challenge is to respond out of compassion when it is not your immediate re- sponse—and to do so in a way that does not shift member responsibility onto you, because of how you are feeling about yourself or about others.
Dealing with Collusion
One way to avoid colluding with the group is to discuss, as part of the con- tracting process, what you as facilitator can and cannot do, explaining your reasoning. You can give examples of requests that you cannot fulfill because they would lead to collusion.
When you receive a request that requires you to collude with the group, you can explain how fulfilling the request obligates you to act inconsistently with the role of facilitator, which in turn reduces your ability to help the group in the long run. You can then ask the individual if he sees the situation differently. In this way, you can work with the person making the request to find a way for him to raise the issue directly with relevant individuals. You might begin by say- ing, “I think it’s important that the group hear your concern, and I think it’s ap- propriate for you to raise it with them because it’s your concern. If I raise the issue in my role as facilitator, people might think I’m steering the conversation, which is inconsistent with my role. I can’t raise the issue for you. But as soon as you raise it, I’ll actively facilitate to help you and the other group members have as productive a conversation as possible. Do you see any of this differ- ently? If not, do you want to talk about how you can have that conversation with the group?”
power but who assists the involved parties in voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute.”
Although there are similarities between facilitation and mediation, there are also important differences. Both facilitation and mediation involve intervention by a neutral third party who is acceptable to the clients and who has no sub- stantive decision-making authority. Both seek to help people reach a decision acceptable to all who are involved. The facilitator and the mediator share many of the same skills and techniques, but they apply them in varying situations and sometimes to accomplish different objectives. In general, mediation is more similar to basic facilitation than to developmental facilitation.
I see several distinctions between facilitation and mediation. First, they have differing objectives. Parties seeking a mediator have a conflict they have been unable to settle, so traditionally the objective of mediation has been to help the parties negotiate a settlement to a particular conflict. Note, however, that at least one approach to mediation (by Bush and Folger, 1994) also focuses on transforming relationships among participants and the participants themselves.
The objective of facilitation is to help a group improve its process for solving problems and making decisions so that the group can achieve goals and in- crease overall effectiveness. Although dealing with conflict can be a significant part of facilitation, it is not necessarily the primary focus. In addition, develop- mental facilitation seeks to help the group develop its own ability to improve the process for solving problems by teaching facilitative skills to the group.
Second, because a mediator helps parties resolve their conflict, the parties typically seek a mediator after they reach an impasse—that is, once they be- lieve they can progress no further without third-party help. When a facilitator helps a group resolve conflict, she too is sometimes called in after the group has reached an impasse. But the facilitator often becomes involved earlier. For ex- ample, a group may seek basic facilitation because members understand that they do not have skills sufficient to manage the process of what is expected to be a difficult or complex discussion. A facilitator might also enter the process after the group has gone through a critical incident, such as a significant change in group membership or group mission.
Third, a facilitator works in the presence of the entire group, whereas a me- diator may work with the parties together as well as separately. The potential problem with a facilitator playing the role of mediator is illustrated by the dif- ferences in the roots of the two words. Mediatecomes from a Latin word mean- ing “to come between”—in our context, to come between group members.
Facilitatecomes from a Latin word meaning “to make easy”—in our context, to make it easy for the group to be effective. One of the facilitator’s goals is to help members improve their ability to work together effectively; serving as an intermediary usually limits achievement of this goal if members do not develop the skills for dealing directly with each other.
Temporarily Becoming a Mediator. There are three common situations in which I am asked to move from facilitator to mediator by coming between members of the group: (1) in the beginning of a facilitation, when subgroups have concerns either about working with me as a facilitator or about working with the other subgroups; (2) during a facilitation, when a member or members want information raised in the group or some action taken without it being attributed to them; and (3) in a conflict, when the facilitation breaks down and one or more subgroups are unwilling to continue.
Acting as a mediator in these situations, I face a common risk of acting in- consistently with the core values, similar to collusion. Members share infor- mation with me outside of the group conversation and want me to use it to intervene in the full group. But because the members do not want the full group to know the source of the information (or even that it was shared with me), the members ask me to share the information for them or else act on their infor- mation without explaining that I am doing so (much like what is seen in the earlier examples of collusion). If I explicitly or implicitly agree not to share the information that was shared with me, and this becomes the basis of my inter- vention, then I cannot explain why I am intervening, and so I am withholding relevant information from the group. In addition, if the person who shared the information with me is not willing to identify herself in the full group, neither the group nor I can determine whether the information is valid.
The risk is actually a dilemma. If I act on the information given me without testing its validity or explaining my intervention, I act inconsistently with the core values I am espousing and may make an intervention that is ineffective.
On the other hand, if I do not act on the information given me, the group and I miss an opportunity to get the group together initially or keep it from com- pletely breaking down.
Returning to the three common situations I described earlier, in each one if certain interests are met then I can temporarily serve as a mediator without re- ducing the integrity of my facilitator role. In each situation, I seek first to serve as a facilitative coach, helping one or more members of the group raise con- cerns or questions about the other members in the full group (as I illustrated in the section on avoiding collusion). This role is still consistent with the facilita- tor role, as long as I am helping the group members raise their own issues. In any event, I do not agree to raise the issue for the members. Doing so could lead to a situation in which, after I raise the issue for the members, the members claim that they did not raise the issue with me. It also increases the group’s dependence on me as the facilitator.
I may also meet with subgroups when I am beginning to work with a group, and one or more subgroups might have a concern about whether I am impar- tial and sensitive to their needs. Initially, I ask the subgroup what makes them reluctant to share this information in the full group, share my reasoning on the advantages of doing so, and ask what would need to happen for them to be will-
ing to do so. If they are not yet willing to share these concerns in the full group, I consider it reasonable to meet separately with them to hear their concerns. If the concerns are relevant for the other subgroups, I help the subgroup figure out how to share these concerns in the full group, if they are willing.
I may temporarily act as mediator if conflict between subgroups threatens a complete breakdown in communication. I facilitated a union-management cooperative effort in which the seven union members of the union-management committee simultaneously closed their notebooks and walked out in the middle of a meeting. The discussion had become tense, and union members were frus- trated by what they perceived to be management’s efforts to undermine the pro- cess. As the facilitator, I saw two choices. I could stay in the room, let the union leave, and see the process unravel, along with the progress the committee had made. Or I could temporarily assume the role of mediator and talk with the union members, trying to find a way to help union and management members to work together again. I chose the latter course and spent the next six hours mediating in meetings and phone calls. The next morning, the union and man- agement subgroups were back in the room, discussing why the process had broken down and exploring ways to prevent it from recurring.
When the facilitator meets with a subgroup, especially if the facilitator decides to mediate by conveying information between subgroups, the facil- itator needs to state clearly that she or he is serving in the mediator role and the facilitator and subgroups need a clear agreement about what informa- tion, if any, the facilitator will share with the other subgroups.Without this agreement, a subgroup can easily feel that the facilitator has not acted neutrally, violated confidentiality, or colluded with another subgroup.
The facilitator acting as mediator entails advantages and disadvantages. Me- diating can sometimes prevent a difficult conflict from escalating to the point where the group essentially breaks down and ceases to function. However, by agreeing to mediate, the facilitator may reduce the likelihood of the group de- veloping the skills to resolve conflict. Also, working with a subgroup may lead group members to question the facilitator’s neutrality. Therefore, before serving as mediator the facilitator should consider whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
The Facilitator as Evaluator
As a facilitator, you face a role conflict whenever someone in the organization asks you to evaluate the performance of one or more members in the group. For example, a manager who is outside the facilitated group may be concerned about the performance of one of the members. She may ask you to evaluate the member to help her decide whether to take any corrective action. Alternatively, she may be considering promoting one of several members of the group and ask you to evaluate the members to help her make the promotion decision.
You face a potential role conflict in this situation because evaluating group members can jeopardize the members’ trust in you. One reason members trust you is that the facilitator has no authority and adheres to the principle that the facilitator does not use information obtained within facilitation to influence decisions about group members that are made outside facilitation, except with the agreement of the group.Evaluating group members increases your power in the organization and therefore decreases the likelihood of members discussing openly information that they believe could prove harmful to them.
Still, it can be difficult to tell a manager that you cannot share information about subordinates, especially if you want to share positive information that can be used to help the subordinates’ careers.
One way a manager can obtain this information from you, the facilitator, in a manner consistent with core values is to have the group member about whom the evaluation is being sought agree that you can share your observations with the manager. In this case, you would provide specific examples that you observe about the group member’s behavior. You share these observations in the pres- ence of the group member—ideally, in the presence of the entire facilitated group—and ask the evaluated group member (and other group members) whether they would make a different evaluation. Making your information avail- able to all group members such that they can validate or disagree with it enables the members to make an informed choice about whether you have shared valid information with the manager. This can reduce member concerns about trust to the extent that they are based on concern about your sharing valid information.
If you share all relevant information with the group, the information that you share during the evaluation session has already been discussed with group members as part of your facilitator role.
The Facilitator as Content Expert
Earlier in this chapter, I discussed when it is appropriate to serve as a facilita- tive consultant more than as a facilitator. Even if you decide to serve as a fa- cilitator, the client may still ask you questions in an area in which you have expertise (marketing, performance management systems, finance, and so on).
The group is able to quickly obtain information when you serve as a content expert; doing so helps you feel good by showing the group you are knowledge- able about their work and that you can add value to their conversation. But of- fering this information also creates risks. One is that the group begins to see you as a nonneutral third party, which reduces your credibility and ultimately your effectiveness. A second risk is that the group becomes dependent on you.
Group members may grow sensitive to whether you approve of their decisions, which then affects the decisions they make.
The facilitator as content expert or information resource is an appropri- ate role if you and the group explicitly contract for it.In this situation, you
can take several steps to reduce the risk that imparting expert information will negatively affect your facilitator role. First, acting as a content expert only when asked by the group, and only when the group reaches consensus to do so, re- duces the prospect of meeting the needs of only some group members. Second, announcing to the group when you are temporarily leaving the role of facilita- tor and afterward that you are returning to the facilitator role reduces confusion about the role you are currently serving in. Finally, by avoiding serving as a content expert in the early stages of working with a group, you reduce the like- lihood of the group coming to depend on you in this role.
People who facilitate groups in their own organizations are often asked by group members to play an expert role. Chapter Fifteen discusses how an inter- nal facilitator can offer expert information and facilitate effectively.
When the Content Is About Group Process:
The Myth of Total Neutrality
It is a myth that you can always be neutral about the substance or content of a group’s discussions while being partial about what constitutes effective group process. Recall that “substantively neutral” means a facilitator conveys no pref- erence for any solution the group considers.
You are partial about what constitutes effective group process because that is your area of expertise. As a skilled facilitator, you know what kind of behav- ior is more or less likely to lead to effective problem solving and other impor- tant group outcomes—and you convey this knowledge through your actions as facilitator.
When I ask group members to follow certain ground rules (such as sharing all relevant information) or when I identify how members act inconsistently with the core values, I am also identifying my beliefs about what constitutes ef- fective group process. When I use the core values to guide my own behavior, my behavior is a reflection of my theory of effective interpersonal process. In fact, embedded in each of my interventions is some prescription for effective behavior. In other words, because as facilitator I am always striving to model ef- fective behavior, and because embedded in my behavior are beliefs about ef- fective group process, I am constantly conveying my beliefs through my actions.
Consequently, the facilitator cannot be neutral about the content of a group’s discussion when it involves how to manage group or interpersonal process effectively.In this case, your theory about what makes group process effective can be used to address the group’s discussion of how to manage pro- cess effectively. As the group process becomes the subject of discussion, your comments about process focus on the group content. Consequently, you be- come involved in the content of the discussion. Because many management is-
sues involve some aspect of interpersonal or group process, your theory of group effectiveness has implications for how groups handle many issues.
However, your role is not to impose upon the solution the principles that guide your intervention with the group. To do so is inconsistent with the facil- itator’s role. The chapters on intervention describe some ways to address this issue.
SUMMARY
Group facilitation is the process by which a person who is acceptable to all members of the group, is substantively neutral, and has no substantive deci- sion-making authority intervenes to help a group improve the way it identifies and solves problems and makes decisions, in order to increase the group’s ef- fectiveness. Basic facilitation seeks to help a group solve an important problem.
Developmental facilitation seeks to help members solve a problem while learn- ing to improve their group process. Both types of facilitation are based on core values of valid information, free and informed choice, internal commitment, and compassion. The facilitator’s role is designed to help a group act consis- tently with the core values. Although temporarily leaving the role of facilitator is appropriate at times, it may also jeopardize the facilitator’s (and the group’s) ability to act consistently with these values.
Anyone needing to use facilitative skills while being involved in the sub- stance of a conversation can do so by serving as a facilitative consultant, a fa- cilitative leader, or a facilitative trainer.
In the next chapter, we explore why it can be so difficult to act consistently with core values and to remain in your facilitator role, especially when you are faced with a difficult situation.