Thinking about facilitation.
I ran a session at Sydney Facilitators Network last month. The question was “What nurtures great dialogue?”
We ran a ‘fish bowl’ role play with seven people conducting a dialogue, the rest of us paying close attention to the dynamics. The instruction to observers was to stay more alive to process than to the content.
When the role play finished I asked for two observers to debrief each dialogue participant in a small group, and add their own observations. This was to avoid the risks of more public feedback (just in case any honest observations were too blunt for the role players). The discussions in these tiny groups were spirited and noisy.
Then I asked a more technical question. On the basis of what had happened, what instructions would we provide for small group activities (‘table groups’ in cabaret-style set ups) in order to encourage good dialogue? These instructions needed to be succinct, ‘light touch’ but also robust.
Why the question about instructions to small groups? Facilitators use small groups a lot in our work. The other three choices in terms of levels of interaction are individual activity, ‘pair shares’, and plenary (whole group) discussion. Small group discussion has a distinct feel and tone. It is perhaps the most natural of conversational forms (think café meeting). It permits the energetic extravert to strut. It allows the quiet and thoughtful to sit back, observe, reflect. Unlike pair shares, it protects from unwelcome intimacy while allowing it to emerge naturally. It is self-generating and self-managed – the formal leader (initiator/facilitator) is absent from the conversation. Most importantly, it avoids the fear factor present in larger (plenary) groups. Many participants are reluctant to stand and address large groups. Plenary sessions are often platforms for powerful egos to dominate. For small groups, the facilitator’s sole point of influence is in shaping the set up instructions and the timing for such conversations. This influence is both light touch, and utterly important.
The network’s responses to this “what instructions?” question were surprisingly diverse. Some spoke about clarity, particularly about clarity of purpose. Others contrasted this with more playful and open approaches. Another that dialogue always depends on the people who constitutes the group. Only a bit of the advice was about process-related instructions. One advised the need to discourage too early convergence in people’s contributions. Some spoke of safety.
So where does this take us and is it important? Indeed, what is this thing called dialogue?
Discussion is not dialogue. I recall once that someone with a sense of humour noted the etymological link between ‘discussion’ and ‘percussion’. Discussion is the clash of ideas. Put in the negative, dialogue should be more than a mere exchange of ideas. It is not just about information, data, facts. We can google for that. Dialogue goes beyond discussion and debate. But where is this beyond?
Dialogue’s ‘beyond’ encompasses at least two things: empathy and intention.
Feelings first. Do we have a sense that we are open to another’s emotional universe? When someone is angry, moved, delighted by an insight, do we step into their shoes to sense the full implication of that emotion? By contrast, do we acknowledge the danger of getting railroaded by someone else’s passion.
Then intention. There is almost always some forward movement in someone’s words. We are creatures of the future. We are heading somewhere (however vague or short term). For each of us, gathering briefly in a group, there are multiple intentions available, intentions that have, potentially, coalesced for the brief moment of this meeting. Is there something that might emerge between us that creates a collective insight that has some forward movement?
Then a last element. This one from David Bohm (a theoretical physicist who promoted free flowing, non-judgemental dialogue as a transformation tool): that some new meaning emerges between the parties in the discussion.
In the 1950s, there was a debate between Carl Rogers and Martin Buber about ‘internal dialogue’. Rogers argued that one can conduct a dialogue in one’s own mind. Buber disagreed. Real dialogue requires the presence of ‘the other’. If we are sufficiently open, this ‘other’ can shift our most fundamental assumptions and beliefs. The real other is more surprising that our own minds can ever be.
So back to my practical question – is there a light-touch but robust way to nurture good dialogue in small groups through the initial instructions? My best thought so far is to frame the possibility for dialogue with an explicit instruction (apologies for language that is a bit serious and intellectual, I haven’t translated it into more playful English yet). After giving a clear purpose and outcome for the discussion, add this advice:
“ You may have heard the word ‘dialogue’. What it implies is an openness of heart and intention that, from your careful sharing and listening , will allow new meanings to emerge that are actually created between you all in this group discussion. See how you go…and have some fun with it.”
Imagine, if every conversation was seen as an opportunity for this kind of dialogue? Dialogue with depth and delight. What would be different?
Notes from the Sydney Facilitators Network
Summary
These are the ‘post-it’ note items from the Sydney Facilitators Network contributions in the session described in this blog
Summary:
• Clear purpose and outcome
• Agreement on purpose and process
• Encourage respect for diverse views and disagreement
• Encourage play, risk-taking, (‘no right or wrong’)
• Discourage ‘taking charge’ and encourage sharing
• Advice about how to deliver instructions: staging, simplifying (eg ‘only 3 instructions’), testing beforehand
• Story sharing (eg tell me about an experience of xyz…)
• Acknowledge that different groups need different approaches
• Attitudinal – eg refrain from judgement, encourage curiosity and openess
Detail:
• Everyone has a voice
• Speak up if you don’t agree
• Refrain from judgement
• Come with an attitude of curiosity and openness
• Tell the group what the value of their contribution will be
• Appreciate diversity and multiple persepective eg outliers
• Don’t take charge, share leadership
• Fun, joy, harmony rich. Authentic, real, prosperity, ease, raw,grace, abundance, peace, love
• Value, purpose, clarity, direction, name the why,
• As a team we …
• Tell people your objective – what they will achieve – purpose
• No judgements, Every response counts, No right or wrong view
• Have a common, shared experience
• Clear initial statement of purpose or goal
• Outcome from the group discussion
• Make a democratic decision about the the top three items/decisions/ideas or next steps
• Observe, respect, all members of the group
• Don’t talk over others – allow each person to have a say
• Be open to others point of view
• Get agreement on
• why we are together today
• how we will achieve the why (what process?)
• Give people permission to say “My view is different from yours”
• There are no right or wrong answers
• Feel free to discuss anything no matter how ridiculous or absurb it may be
• All ideas are legitimate
• Have around 3 instructions: outlining purpose, required behavour and possible outcome
• Stage the instructions – get people in groups then give next ‘set up’ instruction
• Verbal: Give no more than 3 instructions, then write or post one (saying “Here’s one I prepared before”.)
• Valuing all opinions
• Get someone else to trial your instruction before the session (to test how clear)
• Write up the question
• Take a risk
• There is no right or wrong answer
• Why using this approach for the particular group and situation
• Reassure on safety and trust within the group
• Advise all on the agenda and time
• Advise on house rules – eg switch off mobile phones
• Advise on workshop purpose
• Advise on outcomes expected
• Take risks