Facilitation, Mediation, Team Building and Group Process

I was asked the other day at the end of a workshop I conducted: “How does one become a good facilitator or mediator?”  “Especially when it comes to educating people in a “structured” environment, and then helping them to understand how to reduce stressful or violent situations?” 

I first explained that there is a fine line between facilitation and mediation. For sure, they can be mixed up and can overlap.  But, if you are a good facilitator, I feel you will also be a good mediator.  Why?  Well, success in this endeavor is rooted in three basic components: 1) being a good listener, 2) shifting into what I call "interview mode," and 3) democratic persuasion.  These three components provide both a conceptual and practical framework for success.  Of course, being a good listener is much more difficult than people realize.  Much of the time when someone is talking to us, we aren't really listening; we are thinking about what we are going to say in response.  I work with participants to suspend judgment, to not immediately evaluate what is being said in terms of what it means to you, but instead, try to understand what it means from the other person’s perspective.  We then shift into what I call the “interview mode,” designed to get one to ask questions.  Good questions. This will help better understand what the other person is thinking and feeling. 

Successful facilitation is a process by which group solidarity or cohesiveness develops.  It does not magically come into being.  It develops slowly over time.  Every activity that is shared by group members, whether it is a business meeting, an office cleanup, an office picnic, hours working together on a project, contributes to the group’s sense of history and identity.  In team building, it is particularly important that the group’s growth be based on evolving norms of communication, cooperation, mutual trust and respect, since these norms support the values and skills of team building.  In working as either a consultant or an employee, I adhere to five important guidelines:

1.      Take your group seriously.  Individuals gather for many reasons, and the group should always remember that it is a creation of its members.  Taking the group seriously involves more than accepting responsibility for choosing procedures and defining goals.  It also includes showing care and respect for the group.

2.      Have regular evaluations.  I set aside time at the end of every meeting (or some mutually decided time) to talk about how the meeting went, how members feel about the process, and what might be done differently in the future.  Evaluations help foster a more cohesive team.

3.      Share responsibility.  I have always felt that members are most committed to a group when they feel they are making important contributions instead of being led.

4.      Balance participation in-group tasks.  It is important that a few members not carry all of the responsibility, but that it is shared among others as well.  This pattern can be broken by redistributing tasks or information so different people can get in the center of what’s going on.

5.      Balance participation in meetings.  It is rare that every member is equally involved in each meeting (because of different degrees of interest, information, etc.)  This pattern can be broken by a) rotating roles such as note taker, facilitator, etc., b) limit speaking time, and c) changing room dynamics (where people sit) and encouraging making eye contact.

Additionally, I lead a companion workshop called Facilitation, Communication and Mediation.  In this workshop, there are 3 basic rules to learn:

1.      Avoid leading questions.  The best possible question stimulates the group to draw its own conclusions rather than leading them to yours.   “How do you feel about this course of action?” is a question with infinite possible answers.  Did this course of action make you feel uncomfortable?” is a question with two possible answers.  The first question leaves the individual/group free to discuss whatever ideas occur and seem relevant to them, whereas the second question traps the discussion into a single theme – discomfort.

2.      Phrase questions in a positive manner.  Instead of asking, “Why won’t this plan work?” ask, “What problems will we have to overcome if we adopt this plan?”

 

3.      Prepare questions in advance.  This is very helpful in drawing out people and segues nicely into #3, democratic persuasion.  Preparation is not perceived as flippant response, but thoughtful respect.  As a result, it is easier to move people to your point of view, and if they don’t see things the same way, ego is not caught up in the outcome.

One last important component (that ties all the above together) is "values" and “values clarification.” "Values” and “values clarification,” in most cases, can be defined by such examples as one's consideration for others, knowing and respecting rules, openness to diversity, and agreeing to disagree.  For example, when working together in an employment environment, issues/conflicts are multiplied because there are more people with whom you interact.  This is not as same as living with your family insofar as taught/shared values.  It is a chosen situation that requires having to come to "consensus" on what are the shared values.  Keeping in mind the above is extremely helpful in ensuring successful and efficient negotiating and mediating.  

In addition, my approach to facilitation looks at both leadership and group dynamics.  In terms of leadership, any time a group engages in prolonged activities, especially if the project or program is difficult, one or more persons will eventually emerge as “informal” leaders.  On the other hand, leadership works best when the stakeholders believe they belong to the group and the group belongs to them.  This group solidarity develops out of mutual trust and respect.  As this trust develops, participants feel free to express opinions and feelings, and to disagree without fear of consequences.  It is also important for participants to know that they can influence the group.