Vidyut,
I agree with John Remynse that the touch of a facilitator is often hard to rationalise, and I am not sure that i would really trust a facilitator who didn't suffer from self-doubt about what they are doing.
That said... can I throw in a couple of thoughts, and a good read.
As a learner I hate to feel that the learning experience is being manipulated towards certain outcomes - I appreciate that this is often the point of employing someone to plan and facilitate learning experiences, but I dislike the sense of predestination. Conversely I hate missed opportunities, when the facilitator is so stuck in their plan, their role, their methods or whatever that they miss the opportunity to rise above the mundane.
But - I also yearn for learning that doesn't need to be interpreted - where the mountains speak for themselves: where team building is really about building teams - not a glorified role play that spins off key points about teambuilding, Where personal development is both personal and developmental and not a vocalisation of aspirations tempered by the context and the audience...
If I were to try to define "the purity of the process" - it would be that mythical moment of facilitation when the process fits so well that the faciliator has nothing more to do and no regrets afterwards, because the experience is relevant, real and shared; the learning is both needed and appreciated; and, where one and all emerge from the experience with new understandings. Mythical - Impossible - but also invaluable as an 'ideal type' by which to judge our efforts.
Could I recommemnd Stuart Wickes (2000) research for Brathay - looking at peak experiences of facilitation where he looks at those (rare) moments when the facilitator feels that everything falls into place. Wickes mapping shows a wide range of peak experiences that span from incisive interventions, to facilitators being neutral ground, or passive listeners. He concludes that it is less about the process than about the Artistry of the facilitator:
"Whilst the skills, training and performance ability of the actor or performance artist are no doubt important, they 'act' within a complex system of other actors, scripts, set, audience etc which
interact in a complex way to produce the experience which is the performance. It is the ability of the artist (the facilitator) to work with this system which is the art.
The work of the artist is subtle and intuitive, juggling many things, a touch here, a nudge there, attending with a broad brush to the overall direction of the piece and with a fine brush to the
important details, responding to what emerges within the context of some kind of personal vision or plan. This is creative work, work in which something new is created, a fusion of many influences coming together in the moment. That transient creative moment, that moment of magic, that moment of excellence in performance in which something of your creative self is realised. It is hard to say what makes one performance excellent and another just mediocre. Somehow the complex dynamics of the system interact with the artist as the artist interacts with them, the two coming together in a moment of synchronicity. For a while the artist and system coexist in flow and excellence is realised.
Regards
Colin
From: JOHN REMYNSE <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Merging processwork
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 7:26 AM
Morning, Vidyut....
I think the key lies in the bit of your story where you say: "......... if my sensing of the group tells me that it may be easier to approach it from a certain perspective, I shift gears for that bit."
I would think that most competent facilitators would take a similar approach. I almost always work in this way - whether I am working with a group of senior managers or a group of young people in the outdoors, on expedition, or whatever. My mindset in the majority of situations is similar to what I am assuming your approach to be, one of process observation and constantly asking myself what is happening within the group, between people, between myself and the group, and how I might best contribute to this.
Whenever it seems appropriate or necessary, I might intervene. Mostly through questioning what is happening - sometimes a little more directive, especially if there is a safety issue. Like you, I use a wide repertoire based on many years experience. Even the decision to intervene or ask questions needs to be thought about because every intervention or question is inevitably based on my (the facilitator's) observations or my interpretation of what might be happening. It is thus always worth checking this out with the group (or individuals if it is a one-on-one situation). This means such interventions are essentially unscheduled - they only happen when either myself or participants identify need or opportunity. Typically, this means that my interventions become fewer as groups develop their own processes, confidence, competence, etc. and start doing this for themselves.
The "other facilitator" you mention might have his reasons for feeling strongly about "purity of process" but my questions would be along the lines of: "Whose process are we following here (faciliator or participants)?" and "Why is it so important that this process is followed?" (seemingly slavishly but that is the interpretation I put on your description).
I guess there is also a question about what he means by 'process'. Is he referring to the process of implementing his programme/course/activity or does process refer to the behaviours and actions the participants are engaging in whilst following his programme/instructions/schedule/etc?
Finally, I hear alarm bells ringing when you say ".....he seemed so certain that it was "wrong"......." If he is so certain AND if he is a competent facilitator, I would expect him to be able to enlighten you. Not through telling you that you are wrong but rather by discussing both of your preferred processes and looking at how one approach might be more (or less) appropriate in different circumstances. I think most contributors on this board would agree that there is no single, best way to facilitate personal development. (Another assumption!).
Cheers,
John
From: Vidyut Kale <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, 23 July, 2009 11:46:40 PM
Subject: Merging processwork
Hi everyone, I've been meaning to write about this for a while. I've been combining all kinds of work in my outdoor programmes for a while now, and am wondering how it works for any of you who do it (I'm sure many of you do). For example, I may use Appreciative Inquiry style interviewing, or diagnose from a "group unconscious" awareness and intervene using AI, suggest percept languge, make an intervention and shift to a more "T-group" style of facilitation (particularly with hard 'here and now' gatekeeping), even questionnaires/inventories at times, etc in addition to the usual learning
cycle kind of stuff. Not all the time, but if my sensing of the group tells me that it may be easier to approach it from a certain perspective, I shift gears for that bit. Another facilitator I was speaking with, thought that it killed the "purity of the process". In my usual carefree (freestyle, actually) way, I said that as long as it worked...... I think part of the appeal for mixing styles is my interest in using OAE as a part of the OD process with a client, and such work prevents 'stereotypes' of changework (I think), brings in diverse approaches toward Development and Growth and prevents dependence on the methodology in the learning process. I find that it also creates 'bridges' that I can use to maintain continuity between the different interventions. But he seemed so certain that it was "wrong" that I'm now wondering if I missed his point in my certainty that it worked for my objectives (which it does seem to). I'm now looking at
how others see it. I'm curious to know how you see the OAE work merging with the methods traditionally used indoors and strengths/drawbacks you see to this. More importantly, any 'damage' you see happening as a result (since obviously, that's the last thing I want). Also, what really is this 'purity of process' as long as we are learning from experience? Vidyut -- “People do not resist change; they resist having change imposed on them.” Fritjof Capra Vidyut Kale Co-founder WIDE AWARE http://www.wide-aware.comResonate Consulting http://resonateconsulting.comMy personal blog http://www.aamjanata.com/janata
|
