprehensive statements can be formulated later. |
Write in black, blue, or some other dark color. Use fairly large letters so words can be read from the back of the room. | Use script unless you have great handwriting. Avoid red and pale pastels that are impossible to see from any distance. |
Post flip sheets around the room so that people can keep track of what has been discussed. | Monopolize the flip chart. |
Whenever appropriate, let others take over both large and small group facilitation. This builds commitment and reinforces the idea that this isn't the facilitator's meeting. | Monopolize managing the meeting process. |
Some of the best things that a facilitator can do:
Some of the worst things a facilitator can do:
Regardless of whether you're a facilitator from within the group or from outside, the team's leader or a member, the following parameters apply:
Facilitating should be an egoless activity. The purpose is to make the group succeed, not to make you look really important and clever. An effective facilitator will leave a group convinced that “We did it ourselves!”
An excellent way to improve your facilitation skills is to ask a colleague to observe you in action and give you feedback. On the following pages are two different observation sheets for feedback purposes. The first focuses on core practices, while the second emphasizes the key elements in an effective process.
Regardless of which sheet is used, the following steps are suggested:
Facilitator:
Behaviors that help __ listens actively __ maintains eye contact __ helps identify needs __ gets buy-in __ surfaces concerns __ defines problems __ brings everyone into the discussion __ uses good body language and intonation __ paraphrases continuously __ accepts and uses feedback __ checks time and pace __ provides useful feedback __ monitors and adjusts the process __ asks relevant, probing questions __ keeps an open attitude __ stays neutral __ offers helpful suggestions __ is optimistic and positive __ manages conflict well __ takes a problem-solving approach __ stays focused on process __ ping-pongs ideas around __ makes accurate notes that reflect the discussion __ effectively uses humor __ looks calm and pleasant __ is flexible about changing the approach used __ skillfully summarizes what is said __ knows when to stop |
Behaviors that hinder __ is oblivious to group needs __ no follow-up on concerns __ poor listening __ strays into content __ loses track of key ideas __ makes poor notes __ ignores conflicts __ provides no alternatives for structuring the discussion __ gets defensive __ doesn't paraphrase enough __ lets a few people dominate __ never checks how it's going __ is the center of attention __ lets the group get sidetracked __ projects a poor image __ uses negative or sarcastic tone __ talks too much __ puts people down __ doesn't know when to stop |
Additional Observations: |
Facilitator:
Mastering the art of neutrality, keeping notes, and asking questions at meetings is not all there is to facilitating. Being a true facilitator means developing your competency at four distinct levels.
Review the skills needed at each of the four levels described below. Then complete the facilitation skills and needs assessment instrument that follows to identify your current strengths and future training needs.
Assess your current skill levels by rating yourself according to the basic skill areas outlined below.
Rank your current skill level using the five-point scale below.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
skills lacking | some skills | total mastery |
Level 1 | Rating |
1. Understand the concepts, values, and beliefs of facilitation | |
2. Skilled at active listening, paraphrasing, questioning, and summarizing key points | |
3. Able to manage time and maintain a good pace | |
4. Armed with techniques for getting active participation and generating ideas | |
5. Keep clear and accurate notes that reflect what participants have said | |
6. Familiar with the basic tools of systematic problem solving, brainstorming, and force-field analysis |
Level 2 | Rating |
1. Knowledge of a wide range of procedural tools essential for structuring group discussions | |
2. Able to design meetings using a broad set of process tools | |
3. Knowledge of the six main decision-making approaches | |
4. Skilled at achieving consensus and gaining closure | |
5. Skilled at using feedback processes. Able to hear and accept personal feedback | |
6. Able to set goals and objectives that are measurable | |
7. Able to ask good probing questions that challenge own and others' assumptions in a non-threatening way | |
8. Able to stop the action and check on how things are going | |
9. Able to use exit surveys to improve performance | |
10. Able to manage meetings in an orderly and effective manner |
Level 3 | Rating |
1. Able to manage conflict between participants and remain composed | |
2. Able to make quick and effective interventions | |
3. Able to deal with resistance non-defensively | |
4. Skilled at dealing with personal attacks | |
5. Able to redesign meeting processes on the spot | |
6. Able to size up a group and use the right strategies for their developmental stage | |
7. Able to implement survey feedback exercises | |
8. Able to design and conduct interviews and focus groups | |
9. Knowledgeable about survey design and questionnaire development | |
10. Able to integrate and consolidate ideas from a mass of information and create coherent summaries |
Level 4 | Rating |
1. Able to design and implement process interventions in response to complex organizational issues | |
2. Able to facilitate process improvement, customer intimacy, and other organization development activities | |
3. Able to support teams in their forming, storming, and performing stages |