Article Menu

Tuesday, 03 January 2012 11:46

The Great Facilitator

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Part Business Analyst. Part Orchestra Conductor. Part Psychologist. 

Think about what it takes to lead 100 musicians to make beautiful music together.  Or how much sensitivity it takes to understand why people behave the way they do.  While the qualities that separate a great conductor or therapist from a mediocre one may be subtle, the outcomes are obvious. The same holds true for facilitators.

Do you think of yourself as an effective facilitator but unsure how others perceive you?

Maybe you’ve been at a meeting recently where the facilitator is doing a fantastic job but you just can’t figure out exactly she is doing differently.

The differences are subtle.  This series is about those subtleties that separate the great facilitators from the mediocre ones. 

Part 1:  Scribe vs. Presenter:

Whether we like it or now, somewhere along the line we all play the role of a facilitator. How do we make sure we don’t make one of the most common and damaging facilitator blunders: Pushing our own agenda.

In the IT world, we all play the role of a facilitator.  Technical architects facilitate sessions for estimating and creating designs for their teams.  Project managers facilitate team and client meetings and make sure the team is on track to reach its goals. When Business Analysts collect requirements, they may facilitate large requirement meetings.  With so many kinds of facilitation roles, can we assume we know what being a facilitator really means? Do we, as facilitators, recognize that this is a significant role we need to work at in order to be effective?  And, most importantly, how do we make sure we stay “within” our role as a neutral facilitator and not push our own agenda?

So you think to yourself, “Yes, this is obvious. Of course I am an effective facilitator.” But let’s test ourselves to find out how effective we really are. 

The Two Extremes of Ineffective Facilitation

When I’ve been a less-than-effective facilitator, I’m usually acting in one of two extremes. I either go into “Presenter” mode or into “Scribe” mode.  Let me demonstrate these two extremes.

First, the “Presenter”.  Although their role is to facilitate a discussion (e.g. illicit requirements from business users or help a team arrive at estimates), “Presenters” actually come to the meeting with an opinion, specifically, a desired outcome. They are there to help others meet his or her agenda, rather than facilitate the room to develop its own opinions.  When a facilitator starts presenting, he or she does not allow others in the room  to collaborate towards finding their own solutions.  This shuts down the energy in the room. This also means the participants may not “own” the solution.

At the other extreme, a facilitator goes into “scribe” mode. When a facilitator is in scribe mode, it means that when he or she walks into the meeting, they sit and take notes or  meeting-minutes but do not influence the dialogue.  This approach makes it easier for  others in the meeting to go off-topic and start discussing points not related to the objective of the meeting. Also, if someone is “checked-out” or “shut down”, there is no true facilitator in the room to make sure their voice is heard.

What Makes a Great Facilitator?

While most facilitators bring their own approaches to a session, the best facilitators allow  the solution to be defined and owned by the individuals they are facilitating. She has the tact and skill to:

  • Help the team clarify and align on their objective. Then, facilitate by making progress towards the objective.
  • Help keep the group’s energy high so everyone contributes, is engaged and feels heard.
  • Keep momentum or rhythm flowing towards the objective. (Although they can help the team change direction if the team believes it is required.)   Staying on track can be tricky since the facilitator needs to balance discussion on side topics that are helpful to the objective vs. topics that derail the goal. 

What About You .. Presenter? Scribe? Not sure?

Even if we believe we are doing an effective job at facilitating, we may actually be playing a Presenter or even Scribe.  Here are some ways we can test our effectiveness:

  • Are you directing conversations with your own agenda? Or, are you enabling the team to have its own conversations?
  • Are you making sure the team stays on topic and on track to meet its objectives?
  • Are you making sure everyone in the room is being heard? Is anyone’s  idea’s being  shut down? (This can affect the energy of the room.)
  • Did you leave your opinion at the door? A good facilitator helps get to a solution, not give a solution.
  • If you had not attended the meeting, would the team have accomplished the same result? (Maybe you are not being as affective as you think you are.)

When It Comes Together…

Simon Sinek recently shared the following quote:  “Don’t show up to prove; Show up to improve”.

When great facilitators lead meetings, they enable a dialogue that allows the room to make a decision. They do not abuse their role to force an outcome. Instead, they help everyone do a better job and accomplish fulfilling work. The room fills with energy and momentum that can’t avoid delivering results. When meetings feel this energy, you know you are leading the room as a great facilitator.

Be sure to watch for the rest of the series in upcoming articles:

Part 2 – Check in and the Chair:  Why can some facilitators effortlessly lead their team to achieve brilliant clarity and enthusiastic alignment? This article includes some basic practices great facilitators use to manage a room and deliver impressive results.

Part 3 - Commitment Based Estimation: In order for an estimate to have teeth, the team must feel ownership of the process and genuinely believe the estimates are achievable. This article includes exercises to facilitate estimates that are realistic and manageable. 

Part 4 - What Great Facilitators Know about Estimating: While estimation sessions can be tricky to facilitate, a great facilitator can make their teams super confident about their estimates. This article includes some ideas on overcoming the subtle challenges that can undermine the estimation process.

Don’t forget to leave your comments below.

Bob Zimmerman is the Vice President & CTO at Geneca. His career in custom software development spans more than two decades and has been largely dedicated to the process of leveraging technology to drive innovation and growth.

As Geneca’s CTO, Bob Zimmerman is the driving force behind Getting PredictableS.M., the requirements definition best practices that are the foundation of Geneca’s mission to make software development predictable.

Read 3777 times Last modified on Monday, 02 April 2012 16:05
Published in Articles
Bob Zimmerman

Bob Zimmerman’s career in custom software development spans more than two decades and has been largely dedicated to the process of leveraging technology to drive innovation and growth. As Geneca’s CTO, Bob Zimmerman continues to build on his work as the driving force behind Getting PredictableS.M., the requirements definition and project best practices that are the foundation of Geneca’s mission to make software development predictable. He continues to extend these best practices to leverage more value for clients and new growth opportunities for Geneca.

Latest from Bob Zimmerman

More in this category: « Open-Ended Questions A Cornered CIO’s Strategy: Protracted Border Wars With The Business »

Comments  

 
0 # Chris 2012-01-03 05:45
Bob, I think you need to select one of the "facilitator" role definitions in your lead-in and base your article accordingly. Your somewhat mixed definition might be too broad for a definitive dialogue without inconsistency. From the article: "And, most importantly, how do we make sure we stay 'within' our role as a **neutral** facilitator and not push our own agenda?" (emphasis mine). I can't see how this lines up with including technical architects and project managers as facilitators. By their very nature, these roles have a desired outcome because they are direct participants in the process of execution and have their own constraints. The PM is looking in various ways to mitigate the risk, contain the cost, and deliver to quality, and the technical architect is looking for a sound design that they are comfortable will meet specification criteria. The success criteria for those roles may sometimes actually conflict with the enterprise's larger agenda (which is why the objective of the initiative is as important as the objective of the facilitated session and should also be clear to everyone involved). The article's theory is sound for truly neutral facilitators who have the sole responsibility to facilitate to the meeting's objective. But neutrality and "leaving opinions at the door" becomes a serious challenge when a direct project stakeholder is given the role of facilitator.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Mark Monteleone 2012-01-03 10:17
Bob, thank you for your article on faciltation and am in full agreement. I would like to highlight the "neutral" character of the facilitator. T he person who assumes the role of the facilitator needs to do a risk assessment of holding the facilitation session. If there is a high risk of the facilitator being viewed as biased or the person feels they can not remain "neutral" on the topic at hand, someone else needs to take on the facilitator role. I know of two negative cases where this risk was not considered. In both cases, the client advised development management that the solution would not be supported. When asked why, the client stated it was because it was the "facilitator's system" - not the client's system. In one case, auditing became involved and established a policy separating project roles from the facilitator's role. Client buy-in and system champions are achieved at requirements meetings. A neutral facilitator ensures this happens.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Bennett Mendes 2012-01-06 10:45
Bob, could you hire me as a proof-reader ? 1. " First, the “Presenter”. Although their role is to facilitate a discussion (e.g.* illicit* requirements from business users or help a team arrive at estimates),.... " I think you meant ' elicit requirements ' - no business users would want to engage in illegal requirements... .I think 2. " If you had not attended the meeting, would the team have accomplished the same result? (Maybe you are not being as *affective* as you think you are.)...." Met hinks you meant ' effective ' ....unless you espouse hugging and kissing :-)
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Bob Zimmerman 2012-01-10 23:51
@Bennett, Thanks for catching those. I probably could use additional proof readers :) Even with an internal editor some of this got through. I'll commit to do a better review with my team on future articles. Thanks for sharing in a safe way! @Mark, thanks for your feedback. I think you understood my goal in the article and I can see you have seen the pain :) I'll add one other note below... @Chri s, I understand your point. We each may have a role where we can't be neutral in a meeting. For example, if I am an architect, I have a responsibility to drive to a design and architecture... so it may be difficult to be pure neutral - however, when you come to the meeting, if you already have the outcome/answer in mind, then folks may feel shut down and they won't participate. Even as someone with a position, you can make sure that you own (and influence the approach), without driving to a predetermined outcome. This will make it safe for others to participate and share their input. Let me know if you agree or if you see this as an obstacle. Bob
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Chris 2012-01-17 01:10
"Even as someone with a position, you can make sure that you own (and influence the approach), without driving to a predetermined outcome." ----- --- There is one exception and one special consideration for this. The exception perhaps more frequently occurs when the workshop or venue is associated with dealing with a problem or making a decision with very negative implications, and perhaps occurs less when the event is a standard component within the natural mechanics of a project. It's when the the process sponsor mandates that the "facilitator" reach one specific destination from a number of potential outcomes. Roughly defined, the word "facilitator" is "one who assists a process in reaching an outcome". Note that this definition does not necessarily mean the outcome is the best choice or is optimal. Your sponsors could dictate that they want their process to reach a predetermined result. In this case your facilitation job, unless you refuse for ethical or other grounds or choose to disregard your mandate, is to reach that goal. You're still facilitating the event, but the nature and condition of your involvement completely precludes avoidance of bias. (And, yes, this does occasionally occur, and it can be a whole lot of not-fun-at-all when it does...) Mark picked up on the special consideration in his comment: the facilitator may still execute in a fashion that avoids bias, but the participants might not perceive the facilitator in that way and it hurts the process. Here's an over-the-top example: say I have a technical architect but he espouses WidgetCo's solution and loathes Megacomm's. We score a project that needs a backbone architecture and call in the troops to explore options. Even if he facilitated brilliantly and without bias, if his answer came out to be "WidgetCo", many might think that was going to be the destination anyway and the event was a waste of time. Further, the rival Technical Architect with a strong Megacomm background might not even show up at all because he thought the event was rigged. As previously stated, for non-trivial events, a neutral facilitator without actual *or perceived* skin in the game is the best option. If that's impossible (and assuming the event is not rigged for a specific outcome), ensure it's structured in a way that exposes and mitigates the risk of perceived or actual bias before the people are in the room. In that case, communicating specific instructions from management, and validating that the structure and process allows and endorses input from all relevant sources, are key.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 
 
0 # Susan McLaughlin 2012-02-22 10:35
Loved this article as I am trying to do a better job running meetings and tend to fall into the scribe role. Will be interested in the follow up news letters.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote
 

Add comment

back to top