Power of the facilitator

June 30, 2017

I’m picking up on my earlier posts on experts and professionalism by addressing the more controversial issue of workshops in modern practice. Now before anyone gets paranoid or over reacts I’m not arguing against workshops per se. after all I use them and have developed a range of methods that depend on workshop type interaction. However I am concerned about an over focus on what should be one technique in a wider process. I am also fundamentally opposed to workshop techniques that directly or indirectly take a therapeutic approach, or use methods derived from therapy. Such always seem to privilege the therapist and either infantilism of culturally filter participants. Hence my use of the psychotherapists couch as the illustration for this post. I’m not alone in thinking this. Participative Action Research (PAR) has been criticised by anthropologists (I have a reference but can’t immediately recall it) as privileging those who match the cultural perspective of the facilitators. I’ve long criticised many Appreciative Inquiry practitioners for determining what stories people are allowed to tell. By the way that criticism does not include the original stuff from Cooperrider but the industrialisation into a always look on the bright side of life that is the more frequent receipt based instantiation of his original ideas.

To give you and idea of my paranoia here, when I was originally developing methods while working in IBM I worked in Denmark so we could facilitate in English but people would speak in Danish with no possibility of the facilitator understanding the content. Our role was to enable a process, not engage with content. From my perspective the facilitator is always in a power relationship with the participants and no matter how much people protest that they don’t do this the more I am convinced of the issue. Creating methods based on perfection don’t work, building processes that don’t require perfection scale. So just as in SenseMaker® we allow the contributor the power to interpret their own narrative, so in facilitation we do our level best to de-privilege the facilitator by removing them from any and all engagement with content.

My other concern is that with workshop based approaches to change there is too much dependency on the event. In our work on citizen engagement we are looking at the ability of a community to stage multiple, contextual micro-events that generate small nudge like changes in the present rather than the idealistic future orientated plans that tend to emerge from workshops. I’ve seen far too many people judge the success of a change programme by how people feel at the end of an emotionally charged workshop, than what they actually do weeks or months later.

More on this in future posts but the simple less is this. If the method allows the facilitator or team to in anyway influence or be a part of content analysis or creation then I think you have a problem – both in authenticity of analysis and in power and effectiveness of the resulting interventions,

3 responses to “Power of the facilitator”

  1. eccemarco says:

    Dave, extremely useful insights as always. I have been thinking for a while (and working with) faciltated processes myself; over the last years as part of a large community whose body of work and theory I value immensely.
    Now, wrt Appreciative Inquiry, I do see your legitimate criticism, **insofar as the process forces people to tell one story and does not allow them to tell other stories**. It is not a structure that liberates a community’s need to speak its many stories, when done that way.
    I will make a link to a leadership theory by Bill Torbert which I found of good heuristic value: that there is a pendulum swinging from advocacy to inquiry; simplifying, in advocacy, we lead, push, set a vision -in your language is the vector that gives the direction of the nudge; in inquiry, we open up, listen, get the story to understand the predisposition of the current system’s state. Facilitated processes at times balance very well and are well aware of both polarities to be managed; other times though, they conceal advocacy into an apparent inquiry (e.g. why should we focus on the bright side if all we really want to do is to understand the current state of the system?) At least this helps me make sense of your critique of AI, not as a theory per se (I find it a valid one), but in its applications if/when is not the needed intervention. I think your approaches can give justice to the granularity of the stories and make progress towards an inquiry less biased by pre-conceptions and expectations of what a facilitator wishes (often unconsciously) to find. Meaning: let the inquiry be inquiry; let advocacy be advocacy. Even when the two are present in the same process, it is still logically healthy to see which is which, else we end up giving advice to someone who asked to simply be listened to.

  2. It’s always hard to gauge where value is primarily created in a multi-stakeholder events. Is it the output of the meeting itself, or learnings in the minds of the participants or is it of most benefit to the sponsor who has learnt better how different stakeholders think. In each case it probably varies.

    Certainly it’s worth the facilitator having a clear idea of the primary objective – usually it’s the objective of whoever is paying for the coffee! I agree the facilitator needs to be motivationally transparent.

  3. Vincent Driscoll says:

    Thanks Dave for a very timely article. I too have been sweating these questions as an in-house trainer and facilitator in the public sector spending a lot of my time doing workshops with teams grappling with change and the stresses of a high pressure environment. Often teams come to workshops as someone to an oasis in a desert, only too ready to swallow the snake oil. It’s the responsibility of a facilitator to be honest about what they can know and therefore how much they can or should steer and control outcomes; particularly when my client managers have come to me for The Solution. I try instead to work with the stories the teams bring to workshops helping them to unblock and develop competencies – around dialogue skills mainly – and resilience they require, whilst taking great care not to push my pet models and theories. Being in-house, I have the advantage of being able to touch base regularly with stakeholders. The workshop therefore tends to be the start of a process, almost like a project planning session.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

About the Cynefin Company

The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge) was founded in 2005 by Dave Snowden. We believe in praxis and focus on building methods, tools and capability that apply the wisdom from Complex Adaptive Systems theory and other scientific disciplines in social systems. We are the world leader in developing management approaches (in society, government and industry) that empower organisations to absorb uncertainty, detect weak signals to enable sense-making in complex systems, act on the rich data, create resilience and, ultimately, thrive in a complex world.

Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.


Social Links: The Cynefin Company
Social Links: The Cynefin Centre
< Prev

Here we go again, or why I resigned from Ethos


Way back in my DataSciences days before the IBM takeover I worked on a new ...

More posts

Next >

Resonance in meaning

- 1 Comment

Many moons ago in the early days of knowledge management I argued that the ubiquitous ...

More posts

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram