Notes on Facilitation: The Role and Task of the Facilitator
Here is a hand-out (old and as yet unfinished, written for a journal which then folded) on some of the issues for facilitators:
© Michael Soth (1990)
For the purposes of article, I will imagine the group and its activities as a flowering plant.
the ROOTS are equivalent to the basic shared values, modes of consciousness and paradigms/worldviews which are the foundation of the group’s co-operation. These paradigms inform what I call the structure / meta-level, the HOW of the group.
The human, emotional interactions which constitute the group process are like the LEAVES which provide energy and nourishment to the plant. In simple terms this is the feeling level, the human relationships, the intricate web of conscious and unconscious interactions.
The tasks and goals of the group are like the FLOWER which grows out of and depends on the underlying root foundation and the nourishment from the synergetic metabolism generated by the relationships between the group members.
This image (structure - process - task) is reflected in the well-known formula for the developmental stages of the group cycle: norming - forming - storming - performing (Bruce Tuckman 1965).
Norming is equivalent to what I call the underlying / established structure, and during the norming phase agreements about structural issues are achieved by meta-level discussion: what are our shared values and how do we therefore want to operate ? what ways and styles of working together express and carry our shared values and aims (which in turn are based on even deeper shared understandings of the world and who we are as people; see my comments about the distinction between the explicit and implicit aspects of the structure / meta-level below). This includes issues such as power-over versus power-with, structure versus structurelessness, ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ styles - in short: issues of collective and cultural consciousness. One way these have been categorised is through the integral Wilber/Spiral Dynamics model of 'value systems' or 'memes'.
Forming is equivalent to what I call the group process - the web of interactions and relationships which determines the internal and external shape of the group as a set of relationships. The emotionally significant concerns can be grouped into issues around belonging (inclusion - exclusion), nurture (likes and dislikes, mutual recognition), power and status (influence, weight).
Storming in groups could be considered part of the group process (i.e. the phase when the above issues are actually addressed and worked out). If this phase comes to a satisfying resolution, it can then manifest in some creative expression or in the shared task (performing) which may have been the group’s main objective for coming together in the first place.
My assumption is that the group’s capacity for creativity (= performing) depends on how well the norming, forming and storming phases have been navigated, and what degree of coherence, stability, flexibility and spontaneity is possible within the structures and relationships which have been established in the early phases of the group. This is the same as saying that the task is like the flower which grows out of a root and leaf system which both both support and nourish it, providing the foundation and the energy for the task / business.
The cyclic nature of these stages implies that these phases re-occur in possibly deepening and intensifying cycles which each build on the group’s shared experience of the previous one.
The structure/meta-level (roots) can be divided into two aspects: implicit and explicit.
Implicit structure:
an implicit, maybe unspoken, maybe unconscious aspect which is like a shared understanding of the world. We inhabit different cultural universes with different assumptions, values, priorities. These world views obviously also inform our assumptions about groups, what they are, what happens and should happen in them, how business and group process should be conducted, how power is shared or distributed, etc. Spiral Dynamics research has established a solid correspondence between certain ‘memes’ and their preferred organisational styles.
There is an interesting and subtle inter-relationship between the structure/meta-level on the one hand and the group process on the other. The basic logical connection between them is that the structure is of a higher order in holarchic terms (see, for example, Ken Wilber “Integral Psychology”): cultural and paradigm differences are more basic and underlie the group process and the task. The structure (essentially as a result of a particular mode of consciousness, or a mixture of different, sometimes conflicting, modes of consciousness) structures and gives shape to the group process and the task: it provides the determining norms, features and procedures employed on the process and task levels. Therefore, conflicts on the structure/meta-level cannot be reduced to - or resolved through - either group process or working together on a task alone.
Structure consists of the underlying paradigms which inform, shape and determine the way group process and business happen and are conducted. This most basic level of human co-existence is, of course, the area where oppression and discrimination originate and manifest. If there are major unresolved conflicts on this level, the group energy may not be ready to engage with anything else, and the group process itself may not feel safe as the established structure may privilege certain group members, their paradigms and world views and their way of conducting the group process.
The tempation is to try and address these differences or conflicts through meta-level discussion, through naming and making explicit the underlying norms, assumptions and values. However, paradigm conflicts on this level can usually not be resolved through abstract, philosophical discussion, either, and attempts to focus on a shared task at this point are usually based in denial and distraction.
Of course, the diversity of conflicting paradigms needs to be named and discussed. But when somebody’s taken-for-granted assumptions about the world are disturbed or threatened by somebody else’s equally taken-for-granted world view, the group process reflects these clashes on a feeling level: group members feel unsafe, threatened, hostile, defensive with each other, and discussion often just reflects and exacerbates these feelings because through being translated onto an intellectual level they acquire an indirect, frustrated and ambivalent expression. Philosophical misunderstanding of each other then escalates the differences and makes the feelings uncontainable - usually the group then breaks apart.
A mixture between meta-level discussion, exploration of diversity, paradigm reflection on the one hand and direct human emotionally-charged relating on the other (working through the feelings around differences) - maybe interspersed with periods of cultural sub-groupings getting together - is usually necessary.
Explicit structure:
The explicit structure consists of the spoken and agreed rules which are the basis for the group’s ways of operating together. Out of this grow procedures and explicit ways of working regarding decisionmaking processes, the balance between task and process, how the group handles conflict and disagreements, how the group starts and ends, how the time available is allocated to different goals and tasks, how much time is given to individual concerns, the balance between structure and structurelessness, etc.
One way of dealing with this is for the group to delegate the responsibility for the explicit structure to a facilitator who then suggests procedures, sequences of activities, focal points for attention. This ideally allows the group members to fully engage with and concentrate on the activity itself, without having to reflect on or worry about meta-level considerations (as these are taken care of by the facilitator). This delegation of responsibility for the explicit structure to the facilitator is obviously fraught with difficulties, power issues and the potential for mis-direction and misuse of the power inherent in the role.
In order for the facilitator to minimise these dangers, and operate optimally in the interest of the group, we can distinguish three inter-related aspects of the facilitator’s internal process: perception (of the group energy), understanding (the significant dynamics constellated in the group and forming working hypotheses about them) and then designing interventions (aiming to facilitate the group’s functioning by suggesting activities, procedures, exercises, tasks).
The task of the facilitator
In every group there is always already an implicit structure and an implicit emergent process, i.e. something that needs or wants to happen. The facilitator does not need to make anything happen - the metaphor is more of a stream that is already flowing finding its way - the facilitator provides suggestions for the path, the channel, the particular course which the group energy is inclined to follow, anyway. And there may well be a tension or conflict between these implicit potentials and the explicit and established structure, often resulting in a sense of paralysis or stuckness. The facilitator’s task goes beyond applying the group’s current, explicit, rational agreements. I define the facilitator’s task as responsive to the functioning of the group as a whole (including the group’s conscious and unconscious dynamics), relating to the group as a developing organism, yet without the facilitator throwing their own weight and personal investment behind particular developmental tendencies.
The facilitator is not a leader, manager or director. The task of a facilitator does not include pro-actively shaping, negotiating and influencing future direction. Without directive power, the significance of the facilitator’s role can be underestimated, by equating it with that of a chairperson. But the traditional understanding of the chairperson is focussed on facilitating discussion, decisionmaking procedures, rational exchange. If there is a clear, shared and unambiguous readiness to engage with a particular activity or task of that kind, the facilitator’s input may be temporarily indistinguishable from that of a chairperson. In some situations the facilitator may even be replacable by a prepared agenda, a sequence of procedures and group activities, with suggested time slots for each activity in the sequence. Outwardly the facilitator may be seen to be offering technique, method.
But the way I see it, the facilitator role is much wider than that: its purview encompasses the group as a group (i.e. more than the sum of its parts) AND as a social web of individuals, as a collection of whole human beings living together rather than (replacable) contributors to a shared task only, as a tapestry of physcial, emotional, mental and transpersonal . It’s about perceiving and enabling emergent process as it spontaneously arises and clashes with established structure. It’s about the group’s spontaneous development and transformation as a collective organism.
The task of the facilitator is to attend to these, and to form a judgement as to what the group is ready for. Here the notion of the task-flower being nourished and energised by the leaves of the group process / group dynamic which in turn is underpinned by the root system of the established structure becomes useful in terms of order and priorities.
Does the implicit structure require attention before anything else can happen ?
Are the conflicts around different identities, diversity and power dynamics (oppression / discrimination) so strong that no meaningful, cohesive and shared process can occur ?
to be continued .....