Chapter Four
Who Can Facilitate
Once the need for facilitation has been identified, there's often confusion about who should take on the role. Should it be an internal staff member, a paid outsider, or the leader of the group?
When to Use an Internal Facilitator
In many organizations, facilitators are considered such an important resource as to warrant the development of a full-time, in-house cadre. These are paid organization development consultants who are available to help any team needing assistance.
Some organizations that are unable to maintain full-time facilitators maintain a group of part-time volunteer facilitators. These are employees who are interested in developing their group process expertise and who voluntarily take on facilitation assignments in other parts of their organization.
Whether they're full-time professionals or part of a volunteer group, internal facilitators enjoy several advantages over external ones, such as:
- they understand the organization's history and culture
- they have a stake in the health and success of the organization
- they're on hand and easy to access
- they're on salary, so are less costly than hiring outsiders
- they're aware of the resources available within the organization
- they can follow the outcomes of their work and ensure continuity
Despite the many benefits of using internal facilitators, there are also some drawbacks, such as:
- internal facilitators may lack experience with specific facilitation tools or processes
- even when they're very experienced, they may not be seen as credible inside the organization
- they may have a history with some co-workers, who consequently do not see them as neutral
- they may be stretched too far if there are only a few of them to deal with all of the needs of a large organization
- some discussions may simply be too risky to be tackled by an insider, who then has to stay around and live with the fallout
When to Use an External Facilitator
It's advantageous to use an outside facilitator in a number of situations, most notably when total neutrality is essential and the discussions require the full participation of all members. In addition, external facilitators enjoy several advantages, including that:
- they're assumed to be credible
- they may have more experience leading some types of specialized discussions
- people are more likely to trust their neutrality
- they're unencumbered by political or emotional baggage
- they can often afford to take more risks
- they can walk away from the repercussions of sensitive interventions
- they are paid for their efforts, so much can be asked of them
Using the services of an external facilitator also has drawbacks, including that:
- they lack data about the group and the organization, such as its history, and therefore need to do considerable research
- they don't fully understand the personalities involved
- they need to build rapport with the client to establish trust
- they don't get to see the initiatives of the group unfold
- they can be costly to hire, especially for longer projects
- they may be unavailable for follow-on work
Organizations that have internal facilitators will still bring in externals for selected assignments. This is usually done for assignments that the internal facilitators feel are too sensitive to tackle or that they lack the expertise to conduct. External facilitators are also brought in to allow the internal team to experience a new technique. Regardless of whether facilitators are external or internal, they all work according to a well-defined set of steps, outlined in Chapter Three.
When Leaders Facilitate
It was established in the last chapter that the facilitation function was designed to be performed by a neutral third party. This neutrality exists to ensure that the person facilitating is able to focus all of his or her attention on providing structure and to encourage people to speak freely. It's important to note that when an internal facilitator takes on an assignment within the organization, he or she is nonetheless operating as a neutral outsider in relation to the internal client.
Unfortunately, neutral parties simply aren't available every time there's a need for effective process. As a result, the task of designing and managing meetings almost always falls to leaders. This begs the question: “Can a leader, who has an interest in the outcome of a discussion, effectively facilitate the members of his or her own team?”
The simple answer is yes: leaders who have a stake in the decisions being made by their teams can, nonetheless, provide effective process leadership. The catch is that they have to approach the facilitator role very differently. There are two main reasons for this.
First, leaders have a degree of power over the members of their teams. This means that, even when the leader claims to be neutral, team members may be reluctant to speak up and voice opinions that could be contrary to what they think the leader might want to hear.
Second, many leaders have a difficult time switching into the neutral mode. They may want the input of staff, but may be so used to solving problems and making decisions that they can't hold back their opinions.
Given the great need for effective process in every meeting, it's clear that leaders need strategies to provide process to their teams. This means learning to do a delicate balancing act. While it's definitely easier for a neutral party to facilitate, leaders can manage the facilitator role if they're aware of the challenges they face and have strategies to overcome them.
Facilitation Strategies for Leaders
Challenge 1—Leaders often choose the wrong discussions to facilitate. For example, they may mistakenly try to be neutral during a discussion about a topic on which they have most of the expertise. Also, they may try to facilitate an entire meeting, instead of chairing the main portions of the meeting in the usual manner and then selectively facilitating those topics where it's most effective to gain staff input.
Strategy 1—Leaders need to pick the right topics to facilitate. Here are some guidelines about when to facilitate and when to stay in the traditional chair role.
| BE DIRECTIVE AND ACT LIKE A MEETING CHAIR when: | BE FACILITATIVE FOR THE SECTIONS OF THE MEETING IN WHICH IT'S IMPORTANT TO: |
| You give clear instructions. You share your expertise. You tell people about decisions that have already been made. There's no room for input in non-negotiable situations. Accountability cannot be shared. There's no possibility that staff ideas will be implemented. |
Gain the input of team members. Create more buy-in and commitment. Encourage staff to take the lead. Share accountability. Hear the ideas of staff because they can actually be implemented. |
Challenge 2—Staff may not understand the role of facilitator and could therefore be confused when the leader starts to act in a new way.
Strategy 2—The first few times a leader facilitates, he or she should clearly explain what a facilitator does, the reason for choosing to facilitate at this point in the meeting, and the length of time he or she will be in the role. The leader needs to be clear that the honest opinions and insights of the members are being sought and that no decision has been made about the matter under discussion. Once group members understand that their leader really is looking for their ideas on a specific topic, they are more likely to accept their leader in the role of a facilitator.
Challenge 3—Group members are going to be justifiably leery of taking part in decision making if they sense that the decision is actually going to be made elsewhere anyway.
Strategy 3—When leaders facilitate, they need to be very clear about the empowerment level of the group members. Leaders need to tell followers who will be making the final decision, whether they are making a recommendation that needs final approval or they are merely being asked for their ideas as input to a decision that will be made by someone else. When the decision-making context is clarified, people will be more likely to engage.
Also, a leader who feels he or she needs to retain the power to make the final decision on a matter can tell people that he or she is using Level II empowerment. In this mode, the leader gathers input from staff, but clearly signals to them that they are not making the final decision. This allows the leader to be both the facilitator in the meeting and the decider after the meeting. The key is to be totally open that this is what is happening.
A chart that's useful for clarifying decision authority is the Empowerment Chart. Leaders should share this chart with their teams and then clarify the specific level that applies to each agenda item before they start to facilitate that topic.
Empowerment Chart*
| Level I. Telling | Staff are being told about an outcome and have no input. |
| Level II. Consulting | Staff are being consulted for their input, but the final decision will be made elsewhere. |
| Level III. Participating | Staff are being asked for their ideas and can create action plans, but these plans need approval before they can be implemented. |
| Level IV. Delegating | Staff can make decisions and act on their ideas without any further approvals. |
| * For more information on using the Empowerment Chart, refer to pages 111–112 in Chapter Seven. | |
Challenge 4—The leader sets out to facilitate, but the moment group members propose an idea that seems flawed, he or she falls out of the role and takes control.
Strategy 4—Leaders need to accept that facilitating can result in the group coming up with ideas that have flaws. Rather than stepping in to overturn their suggestions, leaders must help group members apply critical thinking skills so that they can discover the gaps themselves.
The leader can help members identify the traits of an effective solution, then have group members use those criteria to test their proposal. Another approach when members seem to be making a low-quality decision is to help members objectively list both the upside and downside of their ideas. The leader can then facilitate discussions to help members find solutions to overcome the weaknesses they identified in their own proposal.
Challenge 5—When a leader asks a question, their staff will naturally try to figure out whether there's a motive behind the question or guess what the leader might have in mind.
Strategy 5—Leaders must ask questions in such a neutral manner that no one can possibly guess at a motive behind them. For example, a leader can ask two questions at once: one that goes in one direction and one that goes in the other. This can sound like: “Tell me why this is a good idea, then I want you to tell me why this might be the worst thing to do.”
Another strategy is to attribute probing questions to someone else:
“A customer might ask … ?” Leaders can also try to distance themselves from the question by saying: “I don't necessarily think this is the way to go, but what about … ?” Finally, the leaders can make a clear disclaimer before asking a question: “I want you to know that I have no fixed idea about what should be done, so please see my questions as pure fishing expeditions.”
Challenge 6—People may not want to speak up with the leader in the room or say things that they think the leader won't like.
Strategy 6—Leaders have to be on the lookout for opportunities to choose techniques that don't require open discussion. These techniques allow for ideas to be shared both silently and anonymously.
- One example of this is using written brainstorming to gather input from members on slips of paper, then using a form of multi-voting to prioritize suggestions and arrive at the best course of action.
- Another example is using the walls to post issues and then allowing people to wander from topic to topic, sharing views with only the members of the small groups gathered at the same topic.
- Another very neutral approach to making decisions is to have group members anonymously provide their rating of an idea on a decision grid.
For many of these processes, the leader can set up the exercise and then participate as a group member, since no discussion actually takes place. For more information about how to use the process tools mentioned above, refer to Chapter Nine.
Challenge 7—The group needs structure to effectively discuss a complex topic, but the leader needs to be in the discussion and no one else is available to facilitate.
Strategy 7—When the input of the leader is essential to the discussion, he or she may only be able to step into the neutral facilitator role for the start of the discussion to help the group clarify purpose, the process, and the time.
Once the start sequence is in place, the leader can announce that he or she is stepping out of the facilitator role to take part in the discussion. While this is far from ideal, having a clear structure for a discussion is better than operating without having a process in place.
Challenge 8—The group needs structure, but the group is too small to lose someone to play the neutral role.
Strategy 8—In situations when no one is available to facilitate, the group can use a strategy known as shared facilitation. This involves taking the roles that a facilitator would normally perform and dividing them among the members so that everyone has at least one facilitation role to play.
After the leader has established the start sequence, he or she divides up the tasks that the facilitator would normally perform, such as keeping track of time, recording ideas, pointing out digressions and parking them, calling on quiet people, summarizing points, identifying when the group is stuck, and so forth.
Challenge 9—The leaders' expertise is always in demand, so they are seldom free to step into the facilitator role.
Strategy 9—Whenever leaders facilitate, they should help their people learn to facilitate so that facilitation duties can be rotated. The best way to do this is for leaders to model facilitation and then debrief the various functions so that members can understand the techniques involved. By modeling facilitation techniques, leaders can teach others how to facilitate so that they can share the role and won't always have to stand outside the group.
Once all team members have mastered the basics, the facilitator role can be rotated so that everyone learns to use process tools and becomes skilled at managing complex group interactions. This will do a great deal to build the leadership capacity of all members.
Best and Worst Facilitation Practices for Leaders
| BEST THINGS TO DO | WORST THINGS TO DO |
| Select the specific discussions that need to be facilitated. | Facilitate when you feel like it. |
| Tell people you are facilitating and explain the role clearly. | Let people guess at whether you're facilitating or not. |
| Clearly state the empowerment level of staff in each discussion. | Neglect to clarify whether members are deciding or just being consulted. |
| Be consistent once in the role: don't leap back and forth. | Periodically make strong points while facilitating. |
| Avoid leading questions. | Ask the questions that lead people to the ideas you like. |
| Use tools that create objectivity and anonymity. | Make people stand up and take a stand publicly. |
| Use neutral body language. | Let how you feel about their ideas show through. |
| Always set up a start sequence, even when not facilitating. | Have discussions without clear parameters. |
| Manage group effectiveness, even when not facilitating. | Fail to notice how people are interacting. |
| Share facilitation tasks with group members. | Be the only skilled facilitator on your team. |
| Teach others to facilitate. | Do not teach anyone else. |
Facilitation As a Leadership Style
Centuries of directive leadership have created a culture in many organizations where those at the front line are viewed only as doers and totally underutilized as thinkers. This directive leadership style may still work in some settings, but is largely ineffective in today's knowledge-driven organizations.
Workplaces need to harness the intelligence, commitment, and energy of all their members. This level of engagement can only be fostered by a shift in leadership—from telling to asking and from controlling to facilitating.
When leaders shift their approach from controlling and directing to facilitating and empowering, they may feel as though they're giving up control. In reality, there's a substantial amount of power and control built into the role of facilitator. The difference is that this power is exerted indirectly, through the application of process, rather than through control over content.
Consider the following examples of how process can be used to manage in specific situations:
| SITUATION | DIRECTIVE APPROACH | FACILITATIVE APPROACH |
| Members argue. | Give them a pep talk about getting along. | Have members create rules to manage disagreements. |
| A poor decision is made. | Overturn it, then explain later. | Have members critique their decision using objective criteria. |
| Members overstep their authority. | Rein them in, supervise more carefully. | Expand empowerment to meet the needs of specific situations. |
Facilitative leaders can often get people to do things that directive leaders cannot. When using a facilitative approach, leaders can:
- help groups to identify and commit to achieving ambitious goals
- build and maintain high-performance teams
- run efficient and highly effective meetings
- engage groups in creative thinking
- settle conflicts between groups
- help staff to resolve complex problems
- manage interpersonal dynamics
Once a leader begins to use facilitation with his or her staff, he or she comes to appreciate that stepping into the neutral role is actually very freeing. When leaders stop giving all the answers, staff must draw on their own resources. Instead of coming with questions, they learn to bring answers. Instead of complying with orders, they participate in creating strategies and plans. When given more decision-making authority, they weigh options more carefully. When a leader adopts a more facilitative approach, group members are challenged to take on more. This develops their autonomy and brings out their leadership potential.
One of the most important outcomes of leaders taking a facilitative approach is that it encourages dialogue. When leaders ask questions, they foster conversation. This gives staff an opportunity to vent, to challenge, and to explore new ideas.
The net result is a greater sense of partnership. Staff are listened to and feel their views count. Nothing is needed more in these changing times than this capacity in leaders.
Additional Role Challenges
Both internal and external facilitators encounter situations in which they feel that they lack the authority to effectively manage the group's process. For the external facilitator this can be when the client second-guesses the design and meddles throughout the assignment. For internal facilitators, this lack of authority often stems from the fact that they're facilitating staff whose rank is higher than their own. Here are some common role dilemmas and solutions.
The Difficult Client
They hire you for your expertise, but then they meddle in your design. Sometimes they may do this in advance, or they may try to change the design in the middle of the meeting. You make interventions, but they don't listen. They just expect you to adjust to whatever they throw at you.
What's going on? They want you to do what they want you to do. They are not very good at following while others lead. They feel they hired you, so you must do as they dictate.
What to do about it: During the assessment phase interviews, ask each group member for suggestions about the rules of conduct that should be in place during the facilitation. Ask individuals to tell you about the things that happen in the group that can make them less than effective. Ask for specific suggestions or norms that could be put into place to eliminate these behaviors.
At the start of the facilitation share the rules that were suggested by the group members during the interviews. Ratify these rules and post them in clear sight so that you can use them to intervene if people violate them.
When presenting the design for the meeting to the group, clarify that you will be leaving the content totally to them, but that you must be in control of the process. Explain that you may consult them about how things are going, but that the decision to use a specific tool or approach needs to rest with you. Gain a firm commitment to this and post this commitment along with the group norms. If people start to meddle, thank them for their input, then politely remind them that the design is your area of expertise.
This will help you avoid clashes between the role of the content leader and role of the process leader during the session.
Facilitating Senior Managers
You're asked to facilitate for a group of senior managers. This group needs your help, but then resists your efforts to provide structure. They second-guess your approach, are distracted by laptops, go off on tangents, argue, and run in and out. Because they're all senior to you, you don't feel that you can intervene or assert the process.
What's going on? The hierarchy of the organization is spilling over into the facilitation arena. The managers are not used to being facilitated and do not have a clear understanding about the role of a neutral third party.
What to do about it: Clearly explain the role of the facilitator to the group members during the design phase. Help group members understand that you're only neutral about the content and that it is within the boundaries of your role to be assertive about the process.
As with the previous example, also engage the members in setting very specific norms to govern behavior at the session. Ratify these rules at the start of the meeting and then immediately negotiate some power for yourself.
Ask questions like:
- “What is it okay for me to say or do if I notice that the group's not following its own rules? Can I stop the action and point it out? Can I suggest what would be better?”
- “What if I sense that a technique or approach is not working? Can I change it?”
- “Can we agree that you're in charge of the content of the discussion, but that I'm managing how the meeting is run?”
When group members agree to these things, they are essentially giving you the power you need to manage the group dynamic. This green light from them protects you from recrimination later since the group agreed to your actions in advance.
It's important to note that facilitators don't actually need approval to intervene or manage the process. Facilitators already have that authority in the job description. Asking the group for specific powers to intervene and manage the process is simply done to make it less risky to facilitate senior people assertively.
Facilitating Colleagues
You sit through meeting after terrible meeting. You wish someone would facilitate, but no one steps up to the plate. You wish that you could just start to facilitate, but worry that you do not have the official authority to step in.
What's going on? There's a total lack of process at the meetings. The leader has no idea about how to provide structure. No one at the meeting has any idea that the group needs facilitation.
What to do about it: You can work at three levels to provide structure. The first level is the most covert. Simply provide facilitation support from your seat as it's needed. Periodically mention the time, ask quiet people for their ideas, ask probing questions, point out digressions, help people understand differing views, and so forth.
At the second level, you can speak up and offer the group help when they're struggling. Offer a tool or technique. Wait until they agree that they want your help. Then step in to structure the discussion. At the end of that activity, rejoin the group. The general rule is that if you offer facilitation and members accept, you have been given the role.
At the third level, approach the leader and ask him or her to allow you to facilitate all or specific portions of an upcoming meeting. If the leader is reluctant, tell him or her that learning to facilitate is one of your personal learning objectives and that practice is essential.
Manage the session according to the steps outlined in Chapter Three. At the end of the facilitation activities, help the group evaluate the outcome of your work. Hopefully, this will raise their awareness about the need for a more structured approach to their meetings.
Facilitating Tiny Groups
There are lots of meetings attended by only three or four people. If four people are making a decision and one of them assumes the facilitator's role, this removes a valuable resource from the conversation.
What's going on? There is no neutral outsider available and the group is too small to be able to afford to lose a person to the process role.
What to do about it: There are a number of solutions to this dilemma.
The person who offers to facilitate can use any of the following techniques.
- Set out the process, establish the start sequence, and then rejoin the group. Then divide the facilitator role among members, with one person watching the time, another noticing digressions, someone recording ideas, and so forth, using the shared facilitation tool mentioned earlier.
- stay in the facilitator role, but write down ideas and give them to a colleague to represent.
- stay in the role and balance the role of facilitator and group member by adding comments only after others have offered their ideas.
- facilitate, but take off the facilitator hat periodically to step out of the role to add comments.
Since all group interactions are more effective when attention has been paid to the process, it's very important that facilitation should not be withheld just because the conditions are less than ideal. There will never be a time when there's a neutral third party available to run every meeting, so leaders and team members who understand facilitation will need to find ways to add process elements to their meetings.