Re: facilitation | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Vivian Volz (viviansirius.com) | |
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 01:56:45 -0500 |
Rob Sandelin wrote: >I agree, but I also realize that facilitation takes practice. If a group >rotates facilitators regularly (like every month) then individuals don't >have a chance to improve and excel at facilitation. I suppose a group could >assign facilitation to a core group of individuals. This would require the >rest of the group to trust the core group's agendas. The core group concept worked well in a women's group I was once a member of. The way that group worked (it was Women's Action Coalition, the Houston chapter) was that there were two facilitators per meeting, and those two people agreed not to participate in the content of the meeting but only run it. They were drawn from a core group who'd received some kind of instruction beforehand. Some were better than others, but everyone was respectful of their authority over the meeting, no matter which of the women was facilitating. The nice thing about having two is that they spelled each other; it could be a stressful job, and also sometimes one facilitator would want to step down for one agenda item so she could participate in the discussion. >This group nevers sets the agenda, they just >implement it, using planned and proven process techniques that they study and >learn how to use. The fact that they don't set the agenda is important. A lot of trust is placed in a facilitator: it's trust that everyone who wishes to speak will be heard. > >> Stuff falling off the agenda is either because the facilitator is not doing >> that job well, or because the group does not want to deal with that issue >now. >> > >Or, the group has a LOT of issues that must be discussed deeply with the whole >group present. In our case with Wasatch Cohousing, our biweekly general >business >meeting is the time when most or all members converge to the same place at >the same time. Those of us with e-mail access try to discuss proposals before >dealing with them in meetings, but only half our households have e-mail >access. >As a result, many "discussion" items end up on the agenda, which often pushes >some items off the agenda. In WAC, the facilitators did prepare the agenda before the meeting, and included times for all the *previously submitted* agena items. The first order of business was to accept the agenda as prepared; occasionally the agenda itself had to be debated, and occasionally people added agenda items from the floor. The accepted way to put something on the agenda was to call a voicemail box and give a topic, a presenter's name, and a requested amount of time for the item. This method did keep things from falling off the agenda by mistake: if discussion was clearly not complete by the end of the allotted time, someone would move to table the item for the next meeting, take it up again at the end, send it to committee, or add more time. It was just not acceptable to let things run on and on, obliterating all that followed. I really appreciated that about these meetings. They ended on time, too. (I saw in another message that Wasatch's meetings last three or four hours; the thought of a meeting that long makes me cringe.) >Iam not just making all this up, I teach these techniques, they work. They work well, and I'm so spoiled by them that unfacilitated or poorly facilitated meetings make me want to run and hide. Vivian lurking-in-the-hope-of-cohousing-someday
-
Re: facilitation Vivian Volz, June 16 1997
-
Re: facilitation Lynn Nadeau, April 19 2001
- Re: Facilitation & Facilitator Training Opportunity Albert Schinazi, April 22 2001
- Facilitation Holly McNutt, October 24 2012
- Re: Facilitation Eris Weaver, October 25 2012
-
Re: facilitation Lynn Nadeau, April 19 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.