Self reliance and speed
This is the third article of a three part exploration of the benefits of facilitation
The client is self-reliant
The output from every facilitation assignment is an action plan. Each plan of action is unique but, whatever its content, the responsibility for the plan is with the client and not with the facilitator. Part of the process of the event itself is to transfer ownership from the facilitator to the client, to make the client autonomous and self-reliant.
The client needs to understand this from the start. They don’t have life jackets, no safety ropes, no parachutes – they are responsible, this is it.
What is the facilitator responsible for? The facilitator is responsible for defining requirements with the client – the overall aim and the specific objectives. The facilitator is also responsible, with the client, for the design of the event and the structure of the output. And then the facilitator is responsible for managing the process itself.
But – the facilitator is not responsible for the content. It seems to me that a facilitator should walk backwards as soon as they are in front of the participants. Yes, we are very much present at the centre of the discussions, but the focus is on the participants and their contributions, not on us. We are transparent.
The experts in a facilitated event are the participants. They know the company, its customers and suppliers; they are part of the culture. They know intimately what is happening. They may have strong feelings and they will have up to the minute examples to back up their assertions. It is not our role to interfere with this experience.
This approach is different from the traditional approach of a consultant in which this person is seen as an expert. They are listened to, their advice is sought and followed. Why ignore them? There are occasions when you need an expert but, in this instance, the facilitator’s expertise is in the process, not the content.
So, how is self-reliance a benefit?
Well, if the client realises it is up to them, they accept the responsibility. They embark on a journey of self-determination – this creates a great deal of energy and urgency. The real issues are raised, discussed and prioritised.
The actions they create to address the priority issues are understood by all, because all have contributed, and the commitment to enhanced effectiveness is great.
Self-reliance gives the client confidence – they know they can do it – and the plans don’t fall over when the facilitator departs.
Clients have frequently been amazed at the end of an event, saying to me “I really didn’t believe you when you said we would do it in one day.”
What can you achieve in one day? Strategy, project start up, project review, BPR, customer service, performance management, training needs analysis….
These initiatives need careful planning by the facilitator including consultation before the event with key personnel to help design the approach. But the engine room of the initiative is undertaken in one day. Everybody – a team, senior managers, service providers, clients – whether it is six or one hundred, come together in one room for one day and they leave with a plan.
Let’s take a specific assignment such as an IT strategy.
The traditional approach involves a consultant or the IT Manager visiting the major stakeholders and asking what their IT requirements are. If IT has a less than glowing reputation, responses may not be very helpful.
The consultant or IT Manager arranges meetings, not all of which may be successful or, even, do not happen. They listen to complaints. They make copious notes. They send out questionnaires; some of them are returned.
Then, how do you compare the importance and urgency of one manager’s contributions with those of other managers, or their veracity?
All participants in this process may be tempted to skew the findings and the focus is often technical.
The consultant or IT manager then works hard, late at night, to prepare a report and presentation with fancy charts. At this presentation half the managers disagree with half the findings and the end result is low commitment to a plan that is out of date, too technical and seen as not addressing their real issues.
This process takes months.
In contrast, using the approach of facilitation, I get all the stakeholders together at the same time to focus on effectiveness.
Similar to the traditional approach, I would start by meeting each of the senior managers separately. The purpose is to hear of the satisfaction with previous strategies, the current situation, their potential requirements and, finally, their hopes and fears with regard to a day’s facilitated event.
Then, I would gather all the senior managers together for one day and I would ask them how they think the IT unit could make them more effective – there are other questions they need to consider, but this effectiveness question is at the heart of the event.
This approach has many benefits. If you lead with a question on effectiveness, the participants focus on their work issues and their future, rather than the past and blame. They are forced to think about their own plans and opportunities rather than the attraction of new technology.
They share their concerns and aspirations so that any action agreed is coherent. A clear perspective emerges because they are allowed to articulate their feelings and appreciate the ideas of others. They are committed to the actions because they have created the plans themselves.
And, finally, the output is on their desk the next morning with a reminder of what they said they would do that next day so momentum is not lost.
Elapsed time using the approach of facilitation? Three weeks.
Traditional approach? Four months?