Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Facilitator Assessment - Summary

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Brock Vodden

unread,

Aug 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM8/27/96

This is a listing of all the responses to my question about selecting a
Strategic Planning facilitator for a Board of Directors of an agency that=
is
just now being created. The issue is a choice between facilitators who ar=
e
also content/issue experts, and those who are generalists and less
knowledgeable in the specific field. As a new entity, our Board needs bot=
h
content knowledge and process integrity.

As usual, you have been generous in giving thoughtful responses. I would
like to acknowledge each contributor:
Normand Tanguay, Scott J. Simmerman, David Wilkinson, Barry Mallis, Julie
Beedon, Peter Meyer, John Walker, Arline Berman (and colleague), William =
J.
Hobler, Jr, Arline Berman (again), Cathie Lowry

Responses were almost unanimous that the facilitator's process role shoul=
d
not be violated, and that the subject matter expertise, if essential, sho=
uld
be obtained in other ways. Some suggest going with a generalist facilitat=
or;
others suggested working with the SME facilitator to limit intrusion into
the areas where the Board must make the decisions.

Thanks to everyone.

Brock Vodden

Here is the original question:

I have a lot of experience as a facilitator in JAD sessions and in Strate=
gic
Planning, but a new issue has come into my life. I'd appreciate some advi=
ce.

I have joined the Board of Directors for a new organization set up by our
provincial government. A colleague and I have been charged with the task =
of
hiring a facilitator to help the Board in its initial Strategic Planning
process. At this point, we are just in the process of being incorporated.=
We
do not have any staff or real estate or equipment. We are about to advert=
ise
for a CEO.

I am looking at several highly experienced facilitators who seem to fall
into two distinct groups. The first group has extensive knowledge of the
field our organization will be working in, and come from well established
consulting organizations that dominate the market -- not exactly in this =
new
field, but in a somewhat related field.

The second group consist of people who have an excellent track record as
facilitators working with many different types of organization, but have
little direct experience with our particular field.

The first group have some real advantages. Their knowledge of our field c=
an
be seen as an advantage. The board is made up of people with tremendous
experience in many fields, but we are not working professionals in the fi=
eld
(and are not expected to be). We do have members with first hand knowledg=
e
of the field as service recipients. Knowledgeable guidance from one of th=
ese
facilitators could be just what we need. The potential difficulty that I =
see
is that these facilitators show many signs of being prescriptive, and
directive. What I read into their proposals is that they intend to tell u=
s
(the board) what the important issues are. They might even bring a
pre-written strategic plan which they can whip out if ours does not meet
their standards. I may be exaggerating slightly here, but this is the gis=
t
of my impression.

It has always been my view that the facilitator manages the process, but
leaves the content aspect to the participants. My fear is that one of the=
se
facilitators may lead us to adopt a traditional model and cause us to mis=
s
the opportunity to come up with an innovative approach that is superior t=
o
anything that now exists.

The second group appear to be much more flexible and non-prescriptive, bu=
t
the process could suffer from lack of field knowledge throughout the
participant group. (We do have the option of bringing in some field exper=
ts
to provide information and suggestions. On the other hand, with a
facilitator of this type, we would have a better chance of gaining new
insights into the requirements, and coming up with a more appropriate
organization.

Any suggestions will be appreciated by direct E-mail or through the list.
I'll summarize what I receive.

Brock Vodden

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

THESE ARE THE RESPONSES:

From: "Normand Tanguay" <nor...@CAM.ORG>

Hello Brock,
I have been a pro facilitator for more than 20 years; in those years I ha=
ce
had the opp. to facilitate groups in areas in which I had very little
knowledge and others where I was a member of the group. In the second cas=
e,
it is very difficult to completely detach oneself from the problem.
Eventually, knowledge of the problems, people, solutions etc. will
interfere with the process.
On the other hand, limited knowledge allows the facilitator to focus on t=
he
group's objectives and process. Facilitator's intervention are of the
interrogating type, that is to clarify and explain participants positions
and opinions.
Finally, I think the number 1 quality of your facilitator is the capacity
to help the group along, to listen to the group and to be able to spot an=
d
help resolve problems and conflicts.
Hope this helps,

Normand Tanguay
Montr=E9al
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

From: "Dr. Scott J. Simmerman" <74170...@CompuServe.COM>

Brock asked about facilitators and selection criteria in LO LO9435.

Guess my reaction is, tough call. For me, the essence of any of these=20
processes is ownership, and this seems especially true for a "Board of=20
Directors for a new organization set up by our provincial government." =20

It's one thing when it's a volunteer group and one thing when the=20
participants are primary stockholders of a for-profit company.=20

Nobody ever washes a rental car is an obvious issue. The facilitator=20
who does NOT do a good job of creating ownership and involvement in the=20
plan will develop only an excellent plan -- the likelihood of=20
implementation and followup would be low. Or, if the new solution is=20
just like the old ones that haven't worked before, all you will do is=20
continue to roll along the same way (but this doesn't seem to be the=20
issue with this particular job of strategic planning).

On the other hand, The Round Wheels are already in the wagon. Methinks=20
that the people who would choose to get involved at the Board Level=20
already have some sense of purpose and dedication and are also=20
successful in their own right.

Thus, while it makes sense that an outside expert might add a more=20
complete frame to the picture, one might also do some if not all of the=20
painting. I've sat in on those meetings where we are asked for our=20
input but the decisions are already final. It's right out of a Dilbert=20
cartoon.

On the other hand, creating something from scratch is difficult and time
consumming and also a bit frustrating for busy executives.

I've sat in on both types of planning stuff on "public" boards. I've=20
also seen the obvious non-participation / non-involvement of a few key=20
board members totally demotivate the rest of the group. =20

So, my cop-out is to suggest you get someone with experience at the=20
table but whose style is very participative and engaging. Or, if it is=20
pro bono work, get both types involved,

For the Fun of It!

--=20

Scott Simmerman
74170...@compuserve.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

From: Davi...@aol.com

Brock Vodden wrote:

I would label the two roles you describe as facilitator and consultant. =
A
consultant is one who provides expertise in an area, usually some "conten=
t or
knowledge" area, but in some cases could be a process consultant.

A facilitator is one that provides structures to support a group to
accomplish a task or learn something. The facilitator assumes the knowle=
dge
for a good decision lies within the membership of the group, or at least =
that
the group has the capacity to find and learn the necessary knowledge for =
that
decision.

A consultant is usually viewed as someone who has what the group doesn't =
have
- the knowledge.

One option - is to identify a facilitator to take the group through the
necesary converations that will lead to a decision -- including the
involvement a consultant to work with the group on developing the needed
knowledge.

Some thoughts,

David Wilkinson
School Improvement Specialist
Des Moines Public Schools
Davi...@aol.com

Brock:

You may have the answer built into your question.

Here are some observations for your consideration:

o You want to avoid traditional thinking--you want "out of the box" think=
ing
from the new board members, allowing them to think the unthinkable, say t=
he
unsayable.

o Get your content person to provoke ideas, grease the wheels, stimulate
out-of-the-box thinking. Provide content expertise to "facilitate" the
direction, intention and goal setting. This facilitator will have as a
primary function the assurance that a board charter for this activity--a
contract for the task--is supported by factual information providing a
background for deliberations.

o Once people are filled with initial ideas and share roughly the same
starting point, bring in the process engineer or facilitator who knows ho=
w
meetings are run, who can use, for instance, a 9 Step Structured Task
Implementation Process like Teradyne's, and guide the group to completion=
of
the task.

It appears that good may come from process playback at the end of each me=
eting
wherein participants consider their process work only; their ability to r=
emain
open to new concepts; their actions toward keeping the output constantly
responsive to "customer demands" rather than to the life of the hierarchy=
in
of itself.

Pretty general stuff, but maybe it'll help focus this conversation more.

Good luck,
--
Barry Mallis
bma...@markem.com
=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
From: Julie Beedon <ju...@vistabee.win-uk.net>

=20
Hi Brock

Here are some thoughts on your consultant selection issue:

* would it be possible to put a team together which consisted of
both types of consultants?? - they would need to be committed to
collaboration, be clear why they were a team and what they each
brought to the table........=20

* could you use some sort of approach which had perspectives
from across the system cone together and explore the strategic
direction for this organisation - that way the new Board would be
able to put their vision alongside that of others with more
experience

It may be my own bias but I would go with the process facilitation
and get the content input as input - content in the hands of a
facilitator (however well intentioned) can cause all sorts of
issues not just in the output of the work (as you said likely to
run on traditional lines) but also in the functionality of the
group. Working on this strategic planning is an important
opportunity to have this group share responsibility and an
expert/content facilitator could leave them feeling/thinking they
have been 'done to' - I believe this could have some troubling
consequences:

**dependency - the group could form a dependent relationship with
the facilitators - forming key relationships with them rather
than each other. This is could develop into a negative energy and
block learning (as well as ending up pretty costly in consulting
time)

**fight/flight - the group may see the facilitator as a threat and
fight the whole experience - maybe stop coming to the meetings - or
start to form sub-groups and fight with each other

Good luck and regards

Julie Beedon

Brock,

I think that the key bit of information is what you want to accomplish by=
the
time that the project is done. Depending on what you want, a facilitator =
with
a firm model might be perfect or might be disasterous. Can you give a lit=
tle
more info?

Peter

[My response to Peter: I realize that the details were scant here, but I
did want to focus only on the critical points that are weighing on my min=
d.
The "firm model" is a scary thought, or as you put it, a potential disast=
er.
If we knew whether the firm model were right for us, I guess we would not
need to go through the SP process. I agree that what we want to accomplis=
h
is the key. The not-as-frivolous-as-it-sounds-answer to that is "We want =
to
accomplish what we want to accomplish". I have the feeling the
consultant/facilitator might have trouble helping us get there. Thanks fo=
r
the input. Brock]

Brock Vodden wrote:

>A colleague and I have the task of selecting
>a facilitator for our first Strategic Planning process.
>We appear to have a choice between people who have a great deal of
>knowledge in the field of our business, and who may seek to impose
>their particular model on this Board, and other excellent facilitators
>from other fields who will be less directive, and more open to
>allowing participants to be innovative.

If I can read between the lines here, you seem to have already
made your choice!

There is a difference between consultation--providing expert
advice--and facilitation...and often a fine line between them.

There is a place for both of these skills. Ideally, the organization
would arm itself with all the knowledge and opinion it needs
before it sits down to a facilitated session. The 'experts' can
be consulted before the session.

However, the Board needs to have clear air to sort out their
particular views during the session, and this is best achieved
by a true facilitator, not an expert masquerading as one.

It is useful for a facilitator to have some expertise in order to
understand and promote dialogue, and to anticipate a need to
respond to certain situations. This can be achieved by having
the facilitator participate in prior discussions, so as to gain at
least a little understanding of the issues behind any conflicts.

John

Brock Vodden wrote

The primary variable (the most important thing) is to have a skilled,
open-minded, flexible facilitator.
The more familiar he/she is with the field of the Board's business, the m=
ore
skilled the facilitator will need to be to not be affected by "knowing ho=
w
we do things around here."

Having helped Community Boards with strategic planning, we know of what w=
e
speak. We have a few battle scars to prove it.

Need any further help, holler.

Arline Berman (and colleague)

It has always been my view that the facilitator manages the process, but
leaves the content aspect to the participants.=20
=3D End Quote =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I concur with this observation, particulalrly for a formative session as =
yours
seems to be. Your facilitator should facilitate the dialog from which yo=
u
form and commit to what value you bring to your constituents.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Back to your message =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
We do have the option of bringing in some field experts
to provide information and suggestions.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D End quote =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Have you considered having two or more facilitated sessions each with a
specific purpose? This could be set up in the model of reflective thinki=
ng.
First session. The objectives include to get to know each other, to def=
ine the
mission building need, and to learn how other people have addressed this
or similar missioins. The reason for this session is to get your team se=
riously
thinking about the Board and preparing it for the next session. You may=20
have 'field experts' present in this session.

Second session. The objective is to define the mission. By the way the=20
summer issue of the Sloan management Review has an article that gives
some good ideas about the content of a missioin statement.

I may argue for a third and short session that asks for commitment to th=
e
missioni statements formulated. After the participants write the stateme=
nt=20
and have some time to think about it, what are they willing to contribute=
to
making the mission reality?

Finally I would be inclined to ask the generalist facilitator to help in =
this
initial work. If your board then needs some additional content specific =
help
you can engage the consulting firm on a consulting basis and have a missi=
on
to guide what you ask for and what the consultant is expected to deliver.

Good luck
Bill Hobler
--=20

Definitely hire someone who is going to be objective and "facilitate" the
process. They should have knowledge of a process to take you through, bu=
t
the content needs to come from the group.

I've worked with community service boards to do this kind of planning. T=
hey
really appreciated me being in an unbiased position and being able to mov=
e
them through their "muck" and "stands".

Good luck,

Arline Berman

Often it can be helpful for a strategic planning session facilitator to b=
e
familiar with the industry so they understand the suggestions given and
probe the group to think more broadly, innovatively, specifically, etc.
They also have content knowledge which can be injected into the plan IF
APPROPRIATE.

However, the most important aspect of strategic planning facilitation, in=
my
mind, is empowering and requiring the people within the organization to
articulate their vision, expectations, solutions, etc. Therefore, if non=
e
of the industry experienced people can be relied on to focus on the proce=
ss
and keep their content input to a minimum (one thought or suggestion here=
or
there, expressed in 2 or 3 sentences, say no more than one brief content
interjection every 30 to 60 minutes), I would recommend that you seriousl=
y
consider a quality facilitator whose experience is in other industries.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
----

H. Brock Vodden =09
Vodden Consulting
"Where People and Systems Meet"

Ontario, Canada
brock....@odyssey.on.ca

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------

0 new messages