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.

Constitution Day and Citizenship Day: What Does It Mean To Be An Active Citizen?

 President Barack Obama issued a proclamation on September 17, 2013 commemorating the signing of the Constitution on that day in 1787.  In the proclamation, the President talked about how our constitution has inspired nations to demand control of their own destinies; how immigrants have embraced the spirit of liberty, equality, and justice for all and that the pursuit of this promise defines our history.  But most important, the President designated September 17th as "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day," and asked us, as Americans, to reflect on what it meant to be an "active" citizen.

I’m feeling very conflicted at this moment and it's so interesting feeling so conflicted.  Why would I feel so conflicted talking about what active citizenship means to me?  Well, I suppose that's because by way of recent events in our country and our long contradictory historical arc, active citizenship begs a sort of cynicism that would not be there if one truly believed that one could be an "active" citizen without dire consequences.

I've have always been an active citizen and have cherished that role.  That was how I was brought up.  But I've always paid a very dear price for being active. We can claim to be a society that welcomes debate and differences, but from my experience debate as long as it's muted and differences as long as there is no real objective acceptance of them.  That's where it seems disingenuous and cynical.

My parents were both civil rights activists, taught us to read and write at a very young age, taught us the ins and outs of being black children; but bottom line, instilled in fire in our young bellies and a penchant for truth, justice and equality. My resolve was to dedicate my life to truth, to making sure that people did understand what was going on in our country, and what was being done in our country's name.

I mentioned earlier recent events.  And recent events DO have an effect on how one looks at active citizen participation.  Trayvon Martin.  Edward Snowden.  Drones.  The Tea Party.  The 50^th anniversary of the March on Washington.  Attica. The assassination of Malcolm X, Martin L. King Jr., Bobby Kennedy.  Gun violence and the mass shooting of 20 young children in Sandy Hook. Hypocrisy on both the left and the right.  And here we are, many years later, and the old cliché: the more things change, the more they remain the same still seems to be the mantra of the day. To be active means to take a stand.  To comment on all that one sees, knowing that you may be maligned, lose your job, not be protected as a whistleblower, and maybe even killed.  That is the price one pays for being truly active.  And guess what?  Most don’t want to take that path and most don’t even know that they have made that choice, partly because they have been socialized in our opulent society that material goods, excess and pretending that there is not an elephant in the room is an easier path or life to live.  And our society simultaneously asks for active participation and rewards one for not being active at the same time. 

It takes a lot of courage to not get discouraged, to know, as many fine intellectuals have said, that what you believe in, what you are dedicating your life to, what you are working for passionately, you will never see in your lifetime.  But that should not be a reason to stop. It should be the reason why you are motivated to keep being an “active” citizen, seeking real truths that lie out there in the foggy landscape known as America.

You see, the real argument here is that a clever distraction occurs when one is an active citizen because it allows those who have no desire to challenge the status quo to cover up what the real arguments are.  That is because all the real arguments, all the other problems one exposes by being active are all tainted and painted with the same brush.  And when that happens, the next "distraction" is not far behind.  The real distractions are the ones that are below the surface, the racism, sexism, ageism, poverty, environmental degradation and class warfare. Until subtext issues (distractions) are addressed, we will flail about, lost, trying to find our way, and continually use these same distractions to walk backwards into the future.

Is this the price we pay or want to pay for being active? Is that what we want as a country?  I'm sure there are people that would be just fine with that.  I'm not one of them.  And I will continue to celebrate my “activism,” speaking the truth and telling it like it is.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder: The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America's gun violence epidemic.

Trayvon Martin case: Will it be 'forgotten,' as Colin Powell says? - Yahoo! News

I just wanted to comment on a few things, specifically two thoughts/sentences in this article.  The first was: "Racism is no longer as obvious as water cannons and seats at the back of the bus. Many times, it is still there, only subtler. Many times, it is perceived where none exists."  And my question is obvious for whom?  A good job was done qualifying that sentence by pointing out how subtle racism is and how many times it doesn't exist.  But even that takes on a measure of sophistication that, from the work I do with my consultant business (and extensive writing over the years) Isms & Issues, I feel does not exist.

The second sentence was a little more disturbing.  That sentence was: "While Americans might honestly differ on whether they believe race played a factor, race was not allowed to become a vehicle for further hate and lawlessness."  One of the most interesting dynamics and sad ironies in this country is the assumption that bringing race into a conversation will somehow relegate the conversation, analysis or conclusion to a miserable point of no return; that it would serve no "useful" purpose but to put a bigger wedge between people and keep them from talking honestly with each other or working out differences.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  In my work, the dialectic is set by "talking" about it, but at the same time, making sure that you create a safe and comfortable environment to discuss these issues.  Yes, that is not always easy, but it's not always attempted either.  And most important, one of the ways that racism perpetuates itself is by not bringing race into the conversation.  Why?  Well, if you remove race from the conversation, in most situations it's whites (who are the "dominant" power in our society) who determine that race will not be a "factor." What do you have left?  You have "white" cultural values, which in and of themselves have a racial bias.  That is what is so subtle and clever in this dynamic/merry-go-round.  By removing race from the conversation, you are really saying that values other than white cultural values have less worth in terms of how one sees the world.  And that perpetuates the very dynamic people say they want to change.  What is wrong with elevating black cultural values to the same playing field?  Are they less legitimate than white cultural values IF we claim to be an egalitarian society?

Trayvon Martin case: Will it be 'forgotten,' as Colin Powell says? - Yahoo! News

The politics of being friends with white people

Interesting article. We live in a society that sees a win-win situation as an anomaly when it comes to race relations (in terms of understanding all the subtle dynamics and structural impediments to better race relations), and accepts a lose-lose situation as being par for the course because trying to overcome 350 years of racism's effects is just too difficult a task to partake


The politics of being friends with white people

Chris Hedges: Murdering the Wretched of the Earth - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Great article by Chris Hedges! Lays out simple but cogent reasons why the Middle East is just going to totally melt down as a result of this latest massacre in Egypt.


Chris Hedges: Murdering the Wretched of the Earth - Chris Hedges' Columns - Truthdig

Reuters Poll Finds Most Americans Don’t Have Friends of Another Race

Reuters Poll Finds Most Americans Don’t Have Friends of Another Race