|
 In
a training programme, who should be empowered to take control—the
facilitator or the participants? Mohan Bangaruswamy analyses
the various facilitation styles
Learning
programmes have facilitators playing different types of roles during
the process. They range from styles where the “facilitator
takes control” to ones where “control is turned over to
the participants”.
Wide
ranges of facilitation styles are possible in workshops pertaining
to personal growth, leadership skills, team building, etc. In some
ways the facilitation styles seem to have a parallel
with the “Situational Leadership” theory. I would state
that the similarity pertains to the empowerment aspect.
Let’s
take the end of the spectrum where the facilitator takes control.
This is equivalent to the directive style in the leadership theory.
The facilitator can make one of many choices in this style:
-
Telling the group what to do: This can happen when the learning
group is stuck and does not move ahead. It can also happen in
an executive coaching scenario when the coach prescribes a course
of action. I am distinguishing between a prescriptive solution
and in being manipulative. In this case, the facilitator is not
manipulating for any specific outcome. However, the group or some
members in the group may feel manipulated.
-
Providing guidance: Sometimes the facilitator makes a choice on
behalf of the group. This can happen when the facilitator chooses
to work as part of the group or when the group turns to the facilitator
for assistance. The facilitator can articulate a choice on behalf
of the group and then the group decides on what to do with it.
A forced choice would move the style to the previous category
of being prescriptive.
At
the other end of the spectrum we have styles which empower the participants
to make choices in their learning journey. This is equivalent to
the “delegation” style in the leadership theory. The various
styles that are possible at this end of the spectrum are:
-
Doing nothing: During the course of workshop, it is possible
that the groups engage in various activities. There could be structured
exercises, role-plays, case discussions, discussions pertaining
to what is happening with the group, etc. The facilitator can
choose to do nothing and let the group move on. It is possible
that the facilitator is making notes based on observation of various
things that are happening in the group, such as behaviour patterns,
key moments, etc. These observations can be utilised later to
debrief and to offer perspectives.
-
Paraphrase or clarify:
Sometimes the group may turn to the facilitator for help. The
facilitator may choose not to provide a solution or direction
if it is worthwhile to let the group struggle to find the answer
themselves. In such cases, it may be possible to get the group
on track by articulating what they have said till the moment.
This is more like offering a mirror to the group. The facilitator
does not add anything or make evaluative remarks. The control
remains with the group and no choices are offered.
Between
the two ends of the spectrum are facilitation styles that are neither
directive nor completely empower the participants. These styles
cannot be directly mapped to either the “Coaching” or
the “Supporting” styles of the leadership theory. They
tend to blend with both. The facilitation styles in this category
can pertain to offering perspectives, raising questions that enable
the group to move on, suggesting multiple courses of action, etc.
Learning
occurs when participants take the responsibility to do so. No amount
of persuasion or direction will enable learning that is long-lasting.
Given this, it would be important to stick to a facilitation style
that empowers the participants. However, this does not always happen.
The facilitation styles depend on a number of factors. These could
pertain to availability of time, ability of the facilitator and
participants to deal with frustration, confidence level of the facilitator,
the dynamics in the group, etc. Let me elaborate on a few of these
reasons:
-
Time factor: The group needs to complete a task. They are
stuck and are running out of time. The facilitator may choose
to intervene and give a solution. Even in such cases, a gentler
form of intervention is possible—the facilitator can choose
to ask some question about the group’s progress, offer some
perspectives and get the group to move on without being prescriptive.
-
Frustration factor:
This tends to happen when the group and/or the facilitator have
a low frustration tolerance. It is possible that the group might
turn to the facilitator for help when they get stuck; on the other
hand, the facilitator, instead of letting the group struggle with
its problems, may rush in to offer a solution. Frustration is
a symptom that things are not happening the way the group or the
facilitator wants it to happen. Frustration is actually functional
and can lead to the group finding creative solutions. Problems
occur when the facilitator perceives frustration as dysfunctional
and jumps in to rescue the group. It is preferable to let the
group persist with the problem. In this case, too, the facilitator
can offer perspectives and tell the group that he or she does
not want to join in with a solution.
-
Dynamics in the group:
There may be times when the dynamics in the group are utterly
dysfunctional. There may be conflicts that are not heading anywhere,
the group may be on the verge of giving up, etc. The facilitator
may choose to join in to help the group tide over the current
situation and then turn responsibility back to the group.
Typically
in facilitator-led learning sessions, the facilitator retains a
great deal of control over the sharing of information. This needs
to be interspersed with interventions where the participants have
control over their learning. Ownership at the participant’s
side is key to learning. Empowering the participants and turning
over ownership can cause frustration for both, the participant and
the facilitator. Working through this frustration is important to
enable learning. I would prefer working with styles that empower
the participants or give them perspectives. It would be worthwhile
to avoid prescriptive styles as much as possible. This is not to
state that prescriptive style does not have a place. Once the need
for the prescriptive style is over, the facilitator should shift
to an empowering style of intervention.
Mohan
Bangaruswamy is the Chief Executive of Shangrila Consulting, Bangalore.
Email: mbangaruswamy@vsnl.net
|
