There are many definitions of facilitation, and for me, Larkins (2014) is very simplistic:
Group facilitation is an important management skill that can really help a team achieve their goals in the most effective and constructive manner. The role of the facilitator is to help the group make progress and find their own solution in the easiest and most effective way.

I will be looking at two cases of group facilitation undertaken during our recent module. In the first case (Case A), as a group we were tasked to agree upon a plan for a fictional charity in order to ‘generate more income’. In the second case (Case B), the group were tasked to come up with a solution to a specific issue concerning a member (issuer) of the group. In both cases, my role was that of being a set member.
There are many facets to the role of being a facilitator and the International Association of Facilitators (IAF, 2003) has six core competencies, namely:
Create Collaborative Client Relationships
Plan Appropriate Group Processes
Create and Sustain a Participatory Environment
Guide Group to Appropriate and Useful Outcomes
Build and Maintain Professional Knowledge
Model Positive Professional Attitude

The plethora of literature on facilitation looks at how important the following are: building relationships between the facilitator and the group, appropriate planning, ensuring the right environment, specific outcomes and goals, maintaining professional knowledge as well as being in tune with your self-awareness. They are like building blocks, without one the whole process is at risk of falling down. As a result, this assignment will focus on some of these aspects and how it can influence the facilitation process.

Schuman (2010) discusses how the effectiveness of some groups can be limited either by a failure to rally behind a common purpose, or by a lack of clarity on how to work towards the purpose that has been set. As a result, such groups will go forward with uncertainty and in-effectiveness, which will result in dissatisfied and frustrated group members. When considering the group structure from the perspective of goals, objectives and tasks, they need to be clearly defined to enhance the group effectiveness. If the facilitator does not help the group to establish a clear purpose then everyone is obliged to assume the purpose, with the consequences of the assumptions most likely to be different. Mild differences about the purpose of a group can and will lead to misunderstandings. In the first Case (A) of group facilitation undertaken, due to a lack of clarity on knowing exactly what our role was led to frustration within the group and a loss of time in deciding exactly what was required. There was a difference of opinion whereby some group members view was, and correctly as it turned out to be, for the group to devise a plan for the members of the charity to have a list on how to ‘generate more income’. The opinion of the other group members and in fact the facilitator, was that we were to all take on specific roles of members of the charity and come up with ideas on how to raise more money for the charity. With this initial indecision, the whole process of effective group facilitation was at risk. Looking at various models involved in group facilitation e.g. Heron, Hunter, Hogan, Schwarz and Kiser, they all share a common theme which is clarifying the objectives; in fact with Hunters model there is very much a strong emphasis on getting the group to clarify their purpose. Tuckman’s model of small group development devised in 1965 has four stages of forming, storming, norming and performing, with an emphasis of ensuring the group become orientated to the task (Bonebright, 2010). Although his original model was revised in 1977, Tuckmans original model has been applied in studies of a wide variety of work settings from project groups to leadership teams as well as within the healthcare setting. McMorris et al (2005) have stated that ‘one of the strengths of the Tuckman model is its ease of use at the practitioner level’ in particular its commonsense approach and practical perspective.

The second Case (B) of group facilitation did very much follow the required theme of ensuring all group members were aware of their role and outcomes. Consequently we were able to get down to the task much quicker and were therefore able to devise solutions for the problem we had been discussing. It was also evident that to myself, a model of facilitation was being utilised and in my opinion that it was Kisers. For myself, we very much had the 5 stages of Kiser i.e. initial contact, clarification of the objectives, the intervention had been designed, very good facilitation and finally an evaluation of the results. Was there any particular model being utilised within the first Case (A), it was very difficult to actually say as due to the initial issue over what the objectives were and the time factor, once it was finally decided what was required the actual process of working through the objectives was rushed. Looking at the various models, one could argue that Kiser was in use or even Hunter which has at its core a strong emphasis on the group clarifying its purpose (that was certainly present but not necessarily for the right reason). In its own words ‘where are we?’, ‘where do we go from here?’, ‘why are we here?’ and ‘what results are we here to achieve?’ Interestingly, the first Case (A) had an observer whose role was to note down how the facilitation went and the roles each individual member undertook during the process. During the feedback it was evident that the confusion over what exactly was required of us resulted in smaller groups discussing their own views to the detriment of the larger group as a whole. Also noted were frustrations by some members of the group as well as stronger characters coming to the fore. This feedback demonstrated the need for the group to be a cohesive unit in order to move forwards and as stated within Tuckmans second stage of ‘storming’, due to intergroup conflict and a lack of unity, frustration towards the facilitator was becoming evident through agitated body language and raised voices. Had we not sought clarification from the module leader, would we have remained in this phase? In their analysis of Tuckmans model, Rickards and Moger (2000) argue that the model has limitations in that, amongst others, what would happen if the group never gets past the storming phase – something we were very much at risk of considering the time parameters available at that time.

In her research paper on ‘a model of effective group facilitation’, Wardale (2013) discovered the significance of preparation as well as how some groups felt a pre-existing relationship between the facilitator and the organisation was important. Likewise some groups, in particular within the public sector, expected facilitation to be effective as they expected the facilitators to be self-assured enough to challenge them or other senior managers in the planning stages and not to be intimidated by organisational hierarchies. Though this aspect was not relevant in either cases, for me the ‘relationship’ aspect was important and being totally honest, Case (A) identified how a ‘new member’ of the group had to work harder to build up a relationship whilst acting as the facilitator whereas in Case (B), the relationship was already established with a more ‘seasoned’ member of the group.

Constructive alignment is a term first coined by Biggs and Tang (2007) to describe the process of systematically aligning learning activities with desired outcomes in a higher education context. This structural problem has direct relevance to group facilitation contexts too, and it is not uncommon to see groups busy with tasks or activities that do not effectively contribute to the successful achievement of desired outcomes. Key tasks for a group facilitator include helping the group define its purpose, and then selecting (or helping the group to select) the best strategies to achieve that purpose. This process of strategy selection implies that there are some underlying principles or theories that can guide the group facilitator. There are those that state the theoretical underpinnings are not relevant to the effective practise of group facilitation (Bens, 2005). Whatever the view, it was obvious with both cases that the underpinning theory IS important as highlighted. Case (B) demonstrated the importance of having sound underpinning theory relating to group facilitation in that it was structured, flowed well and the outcomes were met effectively and efficiently. Case (A) demonstrated very well how not having structure to the facilitation process led to frustration and disagreement. Though the main issue was a lack of clarity over what was required, this had a ripple effect in that the session was rushed and highlights the link between theory and practice.

The position of facilitator should be used in a positive manner to assist the group in achieving its purpose or the position can be used for the purpose of the organisation through hidden agendas. If a facilitator abuses their position in this way then this cannot be considered true facilitation. Furthermore, a facilitator can create problems within the group due to mismanaging the relationships between group members through making assumptions, failure to acknowledge diversity, using stereotypical language or using activities that do not fully engage all participants (Schuman, 2010). Thankfully this was not evident within the two cases stated and due to a very good facilitator in the second Case (B); any thought of stereotypical and sexist language was avoided. It was extremely important that the facilitator had the respect and confidence of the person with the issue being discussed as it involved sexist language within a uniformed service which crossed various ranks. Though a facilitator’s mismanagement is not always intentional, it does not justify the behaviour and if the facilitator is unaware of their behaviour, the effects can contribute negatively to the group’s effectiveness. Case (A) demonstrated this in that the facilitator, being unsure of what was required caused frustration and disagreement albeit unintentionally.

Leading a group can be demanding whereby amongst other things, the facilitator not just has to monitor the behaviour and contributions of participants but listen deeply and intervene in order to keep the group focused on achieving its purpose. In his book, Schuman (2010) describes how a facilitator’s ability to function effectively is partly determined by his or her ability to remain attentive, open, and awake to the group while attending to the sayings and advice from what Jenkins and Jenkins (2006) describe as their interior council. They encouraged facilitators to be aware of the “voices in their heads” offering guidance and then wisely select which ones to pay attention to and which ones to ignore. Furthermore, Hunter (2007) in Schuman (2010) talks about how a facilitator that is unable to do this in real time while working with a group, will find it very difficult to maintain high levels of free attention and therefore avoid becoming defensive when they encounter resistance or hostility. Within the first Case (A), although as a group we had been working together and known each other for several months, there was no hostility but resistance and exasperation was present due to a lack of clarity on exactly what the group’s objectives were. Was this due to the facilitator being a new member of the group or was this a case of what Hunter (2007) calls a lack of self facilitation. She talks about the task of learning to facilitate oneself as the most important work facilitators must do. A ‘life journey’ which can be scary and exciting that may well surprise, delight, inspire you as well as disturb and even horrify you. In essence, she argues that facilitators must learn to cope with the doubts and fears as well as accepting their shortcomings and imperfections. There were no such shortcomings with the facilitator in the second Case (B) and consequently the facilitation went well. Was this because the facilitator in the second Case (B) had more self-awareness or was it a case that having been involved in the first Case (A), lessons were learnt from their exposure to that case along with a range of further ideas and theories having been taught in the time between the two different cases taking place.
Schwarz (2002) recommends that facilitators develop an awareness of their inner-self by slowly increasing the range and length of difficult facilitation situations. With appropriate reflection and guidance the facilitator can listen to the positive ‘voices’ in their head and therefore choose the more creative ones which give you courage. As Jenkins and Jenkins (2006) say ‘the ones you pay attention to are not necessarily those who you agree with, but those who increase your ability to serve, and offer you the wisdom, skills and capacity to inspire’. The advantages of this are that should a facilitator encounter a difficult group or individual/s, this will allow the facilitator to remain open to the group and find a way forward.

One of the main issues surrounding facilitation is when it is done in house and there is a risk of a conflict of interest between the facilitator and the learner or even where the facilitator ignores the issue altogether. Heron (2001) views the alignment of interests so strong that he regards acting against the client’s interests as an outright perversion. He writes: ‘The difference between a manipulative intervention and a perverted intervention is that the former for self-interested reasons simply disregards the real interests of the client, whereas the latter intentionally seeks the detriment of the real interests of the client’. Neither of these was present in either cases I worked on but they do serve as a reminder to the role of facilitator in that objectivity and the interest of the group is of paramount importance. As Hughes (2006) states ‘how can a supervisor taking on the role of facilitator, undertake to act in the real interest of a staff member? Merely making his or her contradictory position explicit will not suffice because the issue is true representation and not just disclosure’.

Bressen (2005-2007) states, the role of the facilitator is one of servant-leadership whereby it is the ‘power with’ as opposed to ‘power over’. As a facilitator you should not be contributing ideas, opinions or answers to questions. You can however intervene to bring the group or individuals back to the topic in hand as well as summarising what has been said. She further goes on to discuss the various options available to work through the process with brainstorming being utilised in the first Case (A), the responses being written down on a flip chart. Though this is a well used technique, it does have its pitfalls namely without good leadership, the group may take a long time to reach consensus. Also less creative individuals may feel less inclined to add their views along with group think i.e. group tend towards an idea because it seems popular, thereby stifling creativity. Furthermore, without any true control on who can speak, there is the risk that an individual may not be heard and so give up in frustration, something which was evident as witnessed by the observer. Unfortunately, due to the initial issue with deciding the purpose of the group, there was little time to brainstorm so our outcome was decided more on a lack of time rather than appropriate views. The second Case (B) used the ‘go-round’ technique whereby each group member was given time to ask questions to the issuer. Further to this, each member was tasked to ask the issuer three questions each. Though this technique gave each member equal status, the issuer did state that they felt at times they were talking to peoples’ heads as we were all busy writing down the various responses in order to achieve an outcome. One of the positive aspects of the second Case (B) was how the facilitator connected with the issuer in that she was actively engaged in helping to solve the problem rather than just state the problem.

As part of the process of dealing with an issue or concern, the task of action learning is utilised and was very much evident during Case (B) whereby an individual raised a concern and with the aid of a facilitator, the group set about exploring the issue and working towards strategies for dealing with the issue. There are many definitions of action learning with Revans often considered the ‘father’ of action learning (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999). Revans definition is ‘a means of development, intellectual, emotional or physical that requires its subjects, through responsible involvement in some real, complex and stressful problem, to achieve intended change to improve their observable behaviour henceforth in the problem field’. Many proponents of action learning see Kolb’s experiential learning cycle as its theoretical base though Revans disagrees with this view. As well as the experiential school, there are the scientific school (based on Revans theory) and the critical reflection school (further development of the experiential school) as well as many others. In Case (B), the scientific school was evident in that practitioners of this school talk about what they believe and value along with attitudes and feelings from ones family, school and society (Marsick & O’Neil, 1999). Not only are individuals assumptions examined but also those of the greater organisation which can lead to fundamental change not just within the individual but also the organisation.

Schuman (2010) talks about many examples within the literature pertaining to group facilitation giving support to the idea that leading groups is just not about what the facilitator is doing but as much as who the facilitator is being. He goes on to cite Hogan (2002) who talks about the importance of relationships and the need for facilitators to be fully present and authentic with the group. Furthermore, citing Ghais (2005) who explains that having exceptional skills and techniques becomes irrelevant if they lack personal awareness. This is backed up by Ringer (2002) who explains that, like Ghais the important aspect to effective facilitation is about maintaining yourself rather than ‘dazzling with knowledge or skill’. This awareness of self-importance as a facilitator is important if you are to avoid contributing to group problems. Schwarz (2002) uses the concept of theory in action to explore what guides a facilitator’s intervention. Accordingly, the theory describes how facilitators say how they would act in a given situation. In contrast, theory in use is what actually guides a facilitator and can influence how a facilitator interacts with a group which normally is outside his or her level of awareness. This very much comes into action when a facilitator finds themselves in an embarrassing or awkward situation. Argyris and Schon’s (1996) view is that espoused theory is a formal strategy, supported by formal policies (decisions) aligned with it (or at least underlying the theory as to why the strategy should work) whereas theory in use is the difference between policy and practice; the walk compared to the espoused "talk". Unfortunately in Case (A) there appeared to be a misalignment between the espoused theory and the theory in use though one cannot for certain say this as at the time, the espoused theory was not made public. In Case (B), as the process worked effectively one has to assume the facilitator followed their espoused theory, unless they were very good at working ‘on the hoof’ so to speak.

As Schwarz (2002) has commented, ‘Facilitation is challenging work that calls forth a range of emotions’. It also involves certain values and ways of treating people. Each of us has our own style and approach – and it is that uniqueness, that realness, that makes our contribution possible.

Word Count: 2298

References

Argyris, C; Schon, D A; (1996) Organisational learning II: Theory, method and practice Reading: Addison-Wesley

Bens, I; (2005) Advanced facilitation strategies: Tools and techniques to master difficult situations San Francisco: Jossey-Boss

Biggs, J; Tang, C; (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does 3rd Ed Maidenhead: Open University Press

Bonebright, D A; (2010) 40 years of storming: a historical review of |Tuckman’s model of small group development Human Resource Development International Vol 13 No 1 Pgs 111-120

Bressen, Tree; (2005-2007)Group Facilitation Primer [on-line] Available at: < URL http://www.treegroup.info > [Accessed 1st December 2014]

Ghais, S; (2005) Extreme facilitation: Guiding groups through controversy and complexity San Francisco: Jossey-Boss

Heron, J; (2001) Helping the client: A creative practical guide 5th Ed London: Sage

Hughes, C; (2006) Facilitation in Context: challenging some basic principles Studies in Continuing Education 21:1 Pgs 21-43

Hunter, D; (2007) The art of facilitation: The essentials for leading great meetings and creating group synergy Auckland: Random House

Hogan, C F; (2002) Understanding facilitation: Theories and principles London: Kogan Page

IAF; (2003) Core Facilitator Competencies [on-line] Available at: < URL http://www.iaf-world.org > [Accessed 20th December 2014

Jenkins, J C; Jenkins, M R; (2006) The 9 disciplines of a facilitator: Leading groups by transforming yourself San Francisco: Jossey-Boss

Larkins, Kim; (2014) Tips for facilitating groups [on-line] Available at: [Accessed 20th December 2014]

Marsick, V J; O’Neil, J; (1999) The Many Faces of Action Learning Management Learning 30; 159

McMorris, L E; Gottlieb, N H; Sneden, G G; (2005) Development stages in public health partnerships: A practical perspective Health Promotion Prtactice Vol 6 No 2 Pgs 219-226

Rickards, T; Moger, S; (2000) Creative leadership processes in project team development: An alternative to Tuckman’s stage model British Journal of Management Vol 11 No 4 Pgs 273-283

Ringer, M; (2002) Group action: The dynamics of groups in therapeutic, educational and corporate settings London: Jessica Kingsley

Schuman, S; (2010) Working with difficult groups San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Schwarz, R; (2002) The skilled facilitator: A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers and coaches San Francisco: Jossey-Boss

Wardale, D; (2013) Towards a model of effective group facilitation Leadership & Organisation Development Journal Vol 34 No 2 Pgs 112-129