August 2002

Facilitate or Lead a Meeting? | Gary Rush Facilitation

Introduction

One question that I am frequently asked is, "Should I lead the meeting, facilitate the meeting, or get someone else to facilitate the meeting?" The answer is not obvious to the person asking the question. Here are some thoughts to help you decide when scheduling your meetings or workshops. I'll first define the difference between a facilitator and a meeting leader.

Facilitator: A person whose job is to enable and make it possible for a group of people to communicate and accomplish their task. Facilitators are neutral relative to content, but in charge of the process. A facilitator is responsible for the context.

Meeting Leader: A person who calls a meeting, runs the meeting (controls the process), and contributes content. This may be for information sharing or to accomplish a task.

Considerations

First of all, there is no "right" answer. There are a number of considerations so that your decision is well thought out. The first consideration is what type of meeting is this. Three categories of meetings include:

• Information-Sharing
• Task-Related Directive
• Task-Related Consultative

Each type suggests a different answer:

Information-sharing meetings work best with a meeting leader. These types of meetings include staff meetings and classes.

Task-related meetings, you need to decide if directive (i.e., you lead the meeting) or consultative (i.e., you or someone else facilitates the meeting) is the most effective form. To decide between directive or consultative, consider the following:

• Your level of knowledge of the subject.
• Your role and responsibilities regarding the outcome.
• Level of conflict between the attendees or with the subject.

Level of Knowledge

The more you know about a subject, the more you will contribute and not be neutral. If you know a lot and want to add, calling a facilitator helps in that the facilitator is neutral and manages the process and documenting while you contribute. If you know very little, you are likely to be "neutral" out of lack of knowledge. You can facilitate rather than lead. Lack of knowledge about the subject allows you to facilitate. Knowledge about the subject requires you to decide to facilitate or lead and that decision is based on level of conflict or you role.

Your Role

If your role is to get the group to reach a decision, you are largely facilitating anyway - so facilitate the meeting. If your role includes responsibility for the quality or the direction of the decision, you need to contribute and either lead the meeting or bring in someone to facilitate the meeting. That decision would be based on level of conflict.

Level of Conflict

The level of conflict is a good gauge as to whether you need a facilitator. The greater the conflict, the more value a neutral facilitator adds. Conflict generally comes with a loss of listening - participants don't listen to those with whom they disagree. When conflict is between the attendees or with the subject, a facilitator will make a difference and can make the meeting successful. A leader will either be part of the problem or exacerbate the problem.

Decision - Summarized

If the meeting is information-sharing, lead the meeting. If the meeting is task-related, then:

• You facilitate if:
  
  
  • You know very little about the subject.
  • Your role is to get the group to decide.

• Bring in a neutral facilitator if:
  
  
  • You know a lot about the subject and want equal input from all attendees.
  • There is conflict between the attendees or with the subject.
  • Your role is to get the group to decide and you have responsibility for the direction or quality of the decision.

• You can lead the meeting if:
  
  
  • There is very little conflict and you have responsibility for the direction or quality of the decision.

Issues

The issues you face after the decision are: was it the "right" decision and will the group accept it. If you chose incorrectly (i.e., lead when you need a facilitator) you can live with the decision or stop the meeting and reset the roles. To get the group to accept the decision, set the expectations at the start. Be clear what your role is and why. Stick to your role and remind the group, if they try to change it.

Conclusion

Task-related meetings are more successful when facilitated. If conflict is very low, leading the meeting works fine. Be certain to set clear expectations at the start of the meeting - then stick to them. That's the best way to ensure success.

Note: The skills of the facilitator and the leader are the same. Using facilitation skills - whether you lead or facilitate - leads to better meetings. Learning to facilitate enhances your value as an employee. All companies need effective leaders. Facilitators are effective leaders. Practice your leadership skills by using facilitation skills - whether you are the meeting leader or the facilitator.

February 1997

Facilitation in the 90's | Gary Rush Facilitation

The art of facilitation is now almost 50 years old. "JAD" type facilitation is almost 30 years old. A lot has changed since formal facilitation began in 1950. Changes have occurred in facilitation style, facilitator tools, use and acceptance of facilitators, and in facilitator training. I'll explore some of the changes, but first, I'd like to share a brief history of facilitation to set the perspective.

History

This is a brief history I've gathered over the past 14 years, since I first learned about facilitated workshops called "JAD". In 1950, two men - Alex Osborne and George Prince - decided that American corporations needed a boost in creativity. They formalized brainstorming (based on word association) and started a number of firms to provide brainstorming facilitators - Synectics is one of the companies. In 1976, Michael Doyle and David Strauss published "How to Make Meetings Work". Chuck Morris, a system engineer with IBM, adopted ideas from Doyle and Strauss to gather information enabling implementation of a software product called "COPICS". Tony Crawford of IBM Canada worked with Chuck to formalize the process called "JAD" - Joint Application Design. In the 80's many other techniques evolved - all along the same lines. FAST is one of those techniques.

Along a parallel path, other groups developed facilitation techniques - completely separate from JAD-like techniques. Groups such as the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) developed the "ToP" - Technology of Participation - method.

In 1995, these two facilitation paths met.

Facilitation Styles

The reason I discussed the history is that two distinctive styles of facilitation evolved - Process and Non-Process. In both cases, the facilitator is neutral. The roles the other members play are similar. The non-process facilitator tends to get the group to develop ground rules and even their agenda. Their primary function is to manage the group dynamics through listening, conflict intervention, recording results, etc.. The process facilitator manages group dynamics, but also provides the workshop agenda and keeps participants to the agenda. They assist the group in reaching their deliverable - while remaining neutral. JAD-type facilitators are process facilitators.

It is important to know the two styles. They have impacted the growth of facilitation. In the business world, especially, the process facilitator has made a significant impact. This is because of the added value of providing a clear process - agenda. Well-structured, facilitated workshops have gained favor in the business world over the past 6 years because they deliver immediate, tangible results. I believe that the process style of facilitation will be the only style to survive in business.

Facilitator Tools

In addition to style changes, tools have evolved over the past 50 years. Beginning with flip charts, facilitators have always used visual aids to capture the ideas of participants. To flip charts, we added vinyl magnetics, then sticky notes, computers, and even "colorform" like material that sticks to vinyl sheets and is reusable. Most of these have helped to enhance communication and capture ideas. The best tools follow the Keep it Simple philosophy.

Use and Acceptance of Facilitators

Early use of facilitators was for Human Resource applications. Later, JAD facilitators moved into information-gathering for system design. Lately, facilitators are being used to develop corporate Strategic Plans, Re-engineer Businesses, develop Marketing Plans, and even simple problem-solving - all in addition to Human Resource and systems development applications.

This increased use is attributed to facilitators providing clear, structured processes and corporate culture changes - changing from hierarchical to flatter organizations. This corporate culture change shows no sign of slowing - therefore the growth of facilitation should continue at an astounding rate. Companies need facilitators to accomplish the changes they have charted. The facilitator of the 90's is replacing the manager of the 70's - they empower groups to achieve a task.

Facilitator Training

Given the changes in use, style, and tools, it should be no surprise that the original form of apprenticeship training must change. Facilitators need formal, intensive training covering group dynamics, basic facilitation skills, project management, and process or agenda development. Along with those topics, facilitators need practice - lots of it. Any worthwhile training provides the appropriate topics, practice, and follow-up reference materials. Facilitation in the 90's is a whole new skill-set. Short cutting training produces poor facilitators. Poor facilitation will prevent companies from taking advantage of the changes in our cultures - thus being out of step with current business environment.

March 2003

Facilitation Philosophy | Gary Rush Facilitation

Introduction

I have been in the facilitation industry for 20 years. When I began in 1983, I thought that only one workshop agenda existed. In 1985, I learned that there are many more. In 1994, I found the IAF - International Association of Facilitators and discovered different styles of facilitation, new types of agendas, and that defining the "right" style of facilitation is illusive. Over the years, I've learned more and want to share this to bridge the gaps.

Two Major Styles

I see two major styles of facilitation. I'll call them "Process-Consulting" and "Relationship-Developing" for lack of better names. Let me describe each:

1. Process-Consulting
This style is where I came from. It is often erroneously referred to as "JAD" (JAD is a trademark of IBM but has become a generic name in use). This style of facilitator defines the agenda, ground rules, and process during preparation. The facilitator presents the agenda and ground rules at the beginning and defines the processes for the group. The group is dependent on the process skills of the facilitator.

2. Relationship-Developing
This style is what I first encountered at the IAF in 1994. This style of facilitator begins the workshop by getting the group to define and agree to the agenda, ground rules, and process (the facilitator may offer suggestions, too). The facilitator then helps the group keep to the agreed process. The group is dependent on the relationship building skills of the facilitator.

Brief history to set stage

In the 1930's, the relationship-developing style was developed. Facilitation was used mostly for non-profit groups, volunteer groups, and in some product ideation. Relationship-developing style was used exclusively until the late 1970's when "JAD" was developed. Throughout the world, the relationship-developing style is the most common. Throughout North America and Northern Europe, the process-consulting style is more common in business and government agencies and is growing faster than the relationship-developing style. Process-consulting is used very little outside of North America and Northern Europe.

Not mutually exclusive

I don't view the two styles as mutually exclusive. Some people do, though I have found that blending the two works better - and that each styles works better in different types of environments - I'll explain that later.

What's the issue?

The reason that I view this as an issue is that facilitators, like most other people, look for the "right" answer. There have been disagreements over what a "facilitator" does at IAF conferences, in defining an acceptable facilitator when the IAF accreditation was developed, in selecting a trainer for facilitators, and in dealing with customers to define the facilitator's role. I want to put in my two cents because I feel this should become a non-issue in the future.

Acceptance and perception

The perceived value of a facilitation style changes with the type of group facilitated. Non-profit and volunteer groups frequently perceive the relationship-developing facilitator as adding more value because of the empowering of the group. These are the types of groups facilitated since the 1930's. They are fairly unstructured groups to begin with so the relationship-developing style fits their style. Corporations and government agencies - both very structured - resisted the relationship-developing style - they used very little facilitation until the 1980's - yet have embraced the process-consulting style. They have a more defined reason for existence but lack the processes to enable them. Because of the increased desire for consensus-building in corporations, the process-consulting style fits with their desires to both reach consensus and "get the job done."

My Views

I feel that a discussion of better or worse is useless and incorrect. Each style has its place and, more importantly, each can learn from the other. Let me explore what they can learn and when each may be more beneficial.

Advantages of each – when to use

The relationship-developing style is very effective in gaining group buy-in and in empowering the group. They have a greater say in the agenda and in the ground rules. Because of this strength, volunteer groups, non-profit groups, and groups whose culture needs this (e.g., some corporate or national cultures tend to expect this in working groups) benefit from and embrace this style of facilitation.

The process-consulting style is very effective at producing a quality product in a short time. Groups get in, get to work, and get done. This is because the facilitator studies process and assists groups by defining effective processes to enable them to achieve their goals. Corporations, government agencies, and highly structured groups benefit and embrace this style because they feel that their time is more efficiently used.

Marry them together

In dealing with groups over the past 20 years, most groups need to be empowered and enabled. That tells me that one or the other style of facilitation, by itself, is lacking. Some groups need more work in forming and working as a group before any process work can be accomplished. A relationship-developing style of facilitating will help them. However, they also need to accomplish a task (not just feel better at the end) so need to have process-consulting incorporated. Other groups have a defined reason for existence, work fairly well together, but require help in knowing how to accomplish their task. A process-consulting style will benefit them more, yet some relationship-developing is required.

Recommendation

All groups need both relationship and process help. I insist on extensive preparation before a workshop - I interview all of the participants. This preparation tells me which is most lacking in a given group. If a group is working fine but needs process direction, I'll set the agenda, ground rules, and process and conduct the session. The group responds well to this. If the group doesn't feel empowered, they are not working well together, or they expect to be asked, I'll define an agenda, ground rules, and process, but open it to the group to agree to them, understand them, and even modify them if necessary (preparation mitigates the risk of extensive changes). That helps build buy-in. Most groups know their problems. Most groups don't know how to fix their problems - that's why they use facilitators. As facilitators, we must use the right tool for the right problem. We develop relationships and empowerment if that's the issue. We define process when that's the issue. Most cases, it's a blending of the two. Relying on groups to define how to fix their problem is wrong - if they knew, they would have fixed it long ago without a facilitator. Using the same tool or style with every group is like making "everything look like a nail" when you're given a hammer.

Downfalls of exclusion

Facilitators are temporary leaders. Effective leadership requires a blend of relationship building and task directing (Hersey and Blanchard – "Situational Leadership"). Using one to the exclusion of the other is eliminating half of the toolkit and makes us guilty of the "silver-bullet" or "one size fits all" syndrome.

Summary and conclusion

Rather than discussing which style is "better", facilitators gain more by learning from all styles and incorporating the strengths of each and adjusting their style to enable and empower the groups they facilitate. Effective preparation is absolutely required to do this well. Willingness and confidence to adjust is required to make it work and to be an effective leader.

November 1999

FACILITATOR STORIES - we are involved! by Gary Rush, IAF CPF

I facilitated two workshops for this project. There were over 25 participants and it was an important project for the business. These workshops also gave me some of my favorite stories. I thought that I'd share two of them with you.

Exhaustion

Pushing groups too long results in exhaustion. Once a group becomes exhausted, they fail to perform. Sometimes you can tell by their participation. Sometimes, by whether the group stays together or begins to fall apart. Most groups hit the exhaustion wall pretty hard. It isn't a gradual demise. It's like falling off a cliff. Sometimes the clues are subtle. Other times, as with this group, it's like an alarm going off.

There were four key participants in the workshops. They contributed the most since they were the most knowledgeable about the business. They were also the most argumentative. I enjoyed their participation, however, they really made me work. They would discuss or argue about everything - including the workshop process. I prefer that to the group being quiet. The first day of the first workshop went well. We accomplished a lot that day. Near 5:00 p.m., one of these key participants stood up and asked, "What are we doing again?" I explained the workshop process, again, and what the workshop deliverable did for the project - i.e., why we needed to do this. The project manager helped, too. This went on for about 20 minutes with no luck. Exhaustion had taken over the group. I stopped the workshop for the day and sent the participants home to rest for the next day. The project manager and I took the four key participants aside and discussed the workshop process and the project. After about 10 minutes, the four participants understood. Changing the situation from a large workshop group to a small group sitting around a table helped. The understanding of the process by these four participants - or their lack of understanding - was infectious with the group. If they got it, everyone else did too. If they were confused, so was everyone else.

The next day, we began the workshop again. It went well until about 5:00 p.m. Again, one of the key participants stood up and asked, "What are we doing again?" Remembering what happened the day before, I immediately announced that, "It looks like we're done for today. Go home and I'll see you bright and early tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m." The participants left, except for the four key ones, and we discussed the process, again. They were happy. This routine happened every day! These four participants were the alarm clock letting me know that they were so exhausted that they forgot what they were doing.

You need to act when groups get exhausted. Changing the venue - from large group to small group - helps. Sometimes, just send them home to rest. Whatever you do, don't push on - it doesn't work.

Environment

One reason I liked this group so much is that they had no loss of creativity. The second workshop provided challenging logistics. The room was a large ballroom of an old hotel. It looked like a library (actually, it was called the Library). The walls were dark. A bookshelf filled the rear wall. A 6-foot tall fireplace occupied the front. One side was doors and the other was windows. The ceiling was high with chandeliers and fairly low lights. I had over 25 participants sitting in a "U" shaped table that had an opening of 20 feet across (I could have used roller blades to get around the room). It was difficult to see because of the lighting and room size. The hotel helped by securing 25 banker desk lamps - the kind with the green glass shade - one for each participant. That helped with the lighting. It also gave the participants something to do to make life interesting. Whenever they felt that they didn't want to participate, they would turn off their lights. When they wanted to make a special point, they would flip the lampshade to illuminate their face - glowing from the bottom. This made for an interesting session because it added humor. It didn't get disruptive, so I didn't stop it.

I knew that they were engaged when they did something that no other group had done. I always give groups permission to stand and walk around. It helps to keep focus. This group, though, took it to the extreme. I was in front of the room working on a model the group was building. I turned towards the chart to document their discussion. When I turned back towards the room, the entire group was standing next to me. They had stood up and walked up to the front of the room! Three of them were standing on the tables so that they could see over the heads of others. I had the entire workshop on their feet! Normally, this might seem disruptive, but they were participating - so I let it go. It was very important that they understand each other's business. It worked. They discussed the model and their business. They resolved their different ways of working. They defined their business. The room had been a distraction so they fixed the problem by walking up to the front of the room. I was momentarily surprised, but pleased. This group really was involved!

I Learned

I learned that, when there is no other choice, problems with rooms can be ignored. Participants are concerned more with the discussion and their business than they are with the room. Letting groups be themselves provides creativity and better clues on how to handle them. I also learned that the participants are truly the most important resource that businesses have. This company and its projects will always be successful because of its people.

POINT OF VIEW

This exercise was provided by Rolf Meursing of IBM in The Netherlands. I thought that I'd share it with you. It is a good technique to replace "pros and cons". Some of you know that I don't like "pros and cons" because they can be manipulated in a group and they force win-lose. However, with controversial issues, it is helpful to look at different points of view. This is what Rolf did:

To discuss a controversial issue, he broke the participants into three groups: Positive, Negative, and Audience. The positive and negative groups each had 15 minutes to develop their arguments. They then presented their arguments to the audience group - like a debate. Afterwards, the positive and negative groups gave a 2-minute rebuttal to defend their position. The audience group then described the criteria they would use to decide the issue, based on the arguments presented by both positive and negative groups.

The groups were given 5 minutes to revise their arguments based on the audience criteria and the debate was repeated. After the second debate, the groups reformed as one to discuss the issue.

Do not polarize the participants. Ensure that the groups are made up of people who hold a variety of views. You select the group makeup - don't allow the participants to choose. In most debate contests, which side you must defend isn't known until the debate.

The benefits of the exercise are that it:

• Stretches the ideas
• Allows the participants to have a more complete view of all sides of the issue
• Provides better arguments.

Try this exercise and let me know how it works. Thank you to Rolf Meursing.