Stephen Billing’s Blog

When workshops are conducted and one of the reasons for them is somehow to facilitate change, then the workshop must generate new conversations. If no change in the conversations, then no organisational change. Participants must be able to talk to each other and take up new themes of conversation in the session. If they are not talking to each other then new conversations are not happening; in fact no conversations are happening. And then no change can happen through that workshop. 

This leaves the facilitator with a problem. The problem of how to ensure the session’s objectives are met. This is a problem because the client, who is paying the bill, has expectations and intentions, and the facilitator has to deliver something that has been agreed in advance. And yet I am saying that the facilitator cannot control the conversations in the workshop. How can the facilitator deliver what has been promised? 

Many facilitators deal with this dilemma by attempting to design the interactions in advance in order to meet the objectives. Coupled with this, they attempt to create their facilitation style in advance, for example by selecting a combination of directive and non-directive exercises. John Heron has a good articulation of the possibilities, by describing a range of 6 dimensions and 3 modes of facilitation coming together in an 18 box matrix. 

On the other hand, I am saying that the actual style of facilitators arises from their intentions (including their intentions about what particular style they seek to have) interwoven with the various intentions of the participants and the interactions between participants and facilitator. Therefore the facilitator is still a participant in these interactions, engaged to a greater or lesser extent. And yet there seems to be reluctance on the part of many facilitators I know to be more engaged with group participants. The role of engaged participant is a different one and represents a change in the power dynamic between facilitator and group members. If the facilitator is strongly directing the activities, asking the questions and writing on the flipchart, then they are in a very powerful position and that power differential is emphasised by these techniques. The interactions that are possible in this dynamic will be different from those where the power differential is not so obvious. 

If the facilitator participates as an engaged member of the group this de-emphasises the power differential and exposes the facilitator to some risk. There is the risk that the conversation might go into areas where the facilitator does not know the answers, and hence might not be seen as authoritative. There is also the risk that the group might lose confidence in a facilitator who does not know the answers. 

Facilitators would do well to reflect on their willingness to risk venturing into this unknown territory where the power balance is not tilted towards the facilitator. Likewise clients would do well to question people they engage as facilitators as to the degree of involvement with their participants that they profess to have. And then monitor practice to see whether it matches up.