Facilitation Skills: Focused Communication Processes in Groups 3658400145, 9783658400149

Citation preview

Stefan Gross

Facilitation Skills Accompanying Communication Processes in Groups in a Goal-Oriented Way

Facilitation Skills

Stefan Gross

Facilitation Skills Focused Communication Processes in Groups

Stefan Gross Fulda, Germany

ISBN 978-3-658-40014-9    ISBN 978-3-658-40015-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer Gabler imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany

Foreword

Systems, such as companies or organizations, strive for stabilization and efficiency optimization of their immanent processes. Stabilization leads to complex and often hierarchical structures with an increasing static that easily becomes rigidity. Rigid systems, however, are no longer adaptable. Systems must be able to change their patterns in order to survive. Instability leads to critical phases that allow the transition to new patterns. This oscillation, as a basic evolutionary prerequisite for the viability of systems, has been mastered particularly effectively by cooperative, dynamic systems with a high communication ridge. Only state-forming insect populations and human societies have succeeded in sustainably occupying almost any habitat. Adaptability and creativity can thus be described as social processes of cooperative groups. The complex demands on organization, cooperation and communication within a group are constantly growing and can only be inadequately absorbed by the possibilities of digital networking, since this accelerates communicative processes but cannot reduce their complexity. In fact, it is the other way around: in digital communication, the dynamics, even the language itself, adapts to the requirements of the digital machinery. Often a group even loses the ability to exchange, because interpersonal communication no longer feels “interpersonal”. Anyone who communicates frequently via email or with standardized templates will know how many misunderstandings can be contained in a single message, no matter how well-intentioned. Communication skills seem to be a fundamental prerequisite for facing dynamic challenges. Dynamics requires and generates movement. Movement is also the basic prerequisite of any perceptual function of our sensory cells. Be it that the perceived object moves, or we move, or the tremor of our eyeballs, relative to the v

vi

Foreword

object. It is thus only possible for us to perceive differences. Where and how much, but not what. A statement about quality is not transmitted by our sensory cells. The “what”, that is, reality, can thus only be a constructional achievement of our brains. Fortunately, such a construction does not lead to solipsism, since we match constructed realities with our experiential values and especially with those of other people as well as their constructions. Thus, in order to create realities, at least two people, or better a group of people, are needed to exchange their respective experiences. To recognize such aligned experience values, the so-called eigenvalues, is extremely important in order to be able to understand and guide a group. If the group is in a rather anxious state, for example, due to daily overload or structural constraints, the common construction will also be rather anxious. This reduction of valuation and the hierarchical classification associated with it is indispensable for the development of an understanding of complex structures and the discovery of patterns, as is necessary, for example, in map work or other forms of visualization. In dealing with the dynamic challenges or disturbances of the system, therefore, the wise insight of Herbert Brün applies: “The definition of a problem, as well as the actions taken to solve it, depends largely on the perspective in which the individuals or groups who have discovered the problem conceive of the system with which the problem is related” (Brün 1971. 24th “Annual Conference on World Affairs”, University of Colorado). This statement implies two things. One is the group’s preoccupation with its own attitude or approach to the challenge, and the other is the implicit introduction of the “target group” as recipients or users. The introduction, or rediscovery, of the target group as an elementary component of communication and production processes has led to many effective solution processes in recent years, such as design thinking. However, it seems equally important to me to take a closer look at the construction processes within groups, not least because these processes undoubtedly pose extraordinary challenges to facilitation. Facilitation becomes a complex undertaking. It cannot be reduced to the professional use of methods. For successful process facilitation, it needs a whole range of competencies, including from systemics and neurology, in order to understand the phenomena of the construction process in groups and to be able to steer them naturally. It is a central task of facilitation, especially in innovation processes, to find and name these orders and patterns in dynamic systems together with the group. Heinz von Foerster suggested using the length of the mathematical formula needed to describe the system as a value for the disorder or entropy within a system. The better facilitation is at shortening this formula by setting up systems of order and taking them as given, the more information it takes out of the system. However, the goal, and unfortunately also the imposition for the facilitation and the group, is to

Foreword

vii

leave as much information as possible in the system for as long as possible in order to understand it from all perspectives, contexts and logics. And this especially from the uncomfortable perspectives of the disruptors, from the difficult thought constructions of the lateral thinkers and of course again and again from the usage contexts of the target groups. Trivializing dynamic complexity too early leads to quick and seemingly efficient solutions but denies the polycontextural logic and recursivity of dynamic human processes and systems. In order to ensure the connectivity of such an approach, Stefan Gross proposes here, as pragmatically as elegantly, to introduce a distinction between the methodologies for the facilitation space, the innovation space and the organizational space. In his book, Stefan Gross has excellently elaborated the complexity of modern facilitation processes. His theoretically reflected practical book offers a contemporary handbook for the numerous challenges that dynamic facilitation must face in the twenty-first century. University of Applied Sciences Mannheim Mannheim, Germany

Kai Beiderwellen

Preface to the English edition

The facilitation of groups is still complex, dynamic and challenging. So it is all the nicer that the publisher has given me the opportunity to publish the second edition of my book in English, too. At the same time, the translation brings to the surface a basic difficulty that I thought I had already solved in Chapter 8.1. While the term moderation has been established in German usage since the 1960s for the guidance of communication processes in groups, it is hardly used in the international context. Moderation, from its Latin roots, refers to “ balancing”, “finding the middle”, “equalizing”. This applies both to the self-image of the moderator and to his or her interventions. Those looking for a moderator hope for a neutral, non-partisan person who takes professional responsibility for the process until the common goal is reached. The international term facilitation, on the other hand, emphasizes “easiness”, “ enabling” that comes along with the process management. The group is led to a point that it would probably not have reached on its own. In this process, “selforganisation of the group” and “empowerment” up to “self-facilitation” resonate. Development takes place in the field of tension between task and relationship. Both terms emphasize different things, although in practice the transitions are fluid and sometimes indistinguishable. Aware of these differences, which are only hinted at here, we have decided to use the term facilitation consistently in the English edition. This is to ensure connectivity with both, established practice and international theoretical discourse. Nevertheless, I hope that this publication will contribute to a broader understanding on each level.

ix

x

Preface to the English edition

In retrospect, writing the first German-language edition in 2018 was above all an invitation to specify one’s own thoughts on the practical craft of facilitation and to give them a concrete form. At the same time, this set the jumping-off point for further loops of thought. The next step followed with the additions on virtual facilitation and collaborative learning in the second German language edition in 2021. This English edition in 2022 now opens up additional spaces for sharing knowledge in order to further improve everyday communication processes in groups in a focused way. Fulda, Germany May 2022

Stefan Gross

Contents

1 Why Facilitation?�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  1 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  6 2 What  Characterizes Good Facilitation?�������������������������������������������������  9 2.1 Knowledge and Skills����������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 2.2 Perception and Action����������������������������������������������������������������������� 19 2.3 The Fields of Competence ��������������������������������������������������������������� 24 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 29 3 Using Methods Correctly������������������������������������������������������������������������� 33 3.1 Choosing the Right Method ������������������������������������������������������������� 41 3.2 Professional Craft����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 45 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 48 4 Managing Group Processes��������������������������������������������������������������������� 49 4.1 Facilitating Along Process Flows����������������������������������������������������� 53 4.2 Settings Have Effects ����������������������������������������������������������������������� 56 4.3 Structuring and Organizing Topics��������������������������������������������������� 60 4.4 Rules and Levers for Communication Processes ����������������������������� 65 References ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 71 5 Distinguishing Tasks and Causes ����������������������������������������������������������� 75 5.1 Solving Problems ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 77 5.2 Making Good Decisions������������������������������������������������������������������� 82 5.3 Clarifying Conflicts��������������������������������������������������������������������������� 91

xi

xii

Contents

5.4 Facilitating Innovation Processes����������������������������������������������������� 98 5.5 Learning Together�����������������������������������������������������������������������������107 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������114 6 Including  Organization and Context �����������������������������������������������������119 6.1 Identifying Influencing Factors���������������������������������������������������������123 6.2 Ensuring Transfer and Connectivity�������������������������������������������������126 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129 7 Establishing  Relationship and Contact �������������������������������������������������131 7.1 The Triangular Relationship Between the Actors�����������������������������132 7.2 Proximity and Distance���������������������������������������������������������������������136 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������138 8 Developing  Role Clarity and Self-­Image �����������������������������������������������139 8.1 With Balance and Ease���������������������������������������������������������������������143 8.2 The Expert Status of the Facilitator �������������������������������������������������145 8.3 Process Design, Information Control and Interaction Support���������146 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������149 9 Using Visualization Effectively ���������������������������������������������������������������151 9.1 Visual Intervention Tools �����������������������������������������������������������������152 9.2 Control Components�������������������������������������������������������������������������156 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������159 10 Virtual Facilitation�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������161 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������172 11 Learning to Facilitate�������������������������������������������������������������������������������173 11.1 Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces �����������������������������������������175 11.2 Outlook�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������183 References �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������184 Further Reading�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������187

1

Why Facilitation?

I am. We are. That’s enough. Now we have to begin. (Bloch 1964, p. 11)

In organizations, complexity has become an everyday experience. Simple instructions from the top or unambiguous rules that simply have to be followed are no longer sufficient in many places to organize work well. Hierarchical organizational structures seem to be in crisis (cf. Frei 2016). Routines and standard procedures are taking hold in fewer and fewer cases. Things are getting into flux. A new form of uncertainty is emerging. Project groups override established power structures and leadership relationships and necessitate a new culture of togetherness (cf. Wimmer 2008, p. 36). Being superior or subordinated plays less and less of a role. Instead of vertically, new models of cooperation are being experimented horizontally and diagonally. Where tasks used to be simply dissected and passed down from top to bottom, people are now looking for other ways to manage them together in the best possible way. This can only be achieved with an increased communication effort. However, a relapse into old patterns as soon as the first difficulties threaten can by no means be ruled out (cf. Baecker 1994, p. 24). Which path is matching with which task must be reconsidered and negotiated in many places. Old approaches to solutions are only partially effective. Even decisions with high impact are increasingly being made outside the hierarchical order. With projects and networks, new forms of crossfunctional organizations are emerging from the hierarchical crisis. These seem better suited to mastering the complex

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_1

1

2

1  Why Facilitation?

challenges (cf. Heintel and Krainz 2015). Digital networking possibilities play their part in this. At the same time, dealing with complexity is also an imposition for individuals, for teams and for organizations. New questions arise regarding self-organization, cooperation and leadership. Which task has which priority for me, for my team, for the entire organization? Who is actually responsible and accountable for what? Who all has to be involved in which topic and in which order? Who provides the appropriate framework conditions so that the new forms of cooperation are supported in the best possible way? How does one organize oneself in a team? Coordination and exchange of information become the central challenge for managing the tasks. The daily burden of cooperation increases noticeably (cf. Bolte et al. 2008). Meetings and workshops are the institutionalized place where the corresponding phenomena become visible (cf. Rief 2015, p. 23 ff.). Complexity as a Challenge As complexity increases, so does acceleration. Everything is becoming more dynamic, faster and more agile. More and more activities are to be completed in even shorter time units, preferably in real time. Work is thus becoming increasingly condensed (cf. Rosa 2005). At the same time, the tasks to be completed are becoming more demanding and complex. One person alone can hardly cope with this. So the dependence on others is also increasing. Crossfunctional cooperation no longer seems to be a question of willingness, but is increasingly becoming without alternative. Complex problems require complex solutions and new ways of dealing at eye level. The overall intelligence of an organization is not located at the top (cf. Simon 2013, p. 14 ff.). It is distributed across its entire breadth and depth. Information, decision-making and feedback processes have to be thought out and established anew for each project. In times of “post-heroic management”, systemic interaction becomes the relevant factor for organizational success (cf. Baecker 1994). It is an art to remain capable of acting in the face of all these interconnections, overlaps and interactions, even without a master plan. Often, unnecessary coordination and security loops are being made. Out of reflex, people are invited to a meeting even before it is clear what it is actually about. The motive behind this is often the fear of making a mistake and going over someone’s responsibility. Or it is motivated by the belief that this is the way to get all the relevant information at once. The density of meetings is inexorably increasing. The small reflects the big. Meetings and organizations are “collections of solutions looking for problems, a jumble of issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which to express them, and a more or less structured bunch of decision makers looking for work, influence, and self-fulfillment” (Baecker 1994, p. 93).

1  Why Facilitation?

3

The forum, which should actually be a central part of the solution, itself becomes a problem. Sixty nine percent of such meetings are experienced as unproductive (cf. Rief 2015, p. 24). Yet many managers now spend a large part of their working time in meeting rooms. Some no longer even get to the actual work due to the sheer number of coordination meetings (cf. Dueck 2015, p. 8). If these meetings and workshops then also run aimlessly and unproductively, it becomes doubly difficult to clear away the mountain of tasks that has piled up. Participation in Response Thinking and understanding together can pay off in many ways. For this to happen, however, it must be possible to organize the exchange in such a way that the ideas, arguments and contributions of the participants are linked together in such a way that a meaningful whole emerges; not a collection of solitaries, but a group that interacts as a unity. Information, experiences, but also concerns and criticisms are shared openly. In this way, existing knowledge is made useful to all. Each perspective makes its contribution, the more heterogeneous, the more versatile. New things emerge. Together, a multi-layered view of current challenges, problems, conflicts or decision alternatives emerges. In this way, it is possible to see beyond one’s own limited horizons. Where this kind of communication actually succeeds, different preferences, priorities and risk perceptions lead to differentiated assessments and robust decisions. Participation overcomes “local rationality” (Schnelle 2006, p. 17). Distributed knowledge from different areas or disciplines is pooled. Step by step, existing non-knowledge is reduced. Knowing what one does not know is already considered a “constitutive moment of knowledge” (Schmale et  al. 2009, p. 10). Communicative exchange not only deepens factual knowledge. It also reveals existing gaps, which can then in turn be closed. In the process, in addition to a shared understanding of the subject matter, a sense of belonging in the group also emerges. If there is a common basis, the workload can also be distributed across several shoulders in a resource-oriented manner. Specialists and generalists work hand in hand. Collective transparency helps to gain a regular overview by puzzling together. Documentation plays an essential role in this. Consistent visualization makes it possible to make information and tasks accessible to third parties. This creates additional spaces and opportunities for co-design that extend beyond the core group of participants. This idea of organizing cooperation is, of course, not new. Already in the 1960s, in the early days of the Moderation method, the aim was to develop new formats for participation. “Participation, that means: developing interest, thinking for oneself, taking responsibility, being able to contribute” (Klebert et  al. 2002, p.  16).

4

1  Why Facilitation?

Creating spaces for this was not only meant in a figurative sense, but actually physical and real. Pinboards, flipcharts and circles of chairs were not just accompaniments, but supporting pillars for the “space-time arrangement” of facilitation (cf. Zirkler and Raschèr 2014, p. 100). Since then, the goal has been to make successful communication and collaboration likely by creating the most advantageous framework conditions possible. This requires places where people in a group can approach an issue openly, constructively and in a focused manner. Learning spaces for adults are created in which not only success stories are discussed. Dealing constructively with mistakes and conflicts helps to build up equally useful “negative knowledge”. It is precisely in the wrong where necessary points of support become visible (cf. Oser and Spychiger 2005, p. 36). The Challenges of Everyday Meetings In meetings or workshops, we manage seemingly effortlessly to mix personal stories, views and opinions, task and relationship issues until a viscous “interpersonal mush” emerges (Bushe 2006). Amazingly, we even manage to do this without malicious intent. At the beginning, everyone resolves to discuss exclusively factual and focused this time. Everyone wants to confine themselves to the essentials and stick to the agreed rules. Everyone wants to be empathic. Together all are interested in a good result for everyone. All are convinced that it will work this time. Nevertheless, we get lost again surprisingly quickly in endless discussion loops beyond what was originally intended. Despite the pressure to make decisions, important topics are quickly discussed before it is understood exactly what they are about. Agreement fails to materialize. Unfavorable communication patterns, behaviors and mechanisms take hold, as if controlled by an invisible hand. Reproaches are placed, dissatisfaction is expressed, old familiar alliances block an open cooperation. Through active involvement or passive omission, everyone contributes to this development in different ways. The actual task fades into the background. The loud ones dominate the events, the quiet ones withdraw. With a little experience, it quickly becomes clear how the rest of the discussion will go. One after the other is dropping out of the conversation. Only those who cannot find a good reason to leave early stay. Important information is withheld in a wait-and-see manner. Instead, there are discussions of principle about the right course of action. Topics of varying degrees of relevance stand openly side by side, but none of them is properly clarified or prioritized. The result is sobering. The time spent together in meetings becomes a waste of time. Instead of a hoped-for added value in the form of synergy and co-creativity, only “swarm stupidity” can be diagnosed (Dueck 2015).

1  Why Facilitation?

5

One of the main reasons why meetings regularly fail is due to the fact that the complexity of communication in the group situation is underestimated. Everyone focuses on the content discussion and believes that the process and structure will work themselves out. After all, the issue is clear. Yet talking in a group is highly challenging in different ways. Anyone who, as part of the discussion group and acting actor, is jointly responsible for the communication chaos that has been created cannot also ensure that order is maintained. Those who provide the structure and framework find it difficult to also get involved in the details. Both roles demand profoundly different things, from oneself and from the other participants. Playing and cleaning up at the same time only works well in exceptional cases. Where this insight prevails, the call for facilitation is consequently heard. The hope is that a facilitator with a mandate to lead the discussion will intervene from the sidelines, as it were, whenever something does not go according to plan. The substantive debate continues to take place between the participants. While some can let off steam in the discussion, the facilitator keeps the peace and the structuring overview. As a creator of order with methodical skills, he ensures with disciplinary strictness that the group also achieves the jointly set goal. Facilitation should ensure that ego-oriented and competitive behaviour is transformed into cooperative interaction. The Contribution of Facilitation The support of a facilitator ensures focused, effective and efficient communication processes in groups. In principle, facilitation is always an open process. The scope and limits are negotiated in advance and continuously explored in the joint process. Some stages of the process only emerge while walking, others are already relatively clearly predefined. Structures provide interim points of orientation along the way. Complexity is not ignored, but made visible and workable. Again and again, joint decisions are made which help to move forward step by step. The tasks to be clarified are supported up to implementation issues. This does not always mean that the pace has to be increased for reasons of efficiency. Decelerating, pausing, collecting, condensing and re-prioritizing also represent effective interventions that can be guided from the outside. “It is the end that determines which means are appropriate, not the other way around” (Herzog 2013, p. 82). In the event of conflict, the task is to mediate between conflicting perspectives and positions. The goal is to promote mutual understanding. Visualizations that arise live in the process can contribute significantly to this. Facilitation creates resonance spaces in a variety of ways, in which the participants come into contact with each other and with their task (cf. Rosa 2016). Instead of quick answers, this requires good questions that lead to new insights.

6

1  Why Facilitation?

Thus, facilitation itself is a complex undertaking. It cannot be reduced to the professional use of methods or the pinning of cards. Instead, successful process support requires a whole range of competencies. These become apparent “when it is possible to act appropriately when situational requirements coincide with the individually available potential of knowledge, skills, etc.” (Gnahs 2010, p. 19). With explicit facilitation, fundamentally different topics are not addressed in a discussion than in conversations without it. However, according to the thesis, the tasks and questions are discussed differently with facilitation. In return, facilitation sets creative impulses. It reduces complexity at some points in order to increase it again at other points for the process quality. Good questions influence the course of the process. Helpful structures and methods support the content-related processing. Facilitation offers all participants space to contribute and to stay in contact with the others. In this way, it provides content-focused, social and process-related orientation. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Baecker, D. 1994. Postheroisches Management. Ein Vademecum. Berlin: Merve. Bloch, E. 1964. Geist der Utopie. Bearbeitete Neuauflage der zweiten Fassung von 1923. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. Bolte, A., et al. 2008. Die alltägliche Last der Kooperation. Abstimmung als Arbeit und das Ende der Meeting-Euphorie. Berlin: Edition Sigma. Bushe, G. 2006. Sense Making and the problems of learning from experience. Barriers and requirements for creating cultures of collaboration. In Creating a culture of collaboration. The international association of facilitators handbook, Hrsg. S. Schuman, 151–172. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

References

7

Dueck, G. 2015. Schwarmdumm. So blöd sind wir nur gemeinsam. Frankfurt aM Main: Campus. Frei, F. 2016. Hierarchie. Das Ende eines Erfolgsrezepts. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Gnahs, D. 2010. Kompetenzen – Erwerb, Erfassung, Instrumente. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Heintel, P., and E.  Krainz. 2015. Projektmanagement. Hierarchiekrise, Systemabwehr, Komplexitätsbewältigung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Herzog, W. 2013. Bildungsstandards. Eine kritische Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Klebert, K., et al. 2002. Moderations-Methode. Das Standardwerk. Hamburg: Windmühle. Oser, F., and M. Spychiger. 2005. Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur. Weinheim: Beltz. Rief, S. 2015. Methode zur Analyse des Besprechungsgeschehens und zur Konzeption optimierter räumlich-technischer Infrastrukturen für Besprechungen. Stuttgart: Frauenhofer. Rosa, H. 2005. Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. ———. 2016. Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Schmale, H. et al., Hrsg. 2009. Wissen/Nichtwissen. München: Wilhelm Fink. Schnelle, W. 2006. Diskursive Organisations- und Strategieberatung. Norderstedt: BoD. Simon, F. 2013. Gemeinsam sind wir blöd!? Die Intelligenz von Unternehmen, Managern und Märkten. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Wimmer, R. 2008. Das besondere Lernpotenzial der gruppendynamischen Trainingsgruppe. Seine Bedeutung für die Steuerung des Kommunikationsgeschehens in komplexen Organisationen. In betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P. Heintel, 36–52. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Zirkler, M., und A.  Raschèr. 2014. Zur Ordnungsstruktur von Moderationsprozessen: Funktionen, Rollen und Konfliktpotentiale. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und T. Barth, 99–120. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

2

What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

People spend a lot of time cleaning stuff up, but they never seem to take time to mess it up. Everything just kind of seems to get messed up on its own. And then people have to clean up again. (Bateson 1981, p. 32)

Facilitation supports people in their efforts to create or maintain order in a discussion. Normally, communication situations in groups quickly become disorderly. Different interests, goals and expectations clash openly or unspokenly. Rarely is a structure recognizable at first glance. There may be a common occasion or an official topic for which people have come together in one place. But all the rest remains diffuse and unclear (cf. Stahl 2002, p. 15 ff.). Appreciative communication and a result-oriented self-organization of the group can succeed under such conditions, but it does not have to. The consistent use of facilitation, on the other hand, promises to regularly sort out the communicative confusion in different ways and at different points. The participants systematically enter into conversation with each other. Supported by appropriate discussion control, they remain focused even when the discussion falters or deviates from the original plan. Facilitation guarantees order. This does not prevent new disorder from arising in the meantime. However, with consistent clarification, sorting and clearing away, it is possible, under expert guidance and with united forces, to avoid the really big communication chaos. Together we reach the goal we have set for ourselves.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_2

9

10

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

In the Field of Tension Between Task and Relationship In order to be able to create order for others, one needs orientation oneself. Two dimensions play a special role for every facilitation: the task to be done and the relationship to and between the participants (Fig. 2.1). Both poles act as a source of tension in the field of facilitation. They create a dynamic complexity that quickly turns the facilitative task into a non-trivial challenge. In socio-emotional terms, relationship issues arise with regard to a functioning conversation culture. What does it take to be able to work well together? What already characterizes the interaction in an existing group? Does a long leash or deliberate constriction help? How is it possible to avoid known stumbling blocks in the interpersonal sphere? Should conflicts be avoided preventively or better brought to explosion in a controlled way? Relationships not only bear, they can also become a burden. This does not even have to lead to open conflicts. Groups that know each other well can easily get into unproductive waters. Then the only thing that helps is coordinating guidelines to avoid getting caught up in the usual patterns. Since every group is different, it needs a special form of support. The ability to connect becomes a key competence of facilitation. Working on the task level is also not a matter of course. Only those who deliberately question the self-evident create spaces in which something new can emerge. Unresolved issues must be addressed so that a productive discussion can take place. If the aspects critical to success are not clear, it is easy to talk past each other. With the usual standard discussions, one is only in familiar territory in terms of content. Arguments repeat themselves. Discussions revolve in familiar circles. Fig. 2.1  In the field of tension between task and relationship

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

11

New structural impulses are necessary to break up such patterns. With this kind of deconstruction, however, you do not just make friends as a facilitator. Both aspects, the subject matter and the relationship level, have sufficient moments of tension on their own. In combination, they become a real force field. At first, an equation is obvious. One might think that a good working atmosphere automatically produces good results. Correspondingly, this would also mean that a bad atmosphere leads to below-average results. If a good atmosphere is created, the rest of the content will come about more or less on its own. In this way, facilitation would become a service with the task of ensuring the well-being of the group. However, it is not quite that simple. Contrary to a widespread lay understanding, numerous results from group research show that a good climate does not automatically guarantee a good work result (cf. Witte 2012, p. 15 ff.). The opposite is also a fallacy. Dissent, criticism and expressed displeasure may cause tensions on the relationship level. They can even lead to conflict between the parties involved. At the same time, however, there is also the chance that they set creative stimulus points that contribute to an increased quality of results. What on the one hand becomes an interpersonal burden, on the other hand provides fruitful irritations and can trigger new ways of thinking. A dilemma for which the facilitator must find a good way of dealing. “It is not the individuals who need to be coordinated, but what they do” (Baecker 1994, p. 26). When there is too much harmony, so-called group thinking traps lurk. In this case, misjudgements in groups are sometimes even reinforced. Where three people have already agreed on an opinion, a dissenting statement is hardly to be expected. Cascade effects negatively influence the quality of results. The effect of the so-­ called availability bias ensures that people talk primarily about those aspects that are currently present anyway (cf. Sunstein and Hastie 2015, p. 44 ff.). Other factors remain hidden. What does not take place in the current communication soon does not play a role in the overall thinking about a topic. Once found, solution paths are only abandoned again under protest (cf. Dörner 2008, p. 118 ff.). Inertia and perseverance normally prevail. Once the train is on the wrong track, turning manoeuvres become more and more complicated. Although other course scenarios would have been possible at the beginning, one remains on the chosen path. When the first needle in the haystack is found, all further search movements are stopped. It would then take very good reasons and an enormous amount of persuasion to muster the energy to continue searching elsewhere. Those who do not want to disturb the good climate prefer to hold back corresponding suggestions. The same happens with critical counter-arguments or information that is still missing. Consequently, especially in strongly harmony-oriented

12

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

groups, people prefer to talk about what everyone already knows anyway. This is not unproblematic for the cause. The collective feeling of well-being then comes at the expense of the quality of results (cf. Sunstein and Hastie 2015, p. 23 ff.). Facilitators who are aware of these challenges can counteract them with targeted interventions and a sober view of the task. However, they must not lose the group in the process. The task and the relationship must be balanced separately and well with each other. Sometimes processes get out of balance here. If there is no consistent task orientation, a discussion ends in unproductive harmony. If the relationship is disturbed, no progress can be made in the matter. For the facilitator it remains a double-sided challenge. The Interaction Triangle: Group, Task and Facilitator Adding the facilitator as a further component alongside the group and the task results in a typical interaction triangle (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 305; von Kanitz 2016, p. 31) (Fig. 2.2). With its help, the interaction of the relevant factors in the workshop process can be well illustrated. The three corner stones and the three axes each draw attention to different facets. They provide an opportunity to ask important questions for reflection. Each aspect in itself has the potential to become critical to success. If one of the cornerstones breaks down or one of the axes does not function, the entire construction collapses. To what extent does the facilitator succeed in creating clarity of purpose, order and structure with regard to the task, so that a good result is achieved? Where and how can he influence the interaction in the group, build a relationship with and between the participants? Does he manage to provide all participants in the process with enough impetus so Fig. 2.2 Interaction triangle: group, task, facilitator

Facilitator

Task

Group

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

13

that they can work well together? Are all the key stakeholders in the group on board? How much freedom for self-organization can be left, how much assistance is necessary to be able to work on the assignment in the best possible way? Do the stakeholders develop a sense of ownership for their responsibilities? Does the task possibly shift during the processing? When is a task done well enough? How far does a topic need to be advanced together so that it can be continued independently in the day-to-day organization? Addressing these questions provides elementary parts of the answer to when facilitation has been successful. And it makes clear that the factors for success are intimately connected. The facilitator and the group form a fellowship. They are mutually dependent on each other. Without the participants, the intended goal cannot be achieved. Under certain circumstances, this can even mean that, despite an enormous amount of work on the part of the facilitator, no satisfactory result is achieved in the end (cf. Freimuth et al. 2014, p. 468). At their core, processes of participation are always open. The line between task and group remains a stretch of road that can only be mastered by the participants themselves. Facilitation always represents a special risk because this section systematically eludes direct access by the moderator. Results can only be achieved through connections. Accordingly, the main focus is on looking for ways to support the other participants in their processing as best as possible, rather than trying to do too much yourself. The key to this is questioning. Every facilitative consideration begins with clarifying what the participants need in what form in order to think and work well together on their topic. What can the assembled expertise in the room be best used for? How can the group add real value? What makes sense in this constellation? Aligned with the thematic task, the facilitator’s support and guidance mission is oriented towards what is helpful for the participants in each case. This cosmos cannot be opened up through one’s own speaking parts; at least not until it is clear where the group stands. This self-­ understanding cannot be taken for granted. Its clarification is part of the facilitation task. What is possible in terms of the quality of results within the agreed time frame and where the limits lie is determined in constant discussion with the group. Joint interaction is a substantial part of the process from the very beginning. Process Design, Interaction Support, Information Control This results in a functional description for facilitation which, following Erich Witte, comprises three essential dimensions: The shaping and design of the communication process, the coordinating accompaniment of group interaction and the targeted control of the flow of information at the content level (cf. Witte 2012, p. 94

14

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

ff.) (Fig. 2.3). The facilitator is therefore a process designer, discussion manager and interface coordinator. Facilitators shape communication processes. Some work very freely, others invest a lot of time in developing a sophisticated plan. In any case, it helps to give some thought to the appropriate approach. It is a bit like a circus performance. Everything that looks so easy and simple to the audience is the result of consistent interaction planning or spontaneous improvisation skills. Both are based on the fact that rehearsals and arrangements have been made countless times beforehand until every step on stage is perfect. The artists are already thinking ahead to the next step while the audience is still applauding the last number. Everything is a question of coordination. With every performance you have to prove yourself anew in front of a different audience. Tastes are different. In every performance you have to deal with special difficulties. Each time you have to adapt spontaneously. Things often turn out a little differently than you think. Even in the tightrope act of facilitation, an experienced use of methods and a schedule ensure a high level of process reliability at many points. Proven procedures provide a solid foundation. There are standards from the method box that always work. These are recurring elements that can appear in almost any process design. Every group is different, but not so different that there are no basic patterns that recur. A clear framework defines what can be achieved here and now. At the same time, this already standardizes the behavior of the participants. If everyone adheres to the given rules, an expectable result will be achieved within the agreed time frame. Alternatively, it is also possible to jointly agree on a process-open procedure at the beginning. In this case, regular orientation phases ensure that the Fig. 2.3 Three functional areas: Process design, interaction support, information control

Process Proce cess D Design esign Interaction Inter eractiion Support Suuppor ort

Information Inf nformatiion Control Control t

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

15

participants do not lose sight of each other and the common goal. The facilitator bears responsibility for the process and thus for everything that happens and does not happen. Facilitators accompany the interaction of groups. As soon as the plan meets reality, completely new challenges reveal themselves. What reads logical, stringent and comprehensible on paper in terms of process and procedure proves to be quite challenging in practical implementation. How do you know in advance which is the right method? How long does a step actually have to take until all the relevant information has been gathered? What does the facilitator do if the collective interest suddenly shifts? How to react if the original goal, for whatever reason, can no longer be achieved? Surprises and deviations from the plan are not the exception but the rule in discussion processes with groups. Communication situations are complex. There are no simple, causal interdependencies. Interests and sensitivities are just as present as content-related controversies and conflicting goals. Some of these can be held back, others erupt; unfavourably in situations where one does not actually expect it. The quality of the process and the outcome then depends to a large extent on how the facilitator reacts in the relevant situations, what decision he makes and on what hypotheses his interventions are based. Having a plan is helpful. It provides a solid basic security. However, success is decided in unpredictable practice. Accordingly, it is also important to have dynamic interaction support with a high degree of facilitative presence, which adapts to the respective situation, the existing needs and the current possibilities. Facilitators control the exchange of information. Facilitation is successful when it succeeds in bringing together as much relevant information, experience, questions to be clarified and ideas from the minds of the participants in a joint discussion. Then existing problems are solved, good decisions are made, conflicts are clarified or new things are developed. The facilitator creates the appropriate framework with his process and structure suggestions so that the pieces of the puzzle can mesh together. In certain phases this also includes unguided discussion sections. Or it may be advisable to change the mode and go into silent individual work. There, everyone can put their arguments down on paper in a concentrated manner, without disruptive influence from third parties (cf. Witte 2012, p. 84 ff.; Zubizarreta and zur Bonsen 2014, p.  69 ff.). The exchange of information in the plenum then takes place on the basis of the individual preparation. Together, they then search for connecting lines and elements. Short sequences in small groups always help to break through the passivity in a large group. What no one really wants to say in the plenary, in front of everyone, can become a productive part of the exchange of information in a more intimate

16

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

setting. The key insights can then flow back to the large group. Facilitation filters information while creating new opportunities for it to flow between participants without disruption. Instead of just exchanging superficial irrelevances, questions, visualizations, settings and methods help to get to the relevant aspects. Competence Instead of Method The quality of a facilitation has a lot to do with a clean methodical application, but even more with a professional self-image and the behavior of the facilitator. The schedule, methods and media used are the visible signs of facilitated processes. However, they neither stand for themselves, nor do they constitute the core of a facilitation. In the end, person-specific competencies are decisive for the successful accompaniment of communication processes. Theoretical knowledge, cognitive and practical skills are just as critical factors for success as social and behavioral components (cf. Gnahs 2010, p. 108). The competence-oriented approach to the field of facilitation presented here thus moves away from a pure methodological thinking. It places the interaction and interdependencies of group, facilitator and task at the centre of its considerations. In the end, it is less important whether a method was applied in accordance with the textbook guidelines. What is important is whether it actually helped in a concrete communication process. It is not the meticulous adherence to a schedule that demonstrates professionalism, but the justified deviation from it. It is precisely when things become confusing that no standard solutions or recipes are effective. Instead, a systemically broadened view and a prudent procedure in small steps help. The exception becomes routine. The special case can be expected. Situationally, order is created with regard to individual questions until all participants know again where they stand in the process. Competence is demonstrated where it is possible to remain capable of acting even under uncertainty (cf. Erpenbeck and Sauter 2013, p. 191). Only in interaction with the group does the facilitator’s behavior create a coherent overall picture. Theoretical reflective knowledge on the one hand and practical skills on the other form the basis for this. Relatively independent of the respective questions or problems, facilitators support others in focused working. The participants remain the experts for their topic. The orderly intervention of the facilitator on a structural or cultural level relieves the participants of sorting work, but does not take away the responsibility for the content. For example, while the facilitator describes the moderation cards in legible writing, the group’s discussion ensures that the content of the cards is clear. For successful interaction, especially in rather inexperienced constellations, regular loops of understanding are needed regarding the respective roles in the process. Group- and situation-specific adaptation ensures

2.1  Knowledge and Skills

17

that the process support is of the greatest possible benefit. Together we achieve results that the group would not have achieved on its own. Instead of imposing standards, a suitable solution is tailor-made for each step in the process. In this way, each facilitation is unique in its particular constellation. This does not require any spectacular method fireworks, but simply a competent facilitator.

2.1 Knowledge and Skills Practical skill and theoretical knowledge must mutually relate to each other in order to turn the practice that always already exists into an effective, efficient, and focused one. “The knowledge that goes into a competency connects with the skill, making it usable” (Herzog 2013, p. 33). Without the theoretical handholds, experience cannot be anchored nor can it help guide action. Given the complexity present in the field of interpersonal communication, more reflection and less standard is called for. In group dynamic settings with multi-layered mixtures, everything is somehow connected to everything else. Every behaviour can dynamically change the entire field of interaction at any moment. In this there are opportunities as well as dangers. Those who are aware of this dialectical tension will be well protected from becoming inattentive to the process. However, oversimplifications in the form of trivial instructions for action must then also be avoided. This is the price of acknowledging complexity. The theoretical insights on effective process design, on questions of information control and on the possibilities of interaction guidance together provide the framework on which the use of methods, techniques and intervention tools is oriented (cf. Freimuth 2010; Witte 2012; Graeßner 2013). Knowledge and experience help to identify the relevant parameters and questions with which the field of practice of facilitation can be measured. Power and attention are then not directed at side effects, but at the central levers of action. Stabilizing guidelines secure the path at those points where uncertainty prevails. Instead of walking on hard-surfaced paths, there is room to move freely in the terrain without running the risk of stumbling in unclear places. Build on Theoretical Knowledge Facilitation contains secure knowledge from various sources (cf. Greif 2014). Diverse areas of different scientific disciplines interact for this purpose. “With regard to the requirements for a responsible facilitator, it becomes apparent that a lot of knowledge about the topics, common errors, the decomposition of tasks, the adaptation of group interaction to this decomposition, group motivation, informa-

18

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

tion integration, normative influences and evolutionary endowments of homo sapiens for the behavior of people in small groups must be available in order to be able to develop optimal solutions” (Witte 2012, p.  11). In addition to the theoretical findings from psychology, pedagogy or sociology on these aspects, there is now a separate interdisciplinary branch of research on “Meeting Science”, which decisively illuminates individual issues from everyday meetings and develops ­well-­founded recommendations for practice (cf. Allen et al. 2015). “It examines meetings not only as a mechanism/tool for communication and work, of people, and of time. Rather than a purely applied discipline, meeting science uses the scientific method and seeks to understand how and why meetings function the way they do” (Allen et al. 2015, p. 4). The topics explored in such contexts range from the importance of small talk to the effectiveness of specific methods and the influence of spatial and technical infrastructure (cf. Yoerger et al. 2015; Rief 2015). All this knowledge from the different provenances helps to better understand what happens in facilitated communication processes. Each facilitator can draw appropriate conclusions for his or her interaction guidance. The interventions based on this increase the likelihood of a successful process. Empirically proven findings also serve to correct a whole series of circulating myths. For example, groups are not automatically more efficient than individuals, emotions do not necessarily have to be taboo, and self-interest does not necessarily stand in the way of achieving common goals (cf. Montada and Kals 2001, p. 37 ff.; Witte 2012, p. 26 ff.). Those who know about these researched facts will create processes differently, act and react differently in certain situations. Thus, the expansion of competence for practice can certainly be achieved by reading a reference book. Through trained consultants, valid methods find their way into organizational practice. Build Up Expertise However, facilitators do not only base their actions on scientific research results. The second source of knowledge that has a direct influence on the behaviour of a facilitator is personal experience. One’s own idea of the rules according to which what one does as a facilitator basically works is the starting point for subjective theories. Every reflective practitioner has an implicit self-concept of his or her role, task, and influence (cf. Schön 1983, 1987). As an agent, one has an idea of what needs to be done, when and why, in order to achieve a certain effect. Habitual patterns are formed. They are the basis for assessment, action and reaction in the process. This wealth of experience can be made conscious and useful. Knowledge in the form of trained intuition is not only needed, it has always been there. The existing understanding can now be deepened, differentiated and

2.2  Perception and Action

19

further developed by observing oneself or others in action. From this, in turn, appropriate conclusions can be drawn for one’s own process design (cf. Herzog 2013, p. 77). In this way, individual experiences are condensed into a solid knowledge network. Principles of proven action are developed. They develop a powerful effect. The more often something succeeds, the stronger the conviction that this path is also the right one (cf. Epley 2015, p. 12). This implicit knowledge forms the basis for our intuitive judgement and our spontaneous actions in different situations (cf. Polanyi 1958). Facilitation is thus never without rules, even without explicit theory, but follows personal convictions and values. It is an expression of a specific attitude that manifests itself with increasing experience, even if it can only be partially put into words or theoretical concepts (cf. Neuweg 2004). One does it, just like that. Whether we are always right in our assessment is another matter (cf. Epley 2015). In any case, experiential knowledge is practically effective. It is correspondingly challenging to tap into this wealth of knowledge through feedback, reflection, introspection and awarenessraising on one’s own behalf. Here, too, practice always precedes theory.

2.2 Perception and Action Establishing order is above all a question of perception. We experience order “everywhere in the world, but without having the appropriate concepts to describe it” (Leitner 2007, p. 35). Anyone who has ever stood with a group at a pin board full of unordered moderation cards and, following the joint brainstorming, has been searching for the connecting string, will easily be able to understand this. Where do you see connections between the individual points? Where do you start, what do you summarize, what do you fade in and what do you ignore for the time being without losing sight of it completely? Should you proceed systematically or simply follow your intuition? Do you cluster from the middle or do you structure from the edges? What do you put in the foreground, and what does this necessarily push into the background? What do you look at together in the group, what can you also look at individually? Who is given space for their contribution in the plenum? Who is the first to make a suggestion? Which patterns of order are retained, where are the cards reshuffled and combined in which way until a new structural logic emerges? If there are several alternatives, who decides which is the right one? When is one actually finished with ordering and sorting? The list of such questions could be continued for a good while. However, it already makes clear at this point: depending on how the answer turns out and who finally does the sorting, communication processes as collective search movements

20

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

in different subject areas can take very different paths. The respective final results then look quite different, even though the initial material is the same. In many cases, there is no “right” or “wrong” order, even if there is a vigorous struggle for it. From a pragmatic point of view, the question for the facilitator is instead to what extent the structure currently found provides helpful, comprehensible and useful points of orientation with which the group is able to work on its task. Whatever makes sense for the participants is permitted. Create Order and Disorder In the course of a workshop process, one repeatedly reaches points where decisions have to be made about the further direction. Together, we examine how the different tasks can be most helpfully dissected and then cleverly put back together again. More differentiation and deeper drilling can help to understand a problem in the first place. Elsewhere, it is necessary to get a common overview. Or the first step is to start by throwing together everything that comes to mind on a topic. Aspects that have already been forgotten can also be brought up again in the course of a process and reassessed. This also applies to questions that are still waiting for an answer. New ideas emerge from recourse to what has been filed away. Sometimes the facilitator also has to deliberately bring an issue into chaos in order to create the conditions for a subsequent restructuring. Chaos is a precondition for creativity. In many cases, groups are dependent on concrete suggestions from the facilitator. His or her differentiating view and his or her distanced perception make it possible to make meaningful distinctions that are no longer possible for the participants. He or she steers towards putting together a comprehensible whole again from the individual parts. Step by step, by disassembling and recombining, an ever denser collective knowledge network is created. In this way, a theme is penetrated in its depth, interactions and intersections become visible, essentials crystallize, ambiguities become recognizable and workable. As in the kneading of a dough, each processing step contributes to further consolidation. Facilitation is mostly about an ordering of concepts. In this context, perception shifting processes occur. However, the least part of this happens live on the workshop stage. Data and information are initially linked in the minds of the participants. From observing and listening to others, patterns and connections are individually recognized. Condensed images emerge, which can only then be shared again (cf. Roam 2008, p. 37 ff.). This is precisely why it is so helpful for both the facilitator and the group members if the most important content is visualized in some form and visibly present for everyone in the room. Spoken words quickly fade away, especially in heated debates. Personal issues obscure the point. Important arguments are not heard

2.2  Perception and Action

21

because too many of them, strung together, are lost in a torrent of words. Visualization helps to decelerate and to create connection possibilities for all. Variants of order can be shared and checked for their coherence. Even the back of a napkin is sometimes enough to sketch the basics with a quick hand, on the basis of which further thinking can then be done together. For the common orientation in a ­discussion, a structural grid sometimes says more than a thousand words. Visualization, used correctly, is the most powerful instrument for process support, along with the facilitator’s questions. Structure and Network Working together and identifying overlaps is a condition. The non-expertise of the facilitator in many topics is less of a problem than it offers special opportunities. Standing outside the action without positioning oneself in terms of content is an elementary locational advantage for sorting processes. Patterns can only be discerned if one, as an observer, has a due distance from the matter at hand and maintains this distance throughout (cf. Baecker 2013, p. 18). The challenge is to make the knowledge of the participants visible to each other all the more when facilitating processes in unfamiliar thematic worlds. Via points of contact and connecting lines, the different contributions can thus be shared and made accessible. This means that not everyone in a meeting is always speaking for themselves and from their own position. Everyone is put in a position to link up with what has already been communicated. Only when people respond to each other can real added value be generated in the group and something new emerge. With a feeling for the right time, the facilitator sets the directional impulses. The group remains responsible for the content. However, the facilitator decides on the right moment to intervene in an orderly manner. The question of the extent to which a collective “knowledge extraction and knowledge integration” succeeds becomes a facilitative quality criterion (Witte 2012, p. 158). The facilitator’s structural ideas are basically suggestions. If they are not compatible with the group, new variants have to be sought until they fit. In the communication process, subjective perceptions intersect and, in the best case, lead to collective understanding in the form of a goal-related linking of information. Then collective thinking pays off and the exchange has been worthwhile for everyone and not just for each individual. Leverage Cooperation Potential “Those who look with the eyes of a facilitator see inhibited potential for cooperation” (Ueberhorst 1996, p. 236). Groups do not only need goal-oriented support from outside when it comes to sorting out the content. In most cases, a facilitator is

22

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

intuitively called in by groups where there is a fear that things might somehow get difficult interpersonally. Unfortunately, social factors such as antipathy, lack of appreciation, or non-cooperative behavior get in the way at the very point where collaboration with different viewpoints and perspectives would be most productive from a substantive standpoint. Innovation potential lies dormant in every conflict (cf. Vollmer et al. 2015, p. 23 ff.). Where there is a lack of will to collaborate, however, this remains untapped. In those cases where non-cooperation is not a solution, the presence of a facilitator ensures that appropriate forms of interaction are found. Since the facilitator is outside of possible lines of conflict or hierarchical orders, he or she can recognize and defuse potential dangers to constructive cooperation at an early stage. The form in which a group needs support in its specific situation depends less on the individual needs and more on the overall context of interaction. For one group it is already helpful to agree on addressing each other by first names in order to get into action without barriers. Others, on the other hand, have greater difficulties until they have overcome their social hurdles and prejudices. They need close guidance within a clearly defined framework. Paradoxically, facilitation is “made possible precisely when failure and collapse are close at hand” (Freimuth et  al. 2014, p. 468). In the face of impending inconclusiveness, one allows the intervention by an uninvolved third party. Facilitation always appears as a lifeline when the need to somehow get together is greatest. Yet it could also create real added value in a conflict-free context. One should not first have to argue in order to be allowed to use the help of an external facilitator. The understanding of what makes a group tick develops through observation in the course of a process. With increasing duration, peculiarities become apparent that deserve special attention. In critical situations, the focus of perception shifts from the matter at hand to the people, their behavior, and the interaction patterns that occur reciprocally. When one person speaks, what triggers the other participants? Is everyone paying attention? Who seems to have been disagreeing for a while and should have their say? Who do I have to reel back in because they are threatening to opt out of the debate? Where is the limit of attention reached, when does simply following through no longer make sense? Which argument is in a repetitive loop without increasing acceptance or creating deeper understanding? Will a heated situation escalate further in the group or will self-regulation succeed? What happens if I do not intervene? Is the achievement of goals or the group’s ability to work disturbed? Whether, when and how a facilitator intervenes on the social level has a lot to do with what exactly he selectively perceives in each case. Those who see nothing or hear between the lines cannot react. Depending on the perspective from which a

2.2  Perception and Action

23

process is observed, the decision is made in favour of controlling intervention or letting it run its course. Increasing experience with the dynamics of social processes also allows the imagination for their scope of development to grow. The resulting composure leads to the perception of more and more group-specific phenomena and, at the same time, to feel less and less the urge to become immediately active as a facilitator. The process expert waits patiently until the right moment has come. Set Helpful Interventions Every intervention interrupts the flow of conversation and energy in a group. Those who intervene m should therefore have good reasons for doing so. The goal in each case is to enable an orderly coexistence without dominating the process too much through permanent interference. Less and targeted is often more. Neither hyperactivity nor omnipresence are required from a facilitator. What helps is a thoughtful and observant approach that strives for integration, participation and ownership of the group. Those who see themselves as the sole guardians of order and place themselves too much in the centre of attention will not get rid of this role on stage so quickly. Facilitated discussions then become exhausting and tough for everyone involved. What you observe in the course of a process and what you react to are two different pairs of boots. Only where the cooperation is endangered in the long term should there be consistent and solution-oriented intervention. Side issues and sensitivities of individuals, for example, contribute little to the common cause, but can nevertheless severely hinder the process. Not every individual need has to be served within the framework of facilitation in the group. Facilitation then means setting boundaries. The interaction triangle provides a good basis for decision-making and argumentation in this respect. With reference to the common substantive goal, it can be made clear that the processing of a topic by the whole group is in the foreground. The common denominator is decisive. Choosing a certain direction always means not being able to realize a multitude of possibilities at the same time. Facilitation inevitably reduces complexity. Setting the framework clearly is necessary to increase the likelihood of results. This applies to the content level as well as to the social interaction, to the facilitator as well as to the other participants in the process. If you do not want to be solely responsible for what happens as a facilitator all the time, you should make sure from the beginning that everyone is actively involved in cleaning up and keeping order, and that they identify with this co-­ responsibility role. Otherwise, dependencies will be created that will be hard to get rid of. Groups easily get used to the luxury of all-round supervision. This makes it

24

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

all the more important to leave the participants in their own responsibility for as long and as far as possible from the very beginning. In groups with fine sensors, considerate, prudent and task-oriented cooperation succeeds even without a dedicated facilitator. When it comes down to it, however, it is also good to have someone who temporarily assumes overall responsibility. Such a role change out of the situation requires additional skill, not so much on the action level, but rather on the perception side. After all, one must immediately succeed in keeping an eye on the process, the other participants, the task and not least one’s own needs and limits at the same time from now on.

2.3 The Fields of Competence Facilitation is a “vivid process” (Scharmer 1991, p. 53). The challenge lies in the goal-oriented design of the interaction processes. Perceiving, understanding and acting go hand in hand. The task of the facilitator is to find the appropriate working mode with the participants. Structural, cultural and process-related elements intertwine for this purpose. The requirement profile for needs-based support is complex. A facilitator should be prudent and consider all interests. It needs a plan for an efficient and effective procedure. At the same time, however, the flexibility is expected to deviate from it at the right moment and to have an even more suitable alternative scenario ready. The correct application of methods is as much a condition as empathy. In difficult situations, spontaneous, creative, solution-oriented steering is required. In order to find one’s way through this melange, six fields of competence describe different dimensions that are of particular relevance for successful coping (Fig. 2.4). This competence structure model offers the possibility to deal with the role, task and scope of facilitation in a differentiated way; be it in critical process reflection, for the conscious clarification of an upcoming assignment or as an occasion to specifically develop one’s own skills and abilities in one of the areas (cf. Herzog 2013, p. 99 f.). Facilitation as a task remains complex in reality, sometimes even contradictory. The different focal points each allow for specific insights without being played off against each other. Taken together, they provide a differentiated overall picture. In this way, it is possible to gain a better understanding of the processes and dynamics at work. New options can be explored. Where it becomes necessary, the overview that provides order can be quickly regained for successful process support.

2.3  The Fields of Competence

25

Fig. 2.4  Six fields of competence

Methods

Group Processes

Tasks & Causes

Organization & Context

Relationship & Contact

Role & Self-image

Use Methods Correctly Facilitation methods can be used to open up topics, work on them, prioritise them and finally condense them into a concrete result. With the help of appropriate tools, it is possible to bring the central arguments into the discussion and make them ­visible. Mutual reference and systematic processing in and by the group thus become possible. A good facilitator must know which activating, decelerating or structuring method will achieve which effect with the participants. The professionalism of the application is reflected in the quality of the work. Working cleanly is also a question of practice and routine. The methods used must not interfere with the

26

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

process, but must support the group’s exchange. The facilitator is responsible for the appropriate choice in terms of target group, topic, process phase, time slot and context. He sets the framework within which dynamics can then unfold. The plan for the process has the status of a useful preliminary. If there are good reasons to deviate from it, this is not only permitted but even required. Manage Group Processes Having a full toolbox of methods provides a solid basic equipment. However, this alone is not sufficient for goal-oriented practical support in the field. There, it is critical to correctly assess the maturity level of a group in order to clarify which form of support it needs from the facilitator. Accordingly, the procedure and the processing mode must be adapted to the level found. Where helpful structures have to be created at one moment, breaking them up in favour of process-oriented flexibility is called for at another. Depending on what the monitoring of the interaction requires, it becomes a task to intervene with controlling impulses or to let the discussion continue for good reasons. In addition to achieving the content-related goals, it is also part of the facilitation task to create a culture of discussion that makes constructive cooperation possible for all participants. Clarifying interventions must be made where the achievement of goals or the ability to work in the group is at risk. This can be achieved through concrete procedural suggestions, the choice of a suitable setting, different structuring offers or through the introduction of rules that are jointly observed. Distinguish Tasks and Causes For solving problems, clarifying conflicts, making good decisions, developing new ideas or learning together, procedures have been established which facilitate the corresponding process support. Depending on the thematic focus for a facilitation, the procedure will differ significantly in its basic layout. In a design for the development of problem solutions, possible causes are analysed in a differentiated and person-independent manner. Different perspectives help in such a search for clues. The joint analysis of the cause forms the core on which the exchange in the group is oriented. For the clarification of conflicts, on the other hand, the focus is on the human factor. The aim here is to promote mutual understanding between the parties involved in the conflict. A systematic change of perspective is the central key to this. Further escalations must be avoided until viable agreements are finally reached. Meetings and workshops are the places where decisions are made and legitimized in organizations. At the same time, decision-making processes extend far beyond this formal act. They always have a prehistory and side effects, but above

2.3  The Fields of Competence

27

all they have consequences. After the decision, the world looks different than before. The concrete effects must be played out in a joint discussion in order to derive relevant parameters for decision-making. With the help of the facilitator, the necessary scenarios are developed. Clear criteria increase the probability of good decisions. Subsequently, questions regarding communication, implementation and the design of feedback loops need to be clarified. Real innovation requires less structuring order and more questioning lateral thinking. The behavior of possible target groups, social trends or the confrontation with different approaches provide the raw material from which own ideas for the respective application context are then forged. Accompanying such creative processes requires a special kind of facilitation at crucial points. New perspectives emerge via iterative loops instead of in a linear process sequence. The goal is to leave previous paths of thought and break with old patterns in order to create something together that has never existed before. In the end, a “prototype” is created, with the help of which the idea can be tested for its practicality. Learning is a social, creative process. Constructive exchange creates the productive energy for new things. Good questions, open spaces, networking among each other and cross-communication enable learners to take responsibility for their own learning process. Facilitation helps to set goals, to stay in contact, to ask good questions, to find answers together, to understand backgrounds, to reflect processes, to specify problems and to concretize ideas for solutions. In this way learning becomes visible. In the process-open cooperation, all participants learn from each other and about each other, far beyond the boundaries of the event. Include Organization and Context Workshops are not an end in themselves. They do not stand on their own, but have a function in a larger organizational context. An external occasion determines their occurrence, the right composition of the field of participants and the appropriate time. Afterwards, the agreed topics and tasks must be continued with someone, somewhere, somehow. Already in the workshop it has to be clarified what is necessary for this. The next steps are agreed upon bindingly between the participants, the whereabouts of open questions are clarified. The facilitative area of responsibility for what happens thus extends well beyond the scope of the actual event. Workshops are embedded in a culture of communication and collaboration. The small often reflects the patterns and peculiarities from the large. Power, influence and individual goal achievement play a significant role in the interaction. For the success of a facilitation it is therefore crucial to also keep an eye on those factors that lie beyond the common facilitation section. Methodical filters in the form of processes, settings, rules or structures ensure that the relevant aspects from the

28

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

context are included and at the same time the disturbing elements are kept out. Facilitated workshops create special spaces in this way. Here, members of an organization can experience the results that a participative form of processing can lead to. Targeted questions and advisory impulses contribute to a successful transfer without overstepping the boundaries of the facilitator’s role. Facilitation thus ­becomes a catalyst for successful change processes, both at the content and cultural level. Establish Relationship and Contact Goals in workshops can only be achieved together. In this respect, facilitation is above all a relationship-based activity. A constructive, open and trusting relationship between those involved in the process is the condition for cooperative interaction to lead to good results. Once the roles and specific expectations have been clarified, everyone can contribute to the overall success in their respective function in a specific way. The relationship between client and facilitator is of particular importance. Regular communication loops are helpful for quick decisions in the process. In this way, decisions can be made on the common direction during the ongoing process and, if necessary, readjusted. How responsibilities are distributed, how one will react in unexpected situations, who will bring whom on board and when; these are all important questions that should already be addressed in the initial meeting. A joint discussion of these topics already pays off positively for the relationship account. On this basis, it is possible to intervene confidently and in a solution-oriented manner in an emergency, without having to constantly reassure oneself. Trust reduces complexity to a certain extent. The formal place of the plenary, but also the informal rounds in the coffee breaks or in the evening offer numerous possibilities to shape the relationship level. The search for an appropriate closeness and distance relationship between facilitator and group describes the greatest challenge at the relationship level. Only those who have enough distance to the task and to the people can support with helpful interventions from the outside. However, if the string of contact is broken, control becomes impossible. Finding the right balance is part of a negotiation process that lasts the entire duration of the workshop. It must always be made clear to the group that it bears the ultimate responsibility for the issues dealt with. Nothing should therefore happen in a facilitation for the sake of the facilitator. Instead, the participants must be supported in bringing up the issues that are relevant to them. Together, they think ahead to such an extent that independent further work is possible afterwards.

References

29

Develop Role Clarity and Self-Image In his or her role and function, the facilitator is a projection screen for numerous different and sometimes contradictory expectations on the part of the clients and participants. Neutrality and multipartiality are central characteristics. At the same time, every methodical intervention means a massive influence on the work process in one direction or the other. Engaged intervention, controlling impulses or ­unfiltered feedback can help the group to uncover blind spots and to find its way out of selfcreated dead ends. It is important that this influence is always exerted without selfinterest or manipulative connotations. Everything serves the common goal and task fulfilment. As experts for process design, interaction support and information control, facilitators help the group to find the right balance. With numerous impulses and structural guidelines, they support exchange and cooperation. Experience with such or similar processes and a corresponding attribution of competence are the condition for being recognized by the participants as an authority and expert responsible for the process. Facilitators structure and organize the work process. They look for ways to activate the participants, they help to integrate participants, perspectives and points of view, they create transparency and make it possible for everyone to follow the red line in terms of content. Beyond the pure knowledge of methods, the core of quality is visibly hidden here, in a clarified self-image and in competent action. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Allen, J. et  al. Hrsg. 2015. The Cambridge handbook of meeting science. Cambridge: University Press. Baecker, D. 1994. Postheroisches Management. Ein Vademecum. Berlin: Merve.

30

2  What Characterizes Good Facilitation?

———. 2013. Beobachter unter sich. Eine Kulturtheorie. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Bateson, G. 1981. Ökologie des Geistes. Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Dörner, D. 2008. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Epley, N. 2015. Mindwise. Why we misunderstand what others think, believe, feel, and want. New York: Random House. Erpenbeck, J., and W. Sauter. 2013. So werden wir lernen! Kompetenzentwicklung in einer Welt fühlender Computer, kluger Wolken und sinnsuchender Netze. Berlin: Springer Gabler. Freimuth, J. 2010. Moderation. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Freimuth, J., K.  Peesel, J.  Völker 2014. Wann ist Moderation erfolgreich? In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J.  Freimuth und T. Barth, 451–474. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Gnahs, D. 2010. Kompetenzen – Erwerb, Erfassung, Instrumente. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Greif, S. 2014. Wissenschaftliche Grundlagen der Moderation. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J.  Freimuth und T.  Barth, 65–82. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Herzog, W. 2013. Bildungsstandards. Eine kritische Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Leitner, H. 2007. Mustertheorie. Einführung und Perspektiven auf den Spuren von Christoph Alexander. Graz: Nausner & Nausner. Montada, L., and E.  Kals. 2001. Mediation. Lehrbuch für Psychologen und Juristen. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Neuweg, G. 2004. Könnerschaft und implizites Wissen. Zur lehr-lerntheoretischen Bedeutung der Erkenntnis – und Wissenstheorie Michael Polanyis. Münster: Waxmann. Polanyi, M. 1958. In Knowing and being. Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. Marjorie Grene. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rief, S. 2015. Methode zur Analyse des Besprechungsgeschehens und zur Konzeption optimierter räumlich-technischer Infrastrukturen für Besprechungen. Stuttgart: Frauenhofer. Roam, D. 2008. The back of the napkin. Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. London: Penguin. Scharmer, O. 1991. Ästhetik als Kategorie strategischer Führung: Der ästhetische Typus von wirtschaftlichen Organisationen. Stuttgart: Urachhaus. Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Sunstein, C., and R.  Hastie. 2015. Wiser. Getting beyond groupthinking to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business Review. Ueberhorst, R. 1996. Demokratie, Wirtschaft und langfristige Leitbilder – Wann und warum sollten Unternehmen welche neuen externen Kooperationspotentiale erschließen? In Demokratisierung von Organisationen. Philosophie, Ursprünge und Perspektiven der Metaplan-Idee, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und F. Straub, 235–250. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

References

31

Vollmer, A., M. Dick, and T. Wehner, eds. 2015. Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen. Konflikte bearbeiten, Entscheidungen treffen, Innovationen fördern. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Von Kanitz, A. 2016. Crashkurs Professionell Moderieren. Freiburg: Haufe. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: ­Hogrefe. Yoerger, M., F. Kyle, und J. Allen. 2015. So much more than “chit-chat”. A closer look at premeeting talk. In The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, Hrsg. J. Allen, et al., 153–173. Cambridge: University Press. Zubizarreta, R., and M. zur Bonsen. 2014. Dynamic Facilitation. Die erfolgreiche Moderationsmethode für schwierige und verfahrene Situationen. Weinheim: Beltz.

3

Using Methods Correctly

Yeah, just make a plan. Just be a big light. And then make a second plan. They both don’t work right. (Brecht 1998, p. 379)

Methods are the flagship of every facilitated process. Methods create order. Methods bring clarity. Methods provide security. Methods provide orientation. Their use is expected to lead to an effective and efficient handling of the issues at hand. Essentials are clarified, secondary issues are left out. Adapted to the framework conditions and aligned with the goal, the facilitator chooses a sensible approach. Afterwards, the quality of the process is measured by whether the effort was in balance with the benefits. Therefore the focus is on the process planning and the methods used. Plan and Reality The crux of the matter is that we unfortunately do not know in advance how a concrete communication process will stride ahead in reality. Specific focal points that are set in an open discussion are incalculable. Frameworks do help to clearly limit this leeway. On the way with groups, however, unexpected turbulences can always occur that suddenly throw everything that has been prepared out of kilter. Predictions about the process can only be made with a limited probability of occurrence. Similar to the weather, certain constellations allow us to guess how things are likely to turn out. So there is always justified hope, but there is no guarantee. The chance that a methodically timed facilitation without permanent readjustment © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_3

33

34

3  Using Methods Correctly

will go e­ xactly as expected is probably somewhere around 50%. With sluggish participants, the value rises significantly above this. Here there are rarely questions or resistance. The majority is happy when it is over. In creative teams, the hit rate is usually much lower. Ideas bubble up and everyone wants not only to be part of the process, but also to contribute to its architecture. You should never underestimate the potential passion of a group. The fact that a rigid schedule makes little sense does not stop many clients from requesting meticulously planned schedules in advance and meticulously ensuring that they are adhered to during implementation. Any behaviour that was not foreseen in this way then causes latent nervousness. What is not in the plan should not be, if possible. Sophisticated concepts can actually develop into a corset that nips the energy that is actually present. Good alternative proposals on how to proceed are rejected simply because they would require a change to the already communicated plan. For some structure lovers and planning perfectionists, this is a downright imposition. Competent Plan Deviation Those who have the courage for a little more unpredictable openness or even allow uncontrolled digressions can experience that some off-topic discussions turn out to be extremely fruitful for the actual task. By exploring together at the edges of the original question, opportunities for unexpected insights arise. To prevent such exchanges would be to prevent genuine opportunities for insight into the matter at hand. Shared detours expand local knowledge. They create collective clarity, for example also with regard to what is not to be negotiated. Ten minutes of aimless controversy can, under certain circumstances, better, more effectively and more sustainably point out the limits and sharpen awareness than any intervention on the part of the facilitator can achieve. Having a plan is good, keeping your eyes open for possible changes along the way is as well. So what to do? The crucial thing is to get back to the original approach somewhere after the excursions into unknown territory. After all, there was a clear mission that must not yet be lightly thrown overboard. Deliberately deviating from a plan does not mean going into total arbitrariness mode. Instead, an alternative scenario is chosen with good reasons for a certain period of time. Again, there can be guidelines for this, providing a stable framework and orientation. The risk of failure is thus significantly reduced. Those who take an agile approach only need a clear concept for the next work step anyway. Everything else is deliberately left in rough vagueness until one has reached the point where a clarifying specification actually becomes relevant in the process. For the facilitator, this means always having to be one plan-

3  Using Methods Correctly

35

ning step ahead of the group. While the participants are still passionately ­discussing, the facilitator considers how to continue well afterwards with the result achieved. Plan – Implement – Reflect Every flowchart of a facilitation develops in three different stages. Even with advanced experience, this triad remains intact. Each stage is part of a facilitative learning process and provides valuable input for reflecting on the previous state of the concept. Knowing what came out of it once, one understands better what it would have taken to achieve a different effect the next time. Stage 1: The first draft is created in the run-up to each event during conceptual thinking at the desk. This preliminary work does not become obsolete just because you have to reckon with things turning out quite differently in reality. Anticipating the process, putting yourself in the perspective of the participants, spinning the thread through the various steps of the process until you reach the goal; all these are important preliminary exercises in order to be able to react openly and goal-­ oriented to what happens later in the process. Relevant key points can be identified in this way and different variants for processing can be mentally compared before deciding on one of the options. The planning phase gives the client and facilitator the chance to get into the mood for working with the group together. It provides an initial basic security that is necessary to engage in a process with shared responsibility. A plan sends a signal to the participants in advance that someone here cares about the process. Knowing the rough milestones in advance gives everyone the chance to prepare individually. This increases the quality of the subsequent discussion, even if things turn out somewhat differently in the actual process. Last but not least, a concept sketch with break times, room or material requirements is useful for very practical questions concerning the organization of the event; especially if different people are involved in the preparation at different points. Even faulty plans can turn out to be useful mistakes. Stage 2: The second version of the plan is then created, live and in colour, while working with the group. The actual procedure sometimes has little in common with the process on paper. After the first transparency phase, it can quickly become apparent that the tasks and needs of the group are different than originally assumed. Accordingly, reprioritization, additions, modifications or deletions are already made at this point. In order to be able to act, the fundamental question of the extent to which a deviation from the plan is possible at all must be clarified. There may be good reasons to stick to the originally planned course of action, even against the group’s resistance for the time being. In that case, solid arguments are needed. It can also be

36

3  Using Methods Correctly

helpful to take the first step on a trial basis, despite reservations, instead of starting immediately with a radical restructuring. In this way, you can get closer together to finding the answer to the question of whether the approach will work or whether the sceptics are right. At regular intervals, the appropriateness can be reviewed together in short reflection loops. Particularly in complex situations, it is important to be attentive to the dynamic interactions and side effects that arise in the process. In principle, the facilitator has the creative sovereignty, but no participation process works without or against the will of the group. In case of doubt, the plan should be adapted to reality and not vice versa. Stage 3: It is in the nature of things that things can turn out differently than previously thought. Direct application results in countless practical insights at different levels. From this, it is possible to deduce what needs to be done differently next time, already in the planning phase, so that everything works even more smoothly and effectively when it is carried out again. This is how the third version of the concept is created in the reflection afterwards. With the systematic view into the different fields of competence, the experiences can be sorted and condensed. Targeted questions on individual aspects to the participants and the client help to turn it into a learning process. With a little distance, all participants have the chance to recognise fundamental aspects of the design of group processes from this concrete example. The third version of the plan is the blueprint for the next process in a similar constellation. In its early days, moderation was met with a veritable “planning euphoria” (Klebert et al. 2002, p. 17). A procedure that was as sophisticated as possible was seen as promising to get a grip on even complex problems. Today, we have moved a long way away from this. Where it is possible to bring together the questions of concept development and methodological design with the serenity of Brecht’s wisdom about the inadequacy of human planning, lively processes emerge. The Phase Model of Facilitation The phase model, at the heart of which is a rhombus, provides central orientation points for every facilitation of a successful participation process (cf. Redlich 1997, p. 26 ff.) (cf. Figure 3.1). In the first step, transparency ensures that the group is able to work. How far should the topic be opened up and in what form? Where do we need frame-giving guidelines? When will enough material have been gathered? These questions characterize the first phase of the process. Using different facilitation methods, an initial order can be created at this stage or deliberately dispensed with. Opening is followed by closing. Central aspects, options for decision and action are elaborated, deepened and condensed until the result is achieved. Reflection on the procedure and the result neatly concludes the process.

3  Using Methods Correctly

37

Clo

se

Ope

n

Transparency

Fig. 3.1  Phase model of facilitation

With this model in the background, every plan for a facilitated workshop appears like a sequence of small diamonds strung together. The form and duration may well differ. In creative processes, countless thought loops are turned before the ideas are evaluated at the end. In decision-making processes, the basic options crystallize earlier. These are compared with each other, thought through and

38

3  Using Methods Correctly

e­ valuated in order to finally reach a final decision. In both cases, however, the process is only consistently opened once and then systematically closed. Transparency at the Beginning Even before the start of the discussion on content, there is the transparency phase. The start of each workshop offers the opportunity to establish a central order from the outset, instead of opening the door. The aim at the beginning is to develop a common understanding of what exactly this group is supposed to be about today, here, and who, in which role, will make their contribution to it. Clarifying the goal, the procedure and the social dimension creates the necessary framework for everyone to be able to work together. Critical questions or concerns can be discussed at an early stage and the basic procedure explained. After the orientation to get started, everyone is ready to move into the actual substantive work from a common starting line. The discussion may begin. If too little attention is paid to this phase or if it is hastily skipped, then failure is almost pre-programmed. Unresolved questions suddenly appear at some point in the process, but certainly not where they actually belong. If there are expectations in the room that have nowhere to be expressed, they will seek a way out the back door. If an agenda has been sent out in advance, it is not automatically assumed that everyone will have it present in detail at the start. Whoever has a topic will want to place it somewhere. If a participant is missing or if someone is spontaneously replaced by another, there needs to be transparency about the background. If this is not discussed, many will wonder throughout the workshop what the reasons are for this or that decision. If such ambiguities dominate the thoughts of the participants, it massively distracts from the actual work. Only transparency can help. The manageable time investment in a short orientation phase at the beginning pays off again in the course of the process with multiple returns. Especially when you consider what it would cost to have to clarify supposedly self-evident issues at some point because they have become a real disruption to the group’s ability to work. Especially social questions are of high interest at the beginning. Who else is here besides me? With what motivation? Who represents which area, has which experience, will be able to make which contribution? Who knows how much about the topic? A short round of introductions before the actual discussion of the content ensures initial mutual transparency. After all, the idea is not to just passively consume something, but to work together. It is not enough for the facilitator to say a few words about himself. The group is just as important. You may even be able to start this part before the actual event. With a cup of coffee and space for informal exchange, the first foundations can be laid at the relationship level, which can then

3  Using Methods Correctly

39

be consolidated in the joint work process. Early clarity replaces permanent readjustment. Everything that is transparent can become collectively effective. However, it does not have to remain a transparency phase. Regularly, for example at the return to work after breaks or at task-related cuts, the opportunity can be used to further refine the framework parameters for the joint orientation. Three short questions focus on the essentials: “Where are we now?”, “What comes next?” and “Do we need anything to be able to continue working well?”. If there is clarity here, the participants can concentrate fully on the matter at hand. The Facilitation Diamond Since its beginnings in the 1960s, numerous ideas and formats have been developed under the motto “Turning those affected into participants” to facilitate co-­ creative work in groups (Neuland 1995, p. 59). The aim is to include the thoughts and experiences of as many participants as possible in the communication process. Instead of simply discussing openly, methods offer a variety of possibilities to already order the process of opening up through structures. For example, classic moderation cards can be used. Or the group can create a mind map together. In a World Café, thoughts are scribbled directly on the tablecloth in different discussion rounds. In a Walk and Write, people write on pinboards as they pass by. In the orderly silence of the dialogue format according to David Bohm, a talking stone steers the conversation process. Listening becomes more important than speaking oneself. Creativity is stimulated by impulses from others. Possibilities for connection arise. Consistent visualization ensures that important aspects are not lost. Thus not everything has to be said or repeated by everyone. Facilitation invites those present to actively participate. Individual and collective impulses are set, views and opinions are made transparent. Ideas bubble up. One topic after the other is opened up. Countless individual aspects then stand side by side. The opening succeeds. Other groups need even more methodical starting aids for this step. Here, impulse questions for the introduction can outline the facets and dimensions that a topic has. Votings or statements, which are then commented on personally, reduce the barriers to entry. Instead of starting in a central plenary session, topics can be discussed in groups of three. This increases the dynamics and the density of interaction right from the start. A few clues are already extremely helpful in getting into contact with each other quickly. The ice between the participants melts. And a first thematic focus is already set. The degree of openness in this upper part of the rhombus is essentially determined by the facilitator’s interventions. Depending on what is at stake in terms of content, frame- and structure-giving guidelines make more or less sense. After all, every idea expressed contains the implicit expectation that it will be dealt with

40

3  Using Methods Correctly

further in some way. Without a clear framework, everything seems permissible in terms of expression. Accordingly, things can get colorful. But more is not automatically better. It is important to have a common picture of when sufficient idea material has been produced, in what form and with what degree of complexity, in order to sort, prioritise and condense in the next step. Then the process lever is shifted to the processing mode of merging. The more clearly the framework is defined at the beginning, the easier the transition will be. At the threshold between opening and closing, fundamental decisions have to be made. Continue with what? How to continue? In what form, with what methods and, above all, with what goal? Clarifying these questions about how to deal with the surplus of information that has been generated now becomes the core task of process support. Here, concrete suggestions are needed for further processing. Where topics become confusing, an organizing hand is needed. Decision-making aids, structural proposals, work scenarios or concrete instructions for action help to work together towards a focused result. The diversity and variance from the opening phase serves as raw material that now needs to be shaped, sifted and condensed. The facilitative trick of thinking about the process from its end together with the participants helps here. What result does who need in what form so that work can continue well after the facilitated workshop? Has anything changed in our original objective? What is the minimum we need to achieve today? With which result state would we be satisfied? What can be done downstream elsewhere? How good is good enough at this point in time? Does everyone have to continue working on everything or does it make sense to go into parallel groups and only bring the results together again in plenary towards the end? It is necessary to make a joint decision in good time on how to proceed in order not only to open up a large number of tasks, but also to close them again in the allotted time slot. The rhombus thus characterizes a successful process. Methods can support this process by creating order. Reflection of Result and Process The closing ritual with questions about the achieved result and the process serves to close the Gestalt at the end. Each participant has the opportunity to briefly and illuminatingly describe his or her point of view by giving feedback. Specific questions on individual aspects help to get concrete answers here as well. Open questions give the opportunity to make final remarks, which can then be left uncommented. Together, the arc is once again spanned from the original objective at the start, through the central work phases, to the result. What was remarkable? What went exactly as expected? What turned out differently? Hints on the next steps give a preview of what is to come. The facilitation process is completed.

3.1  Choosing the Right Method

41

3.1 Choosing the Right Method Facilitation methods are a bit like buying DIY equipment at the local hardware store. At first, you stand somewhat incredulously in front of the high shelves and the many different types, sizes and models that are offered there to deal with one and the same issue. What an overwhelming variety, which as a layman you would never have believed existed! In the course of time, more and more different tools were developed, following the respective fashion. Whereas solid, carefully tested tools were in demand in the past, today it is more a matter of small instruments for immediate use. In addition, many familiar things are suddenly being advertised under new names. One then wonders what exactly the difference is to the previous model. Good advice is expensive, but there is seldom a knowledgeable advisor in sight who can answer the question of which solution is best suited to one’s own problem. In addition, the purchase of a tool is rarely just about a simple solution to a problem. A chic design, the latest trend, the fastest solution promise with the simplest handling always play a role for the user. The more one already has and knows, the faster one’s gaze wanders in the direction of special tools. Others want to get right into the top class of the product range, even for standard questions. One acquires everything possible in order to be prepared for every eventuality. A bulging method suitcase is considered a sign of competence. No costs are spared. Being able to talk in the jargon is part of the game. Often, a solid basic equipment is sufficient to cope with the practical problems in the household. With a hammer and pliers, a set of screwdrivers and perhaps a drill, you can already cope with many of the challenges that everyday life presents. For specialists, special tools make perfect sense. For everyone else, it is the standard tools that help in the end, according to experience. However, with one restriction: even with the classics, you have to know how to use them correctly and where the little tricks are in the practical handling that make a big difference in the end. Without user experience, the best equipment is of no use. If you know your tools, you can achieve a lot with little effort. If you only collect them in the workshop but rarely use them, you will quickly lose interest in them. Work with Classics Much of what is touted as a methodological reinvention is, in terms of its basic principle, rather part of the classic inventory. Like good old acquaintances, one encounters the same approaches again and again: Maps that invite interactive participation in some pinable, self-adhesive, electrostatic or virtual form (cf. Seifert 2001, p. 106 ff.; cf. Funcke and Havenith 2011; cf. von Kanitz 2016, p. 197 ff.).

42

3  Using Methods Correctly

Structural grids, usually with two axes or in four fields, which allow for a differentiated analysis (cf. Krogerus and Tschäppeler 2008). A process design in which ideas are first developed at different time intervals, which are then prioritized and finally worked on in greater depth. At first glance, this is quite disappointing. Even the currently celebrated agile methods such as Design Thinking or Scrum with their sprints, dailies or stand-up meetings are ultimately based on known methodological standards. In any case, this circumstance has real advantages for learning the craft of facilitation. You do not have to follow every methodological fashion to be able to work professionally. The classic approaches have already proven themselves countless times in different contexts. They follow central principles that can be easily transferred. They quickly lead to manageable, concrete results. Due to their high degree of familiarity, one saves time-consuming explanations and can get started immediately. A spontaneous plausibility without many frills increases the probability of results compared to methodical gimmicks, which cause irritation among the participants when they are explained. In this respect, there is much to be said for working with classics. Nevertheless, such methodical habit patterns also harbor dangers. At the latest by the third use in a row, wear and tear and fatigue effects arise. The attention for the matter decreases, because everything seems to have been there before. Form takes precedence over content. It is also problematic when the method is simply imposed on a question. What does not really fit is made to fit without close scrutiny. Reality is pressed into a grid. This approach may even lead to results. But if these do not do justice to the situation or the specific context, facilitation fails to have the desired effect. The method misses the point of reality. As a proud owner of a hammer, you have to be careful that not everything becomes a nail. Create Benefit The courage to vary and to experiment methodically should always correspond to a benefit in terms of content. Methods do not stand for themselves, but in the service of the matter. The effectiveness of facilitation methods in their concrete practical application is decided by the known cornerstones of the interaction triangle: What is the facilitator’s attitude and mindset regarding the methods? Where do his preferences or latent aversions lie? What about the maturity level of the group? To what extent does this fit with the planned way of working? Is the approach just appropriate in terms of goal and process, or does the matter deserve another serve? Does the way of working promise to clarify the essential points? Methods in themselves are neither good nor bad, but not every facilitator feels equally comfortable with every method. Without one’s own belief in the

3.1  Choosing the Right Method

43

­ eaningfulness, appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the respective m choice of method, it will hardly be possible to convince others of its suitability. Also, not every group is ready to spontaneously engage in every processing mode. Even the visual presence of moderation cards produces reflexive refusal reactions in some groups of people. Anyone who encounters such resistance would do well to consider how to avoid this effect. Methods rarely convince on their own, but need an advocate and a meaningful frame of reference that makes clear what they are used for. When this is in place, resistance is usually reduced. If it remains, good alternatives must be sought. To get started, a brief explanation of why this method was chosen is helpful. Those who understand the background, meaning and benefits will engage more easily in the joint process. Aimless discussions of principles must be avoided at all costs. As an expert, the facilitator is responsible for the appropriate choice of method. He must not allow himself to be deprived of this authority. He has the overall picture in mind and is responsible for the process. Choosing the right approach is one of the keys to success. The question of the benefits for the participants must never be ignored. Who can make what contribution to the topic at hand? Who do I need to address specifically? What is the benefit of investing time here and now with the participants present for this concern? What added value does a differentiated discussion have for each individual? It is the privilege of the facilitator to be able to ask these questions. Answering them together ensures that the right choice of method is made. The Maturity of the Group Method and group must fit together. Which method can be used sensibly and when depends essentially on the degree of maturity, i.e. how well the group functions as an unmanaged group (cf. Schwarz 2000, p. 132 ff.). The degree of openness and personal responsibility for working on a task can be correspondingly high. The social manners, the familiarity with each other, the orientation towards a common goal, the ability to set aside self-interests, the number of dominant participant types and the basic conflict potential of a topic are the main indicators for this (cf. Lackner 2008). Since Kurt Lewin, power, intimacy and affiliation form the spatial coordinates between which the field of group dynamics spans (cf. Amann 2004, p. 31). The fresher a group, the more unresolved these questions are and the more pronounced the need for orientation in this regard (cf. Stahl 2002). This means that even groups in which the participants know each other well have to find their working ability anew each time at the beginning. This process can be supported in a facilitative way by enabling a high density of interaction already in the introductory phase. This creates a feeling for the appropriate form of process design. An initial

44

3  Using Methods Correctly

space of experience is opened up for interaction between participants and the facilitator, which allows early conclusions to be drawn. Ordering elements can be added or already removed again, as required. Methodological rigour is recommended when the level of maturity is assessed as low. This is why, for example, there are narrow procedural guidelines in conflict mediation (cf. Montada and Kals 2001; cf. Haft and von Schlieffen 2002). Concrete rules for discussion and behaviour are laid down right at the beginning. In the plenary session, work is carried out with the strong involvement of the facilitator. Communication initially takes place in a mediated manner and not directly between the conflict parties. Visualization helps to work out the factual aspects and to separate the relationship part from it. The agreements at the end are recorded in writing. The strong formalisation contributes significantly to the fact that the disputing parties get involved in the procedure in the first place. The procedure is not open to discussion. Groups with a high degree of maturity, on the other hand, are in danger of breaking away if they are too closely controlled. Those who can discuss a topic well together and constructively enjoy the creative freedom of an uncontrolled process and ensure good results even without methodological constraints. Too many guidelines would be counterproductive here. Resistance is much more likely to be feared. At the very least, however, the group falls short of its actual potential. Strict facilitation reins and permanent control make a process in mature groups more cumbersome than necessary for all participants (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 275 ff.). Create Methodical Variety Two methods that are diametrically opposed to each other in terms of maturity requirements are often used in meetings in immediate succession. At the lower left end of the matrix is a classic frontal presentation, virtually without any possibility of interaction. One person narrates, the others listen. There is hardly any opportunity for the participants to exchange ideas or to get involved. Immediately afterwards, the lever is turned to the maximum. Where there was just passive consumption, there is now to be open, self-directed and goal-oriented discussion; but without facilitation, without leading questions or any differentiated content focus. Everything seems to be allowed and anything can happen in such a setting. This leap from one extreme to the other can certainly succeed in exceptional cases; for the group, however, it represents an enormous challenge in view of the demands on the degree of maturity. It is much more advisable to bridge the colourful grey area in between moderately with simple means. Three thematic guiding questions following a presentation, for example, help to open up in a focused manner. Possibly a short flash light in the plenum follows first. Or the participants are

3.2  Professional Craft

45

invited to a trialogue with their seat neighbours: What do you agree with? What irritated you? What concrete questions do you have? In this way, a lot of material for the discussion in the plenary can be collected in 5 min of exchange. A common task grid may also help to examine different aspects in a differentiated way. Questions can first be collected on demand before they are systematically answered. Such short methodological interventions help to gradually switch from one mode to the other without overburdening the group. The facilitator has the chance to keep an eye on the level of maturity in order to be able to readjust if necessary. By adapting the methods in a process-oriented way, it is possible to keep the flow of conversation between the participants going or to get it going. Sometimes this requires more freedom, at other times clearer restrictions. The process authority lies with the facilitator. He or she knows his methods. He or she has an idea of which procedure will achieve which effect. And he or she has an eye on the maturity of the group to such an extent that a lively exchange becomes possible. Every communication process thus becomes unique.

3.2 Professional Craft For Richard Sennett, true craftsmanship is recognizable by the fact that “practical action and thought are in constant dialogue” with each other (Sennett 2008, p. 20). This only appears to happen simultaneously. In reality, it is a sequence. A constantly repeating cycle of thinking and doing that intertwines the two activities in the closest possible way. With calmness, composure and perseverance, the work is tinkered with, considered, modified and adapted, continued, rethought, rehearsed and tested, until finally everything meets the highest professional standards. The work is successful. The master is satisfied. This goes hand in hand with clean, precise work and a keen sense of judgement. A good craftsman has a profound understanding of quality, with which he quickly recognises the special in contrast to the mainstream. And he has demands: on materials, on working conditions and on himself. A master of his trade knows what he is doing. He has reasons why he does it. And he distinguishes himself by his persistent openness, interested in optimisation. Depending on the situation and the circumstances, he works spontaneously and flexibly in one way or another. The limits of possibilities are explored to their edges with a joy of experimentation. This creates a “fluid connection between solving and finding problems” (Sennett 2008, p. 50). The methodological triad of planning, acting, and reflecting is also evident in craft mastery. Constantly, while making, numerous new ideas arise about

46

3  Using Methods Correctly

how things could be done differently the next time. This is not a flaw, but a quality criterion. Methodical Quality in Workshops In workshops, too, the professional use of methods is first and foremost a question of technically sound implementation. A facilitator must master his tools to such an extent that he can use them without thinking too much. Methods must come easily to him. He has an idea of what activating, decelerating or structuring effect the respective application will have. He knows what expectations are aroused in participants through participation. And he finds solutions how these can be well served. The quality of the workmanship is already evident in the legible writing on the flipchart. This supports a clean, flexible and fast process guidance. Where this is not the case, visualization loses much of its effect. A note that is difficult to decipher irritates more than it contributes to clarification. This is not a matter of artistic talent, but of process usefulness. Work assignments to groups should be formulated clearly and understandably. The most essential in a nutshell. Transparency phases precede each new hash mark. Questions asked have a recognizable thrust and corrective interventions have a good reason. A result-oriented control with tight guidelines towards the end is as much a part of the craftsmanship as a continuous and reliable time management. In doing so, the view does not only look back at what has already been achieved together, but is at the same time always oriented towards what is still missing. The framework that is jointly available must be exploited to the maximum. The facilitation craft thus always has a strong reference to the present. It is not a matter of musing about what could be done. The goal is to realize what is possible here today with these participants. In order not to lose the overview, a facilitator must not only be present in front of the group, but also use those moments for himself in which the group is active without him. Here, short time-outs for reflection, readjustment and for the preparation of the next process step are offered. For example, while the participants enjoy their coffee during the break, the moderator can weigh up options for action in order to already think ahead to the next step in the process. This ensures a quick re-­ engagement with all participants afterwards. The respective results from different phases are cleverly intertwined. The methods used should not hinder or be in the foreground, but should unobtrusively accompany the group’s communication process. Cleanly applied methods offer the participants a high degree of behavioural security and clear points of orientation. They flank as much as necessary and as little as possible. Everyone knows what is at stake together and gets involved in the process.

3.2  Professional Craft

47

Practice, Experience and Routine Such a professional self-image makes it clear, with a view to everyday facilitation, that there is still a lot of untapped potential for improvement. Not because this requires unprecedented, new methods. The first step in the right direction would be to make proper use of the existing, known and proven possibilities. The technical difficulties involved in practical application are sometimes hidden in the details. Many things look easier at first glance than they are in actual use on the workshop stage. Live, everything should be just right. This starts with the hand position at the pen. The confident handling of the moderation media such as pinboard and flipchart also needs some practice. Good questions for the group rarely occur to you in the situation. Thinking ahead pays off here too. It takes a bit of training to become confident in handling these media. In order for routines to develop, there is a lot to be said for not constantly firing off new method fireworks in workshops. Proven standards offer an initial basic security. You can practice on a small scale as well as on a large scale. It is not necessary to have “Facilitation inside” explicitly written on the door of every event in order to have the opportunity to apply individual techniques from the pool. In every meeting, in every consultation or when exchanging ideas with colleagues, there are numerous opportunities to try out individual elements. In reality, some things can be implemented more quickly than they might seem. Using a matrix as a basis for a discussion, taking a short break after a lecture and inviting three people to exchange ideas, creating transparency for all participants about the goal, process and framework at the beginning of the discussion – all this is no great feat. In practice, however, many an exchange can develop into an orderly discourse simply through such brief interventions. It takes a bit of courage and even more desire to leave familiar terrain in order to enter new methodological territory. And a certain tact is necessary for the right time and the right measure. With presence at every step of the process and a sense of what a group needs in terms of support at any given moment, a professional facilitation craftsman excels not only in what he actively does, but also in many places in what he wisely refrains from doing. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

48

3  Using Methods Correctly

References Amann, A. 2004. Gruppendynamik als reflexive Vergemeinschaftung. In Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis, Hrsg. K. Antons, et al., 28–39. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Brecht, B. 1998. Gedichte. Ausgewählt von Peter Rühmkorf. Bertelsmann: Rheda-­ Wiedenbrück. Funcke, A., and E. Havenith. 2011. Moderations-Tools. Anschauliche, aktivierende und klärende Methoden für die Moderationspraxis. Bonn: managerSeminare. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Haft, F., and K. von Schlieffen, eds. 2002. Handbuch Mediation. München: Beck. Klebert, K., et al. 2002. Moderations-Methode. Das Standardwerk. Hamburg: Windmühle. Krogerus, M., and R.  Tschäppler. 2008. 50 Erfolgsmodelle. Kleines Handbuch für strategische Entscheidungen. Zürich: Kein & Aber. Lackner, K. 2008. Widerspruchsmanagement als Kriterium für Gruppenreife. In betrifft: TEAM.  Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P.  Heintel, 85–91. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Montada, L., and E.  Kals. 2001. Mediation. Lehrbuch für Psychologen und Juristen. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Neuland, M. 1995. Neuland-Moderation. Eichenzell: Neuland. Redlich, A. 1997. Konfliktmoderation. Handlungsstrategien für alle, die mit Gruppen arbeiten. Mit vier Fallbeispielen. Hamburg: Windmühle. Schwarz, G. 2000. Die “heilige Ordnung” der Männer. Patriarchalische Hierarchie und Gruppendynamik. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Seifert, J. 2001. Visualisieren, Präsentieren, Moderieren. Offenbach: Gabal. Sennett, R. 2008. Handwerk. Berlin. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Von Kanitz, A. 2016. Crashkurs Professionell Moderieren. Freiburg: Haufe.

4

Managing Group Processes

If you don’t know the way said the little bear, first you need a signpost. (Janosch 1992, p. 11)

Four different instruments are available for the control of group processes: Coordination via a defined process with clearly delimitable sub-steps, work in a specific setting, differentiated task priorities via a structure or the explicit agreement on rules for joint cooperation. Facilitation methods from votings to large group interventions always represent a condensed combination of this toolkit. Each elaborated method basically outlines a process with different phases, describes the arrangement for the group-work, follows a structural logic and recommends certain rules for practical use that make success more likely. With the help of the four dimensions of process, setting, structure and rules, the underlying impact factors can be systematically broken down and specifically considered (Fig. 4.1). The use of the tools not only helps to systematically develop content. It also ensures behavioural security on the social level. Thanks to clear methodological guidelines, there is a concrete idea of what needs to be done for everyone. Everyone knows his or her own contribution and how he or she can contribute. The possibilities of the existing constellation are exploited to the maximum. In a group setting, it is not always possible to pick up each individual where he or she stands with his or her needs. However, through facilitative support it is possible to lead a group

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_4

49

50

4  Managing Group Processes

Fig. 4.1  Instruments for controlling group processes

Process

Setting

Structure

Rules

to a place where it would not have reached on its own. To see that it works together with facilitative support convinces even sceptics and stubborn people in the case of success. To let go of the steering wheel at times in order to let the methods work is again a learning field for many facilitators. Through the conscious use of the control instruments, disruptive communicative habit patterns can be changed. Depending on what is needed, it can be slowed down or decelerated, contributions can be focused or penetrated in their multi-­ layered breadth. With facilitator’s help, the stage time for frequent speakers is limited. Rather silent participants are encouraged to contribute. Group dynamic effects can be channelled. In this way, a different form of dialogue can take the place of an unproductive exchange. On the way with the group there are various possibilities to intervene with the process tools in a beneficial way. Many of them unfold their real effectiveness in combination. In some places, a slight modification already brings about a big change. A creative process is strengthened if it takes place in an appropriately open setting and not at the conference table. When working with structures, a procedure can be agreed upon that determines the order in which the work is to be done. Even in an Open-Space-conference there are rules that have to be made transparent at the beginning so that the arrangement works despite all openness (cf. Seliger 2015, p. 99 ff.). If a facilitator knows the differences, special features and subtleties of the four instruments, he or she can use them in the conception and process support. In order to achieve the desired effect, it is not necessary to invent a new method. Turning the appropriate adjusting levers is sufficient. With little effort, real differences can be

4  Managing Group Processes

51

made. Changing the setting in a constellation that has become bogged down, introducing a rule for the next step or modifying a structure slightly may be enough to restore the group’s ability to work. Focus and Goal Clarity The condition for being able to steer intentionally at all is the fundamental orientation towards a common goal. The clarification of the focus is not only a question of intensive discussions in advance with the client, but a constitutive and regular component of the entire work process with the group. How clear enough this is depends largely on the needs of those involved in the process. Where one person requires a precise, written formulation, another person will be satisfied with a vague idea of what is to happen. From a facilitative point of view, sufficient clarity is achieved if the group considers itself capable of working and the goal appears attractive and feasible. The point is to motivate to get going in the first place and to engage in a joint process (cf. Storch 2011). Orientation is not only provided by looking ahead to the desired result. At the same time, everyone should also pay attention to the available resources. Facilitation will be successful if a realistic assessment can be made of what is actually feasible with the people involved, given the available time slot. A pragmatic utopia is required with regard to what can be achieved with the available resources under the given conditions. In the transparency phase, the rough direction of travel is determined; in the process, navigation is then carried out at many points on sight. Especially in complex situations, where several options of different quality are in the room at the same time, the facilitator, the group and the client must each agree anew on what they want to do next. Setting goals that are worth pursuing in order to release the energy and motivation of the spirit of optimism often has a more important function than actually achieving them. A goal that one has set oneself gets one moving precisely “under uncertainty and to new places that one would never have discovered without the goal. Thus one can sail off to India and discover America on the way” (Faschingbauer 2010, p. 49). In conflict constellations, a rather abstract description of the desired solution corridor also helps. This promotes a constructive mind-set of the parties at the beginning of the mediation process. Finally, in controversial constellations, the formulation of the goal must leave all participants in the process sufficient opportunities to intervene and to find their way back into it from the beginning to the end (cf. Montada and Kals 2001, p. 183 ff.). Setting goals, regularly reviewing them, always readjusting them and jointly specifying their content as we go along, with the active involvement of all participants, are characteristic features of facilitation. The envisaged goal does not have

52

4  Managing Group Processes

to be kept artificially vague on principle. However, if the hoped-for clarity is not yet given in advance, it is advisable not to expend unnecessary energy on trying to force this clarity. Dietrich Dörner’s advice from his research on strategic thinking in complex situations is: “If you can set goals in as concrete a way as possible, you should do it, but if not, muddling through is still better than doing nothing” (Dörner 2008, p. 97). The challenge is not to get too lost in minor details of micromanagement in the course of the discussion with all the co-thinkers. If you want to make progress, you have to emerge again and again from the depths of the subject, look around and direct your orienting gaze forward. What do we want to achieve together? What is the common denominator? Which step pays off in the collective achievement of the goal? What do we start with simply to see if it works? What detailed discussion can be discontinued in a large group and better continued in a small circle? Not because it is irrelevant in terms of the subject matter, but because here and now is not the right place for it at the present time with all those involved. The situational sharpening of the goals creates the basis for being able to steer effectively at the important points. Individual and Collective Goals Active participation in a workshop can be rewarding for the participants on several levels (cf. Dörner 2008, p. 74 ff.). For some, being there is everything. Others want to benefit from the creative exchange with colleagues, especially in terms of content. Operationally, very concrete problems can be solved. Another benefit can be that everyone present has the same level of knowledge about a particular project and knows what needs to be done next and by whom. For the facilitator, the common explicit objective is relevant. He or she bases the procedure on this. For each individual participant, there are also individual motives that can – and may – deviate from this. To be seen in a topic, to see what is happening to the left and right of one’s own area of responsibility, to position oneself politically on a topic, to refuel motivation, to feel belonging and appreciation; all these are good reasons to participate in a workshop. The question of individual benefit, personal relevance and one’s own concrete contribution must be able to be answered in some way by each participant, otherwise the likelihood of constructive participation decreases. Only those who also benefit themselves from participating will identify with the common goal and actively participate in shaping it. The collective interest is paramount. This does not mean that everyone is not allowed to achieve their own private goals as well. In case of doubt, however, the individual must subordinate himself.

4.1  Facilitating Along Process Flows

53

When putting together the group of participants, it should be carefully considered who really needs to be there, so that the group is neither too large nor too small. Nothing is more unsatisfactory in retrospect of a workshop than a decision discussion in the absence of the actual decision maker. On the other hand, people who just serve their time in the workshop because they really do not have anything to contribute to the topic also become potential troublemakers. Difficulties that arise due to such miscasting are home-grown. Part of the clarification of goals and roles is to jointly clarify who is here today, why, and what they can contribute to the joint achievement of goals.

4.1 Facilitating Along Process Flows A reliable basis for control is provided when the conversation is divided into defined process steps. These are then processed one after the other. A chronological sorting creates order and clarity as to which topic is to be dealt with when. For many, this linear thinking is familiar territory. Depending on the task at hand, certain sequences of steps have proven their worth. For a problem solution, for example, it is advisable to first carry out a thorough analysis and then to build on this to find a solution. In a creative process, ideas can first be collected in individual work, followed by a discussion in small groups, before the most important findings are compiled in the plenum. A collegial peer consultation takes place in six distinct phases (cf. Tietze 2010, p.  42 ff.). When working with the GROW model for decision-­making issues, clear goals are first set in four steps (Goal), then the facts are checked (Reality), options for action are developed (Options) and finally implementation steps (Will) are clarified (cf. Whitmore 2009). Experience has shown that the majority of time should be spent on the first two phases. In this and similar ways, many methods can be broken down into their individual procedural steps and recommendations can be made on how to proceed. Numerous collections of methods provide an insight into such process designs (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 107 ff.; cf. Witte 2012, p. 63 ff.). So if you know exactly what you want and have an idea of what it will take to achieve it, you can make a firm plan. The advantages of this approach are obvious. The predefined framework makes each step predictable. The sequence provides a clear orientation with regard to the task at hand. Everyone can participate where it seems relevant to them. The probability of results at the end is high. Precise control is possible via clear time constraints. The process follows the script written in advance. The dramaturgy takes over the control function. Everything that is well thought out will succeed. The process is set in motion and then consistently guided

54

4  Managing Group Processes

to the goal. The indicators for the quality of such workshops are, besides the promised goal achievement, a low deviation from the plan and punctuality thanks to professional time management. Step by step, you are on your way to a meticulously timed success. Such linear-causal control of communication processes always works well when, according to Michael Faschingbauer, three basic conditions are met: A predictable future, fixed goals and a stable environment (cf. Faschingbauer 2010, p. 30 ff.). Where there is sufficient empirical knowledge from the past, reliable forecasts can be derived for the current project. Those who have already worked successfully with other groups on similar ttasks have a sense of the relevant coordinates. The facilitator can estimate which work unit needs approximately how much time, where buffers should be planned and what seems feasible within the given framework. If this knowledge is missing, however, time management becomes a guessing game. In addition, for reliable planning, there always needs to be a defined goal. If you want to think through the entire process from start to finish, you need to know what the result should look like, at least in terms of form. The more clearly this is outlined, the less space there is for deviation or improvisation along the way. The plan is then followed with corresponding consistency. Thirdly, such well-timed workshops depend on a relatively stable environment. Clear framework parameters such as start and end times, as few disruptions or delays as possible due to external influences, participants who can concentrate fully on the process; all these are necessary factors so that the predefined plan can actually work out in the end. Where ideal conditions for such a causal logic prevail, facilitation becomes routine. Basically, the process virtually facilitates itself. Good results are reliably produced in an efficient manner. The successful concept can be archived and repeated as often as required. The only thing that can still interfere is the participants (cf. Meier 2016). Structure and Flexibility in the Process However, this process-fixated approach has its systematic limits. At the latest in dynamic environments, with uncertainty and insecurity, a clear target is already missing. Many things are possible, but no parameters are in sight that could help decide at an early stage what is right or wrong. Where it is not yet clear where the whole thing is going, it makes little sense to commit oneself to a concrete course of action. In such cases, it is more advisable to proceed according to the principles of the effectuation approach (cf. Faschingbauer 2010). This approach follows a middle rather than a goal orientation, promotes a critical examination of feasible losses, inspires a productive approach to coincidences, and directs the view to overarching possibilities for shaping environmental factors and partnerships instead of always

4.1  Facilitating Along Process Flows

55

revolving around oneself. This approach can also be staged in time without eliminating the chance for modification. The process acquires an elasticity. The unexpected does not become a threat, but an opportunity that can be used. Those who make too many well-intentioned process specifications automatically create a regulatory corset for themselves and others. The framework not only provides support, but also imposes massive restrictions. Above all, this affects creativity, scope for participation and self-motivation. The more that is prescribed, the less initiative is required. The possible beginning of an undesirable but self-­ reinforcing spiral of more and more specifications by the moderator and increasing passivity on the part of the participants. Such workshops become tough affairs. The question can rightly be raised as to why participants are needed at all in such tight settings with a fixed schedule. Where even the results are virtually fixed, energy and passion for active participation can hardly be expected. Instead of facilitation in the sense of serious participation, there is rather the accusation of manipulation in the air. With too much control pressure, methodical impulses become self-created compulsion. The fixed plan triumphs over reality. A work step is no longer carried out because it makes sense for everyone, but because the concept provides for it at this point. The dynamic interaction triangle of facilitator, group and task freezes. A discussion about the why no longer takes place. Excessive process loyalty then prevents better results. Parallel Work and Iterative Loops In addition to the planned structure, situational flexibility is also required. The common approach along a guideline in distinguishable process steps provides useful orientation. But only the respective next stage must be manageable in its depth of detail. Instead of always having the individual phases follow one another in a linear fashion, certain processing steps can also take place in parallel or run through iterative loops. For example, once a solution has been found, it initially remains side by side in different processing stages. At the same time, a further analysis can be started at another point. Working on several topics at the same time in different groups opens up spaces for interdisciplinary exchange. Towards the end, everything relevant can be brought together again in the plenary session. Ideas that have already been evaluated can be creatively shaken up a second time until everyone is completely satisfied with the result. Different focal points and perspectives result in new perspectives; it is too bad for the quality of the results if one takes the first solution just to get ahead quickly in the process. Depending on the group, the task and the time, the planned path may well be open to discussion. The willingness to deviate from the plan should not be confused with a lack of plan. It is precisely where there is no real clarity that the courage for

56

4  Managing Group Processes

joint experimentation and exploration is needed. Instead of pretending to be safe, the path emerges with each step as we walk. The facilitator becomes a travel companion in an unknown land. If the necessary orientation phases are limited in time and decisions are made again and again, the risk of being left without a result at the end is reduced. Short process reflections help to find the appropriate mode and not to get lost on the way. Since its beginnings, Moderation has been an approach to the greatest possible democratization and decentralization (cf. Freimuth 1996, p. 32 ff.). However, this does not mean that everything must always be negotiated with everyone in a grassroots democratic way. Above all, the concept gets into trouble when actually uninvolved people participate in a discussion with the greatest passion, while those who are actually responsible nobly hold back. Openness in the discussion must be complemented by commitment in questions of operational implementation. Where everything can stand unconnected next to each other in one phase, concrete decisions must be made in the other. If you think about the process from its end, you will get relevant hints on how a good result can look like. Different scenarios can be played out in thought as to how best to reach the desired goal. The facilitator is responsible for the joint process. He or she is responsible for setting the course.

4.2 Settings Have Effects If you want to dive to the “deep structure of thinking” in a communication process with the participants, a fixed procedure only scratches the surface (Bohm 2011, p.  106). In addition, the effective power of appropriate settings is needed. The founder of Open Space technology as a format for large groups, Harrison Owen, made the following observation in the aftermath of a conference he had previously organized at great expense: “Although the total event had been outstanding, the truly useful part had been the coffee breaks. So much for one year’s effort to arrange papers, participants, and presenters. The only thing that everyone liked was the one thing I had nothing to do with: the coffee breaks” (Owen 1997, p. 3). So the main thing happened in the breaks. The question for Owen now was how to bring the lively energy and the active exchange from the foyer around the bar tables into the entire plenum and to extend it over the full duration of the event. He formulated the simple basic principle: “Bring people together in a circle and let them work on a task that really moves them” (Seliger 2015, p. 93). Instead of remaining silent, listening in plenary passivity, all participants get a chance to contribute their issues and perspectives. Everyone can join the discussion groups that really interest them. There is no fixed group assignment, no setting of topics or any result specifications.

4.2  Settings Have Effects

57

What happens is exactly the right thing. Everyone comes into contact with each other in an informal and naturally hierarchy- and barrier-free way. The law of 2 feet applies: everyone is allowed to participate in a controlled way wherever they want to. The chosen group can also be left spontaneously without giving reasons. All tasks with different altitude, breadth or depth are discussed as long as there are people who have the energy for it. If there is no more interest, the rule is: over is over (cf. Seliger 2015, p. 100 f.). Numerous formats such as World Cafés, Bar Camps or Fireside Chats, which are organized in a more or less structured way, have joined the open repertoire of methods over the course of time. They are all based on the same paradigm: create an open space that is inviting, where interested people can really meet, and leave everything else to the participants themselves. The power and the effect that the open setting unfolds on different levels can neither be created nor controlled by a facilitator. Individual clarifications, the discussion of cultural issues on the sidelines, concrete organizational change approaches that are developed spontaneously, frustration reduction, leadership requirements that are reformulated and content-related knowledge growth among individual participants go hand in hand in an uncontrolled manner. “Insight into the complexity of the organization or even of the issues is often one of the most important insights for participants who work in everyday life under conditions that strongly reduce complexity  – structures, rules of the game, procedures, task profiles” (Seliger 2015, p. 114). The Plenary, the Small Group and the Coffee Corner What works on a large scale as a concept for an overall event also applies on a small scale. Within workshops, working through a prefabricated plan delivers expectable results within a calculable framework, including procedural stability. This is important when very concrete results have to be achieved together with all participants in a short time. However, the process is at the expense of self-direction, spontaneity and creativity. These factors can only be drawn on by those who, in addition to their process control skills, also trust in the power of informal exchange, and this already at the conception stage. For example, a meeting can begin with a so-called “pre-meeting talk” (cf. Yoerger et al. 2015). The positive effect of such rounds on later decisions is empirically demonstrable. The quality of an event is not only reflected in the level of activity in the plenum. In informal rounds, thematic questions are discussed further, irritations are cleared up in small circles, or initial implementation steps are discussed in advance. For a facilitator, these moments are important seismographs. They indicate the extent to which the spark has been ignited, the participants are taking responsibility for their cause or whether individual aspects need to be taken up again

58

4  Managing Group Processes

centrally with everyone. The time in the breaks is not only used for nourishment, but has the highest process relevance. The collective inhalation of numerous impulses in the plenum is followed by the individual exhalation in a small circle. Those who save on these valuable time slots do so at the expense of overall quality. Breaks provide the opportunity to clarify residual dissent, despite the fact that there is a large degree of consensus in the plenary. Unanswered questions that are only of interest to individuals can be discussed further there. Everyone can let their impressions sink in, give or collect personal feedback. Facilitators can also use this phase away from the stage for brief consultations and fine-tuning. This creates two spaces with different characters: On the one hand, the common denominator emerges in the plenary. Here, what is agreeable or relevant for all participants is shared. A place of clarity. On the other hand, a parallel reality exists in hallway conversations, on the smoker’s balcony and in coffee corners. There may well be differences between the two worlds. The exchange in the large group necessarily lags behind the degree of differentiation, openness and intensity of discussion in the small group (cf. Klebert et al. 2002, p. 46 ff.). This experience can be made again and again during the presentations of results following working group phases. It is difficult and would not always be in the spirit of the matter to reproduce the spirit of the intensive discussion in a short presentation to the whole group. There, the result in terms of content is of primary interest; the process and its emotional aspects are mentioned at most in marginal notes. It is therefore all the more important to ensure a regular change between the settings. In this way, the different modes become effective for the participants and the overall process. In the informal spaces, what has been ignited in the plenary or elsewhere can be thought about, clarified, sharpened and cleared up. If necessary, the essentials of this can flow back into the common discussion room via a brief flash. Or it remains between the participants beyond the official protocol. Difference is allowed. In the context of facilitation, not everything has to be shared with everyone. Create Spaces Plenary spaces can also be created for self-directed exchange and decentralized conversations. With open formats in large groups, such as vernissages, marketplaces, world cafés or the invitation to a walk in triads and similar settings, it is possible to maintain motivation and the power of concentration over a long period of time. The distributed knowledge that lies dormant in the heads of all participants can thus become connectable for all in a variety of ways. Everything that stands in the way of direct interaction has to be removed, literally. Seating in a circle, with its imaginary center, “catalyzes a complex situation that participants must work

4.2  Settings Have Effects

59

through” (Amann 2004, p. 63). The circle of chairs “indicates that all participants can participate equally in the discussion, that knowledge is built together, and that face-to-face communication is desired. The chair circle also indicates that this form of work will not only deal with factual-rational issues, but also with personal-­ emotional issues” (Seliger 2015, p. 23). While “the typical arrangements of meeting rooms are a reflection of hierarchy and reinforce interaction centred on the leader”, an open, flexible seating arrangement can be used to invite participation and co-responsibility not only symbolically (Freimuth and Barth 2014, p.  127). Without big words, a consciously designed setting already sends the most essential signals (cf. Rief 2015, p. 99 f.). It works. In this way, spaces can be created within rooms that effectively support the effect of the method used. In the front area of the plenum, for example, there can be classic seating for a lecture, while in the back there is an open exchange zone with comfortable armchairs. Standing tables invite short exchanges and quick rotations. Thoughts are set in motion differently when walking than when sitting, and many things happen more quickly when standing, instead of everyone first settling into their seats. The semicircle, which is aligned with a pin board, makes focused work on a common result possible. The 360-degree whiteboard in the Design Thinking room helps to quickly link the many different ideas and keep everything visible. Two discussion circles, such as in a “Reflective Team”, can be staffed differently. The participants who are actively discussing are in the middle, the observers are grouped around them (cf. Caby 2016, p. 250 ff.). Unfavourable seating arrangements continue to make working together unnecessarily difficult in many places. On fixed chairs in the plenary hall, the change of perspective is much more difficult to achieve than in the dynamic atmosphere of a group of marbles in a lounge. Accessible thinking already starts with the appropriate seating furniture. In this way, every room creates the discussion culture for which it was created. If you want to promote and accompany communication processes as a facilitator, you also have to become a dialogue interior designer to some extent in the external sense. The inventory helps to decide what kind of discussion will take place. Open and Reunite Working with open settings involves a certain amount of risk. As a facilitator, you trade a large part of your control for unpredictability and trust. Compared to a tightly scheduled process where you have everything under control, it becomes even more apparent how dependent the success of facilitation is on interested and motivated participants. Without them, nothing succeeds. If you distribute work

60

4  Managing Group Processes

steps among different groups, you lose your central access. Direct follow-up is only partially possible. At the same time, free space is created that can be used to take responsibility, to express emotions, to bring to light surprising and unexpected things. Following such rather intimate phases, the question arises for the further design of the process as to which issues of what has been discussed and worked out have such relevance that they must be shared in the plenary. This bringing together is anything but a matter of course. A high level of dynamism in the small group does not mean that it will continue in the assembled group. Just physically moving back to the rows of chairs in the plenary provides a significant drop in energy. Unnecessary duplications or the excessive telling of stories, in which the entire work process is reconstructed once again in front of everyone, must be prevented. It helps everyone if the sharing of individual results is brief, concise and focused. A proven way to do this is to limit the presentation time to “three minutes of fame”; 3  min of undivided attention in front of everyone on stage, giving each group the opportunity to share what they feel is important. Three minutes is enough to collectively get an overview. Detailed results can be exhibited in a private view in the foyer. There, each participant can see for themselves what the others have worked on and how. Alternatively, mixed discussion groups from the different working groups can get together and inform each other. Guiding questions on key findings, challenges, open questions and concrete next steps provide a simple structure that helps to avoid getting bogged down in the exchange. A photo documentation with all partial results provides the opportunity to continue working afterwards. Whereas otherwise it is decided for all in the plenary which topics are given space and which are not, this choice is left to each individual in the open forms of work. Back in the plenary, a good balance has to be found between collective curiosity about how the process went with the others and the gathering of those contents that have common relevance.

4.3 Structuring and Organizing Topics Structures make it possible to keep order in discussions and not get lost. Structures provide orientation in terms of content. They help you and others to arrange thoughts, questions and arguments. Structures reduce existing complexity, at least on paper. Without claiming to be complete, they can provide temporary help for the current work step. With suitable structures, one systematically maintains an over-

4.3  Structuring and Organizing Topics

61

view of the tasks. At the same time, they also make it possible to go into depth in a focused manner. Since not everything can be discussed at the same time if a common result is to be achieved, focal points must be set. Deciding on a certain ­structure always means having to discard other options. Therefore, the structure chosen for a discussion or group-work must be carefully considered. Such structuring interventions from a facilitator are never neutral. They always have a formative effect, highlighting certain aspects and thus relegating others to the background. What is not captured in the structural grid will sooner or later neither exist in the conversation nor in the minutes. In this respect, structures are powerful instruments that must be used with appropriate care and attention. They intervene in the communication process. However, their spontaneous plausibility can also become a danger if the critical view of the actual facts is lost. In the end, the grid is filled, but the problem is not solved. The aim of working with structures is to systematically distinguish thematic levels and aspects and at the same time to maintain a view of the big picture. Instead of discussing current difficulties in a project in a one-sided way, for example, the simple structure of a four-field matrix helps us to engage in a more differentiated discussion: What have we achieved with the procedure so far? What challenges do we face? Which questions do we urgently need to clarify? What needs to be done now, and by whom? With such a grid in the background, an orderly exchange becomes possible. The facilitator can navigate the group’s discussion through the fields. With suitable structures, a group can easily find its way around without outside help. Maps for the Conversation A structure has the function of a map for the conversation. It can be used to plan paths, identify central points of orientation, recognize obstacles and coordinate the joint approach. As a visual anchor, it provides a common starting point to which all participants can refer. In this way, one can move freely in creative dynamics and in open lateral thinking without losing contact with the matter at hand. Focal points can be set according to inclination. Connections, interactions and dependencies become visible and comprehensible for all. Where it makes sense, a more linear approach can be taken. In five-minute steps, an issueis briefly discussed before a decision is made on the concrete processing mode. Such a procedure prevents getting stuck at the first point or not having enough time for everything at the end. A structure helps sorting, but must not be mixed up with the complex reality. There, real pressure to act exists. Mapping and reality are not the same thing. “The map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing named” (Bateson 1982, p. 40). To visually map a decision-making process or to definitively make an ac-

62

4  Managing Group Processes

tual decision with all its consequences and side effects are two different things. The map is not an end in itself, but a means for orderly communication. The essentials still need to happen in the discussion process, not on paper. A structure can support a discussion and help to get from A to B faster, easier, more coordinated with collective efforts. However, it does not release from the obligation to then actually translate what has been recognized and discussed into action and to actually go the distance. “Structures and rules do not decide what is to be done, but refer individuals to what it means to do something” (Schmidt and KriegelSchmidt 2012, p. 114). Recognize Patterns According to Gregory Bateson, in order to be able to make such offers of support, a special perceptual competence is required in the form of “attention to the pattern that connects” (Bateson 1982, p. 16). As an uninvolved observer, the facilitator has the privilege of being able to focus on observing structures, repetitions, and sortings while participants discuss content. With a certain distance, it is easier to see connections and mentally play through different grouping possibilities. The regular ordering and sorting of arguments by the facilitator helps everyone not to get lost in detailed discussions. In this way, it is possible to come up again and again in order to orientate oneself together and, if necessary, to realign oneself. Different points of view can be left side by side without having to integrate them hastily. Several dimensions of a topic can be examined in parallel without being reduced to one another. Instead of everyone speaking from their own perspective, different perspectives on an issue can be taken together. Meaningful distinctions are made and then discarded in the next moment. Thanks to an appropriate structure, they nevertheless remain visible as possible variants. If necessary, they can be referred to again later. Even structural ideas that do not meet with approval can have a useful effect. Those who follow the motto “Wrong but strong” contribute to clarification with every suggestion. By asking what a more appropriate presentation might look like, the substantive content can be extracted from the wrong version. Instead of wanting to be right with one’s proposal, it is more helpful to ask what sense a respective distinction makes for the participants at the present time (cf. Lutterer 2009, p. 81 ff.). With the calm certainty that in each case there would also be countless other ways of putting things in order, one can in many situations simply start somewhere instead of getting caught up in endless discussions about structure, only to end up realizing none of them. The facilitator’s suggestions do not enjoy an absolute status, but have a serving offer character. If structures are not needed, are no longer

4.3  Structuring and Organizing Topics

63

needed or are needed in a different form, they should be expanded, changed or replaced until they fit. What is decisive is what helps the group in its communication process in order to bring order to its discourse. What structural help a facilitator offers depends largely on what patterns he or she recognizes. The paths to this lead either via basic dialectical patterns, thematic focuses, perspectives or central categories. Each of the variants can help to order the conversation in the group; however, only if one initially concentrates on one of the possibilities and does not try to map everything at the same time. Show Polarities Discussions often proceed along controversial lines of conflict in which two seemingly irreconcilable poles confront each other. Making the underlying either-or mode visible to all opens up opportunities to explore further alternatives and emerge from unproductive contrasting (cf. Varga von Kibéd and Sparrer 2016). The dialectic of pro and con always leads to the formation of  factions. But also the question of what a group can do itself or what others should finally do leads to similar tensions. Do we need to think big or rather small? Actively tackle something or passively wait and see? Look for solutions on the inside or on the outside? Do something ourselves or get support from others? Focus on the present or look to the future? Operate more or plan more strategically? Analyze the problem in more detail or develop solutions already? Focus on the structure or emphasize the cultural side? Stay inside or go outside? Are we talking about an individual case or is there a regularity? Making such areas of tension visible to everyone in a discussion creates good conditions for finding a productive way of dealing with them instead of succumbing to their pull. A systematic, structured presentation of the positions and a factual differentiation enables an exit from spirals of justification and mutual recriminations. Particularly in factual conflicts, the dialectical intensification of the controversy, a systematic change of perspective and subsequently a methodically differentiated processing with all participants is a key to consensus-­ oriented solutions (cf. Vollmer et al. 2015). Form Topic Clusters Another path to order leads directly through the identification of relevant content. What are the central topics? How can individual arguments be grouped? Are there aspects that need to be discussed that have already been established before the workshop? Which dimensions are mentioned again and again in the discussion? Focal points in terms of content help to bring the many individual questions, arguments and thoughts into a quick systematic order. This can be done, for example, writing cards. Everyone writes their most important points on moderation cards.

64

4  Managing Group Processes

Together, they look on the pin board for connections, intersections and sorting variants. If individual cards fit into several clusters, they are doubled. If an idea does not fit anywhere, a new field is opened. If a discussion arises somewhere that ­cannot be solved immediately, the card is marked with a flash symbol. At the end, headings are added; the sorting is finished (cf. Neuland 1995, p.  102 ff.). Alternatively, the facilitator can derive a structure from what has been heard so far and offer this to the group as a suggestion for further work. In discussions that have been going on for some time, such a thematic order is easy to establish. The change of method from open discussion to cards or a visualized structure can be a helpful break in the process to bring together the scattered arguments and the distributed knowledge and to make them interconnectable. Instead of constantly repeating themselves, the topic clusters provide anchor points to continue in a structured way. Where clusters become too large, further differentiation can be made. If something is missing, it is effortlessly added. In a co-­creative process, the order of content that seems useful for further work can emerge. If the intermediate stages are photographed, the development up to the final result can still be effortlessly traced by everyone afterwards. Adopt Perspectives By systematically working with different perspectives, new insights into an issue can be developed. Working with the perspectives of real or fictitious people is correspondingly effective in innovation processes (cf. Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015) and in dealing with conflicts (cf. Varga von Kibéd and Sparrer 2016, p.  58 ff.). Internal and external perspectives can have their say. Present participants as well as the results of interviews with third parties. Together, one can put oneself in the shoes of the participants by forming hypotheses or let everyone describe their personal perspective. Working with different perspectives is not about right or wrong. It becomes valuable when one perspective brings something new, previously overlooked or neglected into the discussion. Often it is rather small impulses that lead to a change in perception and can thus unexpectedly have a great effect. If different perspectives are to be worked with in a workshop, it must be clarified in advance which perspectives are relevant for a topic. Who is affected by a decision? Who exactly is the target group? What will customers say? Who is directly or indirectly involved in a conflict? Who has already had experience with an issue and could be consulted about it? Whose opinion must definitely be sought? Who is most likely to be forgotten? Organizational members such as managers or employees from different departments and teams, specialist units such as marketing, sales or production, external perspectives such as customers, competitors or

4.4  Rules and Levers for Communication Processes

65

suppliers; they can all be important stakeholders. The key is not to forget any relevant position. Each perspective in itself is limited. Together, they provide a ­differentiated overall picture. In the next step, commonalities and differences can be made visible. When collecting opinions, for example in a feedback circle, it is neither about a justification nor an evaluation of the statements. Everything that is said is first and foremost correct from the respective point of view. It is important for the facilitator to ensure that everyone who wants to have their say has the opportunity to do so. Select General Categories In addition to perspectives, thematic foci, and dialectical areas of tension, general categories have also proven their worth as basic organizing functions. As universal tools, they are used across topics. Three general questions can be used in the follow-­up to any lecture to lead into the subsequent discussion: What was inspiring? What was affirmation? What questions are still open now? In the search for causes or solutions, the three levels of individual, group, organization can provide clues at different levels. What can each individual contribute? What do we need to clarify in the group? What structures and processes do we need to initiate in the organization? Requirements can be classified in must, should and can degrees, options for action can be considered in terms of their short, medium or long-term scope. In a risk assessment, the comparison of opportunities and threats has proven its worth. The three phases before, during and after an event offer themselves as a planning and sorting aid. With such standards, it is possible to structure the discussions of a group and to move forward together without much effort (cf. Krogerus and Tschäppler 2008). The general categories have the advantage of functioning independently of content. Even if working groups are working on different tasks, they can use the same grid as a guide and thus produce comparable results. This makes the connection step much easier.

4.4 Rules and Levers for Communication Processes Whether and which rules have to be established for practical cooperation in a group is decided with a view to the task at hand. If the necessary ability to work is disturbed or the achievement of the goal is endangered, corrections must be made. In every group, stabilized structures, patterns and regularities “with unplannable regularity” form automatically (Stahl 2002, p. XVI). Sooner or later it becomes apparent how well the group functions as a whole system, how it works together, is involved and communicates (cf. Simon 2013, p. 23 ff.).

66

4  Managing Group Processes

The facilitator is faced with the question of the extent to which he or she actively intervenes in this self-organization process and exerts a targeted influence on rule formation. Everything that is necessary to achieve a common goal should be explicitly agreed at the beginning. Subsequent correction is much more difficult than preventive sensitization. The binding nature that arises in this way applies to the content as well as to the procedure (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 49). The acceptance of the results at the end depends essentially on the extent to which the process has been supported by everyone. Those who do not agree with the procedure will also refuse to agree with the results, no matter how good they are. Rules create clarity. However, setting them, monitoring their compliance and sanctioning them if necessary can also become a real ballast for the work process. As so often, it depends on the right dose. Too many rules make things complicated. Especially at the beginning, over-regulation should be avoided. Rules always also represent a form of complexity reduction, which has its price (cf. Simon 2013, p.  25). Where too much regulation and problematizing is made an issue, self-­ evident things are lost. The vagueness in dealing with each other demands and promotes the interpretative intelligence of the participants and their attention for each other. At some points, therefore, too much rigidity through a corset of rules should be consciously avoided. Depending on the maturity of the group, less is more. If, on the other hand, orderly parameters are needed to ensure connectivity, then explicit, conscious and targeted intervention should be made. Instead of formulating sweeping generalities, situational rules that are immediately understandable are much more effective than agreements in principle. Sensitize for the Special Rules are there for the group and not for the facilitator. Consequently, it only makes limited sense to prescribe them from the outside. If the rules are developed together with the participants, their comprehensibility, meaningfulness and binding nature are significantly increased. Formulated positively, rules lose their restrictive effect. Instead, they help to unfold the existing potential and to orient joint action towards goals. Examples of such commandment rather than prohibition formulations are: “Let’s focus on the essentials together”, “Let’s think in terms of solutions”, “I look forward to a constructive controversy”, “Everything that is put on the table can be dealt with”, “Dissent is allowed”. Instead of regulating everyday situations, rules in a workshop should create an awareness of the particular. What does this group need here today in order to achieve a good result together in an effective and efficient way? Making this question a topic at the beginning provides a basic security in behaviour for all participants. For this purpose, the common view can also wander beyond the boundary

4.4  Rules and Levers for Communication Processes

67

line into the red zone. Developing a common understanding of what should not happen leads to more clarity with regard to what is essential for constructive ­cooperation. If possible dangers are addressed as a precautionary measure, their probability of occurrence is already reduced without a catalogue of rules. Even in the case of a rule violation, the responsibility for intervention should never lie solely with the facilitator. Especially where rather soft factors are involved, the subjective assessment of each participant plays a central role. No one can decide for others when behaviour is on this side or the other when it comes to questions of esteem, respect or mutual understanding. Accordingly, everyone has the right and the duty to speak up when, in their view, an agreed rule has been violated. This also shows how pronounced the existing feedback culture is and to what extent the participants assume joint responsibility for each other and for their process. If a facilitator has to intervene too often, the framework parameters should be clarified or negotiated again. If too much needs to be regulated and readjusted, something is fundamentally wrong. Rules are rarely valid for the entire workshop period, but serve different purposes in different phases. This also means that they have to be regularly changed, adapted and sometimes thrown overboard again. Creative, opening innovation processes require a different mind-set than the focused closing at the end of a workshop. Accordingly, different rules apply for dealing with each other. In the innovation space, creative confusion is not only allowed, but even required. At the end of a process, on the other hand, it would be disastrous. In a conflict management process, rules in the contract phase at the beginning must be used to sensitize the participants to the upcoming process in a different way than in an informal exchange of experiences. The more difficult and unfamiliar the constellation, the more strongly rules must be made an issue (cf. Kessen and Troja 2002, p. 393 ff.). Tight guidelines at the beginning help to overcome teething problems. They create the preconditions for getting down to work with each other quickly. A well-­ regulated procedure creates security, but it also kills creativity. Establishing rules, checking their necessity, ensuring that they are adhered to, sanctioning them in the event of deviation and, if necessary, amending, supplementing or abolishing them if they are no longer needed; in dealing with rules, the order-creating function of task- and group-oriented process support by a facilitator becomes apparent once again. Implicit things play just as big a role as what has been explicitly agreed. Star and Ring Facilitation From the point of view of group dynamics, any intervention by the facilitator is an interruption of the working process from the outside. This is not always welcomed

68

4  Managing Group Processes

with open arms. “In general, interventions are not aimed at confirming what already exists and at the smooth continuation of the previous course or behaviour, i.e. the primary concern is not continuity but the change of the previous state” (von Sinner 2012, p. 46). Those who disturb others in their circles and go against the flow need a certain willingness to confront. At the same time, one must also be able to take oneself back. Permanent participation in the communication process would lead to interrupting impulses no longer being perceived as such. A facilitator who is constantly involved in the ongoing discussion cannot be a pattern-breaker and clarifier at the same time. Two basic constellations are available for regulating the flow of energy in workshops (Fig.  4.2). Accompanying the exchange in the form of a star  facilitation means letting the discussion run in a highly centralized way. The facilitator is in the spotlight. He forms the centre of power. He assigns the right to speak in the group. He briefly summarizes each contribution before giving the floor to the next participant. In this way, statement by statement, the entire process is directed to the maximum via a central distribution point. Active listening and further questions enable the facilitator to remain constantly involved in the discussion without having to make a contribution of his own. A visualization of the statements on flipcharts can also provide methodological support. This mode of methodical strictness takes much of the dynamism out of the conversation. Anyone who facilitates in this way for too long steals themselves and the

Star Facilitation Fig. 4.2  Star and ring facilitation

Ring Facilitation

4.4  Rules and Levers for Communication Processes

69

other participants of any form of energy. The price to be paid for the maximum degree of control is an enormous effort. The permanent presence in the spotlight of the workshop stage demands undivided attention and full concentration from the facilitator. Unwanted cross-communication between the participants is prevented. All eyes are directed to the front. In this way, it is possible to “minimize normative (extraneous) influences in the group process and maximize informational (pertinent) ones” (Witte 2012, p. 71). At the same time, this mode ensures broad intelligibility. Those who want their contribution to be heard must subordinate themselves to conversation control. Accordingly, star facilitation is always used when, for example, conflict situations need to be de-escalated and decelerated. Or when binding measures are to be derived from a multitude of ideas. The factual core is worked out. Instead of argumentative mixing, sorted clarity prevails. The ring facillitation mode is different. Here, the goal is to open the discussion between the participants with an initial impulse, in order to then leave the further course to them as far as possible. Ideas are taken up reciprocally, questions are asked and answered, relevant topics are addressed, structures are developed quasi by themselves. Interventions from a facilitator would tend to interfere here. The discussion circles around points of view and aspects in a self-directed manner until a new impulse is needed. If there is a sustained focus and constructive discussion culture, this can mean at times that the facilitator withdraws to purely observing the discussion. If the group is functioning, there is no good reason to intervene. In the background, the facilitator can visualize important ideas on moderation cards parallel to the actual conversation. Thanks to such transcripts, it is thus easy to switch back to star mode via an interim summary if necessary. While the discussion is going on in the plenum, the facilitator is already one step ahead. For a successful change between the two variants of star and ring facilitation, two places in the room are recommended: one in the centre and one on the periphery. Standing in front of the group on the stage gives the opportunity to keep everything and everyone in view. The focus of attention is concentrated centrally. The conversation process can be controlled visibly for all. Another place, if possible at the edge of the circle of chairs, allows for withdrawal and observing participation in what is happening. The contact to the group is not broken by the place in the circle. At the same time, the space for exchange is opened up by the vacuum at the front. If necessary, it is possible to stand up and intervene at any time. Standing up is already an effective first impulse to interrupt. Often no further words are needed to keep the attention. The participating observer then becomes the process-­ responsible navigator again.

70

4  Managing Group Processes

Deal with Complexity Wisely “Interpersonal communication cannot be brought under control by one person – certainly not in groups and by an (external) facilitator” (Redlich 1997, p.  189). Research on group dynamics has undergone a significant paradigm shift in recent years. For a long time, a good facilitator was understood to be someone who had everything under control, whose plan worked out one-to-one, and who could guide the group to wherever he wanted at any time. In the meantime, one-sided linear interventions for control have been replaced by the widespread insight that it makes little sense to regard only the facilitator as an isolated factor in the complex group mix. “The hope for precise and, as it were, surgical (procedure) interventions has been replaced by the system-theoretical notion that changes can only be brought about by the system itself” (Schattenhofer 2004, p. 46). This makes the interactions, needs and behaviours of the participants among and with each other all the more important for an appropriate consideration of group dynamic control issues. Even though facilitation can sometimes feel lonely, nothing will work without the group. It makes no sense to direct interventions against a group. Only together with them and through them can an effective transformation of a difficult situation be achieved. Any intervention will trigger unintended side effects throughout the structure. This can be regretted or taken advantage of. If all are somehow part of the problem, all can contribute to the solution. A thoroughly relieving thought for many who like to feel solely responsible for everything. Nevertheless, what happens in groups during facilitative interventions is by no means arbitrary or without rules, but can be explained in terms of models and assessed in terms of the expected consequences of action. Knowing the effects helps to navigate unerringly on sight, even in dynamic terrain. Four aspects are critical to the success of regulatory interventions: one must choose the right moment, have established a sustainable relationship between the facilitator and the participants, find the appropriate level of intensity and proceed with clarity (cf. Schattenhofer 2004, p. 48 f.). The answer to the question of the right time is: neither too early nor too late! Whoever intervenes too early will hardly be able to set a constructive discussion dynamic in motion in the long run, but will only produce discussion pieces. If, on the other hand, you wait too long before correcting an undesirable course of the discussion, it becomes more difficult with each passing minute to channel the resulting dynamic in a focused manner. Especially when time is of the essence, tight guidelines with clear announcements at short intervals are critical for success. The basis for the acceptance of such interventions is the sustainability of the relationship between the facilitator and the participants. Only where there is mutual acceptance will people engage in a course correction without sulking or

References

71

ambiguous ulterior motives. The steering impulse must also be given with sufficient intensity. The flow of communication must be clearly interrupted, otherwise the effect will fizzle out. Those who give impulses too gently will be ignored. On the other hand, those who intervene inappropriately strongly will irritate more than they clarify. When intervening, this should be done with clear questions, concrete suggestions and realistic possibilities for change. Only those who know where they want to go can use the existing energy and dynamics to get there together with the group. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Amann, A. 2004. “Ja, es ist eine Trainingsgruppe”  – Sequenzanalyse des Beginns einer Trainingsgruppe der Gruppe “Alf”. In Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis, Hrsg. K. Antons, et al., 51–112. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Bateson, G. 1982. Geist und Natur. Eine notwendige Einheit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Bohm, D. 2011. Der Dialog. Das offene Gespräch am Ende der Diskussionen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Caby, F. 2016. Reflektierendes Team. In Systemische Therapie und Beratung – Das große Lehrbuch, Hrsg. T. LeBdd und M. Wirsching, 250–255. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Dörner, D. 2008. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Erbeldinger, J., and T.  Ramge. 2015. Durch die Decke denken. Design Thinking in der Praxis. München: Red Line. Faschingbauer, M. 2010. Effectuation. Wie erfolgreiche Unternehmer denken, entscheiden und handeln. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Freimuth, J. 1996. Wirtschaftliche Demokratie und moderatorische Besprechungskultur. In Demokratisierung von Organisationen. Philosophie, Ursprünge und Perspektiven der Metaplan-Idee, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und F. Straub, 19–40. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

72

4  Managing Group Processes

Freimuth, J., und T.  Barth. 2014. Workshop- und Sitzungsmoderation als Handwerk und Mundwerk. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und T. Barth, 123–140. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – Das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Ziel: Augsburg. Janosch. 1992. Oh, wie schön ist Panama. Weinheim: Beltz & Gelberg. Kessen, S., und M.  Troja. 2002. Die Phasen und Schritte der Mediation als Kommunikationsprozess. In Handbuch Mediation, Hrsg. F. Haft und K. von Schlieffen, 393–420. München: Beck. Klebert, K., et al. 2002. Moderations-Methode. Das Standardwerk. Hamburg: Windmühle. Krogerus, M., and R.  Tschäppler. 2008. 50 Erfolgsmodelle. Kleines Handbuch für strategische Entscheidungen. Zürich: Kein & Aber. Lutterer, W. 2009. Gregory Bateson  – Eine Einführung in sein Denken. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Meier, R. 2016. Das Einzige, was stört, sind die Teilnehmer. Schwierige Seminarsituationen meistern. Gabal: Offenbach. Montada, L., and E.  Kals. 2001. Mediation. Lehrbuch für Psychologen und Juristen. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Neuland, M. 1995. Neuland-Moderation. Eichenzell: Neuland. Owen, H. 1997. Open space technology. A user’s guide. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Redlich, A. 1997. Konfliktmoderation. Handlungsstrategien für alle, die mit Gruppen arbeiten. Mit vier Fallbeispielen. Hamburg: Windmühle. Rief, S. 2015. Methode zur Analyse des Besprechungsgeschehens und zur Konzeption optimierter räumlich-technischer Infrastrukturen für Besprechungen. Stuttgart: Frauenhofer. Schattenhofer, K. 2004. Gruppendynamik als Steuerung und Gegensteuerung. In Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis, Hrsg. K. Antons, et al., 45–50. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Schmidt, K., und K.  Kriegel-Schmidt. 2012. Der Einfluss triadischer Kommunikation auf Identitätsarbeit und Verständigung  – Forschungsansätze der Objektiven Hermeneutik für Mediation. In Mediation erforschen. Fragen  – Forschungsmethoden  – Ziele, Hrsg. D. Busch und C.-H. Mayer, 111–136. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Seliger, R. 2015. Einführung in Großgruppenmethoden. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Simon, F. 2013. Gemeinsam sind wir blöd!? Die Intelligenz von Unternehmen, Managern und Märkten. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Storch, M. 2011. Motto-Ziele und Motivation. Wie Ziele mit Kraft, Lust und hoher Wirksamkeit entwickelt werden. 2 DVD. Müllheim-Baden: Auditorium Netzwerk. Tietze, K.-O. 2010. Kollegiale Beratung. Problemlösungen gemeinsam entwickeln. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Varga von Kibéd, M., and I. Sparrer. 2016. Ganz im Gegenteil. Tetralemmaarbeit und andere Grundformen systemischer Strukturaufstellungen – Für Querdenker und solche, die es werden wollen. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Vollmer, A., M. Dick, and T. Wehner, eds. 2015. Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen. Konflikte bearbeiten, Entscheidungen treffen, Innovationen fördern. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

References

73

Von Sinner, A. 2012. Über Entstehung und Eigenart des Gegenstandes von Mediationsforschung. In Mediation erforschen. Fragen – Forschungsmethoden – Ziele, Hrsg. D. Busch und C.-H. Mayer, 39–70. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Whitmore, J. 2009. Coaching for performance. GROWing human potential and performance. The principles and practice of coaching and leadership. London: Nichoals Brealey. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Yoerger, M., F. Kyle, und J. Allen. 2015. So much more than “chit-chat”. A closer look at premeeting talk. In The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, Hrsg. J. Allen, et al., 153–173. Cambridge: University Press.

5

Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

How many heads are better than one? (Sunstein and Hastie 2015, p. 3)

When people gather in one place, they do not necessarily form a group. If you have a group with a common goal, well established norms and rules, this does not automatically mean that it will also come to a result. Depending on the occasion and the task, the exchange among each other must be regulated, guided and accompanied more or less in one direction or the other, so that relevant information can build on and be linked with each other in such a way that more than the sum of individual efforts is produced. Involving people in the processing of issues must not only mean effort. It is crucial to find an answer to the question of what the involvement of different minds, perspectives, points of view, experiences and ideas is useful for and how the contributions can be brought together in such a way that a common added value is created. In a workshop, little is gained if everyone there only represents their own opinion and everything remains unconnected next to each other. The occasion provides the framework for what the collective is needed for. The reflex to spontaneously invite to a workshop must therefore be followed in a second step by clarification of what can meaningfully happen there during the time together. Content-related considerations are in the foreground and not methodological ones. The method is a means to an end, a useful tool, a process catalyst and a steering instrument. But the fundamental focus determines the direction in which the joint procedure is to be set up, which contributions are appropriate and useful. Multiperspectivity, trans- or interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity, diversity,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_5

75

76

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

co-­creation or collaboration – these are all vocabulary words that emphasize the multi-­layered benefits of a group. They need to be filled with vivid content in relation to concrete issues. Five types of occasions for which groups are involved are classically available. Problem-solving workshops focus on the analysis of causes and subsequently on finding solutions. The goal is to get a concrete idea of how a problem can actually be solved in a sustainable way. Decision-making processes, on the other hand, focus on exploring possible alternative scenarios. In order to clarify how to proceed, it is less important to know how a situation came about. Rather, the joint working focus here should be on possible courses of action for the future. The end result is a concrete decision that sets the course in the here and now. In addition, follow-up communication must be coordinated, implementation steps must be planned in advance and feedback loops must be created. A facilitated conflict resolution or mediation conciliates between the interests of the parties involved on the factual level, but above all on the relationship level. The result is an agreement that is acceptable to all parties. Creative, open-ended work in iterative loops is the basic pattern in innovation projects. Here, concrete ideas emerge at various stages of maturity, which are then pursued, elaborated and implemented at other locations. Finally, facilitation can create a framework within which shared learning takes place. Exploratory questions and a common desire to understand are given a space beyond the pressure to act in everyday life. The outlined differences in the course of the process and in the expected results have consequences for the design of the workshop. Depending on the focus, there are completely different challenges, also with regard to the accompaniment. The basic mode can be determined in the joint clarification of the task. In the course of the process, it becomes apparent, almost as one walks along, to what extent the direction taken actually does justice to the respective factual situation and interests, or where the concept needs to be completely rethought. If conflicts arise between the participants in the course of a problem-solving workshop, it makes no sense to stick to the previous content-oriented scenario. Instead, the conflicting perspectives and interests must be given as much space as possible until all points of view have been sufficiently understood. In the course of idea workshops, there are always moments when a decision has to be made about the merits of an idea. Is it worth continuing to invest in the idea, or is it better to pull the stop-button at this point? Spinning thoughts is one thing, making responsible, strategic and resource-­ demanding decisions to implement them is another. Things are different in the decision-­making space than in the innovation space. Joint learning processes need their own time. This requires spontaneous, situational adaptability from the facilitator. He or she must regularly review the process with regard to its meaningfulness,

5.1  Solving Problems

77

reorganize it if necessary, and repeatedly align it in a transparent and focused manner for everyone, without losing sight of the core of the common mission.

5.1 Solving Problems Especially for complex problems, the multi-perspectivity of a group offers fundamental advantages over individual attempts at a solution. Many eyes see better, more and above all differently. Different perspectives and experiences help with a differentiated analysis. Ingrained thought patterns and routines are challenged. Experts can contribute their knowledge, and participants from outside the field can provide surprising insights through their unconventional perspectives. In this way, search movements emerge in places that were not thought of before. The heterogeneity in a group holds enormous potential in this respect. The quality of the result then depends largely on the extent to which the facilitator’s working method succeeds in “maximizing the probability of discovery in the group” (Witte 2012, p. 78). The broader the hypotheses, the greater the chance of opening the doors to actual solution spaces. More of the same helps only to a limited extent. If many heads are looking in the same direction, no new insights will emerge. For a multi-­ layered analysis and creative solution ideas, the inspiration of a group with different perspectives is essential. If the problem is understood correctly, finding a solution becomes almost child’s play (cf. Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 27 ff.). The Power of Hypotheses A good example of the effectiveness of such a setting is the work with the format of peer consulting. Here, an advice seeking client describes a problem from his or her everyday work to a peer group of four to six colleagues. In a second step, the group develops hypotheses about the case described on the basis of this information (cf. Tietze 2010, p. 169 ff.). Initially, this does not involve solutions, but only spontaneous associations, ideas and thoughts. Everything that comes to mind may be expressed. The client and the group do not interact in this phase. Pure brainstorming. While the unaffected colleagues speculate wildly about a problem that they do not really know, the client, as the actual owner of the problem, attentively follows their conversation through the keyhole, so to speak. Much of what he will hear is naturally miles off the mark. Other hypotheses, surprisingly, hit the nail on the head. Some thoughts only reach their destination in a roundabout way. Even half-baked thoughts can have a powerful effect. What good reasons did the people involved possibly have for their behaviour? What is irritating about the account of the case so far? What patterns can be discerned? Are there hidden motives? Which

78

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

aspects may have been overlooked, which weighted too heavily? What do other people involved think about the situation? Which framework conditions, structures or processes have an influence? Why is this case a problem for the client in the first place? Actually, two processes run simultaneously in a peer consultation. One of them is visible and audible in the plenum, the other one happens in the mind of the client. The brief narrative at the beginning already contained numerous hypotheses and implicit assumptions. The client described from his point of view. He remains the owner and expert of his problem. In the end, it is his point of view that counts. When it comes to questions of solution focus and to planning concrete next steps, he alone will decide what to do. However, by confronting him with the speculative thoughts of the consulting team, he is challenged to review his previous construction of reality. Could it not perhaps be that other causes for the problem are also conceivable? The mere fact that others have their say without being filtered and present alternative ways of thinking about a situation that has become bogged down expands the existing scope for interpretation and action. Static points of view become fluid again. Productive uncertainty arises. New aspects suddenly become visible. Sometimes even the object of the problem and the question shift. Since the advice seeking client in the setting of peer consultation is not allowed to react immediately to the hypotheses of the group in a reflexive manner, empty spaces arise which can be filled with new associations. Apparent certainties become fragile. Alternative options for action emerge before anyone has even spoken of a concrete approach to a solution. In order to facilitate this process in the analysis phase, consistency, patience and perseverance are needed above all. Both group and client normally push quickly towards a solution. The reflex to evaluate or at least comment on what has been said is widespread. A differentiated and patient look at the problem map is crucial in order to identify previously unseen starting points. The first step in hypothesizing is not about evaluating with right or wrong. The goal is merely to produce sufficient new food for thought. If you take the first solution, you may be finished quickly, but you may have worked in the wrong place and not yet understood the actual problem. Facilitation here means also going against the habitual patterns of the participants. The persistent encouragement not to leave it at hasty solutions is just as much a part of this as the penetrating questions about hypotheses that have not yet been mentioned, no matter how absurd they may seem at first glance. Structural grids and guiding questions help to systematically examine an existing problem and to remain in joint thinking mode until the most probable causes have emerged from the many possible ones. A long opening phase in the facilitation diamond is

5.1  Solving Problems

79

characteristic of such processes. Those who show staying power in the analysis will be rewarded with sustainable approaches to solutions. Group Dynamic Effects When working on problems, however, the performance of groups is sometimes significantly overestimated. Numerous group-dynamic effects sometimes even have a negative influence on the quality of the result (cf. Witte 2012, p. 48 ff.). In group situations, for example, a uniform judgment is often sought. Consensus seems to be mandatory. It is not enough to know the right answer, one must also convince everyone else of its correctness. Dissenting opinions are virtually experienced as a flaw. The search for a common denominator that satisfies everyone is correspondingly pronounced. Under certain circumstances, however, this is at the expense of the quality of the results. One ends up somewhere around the average. The behaviour in a group, the way in which information is gathered, influencing factors such as power, hierarchy, relationships, the composition of the group, the atmosphere and the dynamics of the discussion; all these are further factors that can have a direct influence on the quality of the results (cf. Antons et al. 2004). They can be both a success factor and a source of error. Accordingly, according to Erich Witte, it is crucial for facilitation success to “maximize mutual informational influence, minimize normative influence, and optimize the individual contribution in its weighting for the solution of the group task” (Witte 2012, p.  61). Rephrased to questions, this means to always keep three aspects in mind as a facilitator: How do we manage to gather as much information as possible and make it accessible to all? How do I prevent the group members from influencing each other too much (negatively)? In what way can each individual contribute with his or her expertise in the best possible way? Whenever there is an expert on a simple problem in a group, this expert should be given an explicit say (cf. Witte 2012, p. 71 ff.). The facilitated workshop then bears the traits of a social learning format. Everyone benefits from sharing knowledge in order to be prepared for similar situations in the future. Instead of laboriously searching for clues together, everyone benefits from the knowledge advantage of individuals. It is different in complex situations for which there are no simple or clear solutions. Here, the exchange between all participants, the comparison of perspectives, a differentiated diagnosis, the joint development of hypotheses and the analysis of causality scenarios remain the key to success. Many minds, with their diversity, help to deal appropriately with a complex task. The facilitator is needed to hold the threads of thought together and to support them so that they can be cleverly linked.

80

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

Structures and Routines Structures help to focus on the matter at hand. Instead of looking for someone to blame in a person-oriented discussion, it is considered together from different ­perspectives how an existing problem can best be solved. A common visualization helps not to lose sight of the problem object. At the same time, this helps to maintain a useful distance. The normative factors that can distort discussion and perception in a group are thus reduced. Problem analysis schemes or cause-effect diagrams can support the joint work (cf. Seifert 2001, p. 130 ff.). Classic search fields such as the 5 M (Man-Machine-Medium-Mission-Management) can be effortlessly applied to numerous problems. Who was involved and in what way? Are there technical causes for the problem? Is there possibly a material defect? What about the key points in the process? Has anything changed in the general conditions compared to otherwise? Such and similar guiding questions help to get a broad overview quickly before drilling down into the depths (cf. Krogerus and Tschäppler 2008). From Looking Back to Looking Forward When working on problems, the common direction of vision classically goes first to the past. The search for possible causes, interactions and causalities creates the basis for finding a solution later. Those who have found out how a problem could have come about get an idea of how they can also put a stop to it. With regard to the development of differentiated solution strategies, working with three different grids has also proven successful, which can be used individually or in combination, depending on the case. The first classification scheme creates a sorting with regard to the time horizon. Which short-, medium- and long-term measures pay off towards a solution? In order to establish the ability to act, it is particularly helpful to look at what can be done immediately and concretely for a first step towards a solution. The medium-­ term measures aim to come up with a somewhat more differentiated plan in order to arrive at viable approaches. The long-term perspective helps not to lose sight of the big picture in order to make lasting changes. Furthermore, a simple distinction based on two questions creates clarity: What can we do? What must others do? Instead of only pointing at others, this also gives rise to ideas about what contribution one can make oneself. Instead of always being the sole part of the solution, the resource-oriented view can also involve third parties and show other ways of support. Finally, the three levels of reflection – individual, group and organization – each provide food for thought in different directions. At the individual level, it is important to clarify what contribution actually comes from each participant. Aspects of attitude, mindset or motivation can just as

5.1  Solving Problems

81

well be discussed and made a topic here. The perspective on the group invites to think about which of the challenges can only be mastered collectively. Organizational aspects such as processes, structures or cultural issues aim at major and fundamental changes. Being on the move at all three levels in parallel prevents single solution ideas from being played off against each other. But where they are permeably intertwined, the probability increases that the measures envisaged will also lead to the desired success. For teams that work together regularly and have to solve problems together on a continuous basis, it is helpful to develop methodical processing routines. Then, in short workshops, any number of people can also meet spontaneously, quickly get to work in a focused manner, and leave again after the problem has been solved. Everyone is welcome who can or wants to contribute to the solution. The concept offers excellent opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration without team boundaries or silo thinking. However, it only works if the framework parameters are set in such a way that the process, roles, conditions of participation and decision-­making mode are fundamentally clear and do not have to be renegotiated each time. The same applies to so-called lessons learned workshops, which are typically held at the end of projects or project cycles. There, the previous course of the project is reviewed in a more or less strict form in order to derive insights for future projects. Such reviews can take place as part of a long-term process with a fixed group of participants and similar challenges, or as a one-off measure. In the first case, the success criteria outlined above apply. The continuity offers the chance to immediately put the findings back into practical use. The solutions to the problems found are put to the test immediately afterwards. If, on the other hand, the project was a special event that will probably never take place again in this form and with this line-up, the concrete yield from such reflection rounds will be significantly lower. In this case, the focus should rather be on a good conclusion and a joint design conclusion instead of ending with concrete action plans. Learning on the fly without direct practical relevance is psychologically a difficult undertaking. The Facilitation of Problem Solving An in-depth and comprehensive analysis is the central facilitation lever for solving problems. For this, the focus must be on the matter at hand and not on the people involved. It is a particular challenge to bring the many different perspectives in a group regarding the existing problem into conversation with each other in such a way that they produce a common picture. Structures help here both for a differentiated diagnosis and with regard to a systematic generation of approaches to solutions at different levels. In the case of complexity, many different perspec-

82

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

tives are the key to success. Perseverance and patience are the most important factors in the search. For less complex problems, on the other hand, it is more appropriate to draw on existing experts. In principle, the facilitator must reduce negative ­influences in the group context as much as possible by choosing methods wisely. All participants should be supported in being able to share relevant information undisturbed.

5.2 Making Good Decisions Deciding is not a singular event, but a process. Therefore, in the context of facilitation, it is more appropriate to speak of decision-making than simply of a decision (cf. Sutrich et al. 2016, p. 327 f.). The moment at which a decision is finally made is embedded in a temporal continuum. The previous history, personal sensitivities, worries about possible consequences, doubts about what other people might think at the same time; in a decision-making situation, all this shapes the behaviour of those involved, the way in which information is exchanged and even the mode of choice. In decision-making, “kairos” refers to the sense of catching the right moment. In ancient Greece this was a gift from the gods, today it is a question of clever time and information management. Facilitation ensures that the appropriate scope for participation is opened up. Decisions always have a context that changes along with them. Depending on how the decision turns out, the world around it is different afterwards. Previously relevant issues suddenly become irrelevant, unimportant stakeholders can turn into key players, previously neglected projects suddenly take on strategic importance and receive the highest level of attention. With a decision, not only are the cards reshuffled, but the entire game changes. Thinking about all these embeddings is crucial for quality. Consequently, important decisions should be well considered in terms of their sustainability and scope. The focus of a discussion in the decision-making process must not be limited to the past or the present, but must above all look to the possible future. What are real options for action? Which of them will have which consequences? What are the opportunities and dangers of each alternative? What happens if nothing happens? Who is prepared to bear what responsibility? On the way to a good decision, the influencing factors from the context and possible consequences must always be considered and taken into account in order to arrive at a comprehensive situation analysis. Facilitation makes it possible to proceed in a prudent, thoughtful and focused manner.

5.2  Making Good Decisions

83

An Open Process with Risk The basic pattern of a facilitated decision workshop thus becomes “a coordinated processing of risk assessments” (Sutrich et al. 2016, p. 32). Through systematic processing, thinking through, and weighing, new concrete approaches to action emerge again and again. Consequences and side effects, real opportunities and dangers to be considered that lie to the left and right of the actual decision path play a weighty role. The joint exploration of alternative possibilities in the form of a what-if mind game provides central clues as to which decision can best be made now, today, here, on the basis of the knowledge currently available and against the background of the most relevant criteria. At the same time, decisions always remain associated with risk and uncertainty (cf. March and Olsen 1988). Where there is guarantee and certainty, there is no need for a decision. Therefore, both opportunities and threats and their probabilities of occurrence must be closely examined (cf. Sutrich et  al. 2016, p.  43 ff.). Risks always exist in different forms and variants, the perception of which can vary significantly. Everyone has their own individual focus. Everyone draws their personal conclusions. If the thoughts on this are shared, an entangled formation of judgement becomes possible. Visualization supports the joint negotiation process in the group. Instead of only verbally keeping the existing options for action in limbo, they can be made visible to everyone with simple structures. Sometimes it comes down to nuances. A risk balance considers the two sides of the risk, the opportunities and the threats, possibly even for individuals, teams and organizations separately (cf. Sutrich et  al. 2016, p. 185). Each of these alternatives can be presented separately in its own table. In the same way, an evaluation matrix can be used to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different options in order to clarify which of them should be pursued, modified or rejected (cf. Rustler 2016, p. 202 ff.). With such systematizations in the background, decision-making can begin where calculation ends. Incalculable residual risks remain, of course. With the help of facilitation and participation, however, it is possible to embrace them as far as possible instead of closing our eyes to them. Good decisions require care, foresight and overview until the best alternative is identified as such. And it takes a certain amount of courage to actually make the decisions. Facilitation helps to show the different possibilities, to make the consequences of non-decisions transparent and thus to work consistently towards making a decision as soon as the time is right. Clarify the Scope for Participation Groups are involved in such processes with highly varying intensity and in many different ways. More does not automatically mean better. The degree of participation

84

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

ranges from the purely formal waving through of decisions made long ago to collective voting according to the majority principle following a passionate discussion. Between these extremes lie numerous possibilities of where and how the knowledge, experience, ideas and competence of different group members can be meaningfully fed into a decision-making process at different points in time. Together with others, it is easier to gather information, combine diverse opinions, work out options in detail, critically examine variants and think laterally, define criteria, make recommendations, develop templates or show ways of implementation. A participatory process has many advantages over quick fix actions. “Inclusion, participation, co-determination, empowerment and decision-making” are considered central categories that help determine the future viability of organizations (Sutrich et al. 2016, p. 35). In addition to the what, the how is also important. Therefore, the framework of participation must be clearly defined for the participants as well as for the client and the facilitator. Is it just a matter of contributing information or should everyone have a say in the final decision? Will the participants be involved in the whole process or only in phases? Is there a clear procedure or is there joint exploration? Should the thinking be broad and open-­ ended or focused on individual aspects? Does the decision-maker want to obtain expert knowledge or listen to personal opinions? Who can take on which role or function? Does a decision need common criteria or does everyone follow their own preferences? How intensively are the alternatives pursued and clarified at what point in time? Who actually decides, or according to which mode is the decision made? Where it is possible to clarify these and similar questions at the beginning, a transparent basis is created on which the joint work can then build. Facilitators are allowed to ask questions that are otherwise only exchanged behind closed doors in organizations. With the classic tools, the working process can be supported significantly. However, all of this depends heavily on what form of participation is actually desired on the part of the client. The client must determine how transparent the process is to be and where the limits of participation lie. Clarity helps to avoid mutual disappointment, especially in decision-making. Those who know why they are involved can make their contribution more easily than if everyone is left alone with their interpretation of it. The group’s involvement in decision-making needs to be well coordinated. Once it takes on a life of its own, it may cause more harm than good.

5.2  Making Good Decisions

85

Set the Frame Unfortunately, in some organizations, decision-making processes are still heavily overlaid with political interests. Decision-making is identified with personal strength. Hierarchy, power and relationships dominate over factual issues in many places. Those who profit from the mist and their personal networks will be careful not to provide unnecessary insight. In such cases, the conditions for an open approach are not in place. The danger of pseudo-involvement turning into its opposite is high. Where decisions have long been made, it must be well clarified what the group is still needed for. Clear and unambiguous communication is perhaps the better way to go, instead of frantically trying to participate when there is really nothing left to decide. Where participation is actually allowed and desired, diversity and heterogeneity in the composition of the group play a central role for good decisions. Old hands, fresh minds, specialists and experts from outside the field, supporters and critical friends, those directly affected or outsiders are each able to contribute with their very own perspectives to creating a sensitivity for the complexity of the decision-­ making context among those responsible. The plurality of different mind-sets helps to explore the breadth and depth of the possibilities to the maximum. Creating the right framework for good participation is the main facilitation task here, because involvement also has its natural limits. Most of the time, it shows itself exactly where the multitude of ideas and opinions no longer provides any benefit, but instead complicates a matter unnecessarily. The degree of overstrain is narrow. The person who subsequently bears the responsibility for the decision must be able to decide what is appropriate for him or her. Regular feedback loops between the decision-maker and the moderator are therefore absolutely necessary in a workshop. This prevents the group from overshooting the target with well-­ intentioned advices. For this purpose, the work process can be divided into short intervals, each of which offers the opportunity for interim summing up, filtering and readjustment. Step by step you get the right amount of support. And you can stop at any time when enough information has flowed together. Even partial participation in the process makes an important contribution to the quality of decisions. Transparency About Responsibilities, Consequences and Side Effects Those who influence decisions work at the centre of organizational power. Transparency and traceability always play a major role when talking about decisions, but not in reality. Especially in non-hierarchical project groups, there is often rather a diffusion of responsibility. No one really knows who is responsible for what. Clear attributions are difficult. Everyone in the matrix can be considered

86

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

equally responsible. Experience shows that the result is that no one is really responsible. It would have to be decided once and for all who actually decides (who decides) and then also bears the responsibility. Even a comprehensive set of rules only solves these real problems to a limited extent. Different interpretations are in conflict, but no one is there to put his foot down. One can always hide quite well in a group. How can one deal with this well? Basically, it is a paradox: although more and more information is becoming easier and faster to access in the digital age and hierarchies are becoming flatter and flatter, this circumstance does not lead to better, faster or easier decisions. Especially where the risk of failure seems high and the fear of making mistakes prevails, decisions that urgently need to be made are left out. Not committing oneself and leaving everything open seems to be the best alternative. Where no one wants to decide, one hopes that someone will somehow decide (correctly) or that the problem will solve itself over time. But this is a fallacy. Not deciding is also a decision, and one that has very concrete consequences in many places. Most of the time, the decision-making body does not even feel the consequences of such omissions itself. Those who are affected, however, are those whose actions are blocked. For them, priorities remain unclarified, thematic directions are missing and focused work is prevented. This is where facilitation has to start, to broaden the view beyond the limited horizon and to demand the attribution of responsibilities. Where transparency about risks, side effects and consequences is discussed, not only of decisions but also of non-decisions, the likelihood increases that at least part of the decision backlog will be cleared and many a slow process will get rolling again. The clear clarification of roles and responsibilities is an essential part of this. Designing Decision-Making Processes Facilitation steers participation in decision-making processes in a focused manner. Structural and procedural deficits can thus be avoided. The correctness of a decision cannot be guaranteed. However, the probability of a good outcome, the support in the organization and the duration of the decision increase significantly with focused participation. Where different people are well involved, embedded in a culture and practice of co-decision-making, identification and solidarity with the  emerging results  will increase. If the procedure is transparent, everyone can learn and grow together from the respective situation (Fig. 5.1). At the center of the model is the “moment of truth” (Sutrich et al. 2016, p. 69). It describes the point where decisions are classically identified. At the junction between the vertical sequence of steps from submission to feedback and the temporal view across the horizontal, the process strings come together. This is where,

5.2  Making Good Decisions

87

Fig. 5.1 Facilitating decision-making processes

Template

Options/ Scenarios

Information Time

Communication Implementation

Feedback

after intensive exploration and consideration, the central course is set. Three essential questions must be answered: What are the relevant criteria for the upcoming decision? When is the right time for a decision? Which mode of choice makes the most sense for the upcoming decision? Each decision-maker (group) must answer these questions for themselves. The facilitator makes a direct contribution to ensuring that this actually happens by providing transparency-oriented process guidance, a persistent, supportive questioning attitude and pointed suggestions. In this way, important aspects are neither carelessly nor lightly overlooked. The questions of criteria, mode and time remain present until they are clarified. From the

88

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

multitude of possibilities, the procedure that fits most coherently with the overall picture emerges. In the search for possible criteria, you can consider, for example, what is best for the organization. What can be used to determine this? Which variant achieves a leverage effect? What makes the most sense from a stakeholder perspective? Who has the greatest expertise on this issue? Which option involves the least implementation effort? What is the first option to promise visible success? Transparency about the criteria used, whether communitarised or left to the individual preference of each person, makes a decision more comprehensible in any case than speculation about what might have been the decisive factor in the end. With regard to the mode of voting, it can be considered whether a decision-­ maker is needed at the end, whether a core team withdraws to make a decision, whether everyone has a vote, whether a decision should be made by consensus with everyone, or whether it might even be sufficient to make a recommendation. The question of whether a decision is ready to be made provides clues as to the right time. If this is not the case, it can be clarified what is still needed in concrete terms so that the final step can be taken. If the formal framework is established in this way before the actual content is discussed, a stable framework is already in place within which one can then move dynamically. Medium Level of Information and Possible Scenarios A solid basis for every decision can be created in advance with the preparation of central information. Standardized forms help to develop routines in this regard. A meaningful decision template describes the occasion, essentials about the background and explains the existing framework (cf. Rustler 2016, p. 218 ff.). The more important a decision, the more advisable it is to take special care to prepare it systematically. Explaining the context creates clarity for decision-makers about interactions, relevance and affected stakeholders. Important information is then equally available to all parties involved. It also makes sense to outline the variants developed to date, including rejected options. This creates a feeling for the range of possibilities in which the decision alternatives move. At the same time, it is possible to avoid rehashing and reheating already discarded solutions. Seeing all the available options side by side helps to be able to weigh them up in a clear manner. Particularly where there is little time for the actual decision, the key to success lies in differentiated preliminary work. This does not replace the actual decision. But it makes many things easier in the situation. Experience shows that a medium level of information is sufficient for good decisions. “An unstructured accumulation of information about this or that feature of the situation only increases the confusion and is not an aid to decision-making” (Dörner 2008, p. 70).

5.2  Making Good Decisions

89

You do not have to be an expert to be able to make a valid assessment based on well-prepared data. On the contrary: detailed knowledge and thematic depth are causes for no longer being able to make a necessary distancing statement. This is another reason why the focus of communication in decision-making situations should be on the future. Clarifying possible effects, desirable target states and hoped-for effects is more relevant than talking again in epic breadth about how it all came about. In contrast to working on solutions to problems, the common view is thus primarily forward-looking and not analytically backward-looking. Realistic scenarios sensitize not only to the decision itself, but also to corresponding consequences and contextual changes. What could be done provides the guiding principles for a responsible decision in the here and now. You never have enough time when making decisions. Relevant information seems to be missing everywhere. Important people who you actually wanted to include are not available at the moment. Neither longer time frames, nor more information, nor a larger field of participation automatically improve decisions. Instead of waiting too long, Dietrich Dörner recommends at the end of his “Logic of Failure”: “Everything in its own time, always taking into account the circumstances. There is no one, general, always applicable rule, the magic stick to cope with all situations and all the different reality structures. It is a matter of doing and thinking about the right things at the right moment and in the right way” (Dörner 2008, p. 317). Communication, Implementation and Feedback Loops After a decision has been made, there is usually a great sense of relief. Unfortunately, in many cases this is exactly where workshops end. Everyone is happy that they were finally able to come to an agreement somehow. That is it. How to proceed with all this remains open. Questions concerning communication, implementation and helpful feedback loops are highly relevant for later success. Unfortunately, too little attention is often paid to these aspects in the decision workshop. The result is that misunderstandings and misinterpretations are immediately opened the door. It is therefore essential to clarify the following questions before parting ways: Who needs to know about the result, in what form, when and from whom? Who is responsible for what exactly in this process step? Is there a need for a common basis of communication? Which channel makes the most sense for the flow of information into the organization? Are there certain messages that should be sent from the workshop in addition to the result? If you do not pay attention to these points, you run the risk that the level of quality achieved will be abandoned shortly after the decision has been made. Asymmetrical communication in the aftermath can easily jeopardize a laboriously achieved consensus. These issues should therefore not be

90

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

left to chance. Talking properly about decisions taken is just as important as the dialogue along the way. At the end of the workshop, it must at least be clarified how the world will learn about the decision that has been made. The same applies to the initiation of the next steps with regard to operational implementation. The focus of the detailed clarification can concentrate on the immediate area until the next meeting. What do we need to tackle first? What can we do to achieve quick initial successes? What can each individual do in the ­meantime, what is valid for all together? Consciously initiated feedback loops help to check to what extent the decision was correct, which unforeseen problems arise in the implementation and where readjustments are necessary. Those who develop a transparent process, collect feedback in a targeted manner and establish regular communication with all those affected make a significant contribution to ensuring that decisions are not only made, but also accepted and effectively integrated into everyday organizational life. If there are good reasons afterwards that justifiably question a decision that has been made, there needs to be a defined place where this information can flow together and further decisions can be made. Against the background of these design dimensions, facilitators must clarify with their clients the relevance of different degrees of participation in the decision-­ making process. And they can point out ways in which this participation can succeed in each case. Making decisions with facilitative support does not mean that everyone automatically has a say in everything and is allowed to vote in a grassroots democratic way. If the framework is well defined and the roles and mode are clarified, participation becomes a quality factor without counteracting existing responsibilities. The Facilitation of Decision-Making Processes The essential contribution that facilitation makes to decision-making processes is that it consistently works towards a decision without relieving those responsible of their actual task. The gathering and preparation of information, the definition of criteria, the clarification of responsibilities, the running through of scenarios and risks including the possibility of a non-decision, the broad analysis of context and history in search of relevant factors; these are all core elements that help to initiate a decision until the right time for it has come. Wherever joint thinking is desired, the framework can be neatly set out together through facilitation. This prevents possible disappointments among participants and decision-makers from the outset. Once a decision has been made, the focus is immediately directed to follow-up communication and the first implementation steps with facilitative support.

5.3  Clarifying Conflicts

91

5.3 Clarifying Conflicts Conflicts are a complex phenomenon. They can occur spontaneously or develop over the long term. Their development is dynamic and difficult to calculate. They can be visibly linked to a specific issue or smoulder beneath the surface at the relationship level. Their causes may lie in structural matters at the organizational level or be motivated solely by personal tastes. The dysfunctional consequences of ­conflicts such as a drop in performance, negative emotions, strain, stress, blockades or negative effects on cooperation are sufficiently known and well researched (cf. Deutsch et al. 2006; cf. De Dreu and Gelfand 2012). Actually, no one can afford conflicts permanently. Nevertheless, avoidance or sweeping them under the carpet should not be the only strategies for dealing with them. Conflicts make perfect sense. And they have a profound benefit. This consists, for example, in “clarifying existing differences and making them fruitful” (Schwarz 2014, p. 16). In this way, conflicts can succeed in creating a deeper awareness of problems among those involved. Conflicts raise relevant questions that need to be answered, strengthen cohesion in distinction to others and promote mutual understanding. Conflicts are energetic seismographs for things that really move an organization. As such, they also increase the willingness to commit to a cause and can thus be seen as the real engine for change (cf. Schwarz 2014, p. 20 ff.; cf. Berkel 2005, p. 123 f.). For the personal learning process and the development of teams, but also for genuine innovations, conflicts are irreplaceable as a catalyst and fuel (cf. Vollmer et al. 2015, p. 23 ff.). Conflicts express central contradictions that offer enormous potential, regardless of the persons involved. If this is to be exploited, facilitation can provide support. Even after a successful resolution, conflicts do not simply disappear. “Resolve” is therefore a rather misleading term in the context of conflicts. In most cases, the suggested ease is hardly noticeable for those involved. On the other hand, it is much clearer afterwards where exactly the lines of difference run, how far apart the views of an issue are, what willingness there is to change or what there is consensus on, even though the opposite was assumed beforehand. Everything that has become visible can be used in a productive way. Everything that is not brought up remains in the realm of speculation, without being able to be jointly utilized. Facilitation helps to see the opportunities and to take the first steps towards mutual rapprochement.

92

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

Emotions in the Game Conflicts always involve emotions as well. In addition to the factual issues, further levels of complexity are added during the process. One triggering event is enough to overflow the barrel and enter the escalation spiral. The positions harden immediately. Now it is all about being right. Winner-loser constellations form. The matter is pushed into the background. It becomes personal. Moreover, in conflicts the subject matter is often confused with the people involved. One not only has a conflict with someone, but the other is the problem (cf. Simon 1991, p. 13 ff.). It would be wrong to try to suppress emotions or make them taboo out of a desire for professionalism. The opposite helps. It makes sense to be openly a­ ffectionate or to have a controlled explosion. At least this way, steam can be let off. At the same time, this creates good conditions for encountering each other differently on an interpersonal level. In conflict mediation, working on and with emotions is considered “the royal road to the hidden deep structures” so that mediation can be successful (Montada and Kals 2001, p. 7). Emotions are an essential part of the subjective world of experience. Individual perspectives, opinions and feelings form the substance on which one has to work together. Positions taken can be seen on the surface structure. Positions are fixed. Underneath lie different interests, expectations, wishes and values. It is often these that become emotionally charged in the case of conflict (cf. Montada and Kals 2001, p. 73 ff.). As a constitutive component, they can neither be denied, nor can they be ignored. Feelings are not about right or wrong. They are there. Whoever feels offended or unjustly treated is, even if afterwards one likes to try to relativize this again with rationalization strategies. At the same time, individual perception and experience are only a limited section of reality. A fact that many conflict parties can no longer see in this way. In the case of conflict, “first of all it does not matter at all whether something is objectively or subjectively true, only what is subjectively true counts” (Thomann 2010, p. 34). One’s own view of things becomes the only focus point. Permanently, more speaking time is demanded from the participants in the conversation in order to cement one’s own point of view with a claim to truth. “In their zeal they often do not notice that no one has been listening to them for a long time” (von Hertel 2005, p. 48). From here on, at the latest, it is true that more of the same is no longer helpful. Circuits and Spirals Karl Berkel, following Morton Deutsch, has described what happens between people in conflict constellations as an amplification cycle (cf. Berkel 2005, p. 63). The perception of the parties involved in the conflict becomes distorted and begins to polarise. Differences increase in importance. What seperates becomes more important than commonalities. Points of view harden. An increasing attitude of mistrust

5.3  Clarifying Conflicts

93

spreads. The willingness to support each other also decreases. Interest in the other side and the ability to empathise diminish. At the same time, the common goal is also lost sight of. Everyone now tries to achieve their goals at the expense of the other side. Communication decreases. Information is exchanged less and less frequently or deliberately incorrectly. People talk more about each other than with each other, which in turn leads to further polarization and distortion of perception. The parties to the conflict mutually blame each other for their respective behaviour. Their own share is only the justified reaction to the inappropriate behaviour of the other side. Such cycles can stabilize over a longer period of time and lead to unproductive harmony. Or one quickly enters into a self-reinforcing spiral dynamic. Numerous so-called attribution errors additionally do not make it easier in conflicts. We always evaluate the behavior of others more strictly, negatively and one-­ sidedly than ourselves. To make matters worse, we are often not only wrong in our assessments, but do so with increasing conviction, especially in conflicts. Nicholas Epley describes such phenomena as the “illusion of insight” (Epley 2015, p. 9). The longer a relationship lasts, the longer we are involved in a conflict, the more convinced we become that it could not be otherwise, although the nature of our attributions has not changed at all. We selectively perceive only that which confirms our view. At this point, at the latest, it becomes clear that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the parties involved to get out of such conflict constellations without a third mediating authority. Even if both sides wanted to, once a certain threshold has been crossed, clarification can only be achieved with outside help (cf. Berkel 2005, p. 64 f.). In this context, it is not the facilitator’s task to dispense justice as a third instance. Proposals from the facilitator for a settlement are also only called for in the second step. Instead, the primary goal of facilitation is to initiate a process of change in the perception of the conflict parties. The parties involved are supported in jointly reaching a result with which both sides can identify. “Useful and truly sustainable solutions to conflicts are usually those that are found by the conflict parties themselves” (Schwarz 2014, p. 321). The appropriate mode is essentially determined by the parties concerned themselves. “The conflict partners must always be in control of the pace and depth of the clarification” (Redlich 1997, p. 105). A necessary condition for this is to step out of the existing hierarchical structures and the entanglements of everyday life in order to be able to encounter each other differently on neutral terrain. Those who are themselves in some way actors in the field of conflict are out of the question of becoming the facilitator. “Affected people cannot facilitate” (Schwarz 2014, p. 325). In order to mediate, one must neither stand between the parties nor on either side. The facilitator is involved in the clarification process as an autonomous,

94

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

independent third force, providing structure, shaping the process and building bridges. He thus has a decisive influence on how the communication takes place. Change of Perspective as a Crucial Point Anyone who wants to move from confrontation to cooperation in deadlocked constellations must harness the power of the change of perspective on the way there (cf. Abel and Plümacher 2016). Every process model of mediation, conflict facilitation or conciliation starts from this central idea. A successful change of perspective is the key. The aim is for the two parties to the conflict to learn to understand each other (again). Especially in conflict constellations, where everyone likes to talk about themselves, this is a real challenge. Understanding must not be confused with agreement. Mutual questioning, active listening and precise summaries by the facilitator are necessary tools in the process. The focus of conflict management is not on the matter in hand, but on the respective perspectives on it. Together, the specific perspectives are explored in an orderly manner. The following guiding questions are helpful in order to achieve a corresponding depth: What is behind the respective position? Are the reasons for the behaviour shown transparent and comprehensible? What does everyone want to achieve? What are desirable goals or desired states? Is it possible to separate emotions from facts? What mutual hypotheses actually exist? What of all that is heard is comprehensible, where are there still gaps in understanding? What is it all about? Who takes responsibility for what? What has which priority? At what level of personal escalation is the conflict at the moment? Working through the perspectives together not only creates clarity for the other party, but often also for the people concerned themselves. Out of a diffuse confusion, those aspects emerge that are essential for the parties involved. Step by step, it becomes clear which assumptions and reasons motivate the respective actions. The facilitator can make an important contribution to mutual understanding by asking precise questions and regularly reflecting his perception. He exemplifies that each position has its justified reasons, is basically understandable and can be appreciated. Formulated in the words of an uninvolved party, some statements are easier to accept than when they come directly from the mouth of the opponent. The close link between thing and person increasingly dissolves again. Step by step, the direction of communication is changed in the conversation under guidance (cf. Besemer 1994, p. 59 ff.). In conflict situations, direct confrontation is the initial characteristic of the scene. Views then often collide unchecked. Open or concealed accusations, justifications, relativizations, verbal attacks and personal attacks are mutually directed against each other. Unfortunately, the parties involved are not even necessarily concerned with making their own position appear

5.3  Clarifying Conflicts

95

in a good light. Instead, they try to make the other side look bad. For Carlo Cipolla, this behavior is a dangerous sign of stupidity that, regrettably, seems widespread. “A stupid person is one who causes harm to another person or group of people without at the same time extracting a gain for himself or even suffering a loss” (Cipolla 2010, p. 63). With a facilitator as a third party, it is possible to break this pattern. The polarized constellation becomes a triad. In most cases, the mere presence of an uninvolved party ensures that further escalation is prevented, the relationship relaxes and new bridges of understanding can be built (cf. Schmidt and Kriegel-Schmidt 2012). From now on, the conversation proceeds more or less across borders. The pressure drops. Each party no longer necessarily tells the other their view of things, but can go the way of the facilitator. The other party listens. Evaluations are reduced, observations are given new space. Step by step it becomes possible to sort out the difficult situation. The conversation about the mediating third instance leads to the fact that at some point an increasing direct communication can be resumed. In contrast to before, this is now clearly more understanding and constructive. Approaches in small steps become possible. Instead of working against each other, possible solutions are sought side by side. The discussion can take place more and more without further support. The self-solving competence of the participants increases. The willingness and ability to change perspectives are necessary conditions for this. Otherwise no conflict facilitation will ever reach its goal. Mediation and Conflict Facilitation The work of facilitators in conflicts is often equated with the term “mediation”. Classically, the latter refers to a strict procedure consisting of five (von Hertel 2005) or six (Montada and Kals 2001; Haft and von Schlieffen 2002) clearly outlined process steps. The aim of mediation is to reach a binding agreement with the parties involved in the conflict that is also legally valid (cf. Strempel 2002, p. 393 ff.). It absolutely makes sense to follow this approach for  any situational conflict resolution. Behind each individual step are basic theoretical principles that are components of a sustainable solution in conflicts. According to Leo Montada and Elisabeth Kals, the first phase of a mediation is one of intensive preparation. Analogous to the transparency phase, the aim is to clarify the framework conditions and the goal with all parties involved in the conflict, to answer fundamental questions and, by signing the mediation contract, to express “in a symbolic act the willingness to cooperate before oneself and to the outside world” (Montada and Kals 2001, p. 185). No mediation without explicit consent. In the second phase, the problem is examined with all its facets. The

96

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

parties have their say and describe from their point of view what has contributed to the emergence and perpetuation of the problem, who is responsible from their point of view and what interest they have in the issue. The subsequent conflict analysis in the third step uncovers the underlying deep structures and makes the complex set of conditions of the conflict comprehensible to all parties (cf. Montada and Kals 2001, p. 198 f.). The mediator supports with questions in all directions. What is the concern of the respective parties? What factors have favoured the conflict? Who else is affected by the consequences? What stabilises the conflict? What has contributed to the escalation? What attempts have been made so far to resolve the conflict? Only when there is agreement on the diagnosis can solutions be considered together. In the fourth step, the problems and conflicts that have been collected are systematically processed. In the search for creative solution options, structural advice is needed to avoid falling into the classic either-or trap (cf. Varga von Kibéd and Sparrer 2016). If the conflict parties manage to prioritize their most important concerns, include the interests of third parties, and expand their search for solutions to include unexploited potential, an agreement is already within reach. Then, in step five, there still needs to be concrete agreement on a binding solution that is put in writing. The evaluation with a short and medium-term time horizon concludes the mediation process and builds the bridge towards everyday transfer. Any facilitation of a conflict can be oriented towards this process model. Moreover, facilitation is understood much more broadly and openly than is the case with the concise concept of mediation. A conflict does not even have to be present in its pronounced form for  such a workshop procedure to make sense. Noticeable demotivation, annoyance or polarisation are the first signs of intervening in a mediating perspective (cf. Schwarz 2014, p. 333 f.). In the case of socalled factual conflicts or socio-cognitive conflicts, a conflict does not even have to exist between two explicit parties (cf. Vollmer et al. 2015, p. 26). Differences that relate to the task level can also become a topic for conflict facilitation. Conflict facilitation does not require a strict flow chart. Even explicit role clarifications or agreements on objectives do not need to be in place. Some participants are not even necessarily aware of what is happening to them in conflict facilitation (cf. Schwarz 2002, p. 57 ff.). Changes of perspective have an implicit effect. The decisive factor remains that the group’s ability to work is restored and that work can continue on the common goal. In such cases, the range of possible solutions on a sliding scale extends from doing nothing on one side of the scale to the legitimate termination of cooperation on the other. Results that are more likely to be experienced as failure in consensus-­ oriented mediation.

5.3  Clarifying Conflicts

97

The Communicative Side For the faciltator, the main challenge in conflict resolution lies on the communicative side (cf. Redlich 1997, p. 161 ff.; cf. Dörrenbacher 2002, p. 339 ff.; Thomann 2010, p. 281 ff.). Linguistic precision, expressiveness, tact and empathy are essential conditions for accompanying other people in constructively finding a solution in conflictual situations. The facilitator structures and steers the process with an “organising hand” (Thomann and Schulz von Thun 2007, p. 31). Clarifying questions help to better understand the problem and the different positions. Solution-­ oriented questions open the doors towards cooperation. Projective questions that lead the participants to put themselves in the other person’s shoes create mutual understanding (cf. von Kanitz 2016, p.  125 ff.). Through active listening, statements are once again summarized in their core message and sharpened in a clarifying manner. At the same time, paraphrasing can take some of the sharpness out of the formulations. Comprehension questions ensure that the respective position has been correctly expressed. Dialogue, such as the simple question “What do you say to all that?”, enables the conflict parties to actually relate to each other instead of constantly talking past each other (cf. Thomann 2010, p. 289 f.). Clear stop signals, on the other hand, indicate where boundaries are being crossed. Everyone’s opinion is welcome in conflict facilitation, but not every behaviour. The facilitator sets out the framework and rules so that constructive dialogue is possible. He demands commitment and keeps an eye on it. “Practicing open communication, setting perceptual distortions straight, building trust, and pursuing common goals” (cf. Berkel 2005, p. 61). In theory, it sounds simple when it comes to the question of how to break unproductive cycles in conflicts. In order for this to succeed in practice, the facilitator must pick up the parties where they are with patience, perseverance and appreciation and show mitigating understanding where the participants do not (yet) succeed. Particular attention should be paid in communication to the proportions of speech. While one’s own should be as low as possible, care must be taken to ensure that they are reasonably balanced between the parties to the conflict. Who speaks for how long, who is allowed to begin, who is interrupted how often, these are all neuralgic points to which particular attention is paid in conflicts. They must be dealt with in a correspondingly conscious manner. Everyone must be given the opportunity, and at times also be emphatically invited, to express their interests, concerns, feelings or opinions. In the end, however, the participants themselves are responsible for what is discussed during conflict facilitation and what, for good reasons, remains unspoken. As a facilitator, you can make a significant contribution to the constructive handling of conflicts, but you cannot solve them.

98

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

The Facilitation of Conflicts The central point in the facilitation of conflicts is to enable the parties concerned to undergo a profound change of perspective. As a third force that is not involved in the conflict itself, the facilitator plays a mediating, understanding and de-escalating role. A clear, trusting framework ensures that problems can be discussed in a way that would not be possible without it. This applies above all to personal issues, which often play the most important role in conflicts. Through good questions, clear communication and attentive listening, the facilitator manages to give space to all perspectives on a problem. And he makes the underlying deep structure, ­including the associated emotions, transparent and workable. Step by step, clarification becomes possible, which can ultimately lead to a consensus-oriented decision.

5.4 Facilitating Innovation Processes Those who shape innovation must say goodbye to “the plannability of a linear process” and turn to “the control and facilitation of non-linear, cyclical and interactive processes” (Vollmer et  al. 2015, p.  20). This shift has consequences. Those who want to discover, develop or create something new cannot follow a rigid concept and produce only expected results. It is precisely the unexpected, the special, that comes into the world through a new way of looking at things. To achieve this, one has to follow the “principle of result orientation with full openness to results” (Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 69). In this respect, teams are now given significantly greater opportunities in organizations than creative individual minds. Innovare means to turn to something in a new way, to perceive it differently than before, to look closely. Previously overlooked things, fresh combinations or creative transfers lead to new things coming into the world (cf. von Pierer and von Oetinger 1997). Rigid systems are not creative. It is not the reproduction of the eternally same but the desire for change, variance and transformation that drives innovators. This also gives rise to conflicts and controversies, which can be used productively in a constructive way (cf. Vollmer et al. 2015). For the conception of such processes and their guidance, this means that they, too, must follow different rules than is the case in the usual framework. The methodological repertoire, the individual techniques and the media are largely the same as in the classic context. However, the demands on process knowledge, fundamentals, dynamics and attitude of the facilitator are much more complex. Neat methods are required when it comes to clearly predictable steps. For creative, open and spontaneous work, a lot of “messy” methods are also needed. And the ability to switch between both modes required.

5.4  Facilitating Innovation Processes

99

The goal of facilitation in the innovation context is only partly conciliation. Some things must first be brought into creative disorder compared to classical views. Only in this way can new information be gained, new things be thought, seen and developed together. Depending on how a group ticks, irritations and disturbances in different forms are necessary to create context shifts. Disruptions offer opportunities for reflection. Only where positions liquefy, viewpoints are abandoned and perspectives broaden, is there room for the previously unknown. In innovation processes, facilitation becomes a travel companion into unfamiliar terrain. Novel spaces of experience and experimentation open up for the participants. Perceptions change. The ideas developed in this way are then carefully examined, documented and condensed into a common result. Out of apparent chaos, a new order emerges. None of this is magic, but it does require special forms of intervention in different phases. The composition of the group is also highly relevant in the innovation context (cf. Schnetzler 2006, p. 81 ff.; cf. Schallmo 2017, p. 16 ff.). Interdisciplinarity and an unbiased view from the outside are quality characteristics. Laypersons and those outside the organization enrich the exchange with new perspectives. This can also be constructed in a roundabout way, such as surveys, observations or interviews. However, real presence makes a big difference here, especially for social processes such as learning or creativity. It is quite different whether you talk to real users, real customers, real competitors or real members of Generation X, Y and Z or about them. Direct participation offers clear process advantages. For the design of work and relationships, however, thinking together with those affected also creates special challenges. Instead of dealing with your own hypotheses and apparent certainties, you are dealing with people and their needs. Ideas are followed by immediate feedback. The practical check on the model shows immediately whether an idea has been understood or not. For some people in charge, such immediate work is rather inconvenient territory. Short time intervals, quick solutions, immediate feedback. In the event that a truly innovative solution has not yet been found: start again from the beginning. Innovation processes are an imposition, as they elude a feasibility and efficiency logic in decisive phases. Even creative detours can hardly be shortened. Good ideas take time. According to Thomas Edison, inspiration and perspiration are therefore closely related; with a clear overhang to the perseverance side. If you want to adopt new perspectives, you have to leave old paths behind. And you must keep a lot of patience until the new becomes visible. The facilitator as travel companion should therefore be an encouraging motivator, serenity coach and perseverance strategist, without himself knowing exactly where the common path actually leads. Innovation carries the risk of failure in two ways. Firstly, that the process fails and does not

100

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

lead to a satisfactory result. Or secondly, that the result turns out to be non-­ functional or that there is neither a market nor an application context for it. You should be prepared for both, at least emotionally, and also inform your client. The Design Thinking Process For some time now, the approach of design thinking in different variants has been considered synonymous with a systematic approach to innovation projects (cf. Schallmo 2017, p. 13). The process in six stages exemplifies what is essentially important when new ideas are sought instead of putting old solutions into new ­vocabulary (Fig. 5.2). The starting point is the understanding of the target group, problem and context, followed by an intensive observation phase that ends in the definition of a point of view, a perspective or a concrete challenge. The aim is to develop a common understanding of the task at hand, an attitude, within the team. Following this, ideas are developed and so-called “prototypes” are crafted, with the help of which feedback is finally systematically obtained (cf. Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 70 f.). What is special about this is that although this sequence of steps has the appearance of a linear process, it actually takes place in iterative loops. If one gets stuck at one point, it goes back to the previous phase together or directly to the initial problem again. “The complexity of the problem runs full speed at each iteration stage” (Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 112). Instead of simplifying at an early stage, the complexity in innovation processes remains until the end.

Fig. 5.2 Facilitating innovation processes

Field Observation

Understanding the target group

Ideation

Synthesize

Feedback

‘Prototypes‘

5.4  Facilitating Innovation Processes

101

The Target Group Perspective At the beginning there is the target group. It all starts with the question for whom something is to be invented, developed or organised. Decisive for the later success of the project will be the extent to which it actually succeeds in immersing itself in the context and reality of life of the target group. On the basis of initial vague ideas, the behaviour, motives and ideas are investigated in an intensive search for clues. With empathy and imagination, we succeed in immersing ourselves in the context of the target group. With the help of a questionnaire, material is collected, online research and surveys are conducted, demographic data or milieu studies are evaluated, people are observed in their behaviour or the target group is interviewed. The relevant information is in the field. Who actually has the problem? When and in what form does it occur? In which environment is the person confronted with it? How much, how often, in what way? What else determines her everyday life? What values are important to her? What is she afraid of? How does she make decisions? What biographical characteristics distinguish her? By answering the questions, a so-called “persona” is drawn. For product innovations, this can be customers, power-users or later end-users. In the case of social innovations or questions of organizational development, these are employees, stakeholders or decision-makers. For all those involved in the innovation project, an increasingly differentiated picture emerges. The more precisely it is possible to have a common idea, the better the condensed knowledge can be systematically used later in the process (cf. Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 74). Everything begins and ends with the findings from the target group discussion. The promise behind the Design Thinking process steps is that, on their basis, solution approaches are developed that are truly convincing from this perspective. If the question flares up in the decision space as to whether one should rather think further in this or that direction, decisions are not made according to the individual preferences of the participants, but from the perspective of the persona. How would she decide? What would help her? What would she value? The result should ultimately benefit the user. He or she defines the relevance framework. The rest is then creative hard work. Field Observations and Synergies The subject matter multiplies. The task list grows. The collection of cards on the wall becomes colourful and confusing. Now it is a matter of recognizing connecting patterns, links and order structures on the basis of this information. Everyone can go to the wall and temporarily steer through the common thinking process. In what different ways can the content be clustered? What fits together? Where do

102

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

polarizations show up? What are the dimensions of a theme? How does the material change the order? Are there recurring moments? Which aspects have real innovation potential? What do we focus on? What is the central sticking point that needs to be solved? In several iteration loops, the information, needs and motives are repeatedly restructured, combined and refined until central tenets finally emerge. A deep understanding with concrete insights has emerged. The quickest way to do this is with sliding cards or post-its on the wall; a visual technique that elegantly bypasses the restrictions and biases of language. In synthesis, the threads converge to a central crystallization point. Develop Ideas The actual idea generation process then follows the principles of the rhombus: open up, collect and produce quantity before clarifying, evaluating and condensing. Some swear by time-limited sprints in 5  min with a competitive character. Others recommend a change of location to an inspiring environment. Or one uses classic creativity techniques from the facilitation  toolbox, such as association chains, brainwriting or morphological boxes (cf. Meyer-Gashorn 2009; cf. Rustler 2016). Once again, the methods used must fit the facilitator and the target group in order to be effective. What is permitted is what helps, is connectable and provides benefits. This also includes interim results and half-finished concepts. Ideas must be able to be understood in their raw state. Where it is possible to cast these in the form of a “prototype”, it can happen that “the discussion is catapulted to the next level” (Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 88). A short sequence as a lively role play, the construction of a model with modelling clay, paper and scissors, process simulations with play figures or Lego bricks; all these can be means to immediately vividly present an idea at its core. This makes it easy to test whether the idea works in principle. Solution approaches become comprehensible. In a quick check procedure with external people, the “prototypes” are checked for comprehensibility, compared, evaluated and further developed until the actual product is ready. Feedback is not at the end of the process, but is a constitutive part of it. Work in Three Spaces During the work on innovation projects, three different spaces should be available (Fig. 5.3). Where possible, these should actually be in different rooms. In any case, it must be clear to all participants which room they are currently in together. New ideas are developed in the innovation space. In an inspiring environment, free spaces for creative thinking are created. In the decision space, their quality is assessed. Clear criteria allow a sober view of the matter. Despite all the euphoria, it is also a question of a realistic assessment of the potential and the degree of innova-

5.4  Facilitating Innovation Processes

103

Fig. 5.3 Innovation space, decision space, organization space

Innovation Space

Decision Space

Organization Space

tion. The ideas are grounded. In the organizational space, everything revolves around the search for suitable implementation paths and organizational connection possibilities. Communication and marketing are crucial for success. Only the successful integration into everyday life shows whether a good idea actually becomes established. Only where work is done in parallel or sequentially in all three spaces does an idea have a chance of successful transfer into the existing organizational world. Each space has its own requirements. Special rules apply in each section. Specific requirements are also placed on the facilitation in each case. Think Outside the Box in the Innovation Space An ideal innovation space constantly offers a 360-degree view of the interim results. There should be opportunities everywhere to attach research results, maps or post-its to pinboards, whiteboards or smooth surfaces. High tables in the center serve as storage for sketch pads, markers, creative materials, and coffee cups. Different seating options also provide physical opportunities to shift perspectives and take on new points of view. Everyone is in contact with each other. Flexibility and spontaneity are trumps. The different results and materials also enter into a relationship with each other. Previous process steps can be taken up again. Contents that superficially have little to do with each other make new sense in unusual combinations. Shifts in context have an effect. The contents are played back and forth between the walls. The common focus of attention shifts like the light cone of a spotlight. Not only logical, but also illogical reasoning is allowed here! What associations arise when a standard process is confronted with the needs of the target group? What results when the facets of digitalization are jux-

104

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

taposed with the interview results from the employee survey? What does a certain megatrend have to do with the nature of handbags? With lightness and humor, spontaneous orders are created and just as quickly atomized again. A permanent visualization of the ideas as a basis for the organization and reorganization of the material is crucial for this. From the combinatorics in conceptual clusters, new things come into the world. Working openly, you can make rapid progress. Everyone is allowed to intervene, to demand attention or to disengage from the joint thought process at times. Side conversations are allowed as well as spontaneous research with the smartphone. The special task of the facilitator is deconstruction. One of the imperatives is: “Tear down atmospheric barriers” (cf. Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015, p. 47). The goal is to be in constant exchange in order to break down entrenched thought patterns and to loosen existing blockages. Through polarizations and contrasts, it is possible to provoke radical views on a topic. Experiencing contrasts is an important condition for learning processes. Situational radicality serves as a catalyst and accelerator. The facilitator prevents premature censorship and makes the case for different positions. Disruption is absolutely welcomed! Creative energy is given free rein. Several approaches and points of view are allowed to stand side by side without giving in too quickly to the need for agreement. In the innovation space, the information content of the system is kept open as long as possible, until patterns become clearly recognizable through various equally valid principles of order. Facilitating in the innovation space means juggling with concepts and orders. Options in the Decision Space The change of location into the decision space leads to phases of convergence, where everything flows together (cf. Schallmo 2017, p. 19). Here, relevant focal points are formed. To decide always means to leave behind a multitude of possibilities in the innovation space. The construction of “prototypes” is an important tool for this. The concretization in the form of an object of whatever kind causes an idea to become quickly vivid, even for third parties. And it forces you to focus. Showing instead of telling. How can we make it immediately clear to a later user what benefit he or she will derive from the new problem solution? How do we succeed in presenting the core of the idea? What is the essence of our idea? Which form of illustration is suitable with regard to our assignment? What can be demonstrated to decision-makers to quickly convince them of the functionality? Working with “prototypes” is not the end of the innovation process, but an elementary part of it. The setting would be thoroughly misunderstood if the claim were already made here that everyone had to shout loudly hurrah at the first attempt. “Prototypes” illustrate the basic idea: on paper, in simulation or as a quickly

5.4  Facilitating Innovation Processes

105

assembled object. Forty percent is quite sufficient on the perfection scale. Clarity is the ultimate goal. Even at this stage, it must be clear whether the idea can be connected and where the concrete challenges for implementation will lie. Feedback here means making a “focused, positive and affirmative evaluation of the alternatives” (Rustler 2016, p. 40). Anything that comes to mind in terms of spontaneous reactions to an idea is welcome at this stage. In case there are serious objections, the road may already be over here. In this way, innovation always takes place with calculable resource risk. The facilitator raises the relevant questions, the group makes the decision. Pointed suggestions for improvement help to generate further solutions. The confrontation with the original question leads to targeted re-sharpening. Each “prototype” provides the jumping-off point for the next test balloon. Tinkering, playing through and simulating with appropriate feedback serves to get an even better feel for how the idea works. It is important to avoid both: “falling in love too quickly or discarding too quickly” (Rustler 2016, p.  49). And it needs the ability to throw away. The super-personal criteria from the work with the persona help to keep the balance here. Of course, facing an evaluation is not everyone’s cup of tea. Those who build up routines with such evaluation loops remove the inhibition before such an external evaluation. It becomes a constant part of the process. And it ensures that the view to the outside, to the target group context, is never lost. Transfer into the Organizational Space In addition to a good idea, the fit in the organizational context is ultimately one of the decisive factors in whether an innovation will actually become established. In addition to a functioning product, it also requires a rethinking in the minds. Whether with customers, users, decision-makers or those affected; a re-evaluation rarely takes place spontaneously overnight, but needs time to mature and understanding aids so that it can be grasped. This makes it all the more important to have a space in which questions about transfer, communication and integration can be asked not only when the outcome has already been determined and all those affected have been presented with accomplished facts. If those responsible for operations and processes are involved in the innovation project too late, there is a risk that they will refuse to embrace the new idea – on principle. The coexistence of outsourced innovation projects parallel to the regular organization not only holds opportunities, but also the danger of alienation. If there is no place where official questions can be asked about the current status, the curious will uncontrollably pave their own information paths. If care is not taken to involve important people in good time, this has to be done later – and then usually at great expense.

106

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

It is precisely for the fit in the organization that the previous experts and their knowledge are needed. They can give relevant advice on how an operational implementation can succeed best, fastest and most efficiently and where the stumbling blocks lie. Most of the time, this is exactly where a good idea fails. The idea is good and mature, and you have already thought about the implementation. What many forget is to manage the transfer into their own organization. While new suggestions and impulses from outside are often needed to break up old patterns, conventional expert knowledge is in demand at the latest during the transition to organizational reality. The process offers clear lines of reasoning. Both the results and their genesis can be communicated and documented very transparently. Who needs to be involved in the process at an early stage? Who could serve as a communicative ambassador for the idea? What does a suitable internal marketing concept with core messages look like? Who will be most affected by the impact later on and should therefore definitely be involved with their perspective? What preconditions must be created to ensure that a later changeover is successful? At what intervals, in which circle, in which form should the ongoing topics be discussed so that everyone stays informed and on the ball? These questions ultimately determine whether a good idea actually becomes something. The earlier those who will later be responsible are involved in the process, the higher the probability that this challenge will also be mastered. The Facilitation of Innovation Processes To guide innovation processes, a facilitator is needed who provides impulses, lateral thinking and cluster formation in the innovation space. The condition is a heterogeneous group that combines different internal and external perspectives and must be composed accordingly. On the basis of a common understanding of the problem and the target group, concrete ideas are then developed. If a step comes to a standstill, the group returns to the starting point. In the constant alternation of order and disorder, new solutions emerge through iterative loops. For this, the facilitator must not only sort, but above all productively disrupt. As soon as an idea gains a clear outline, it is concretized to such an extent that it can be prudently assessed and evaluated in the decision-making space. Together with experts from the organization, we consider how the idea can be implemented. On both a small and a large scale, the facilitator contributes with the right questions so that something new actually comes into the world.

5.5  Learning Together

107

5.5 Learning Together The master builder is a living heart. (Buber 1997, p. 48)

Learning is a social process that can be initiated, supported and shaped. The facilitator is a “helping companion” (Senge 2008, p. 299 ff.). He holds the framework within which the participants can move freely. Facilitation links questioners and answerers. Problems and solutions become visible. Beyond the pressure to act in everyday life, facilitation creates time slots for reflection, for deeper understanding and for forward-looking planning. Doors open to spaces of possibility in which development can take place. This learning thrives on interaction. Our brain is a relational organ (Fuchs 2017). From the participant’s point of view, interest and a basic motivation for learning are needed. Without both, nothing works. A common topic, a concrete occasion or a central question are then the anchor points for getting involved in a joint process. The interested parties gather around them. The facilitation of learning processes aims to arrange the circumstances in such a way that numerous encounters with each other become possible at eye level (cf. Bauer in Herrmann 2020, p. 152 ff.). Individual or group discussions while standing, sitting or walking, murmur groups for mutual exchange, unscheduled spaces in between, networking opportunities and a self-determined, self-responsible control of the learning process by the participants are core elements for this. It is not a centrally timetabled schedule with prescribed teaching material. Create Spaces of Learning Facilitation builds the stage for learning, which is open for all to use. Like a musical jam session: The instruments and a few standards are provided by the host, the rest comes from the guests. The possibilities of learning in the context of facilitated workshops are manifold. The exchange of best practices can take place in an open marketplace. Projects outlined on display walls invite questions. What was it about? Who was involved? What were the success factors? What would we do differently next time? What tips do you have for people facing similar challenges? You quickly get into casual conversation with each other. Instead of just scratching the surface, the marketplace format invites you to ask questions and get in touch. For the same occasion, informal table groups could be formed with a Lunch and Learn format. These each have a thematic focus, about which one talks casually. After an hour, everything is over again. The only investment: time and lunch. In this way, the joint lunch break becomes a place of learning. Things are

108

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

more structured in the context of peer consultation (cf. Tietze 2010). Here, a group put together at random is used to work on the concrete concerns of one client. Everyone involved will learn something. The client as well as the colleagues who advise or those who seem to just listen. Change of location. In a speed-dating circle, those seeking advice find different impulse providers and solution helpers. The format lives from the quick change and the clocking. Depending on which chair you are sitting on, you ask your questions or receive a colourful bouquet of suggestions. Something similar is possible with an inner-circle-outer-circle setting. In the inner circle the discussion takes place in a small group. The outer circle observes. If the permeability between the circles is allowed, an interesting dynamic can develop. Sometimes you ask questions, sometimes you give answers, sometimes you are a silent observer, sometimes you are a focused listener, sometimes you are in the middle of things, ­sometimes your thoughts wander off into your own contexts. A permanent change of roles and perspectives up to complete mixing. Everything is supported by a shared passion for the cause, the people and the process (cf. Hattie 2009, p. 23 ff.). Added value for all. Things are even more open in the context of an Open Space event (cf. Owen 1997). Here everything revolves around the question: “How can the dynamics of an informal and unorganized coffee break be transferred to the entire conference?” (Maleh 2000, p. 15). Sometimes with 300 participants or more. Everyone can contribute his or her specific question to the plenary, throughout the entire duration of the event. In a marketplace, interested parties are sought for collaboration. Highly efficient, highly motivated and self-organizing working groups are formed in a very short time. Minimal guidelines open up the greatest possible scope for action. The “law of two feet” applies (cf. Owen 1997, p. 72 ff.). Everyone goes there and works on the issue where his or her current interest lies. He stays as long as he can contribute meaningfully or profits from the exchange of the others. A group can be left again without giving reasons. Simple principles support the process: Those who come are the right ones. What happens is the only thing that can happen. It begins when the time is right. Over is over (cf. Groß 2020). Things are similarly dynamic at a Barcamp. There, the participants become “share-holders” and this form of “unconference” becomes a tailor-made “self-­ education” (Muuß-Merholz 2019, p. 16 ff.). Everyone gets what they are looking for. At the level of ambition that suits him. Motivation to learn and interest in the subject matter are, as mentioned, the only conditions that you have to bring along as a participant.

5.5  Learning Together

109

Widen Learning Pathways Thus, in one place, within the framework of one event, numerous individual learning processes emerge. The facilitator can accompany these in the confidence that adults want to learn without having to be taught (cf. Siebert 2003, p. 27 ff.). If the setting is accepted, there is little left for the facilitator to do. He provides the workshop, which is available to everyone for individual use. Together, problems are filed and planed. Or they are drilled deeper. Individual aspects are cut out and reconnected, repainted or put in a corner for the time being until they might be of use to someone else again at a later date. Others unfold their full effect only after the event is over. Learning takes time. Facilitation helps to keep order on different levels. It provides orientation so that nobody and nothing gets lost in the course of the process. And it motivates people to keep at it together. In this way, learning processes can be influenced, but neither accelerated nor really controlled. What constitutes learning remains unavailable at its core. “You only see the smoke, not the fire” (Fuchs 2017, p. 73). What can be done is to go broad with the learning. This approach aims at making the competences, the knowledge and the questions of the group, their curiosity, expertise and helpfulness mutually visible and mutually connectable (cf. Hattie 2009). Paradoxically, it is precisely this broadening that provides a particular depth. At the end of a learning-focused workshop day, colourfulness, multiplicity and divergence are not an expression of facilitator’s deficiency, but a quality feature. There does not have to be a concrete result at the end. On the contrary: the workshop forms the prelude, so that afterwards, in different places, things can continue individually or together. The transfer is decisive for the learning success (cf. Weinbauer-Heidel 2016). This can take place in concrete application practice, in further discussion rounds or in working groups, in agreed transfer discussions with the supervisor, in experience reports to interested colleagues or in classic self-study. The shared experience of openness, liveliness and discourse in the community lead to new individual motivation. Learning takes place in different processing steps and stages that extend far beyond the defined framework (Freudenthal 2020, p. 62 ff.). Technically, it is now easy to extend learning paths into the digital or virtual realms (cf. Cobb 2013). The most obvious is the invitation to individual networking via social media. Here, everyone decides for themselves with whom they want to stay in touch. Easy to organize are short follow-up workshops for everyone, via video conference 8 weeks after an event. How are you doing? What has worked in practice? What is still difficult? What new questions have arisen? Short feedback, and off we go again. In

110

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

a digital archive, interesting and useful stuff can be collected for all to share. This opens up new horizons. Anyone who wants to can stay on the ball. Learn From Each Other, With Each Other and About Each Other The facilitation of learning processes aims at learning from each other, with each other and about each other. The participants are not passive recipients, but active co-creators and owners of the process. Like-minded people meet with a common interest in the matter in order to benefit from each other. Experts from different fields can mutually share their knowledge and their respective experiences. The added value lies precisely in the lack of expertise. Those who are not deeply involved in the subject matter have a feel for aspects that have been overlooked or neglected up to now, while at the same time being highly relevant. The underlying complexity of many topics thus becomes visible and workable in the first place. At the same time, a social situation is created that can always be fraught with tension. Facilitation creates the conditions for cooperation. In conflict situations, it also provides a lightning rod where short-term dynamics can be discharged. Learning can be done with one’s own case or with the cases of others. Complex questions and concrete problems show “that many heads potentially know more than one” (Senge 2008, p. 288). Old hands and fresh minds contribute with their specific nature. Good questions meet sound answerers. General behavioural recommendations are critically and occasion-related questioned until the tips actually fit the situation. Behind every question there is usually a lively practical case. The common understanding of the problem becomes more differentiated. At the same time, the levers towards a solution become visible in a way that would not be possible to plan on one’s own in such a different, versatile and concretely fitting way. This requires space to linger and explore together. Who of you has ever …? It happened to me when this happened to us that … When we introduced this in our organization, the following mistake was made, which you should not repeat … Today I would rather start at this point … I have no idea about the topic, but my clear common sense tells me that this cannot work ... The community with others is the central building block for such creative learning processes (cf. Weiss 2011, p. 126 f. and Mandl et al. 2008, p. 104 ff.). Against the background of one’s own experiences, it thus becomes possible to engage in something new. In reflective observation, one can step back in order to gain a new distance from the matter at hand. Thanks to different perspectives, it is possible to “uncover the incoherence of our thinking” (Bohm in Senge 2008, p. 293). Fracture lines, contradictions and gaps only become visible through others. It is important to take advantage of this as soon as the conditions are created. “Feedback is only effective in a resonance space, a space of mutual openness” (Rosa and Endres

5.5  Learning Together

111

2016, p. 65). Facilitation helps to make these different perspectives audible to each other by creating a resonance space. Theories, models and concepts support the re-sorting of perceptions. New knowledge is then applied through active experimentation. Learning comes through the senses from the head into the hands of the learners. Together, we get into the swing of things so that it sizzles (cf. Rosa and Endres 2016, p. 8). Inspirational Lectures with Experts Classically, we learn from proven theory or practicioners. Knowledge is passed on in the form of a lecture, via an interview or in the context of a panel discussion. While listening, everyone picks out what seems important to them. Facilitation frames such sequences and can contribute significantly to increasing the connectivity to the everyday world of the participants. Even before the start, questions from the audience can be collected, to which the speaker then refers. This can also be done live in a chat. Small groups can get into the swing of things with the help of guiding questions. Why am I here? What particularly interests me about the topic? What practical occasions and situations do I have in mind? For what do I expect further impulses? Often an atmosphere of excitement and curiosity already spreads with this introduction and quickly fills the whole room. There is a busy whispering and lively hustle and bustle. A few impulses in the form of questions are enough to break the ice. All that is needed is for someone to give permission for people to approach each other and talk to each other. The learning community will then find the right way on its own. Also (digital) surveys activate and at the same time give relevant hints on what one should focus on in the lecture as a speaker with exactly this audience. Instead of standard, there are concrete answers to existing questions. This significantly increases the probability of success in learning. Targeted interruptions in the lecture, for example by inviting the audience to a three-minute exchange with the person sitting next to them, loosen up and support the individual processing of the learning material. In addition, they ensure a renewed focus of attention. Following an expert impulse, further rounds of discussion or workshops can invite participants to pursue certain topics and questions together. Breathing in is followed by breathing out. Tension is followed by relaxation. Both should be alternated so that none of the phases is neglected. The targeted transfer of knowledge is essential for the survival of many projects and organizations. Facilitation can add significant value here. It changes the setting, breaks routines and supports changing less helpful interaction patterns. Instead of talking a lot, questions take on the status of leading the conversation. Relevant things can be teased out and sharpened. Contact is established between

112

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

knowledge champions and ordinary people. If it succeeds: lively zones of co-­ creativity instead of one-way communication. Workshops with Practitioners Even more relevant is the facilitative interlocking of learners and teachers, of offerers and seekers, of questioners and answerers when working in practical workshops, as they take place in the form of learning events, bar camps, hackathons or open space events. Here, it is not theorists but “everyday experts” who come together with their practical knowledge. The special feature: “Often the practitioner understands something without understanding the thing itself in detail” (Hörning 2001, p. 10). Asking him to give a technical lecture therefore makes little sense. However, with a feeling for the specifics and the relevant differences, with practical skill and foresight, such experts can help to find suitable solutions when confronted with a concrete problem. These learning occasions arise when one encounters obstacles and resistances in one’s normal everyday actions that cannot be overcome with the currently available means and skills (cf. Holzkamp in Arnold 2020, p. 41). The facilitative service thus consists first of all in finding the existing practical problems that are scattered throughout the group. At the same time, it is necessary to identify those who implicitly know what is important in this case. Facilitation as midwifery and matchmaking. The rest is done by the creative potential of the group. The phases of problem and case descriptions take up significantly more interactive space compared to a classic lecture format. Together, sticking points are sought that need to be solved (cf. Beck 2020, p. 216 ff.). In dialogue, complex and subtle issues are explored freely and creatively. People listen to each other intensively and are not committed to one view from the outset (cf. Senge 2008, p. 288). Not only the matter, but also the context, the objective and one’s own behaviour are put to the common test. The aim is to create a collective awareness of the problem and to support learners in identifying their own concrete learning needs (cf. Cobb 2013, p.  109). There may well be surprises in the process. Some people come to the workshop thinking they know what they need, only to discover that they need something quite different. Not everyone is automatically fishing in the right pond. “People who are deeply involved in solving a problem, in overcoming a crisis, easily overlook the fact that there are always any number of problems and crises from which to choose” (Mandl et al. 2008, p. 23). For the development of solutions, the focus should also be on self-organization, self-direction, personal responsibility and the freedom to co-design. Like in an experimental workshop, new procedures can be tinkered with and tried out together until they finally fit. The effects are enormous. Self-efficacy can be experi-

5.5  Learning Together

113

enced. Also because the protected framework of a facilitated event allows the pace of action to be slowed down or accelerated. Peter Senge describes the design possibilities in such laboratory situations as follows: “Phenomena that arise quickly can be stretched out so that they can be studied more closely. Phenomena that extend over long periods of time can be sped up so that one can more clearly see the consequences of certain actions. Each step is reversible. Actions that cannot be canceled, undone, and revised in the real situation can be repeated infinitely. Changes in the environment can be undone, either completely or partially. Complexity can be simplified by separating variables that are firmly connected in reality” (Senge 2008, p. 314). Feedback sequences and specific reflection sequences interrupt the flow of experimentation at appropriate points. Experiences, findings and open questions can be collected in a facilitated round and made useful for each other. Practical learning needs free spaces and facilitating learning stewards who support the gathering and distribution of the knowledge that has been created in the group. There is enough for everyone. Combined with the practical knowledge from everyday life, “the terrain of thoroughly regulated spaces” can be reconquered (Hörning 2001, p. 31). The Open Space and Barcamp formats consistently rely on such ways of mutual knowledge exchange. Instead of shuffling linearly through a schedule of events for everyone, all topics are presented right at the beginning, which then take place in parallel. This allows everyone to dial in where energy, interest and motivation are highest. The following group can build on what was left behind by the previous one if there are multiple runs. Pauses, context changes, and inefficiencies are explicitly included as factors relevant to learning. They do not stop the process, but make it better (cf. Beck 2020, p. 85 ff.). Increase Learning Probabilities From a neurodidactic point of view, the “learning brain is dependent on relationships and messages that are free of anxiety, encouraging, and signal confidence in success in order to achieve optimal learning and memory performance” (Herrmann 2020, p. 11). Only then can a creative process succeed in which new things emerge. To achieve this, facilitation networks between personal interests via common questions. Controversial discussions are not only allowed but necessary in a creative learning process. Friction only arises where there is closeness. After a constructive debate, there is often more clarity than before. Dissent can also be a valuable resource. If a profound exchange about opportunities and design possibilities succeeds, this leads to “recognizing and using forces of change instead of fighting them” (Senge 2008, p. 175). Instead of giving in to defensive routines, productive energy

114

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

emerges. Then it also becomes possible not to simply pass over moments of irritation quickly, but to drill deeper into them (cf. Rosa and Endres 2016, p. 50). What exactly is behind it? What patterns are discernible? At what point could something be done differently than before? Where can points of view be combined? Starting points for a productive learning process that, on a second level, aims to engage “with the thought processes behind the assumptions, not just with the assumptions themselves” (Bohm 2011, p. 36). Exploratory questions, a common desire to understand and a transformation of positions and attitudes become possible in creative dialogue (cf. Mandl et al. 2008). Such moments, however, are hardly suitable for the theatre stage. Instead, they allow insights behind the scenes. Exciting places for joint explorations. Perhaps even more questions than answers arise. With guidance of a facilitator, these are not hurriedly worked through, but held in abeyance together. Soon it is no longer the answer that is important, but the knowledge of the not-knowing. Trigger for further search movements. Perhaps it is even possible to resist the temptation to have an immediate solution for everything during such time-outs from everyday life. In the end, this could prove to be highly practical. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Abel, G., und M. Plümacher Hrsg. 2016. The power of distributed perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter. Antons, K., et al. Hrsg. 2004. Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Arnold, R. 2020. Wie man lehrt, ohne zu belehren. 29 Regeln für eine kluge Lehre. Das LENA-Modell. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Beck, H. 2020. Das Neue Lernen heißt Verstehen. Berlin: Ullstein.

References

115

Berkel, K. 2005. Konflikttraining. Konflikte verstehen, analysieren und bewältigen. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft. Besemer, C. 1994. Mediation. Vermittlung in Konflikten. Baden: Werkstatt für Gewaltfreie Kommunikation. Bohm, D. 2011. Der Dialog. Das offene Gespräch am Ende der Diskussionen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Buber, M. 1997. Das dialogische Prinzip. Gerlingen: Schneider. Cipolla, C. 2010. Allegro ma non troppo. Die Rolle der Gewürze und die Prinzipien der menschlichen Dummheit. Berlin: Wagenbach. Cobb, J. 2013. Leading the learning revolution. The expert’s guide to capitalizing on the exploding lifelong education market. New York: Amacom. De Dreu, C., und M. Gelfand Hrsg. 2012. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis. Deutsch, M., P. Coleman, und E. Marcus Hrsg. 2006. The handbook of conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dörner, D. 2008. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Dörrenbacher, P. 2002. Erfolgreiche Kommunikation. In Handbuch Mediation, Hrsg. F. Haft und K. von Schlieffen, 339–362. München: Beck. Epley, N. 2015. Mindwise. Why we misunderstand what others think, believe, feel, and want. New York: Random House. Erbeldinger, J., und T.  Ramge. 2015. Durch die Decke denken. Design Thinking in der Praxis. München: Red Line. Freudenthal, T. 2020. Digitales Lernen? Wie du mit der richtigen Lernstrategie neues Wissen aufbaust. Schneller, hochmotiviert und nachhaltig. Hückelhoven: Remote Verlag. Fuchs, T. 2017. Das Gehirn. Ein Beziehungsorgan. Eine phänomenologisch-ökologische Konzeption. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Groß, S. 2020. Open space. Bonn: Socialnet. https://www.socialnet.de/lexikon/Open-­Space. Accessed on 28 Feb 2021. Haft, F., und K. von Schlieffen Hrsg. 2002. Handbuch Mediation. München: Beck. Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Herrmann, U., Hrsg. 2020. Neurodidaktik. Grundlagen für eine Neuropsychologie des Lernens. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Hörning, K. 2001. Experten des Alltags. Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens. Göttingen: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Krogerus, M., und Tschäppler, R. 2008. 50 Erfolgsmodelle. Kleines Handbuch für strategische Entscheidungen. Zürich: Kein & Aber. Maleh, C. 2000. Open Space. Effektiv arbeiten mit großen Gruppen. Ein Handbuch für Anwender, Entscheider und Berater. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Mandl, C., M.  Hauser, und H.  Mandl. 2008. Die schöpferische Besprechung. Kunst und Praxis des Dialogs in Organisationen. Gevelsberg: EHP. March, J., und J. P. Olsen, 1988. The uncertainty of the past: Organizational learning under ambiguity. In Decisions and organizations, Hrsg. J. March, 335–358. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

116

5  Distinguishing Tasks and Causes

Meyer-Grashorn, A. 2009. Spinnen ist Pflicht. Querdenken und Neues schaffen. München: Allitera. Montada, L., und E.  Kals. 2001. Mediation. Lehrbuch für Psychologen und Juristen. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Muuß Merholz, J. 2019. Barcamps @ Co. Peer-to-Peer Methoden für Fortbildungen. Weinheim: Beltz. Owen, H. 1997. Open space technology. A user’s guide. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Redlich, A. 1997. Konfliktmoderation. Handlungsstrategien für alle, die mit Gruppen arbeiten. Mit vier Fallbeispielen. Hamburg: Windmühle. Rosa, H., und W. Endres. 2016. Resonanzpädagogik. Wenn es im Klassenzimmer knistert. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Rustler, F. 2016. Denkwerkzeuge. Das kleine Handbuch der Innovationsmethoden. Zürich: Midas. Schallmo, D. 2017. Design Thinking erfolgreich anwenden. So entwickeln Sie in 7 Phasen kundenorientierte Produkte und Dienstleistungen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Schmidt, K., und K.  Kriegel-Schmidt. 2012. Der Einfluss triadischer Kommunikation auf Identitätsarbeit und Verständigung  – Forschungsansätze der Objektiven Hermeneutik für Mediation. In Mediation erforschen. Fragen  – Forschungsmethoden  – Ziele, Hrsg. D. Busch und C.-H. Mayer, 111–136. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schnetzler, N. 2006. Die Ideenmaschine. Methode statt Geistesblitz – Wie Ideen industriell produziert werden. Weinheim: Wiley. Schwarz, R. 2002. The skilled facilitator. A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwarz, G. 2014. Konfliktmanagement. Konflikte erkennen, analysieren, lösen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Seifert, J. 2001. Visualisieren, Präsentieren, Moderieren. Offenbach: Gabal. Senge, P. 2008. Die fünfte Disziplin. Kunst und Praxis der lernenden Organisation. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Siebert, H. 2003. Didaktisches Handeln in der Erwachsenenbildung. Didaktik aus konstruktivistischer Sicht. München/Unterschleißheim: Luchterhand. Simon, F. 1991. Meine Psychose, mein Fahrrad und ich. Zur Selbstorganisation der Verrücktheit. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Strempel, D. 2002. Rechtspolitische Aspekte der Mediation. In Handbuch mediation, Hrsg. F. Haft und K. von Schlieffen, 104–136. München: Beck. Sunstein, C., und R.  Hastie. 2015. Wiser. Getting beyond groupthinking to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Sutrich, O., et  al. 2016. Wie Organisationen gut entscheiden. Innovative Werkzeuge für Führungskräfte, Projektmanager, Teams und Unternehmen. Stuttgart: Haufe. Thomann, C. 2010. Klärungshilfe 2. Konflikte im Beruf: Methoden und Modelle klärender Gespräche. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Thomann, C., und Schulz von Thun, F. 2007. Klärungshilfe 1. Handbuch für Therapeuten, Gesprächshelfer und Moderatoren in schwierigen Gesprächen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Tietze, K.-O. 2010. Kollegiale Beratung. Problemlösungen gemeinsam entwickeln. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

References

117

Vollmer, A., M. Dick, und T. Wehner Hrsg. 2015. Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen. Konflikte bearbeiten, Entscheidungen treffen, Innovationen fördern. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Von Hertel, A. 2005. Professionelle Konfliktlösung. Führen mit Mediationskompetenz. Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Von Kanitz, A. 2016. Crashkurs professionell moderieren. Freiburg: Haufe. von Kibéd, M.V., und I.  Sparrer. 2016. Ganz im Gegenteil. Tetralemmaarbeit und andere Grundformen systemischer Strukturaufstellungen  – für Querdenker und solche, die es werden wollen. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer. Von Pierer, H., und B. von Oetinger Hrsg. 1997. Wie kommt das Neue in die Welt? München: Hanser. Weinbauer-Heidel, I. 2016. Was Trainings wirklich wirksam macht. 12 Stellhebel der Transferwirksamkeit. Mit Beiträgen von Masha Ibeschitz-Manderbach. Hamburg: Tredition. Weiss, M. 2011. Management in Skizzen. Die Kraft der Bilder im Change Management. Bern: Haupt. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: ­Hogrefe.

6

Including Organization and Context

Organized anarchies are organizations characterized by problematic preferences, unclear technology, and fluid participation. (Cohen et al. 1988, p. 294)

Every communication situation is unique in a group dynamic constellation and its actual course is not really predictable. In addition, organizations themselves do not (only) follow rational premises, but contain anarchic and paradox elements (cf. March 1988). In every discourse there are numerous contingencies and behind every decision there are unresolved preferences, which can only be partially resolved even with the structuring and clarifying interventions of a facilitator. According to James March, ambiguity is to be assumed as the normal case and purposive rational action the exception rather than the rule, even if numerous publications in the management literature promise the opposite (cf. March 1988, p. 296; cf. Baecker 1994, p. 19 ff.). In this respect, one cannot count on planned courses. Workshops are in themselves delimitable spaces where this fact can be made an issue by the members of the organization themselves. At the same time, facilitated meetings are in permanent interrelation with what happens before, after and in parallel in the organization and outside of it. Culture, context, market developments, processes, leadership, past history; all of this, in its multi-layered and contourless complexity, feeds into the meeting and flows back from there. It is an illusion to believe that behind closed doors one would only be among oneself (Fig. 6.1).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_6

119

120

6  Including Organization and Context

Fig. 6.1  Workshop in an organizational context

Leadership History

...

Workshop

Processes Market

Context Culture

A workshop does not eliminate the existing paradoxes, contradictions and challenges. However, they become understandable and workable in it, provided that a common way of dealing with them is found that lasts at least for the duration of the event. Cooperative bridges between disciplines can emerge, at least temporarily. Differences find recognition and a joint clarification of how best to deal with them can take place. The probability of successful cooperation thus increases significantly. The hope is justified that in the medium term this will also have positive effects on the organization as a whole. Where common ideas are developed for the benefit of all and prudent decisions are made, many a hatchet can be buried at least

6  Including Organization and Context

121

temporarily. Provided that it becomes possible for everyone to achieve their particular goal, there is nothing to be said against allowing others to do so as well. However, the major structural differences described by James March are also reproduced in many places on a small scale. Facilitated workshops reflect the culture of the organization, its useful as well as obstructive patterns of conflict, decision-­making and behavior. Thus, “constellations of contradictions” (Bolte et al. 2008, p. 155) inevitably arise anew. Doubtful preferences, unclear processes and changing line-ups of the field of participants make joint endeavours incredibly complicated. The origin of collaboration difficulties is not (only) personal animosities, but competing role responsibilities and different functional scopes. For marketing and sales, everything must be easy to understand with the end customer in mind. For production, efficient and error-free processes are at the top of the priority scale. Finance has a permanent eye on the cost structure. Such local rationalities are not easily compatible with each other and yet they combine to form a “functional total artwork” (Simon 1998, p. 57). Depending on the topic, the economic situation or the power structure, discussions can go either way. The art of facilitation is to make the constructive overall benefit of these partial perspectives visible, rather than lamenting their presence. But even where this is achieved, numerous errors of transference and judgment still lurk. Just because a decision could be reached by consensus in a small circle does not mean that the other members of the organization will accept it automatically. Or, to put it another way, just because workshop participants consider certain issues irrelevant or in dispute, it does not mean that this assessment is shared by everyone on the outside. Always including the organization and context in the workshop deliberations becomes a success factor here. The boundaries between inside and outside become fluid. What acquires incredible importance in the small details of an immediate confrontation is quickly put into perspective again with a view to the significance in the whole structure. Workshops as Wonderlands Workshops are not an end in themselves, but serve an organizational purpose. At the same time, facilitation creates somehow a world on its own. There is a special opportunity for intimacy, trusting interaction and openness, which is difficult to live in everyday role constellations. This is not about isolation. Contact with external organizational reality must be made permeable in interactions, but cleverly filtered in both directions. Not everything that exists in terms of complexity and intricacy on the outside should find its way into the workshop. Likewise, all expressions of opinion, discussions and emotions must not be allowed to penetrate unfiltered through uncontrolled channels from the inside to the outside.

122

6  Including Organization and Context

This is where facilitators have a key function. They “provide a relevant environment for systems so that the people coupled to them can encounter each other ­differently in their roles and functions in a special communicative setting” (Zirkler and Raschèr 2014, p. 118). In the best case, these agents represent not only their own, but also other existing opinions and positions from the organization. They take up existing arguments in order to process them in a different way than would be the case in normal everyday organizational life. Where otherwise everyone represents their own position, every criticism is followed by a justification and agreed alliances exist even before the actual controversy, in the workshop there is the justified hope that the discussion will proceed differently there. In the context of change processes, the principle of “getting the ‘whole system’ in the room” is followed for this purpose (Seliger 2015, p. 37). This is not necessarily about all organizational members having to be physically present. Delegated team members or survey results, for example, can take over this function (cf. Heintel and Krainz 2015, p. 106 ff.). In the case of several workshops, the positions can also be filled alternately. The idea is as simple as it is convincing: if as many facets of the organization as possible are represented in the room, it is most likely to succeed in developing a solution with facilitative support that is ultimately viable for all. A consistent physical separation from the daily organizational routine supports this specific work. Therefore, it helps to have such meetings take place in a different place than the usual meeting rooms. At the same time, this distancing also implicitly makes it clear that the transfer back and reintegration into the usual context are parts of the collective task from the very beginning. Distancing oneself as a group from the organizational network opens up spaces in which the confusion of everyday life can be left behind for a time. The distance makes it possible to move forward together systematically at crucial points. The unbiased view of the facilitator from the outside supports the efforts to deviate from the well-rehearsed patterns processually, structurally and culturally. At the same time, the facilitator must remain mindful that the group does not dive into collectively created worlds of its own, but always keeps an eye on the organizational reality that is still present outside. Finally, the final touchstone for the success of the facilitation results lies in the everyday life. Change Potential for Organizations Facilitations are short-term interventions in a long-term event. They offer a helpful time-out for reflection, clarification, setting the course, acceleration or contemplation. Facilitation spaces make it possible to arrive at new forms of order. You do not just repeat old patterns, but create new ones together. However, without a real will to shape things on the part of the organization’s members, their ability to exert in-

6.1  Identifying Influencing Factors

123

fluence is relatively limited. Only where all those responsible succeed in implementing what has been agreed following the workshop is the effort worthwhile. Decisions made and measures introduced must be transferred to the line, to existing or to be created committees and to organizational routines. With the help of facilitation, good foundations can be created for this, especially where old patterns and entrenched structures no longer help. Facilitation also provides real added value in situations where the scope for action is extremely wide open because the organization itself does not yet have any established ways of working. In the case of new projects, strategic questions or tasks that have yet to be filled, the respective scope for design can be explored to the maximum. From brainstorming to implementation issues, alternatives to the classic approach can be tried out experimentally on a small scale. Beyond the established patterns, it is possible to develop new collective practices. In dealing with each other, an appreciative culture is an essential condition for this. The fundamental openness to the opinions and ideas of others is a necessary condition for cooperation in facilitation (cf. Freimuth 2010, p. 52 ff.). In this way, facilitated workshops also unfold their organizational development potential in the second step. However, it only works if, at least for the duration of the workshop, a relinquishment of control and power is permitted for a period of time and decision-­ making powers are actually transferred to the group. This principle has not changed since the beginnings of Moderation in the late 1960s. At that time, democracy still ceased to exist at many factory gates (cf. Freimuth 1996, p. 33).

6.1 Identifying Influencing Factors For every workshop there are countless previous stories and parallel events which, although faded out for a time in the facilitated discussion, must not be completely ignored. For the members of the organization, it continues afterwards in many places in the previous constellations with the same people in the existing structures. Newly developed ideas should be fitted into this old organizational world as quickly as possible and function smoothly there. Not only in the internal interaction, but also in the collaboration with other areas, teams or customers, the new should dock smoothly to the previous. At the same time, with each new workshop, one somehow hopes for the big breakthrough and cultural change. The weal and woe, acceptance and success are therefore decided in many places, but not only in the meeting room. Accordingly, the quality of the results should also be checked at different measuring points, which can be inside and outside the facilitated event.

124

6  Including Organization and Context

Hierarchy, Power and Influence Sometimes the multi-layered view of the organizational whole is lost in the workshop. The naïve belief arises that only those who are currently in the room need to be convinced. This is a fallacy, especially when it comes to change. The existing formal and informal constellations of power and influence from everyday life also affect the interaction in the workshop in many visible and invisible places. In the worst case, they prevent good results from being achieved. They distribute scissors in the head, complicate or slow down decision-making processes and cause people to withhold their good ideas from others because they do not want everyone to benefit from them. If you as a facilitator do not know these force fields from the context, you will possibly look for solutions in the wrong corners in the search for possibilities for change in the event of blockages in the process. For example, if key players from the organization are missing on a task, the other participants will rightly question the point of an exchange. Why should we talk about something that cannot even be decided by those present? However, such a constellation would also offer the opportunity to enter into conversation with one another in a different way than has been the case up to now. A matter could be discussed without barriers or pressure, without the need to make a decision immediately or to play an expected role. In this respect, there are good reasons for both scenarios with respective advantages and disadvantages. In either case, the discussions will be highly variable. Both the presence and absence of hierarchies shape the discourse, willingly or unwillingly. Where the boss is present in a workshop, his mere presence lends meaning and organizational attention to the issues under negotiation (cf. March 1988, p. 5). At the same time, however, with him there is always inevitably the political sphere in the room. A facilitator can only change this to a limited extent. Participants usually speak differently in the presence of managers than when they are among themselves. This can be quite conducive to social interaction, or it can lead to more closed-mindedness and tactical behaviors. Ambiguity that must be dealt with somehow. Transparency and clarification of goals are once again useful guidelines for interaction support at this point. Interdependencies Facilitation can become an essential catalyst for a social system (cf. König and Volmer 2014). Based on the micro-observations of the direct interaction, the effects on the organizational context can be made the topic of discussion. Against this backdrop, central questions arise for the facilitator, which, depending on the constellation, have elementary influence on the concrete process design: Where does the presence of hierarchy from the organization benefit the process, the topic and

6.1  Identifying Influencing Factors

125

the participants and where is it possibly counterproductive? How far should and may the discussion in the facilitated setting deviate from the reality of the organization? Which degrees of freedom make sense? To what extent can well-rehearsed processes of decision-making, conflict management or problem solving be questioned? Has decision-making authority been delegated to the group? Is each participant aware of it? Are all relevant stakeholders aligned, and if not, how can they subsequently be brought on board? What does the group of participants need in order to actually be able to work or make decisions? Where do informal channels of influence run that need to be used or stopped? Which critics have a major influence on the success of the implementation and should be integrated? Which existing lines of conflict between groups need to be taken into account? Which organizational issues seem so big that they probably cannot be clarified in the workshop and should therefore be deliberately excluded from the beginning? Not every one of these questions is meant to be answered. But if you keep them in mind, your antennae will remain receptive to what is also happening before, alongside and during the actual facilitation. This does not require immediate action. However, it helps to successively expand the facilitator’s own spectrum of interpretation. Thinking about the concrete behaviours and reaction patterns in larger contexts ensures that they can be assessed differently. Not everything that happens or does not happen in the workshop has anything to do with the current process design by the facilitator. The organizational framing is also decisive. Some of this can be learned in preliminary or side conversations. In any case, a differentiated picture of the organizational context helps the facilitator to better assess the significance of the issues to be negotiated from different perspectives. In this way, an ever finer sense for the interaction of the field of participants in their respective constellations develops. Options and possibilities for connection that extend beyond the workshop become visible. Knowledge, perception and action go helpfully hand in hand for the facilitative support with an organizationally broadened view. Potential for Change Modesty of the facilitator is needed to deal with hierarchy (cf. Seliger 2015, p. 116 f.). A participative workshop with its special setting can be a contribution to organizational culture development, but it does not have to be in the first place. What already exists may also be preserved. In the course of the process, the facilitator must always weigh up carefully which marginal organizational issues are to be opened and which are better left closed. Filters have an essential protective function for the group’s ability to work. They help to keep the degree of complexity and the multi-layered nature of the existing tasks manageable. Not every problem can be solved by facilitation; certainly not if the cultural preconditions in the

126

6  Including Organization and Context

o­ rganization with regard to trust, opportunities for participation or cross-cutting cooperation are not sufficiently assured. It is certainly desirable if participatory workshops lead to a positive contrast experience for individual members of the organization. Coming to a joint result with colleagues in a way that one would not have thought possible creates a good basis for engaging in cooperative interaction in the future as well. In this way, not only factual issues are dealt with. The “emotional currents” in organizations are also fed with appreciation (Krainz 2008, p. 28). Facilitation can implicitly help to move forward together on this deep level in order to encounter each other differently there. A condition for this is a minimum of openness, which must be guaranteed and tolerated by all participants. Through his role as an outside observer, the facilitator can play a key role in this. His or her impressions of the process and indications of possible side effects create attention for questions that can clearly go beyond the workshop. How decisions are made, how conflicts or mistakes are dealt with, how much acceptance lateral thinking receives – patterns from everyday organizational life become recognisable everywhere in the mirror of the procedure. Therein lies both potential for change and frustration. A facilitated workshop can become the nucleus of a new culture of cooperation. Or it can be a painful reminder of how far one is from one’s own ideal image in many dimensions.

6.2 Ensuring Transfer and Connectivity With the help of a facilitator, a group can succeed in arriving at viable results in a joint process. In a limited space, something is created collectively that is otherwise discussed in fragments in many places in the organization, remains undecided or coexists contradictorily. After the workshop is before the implementation. In the end, there is always the very practical question of how a transfer can best actually succeed in everyday organizational life. The degree of commitment and the strictness of the form can vary. The goal is to take the energy from the workshop into everyday life, to build bridges and to ensure that the jointly achieved level of processing is not soon lost again in the routines of everyday life. Action Points, Priorities and Transfer Steps For many, the adoption of a properly prepared action plan is considered to be the only alternative at this point. This list creates written clarity about who has to deliver and implement what by when. The individual tasks should be defined as clearly as necessary and as realistically as possible in order to increase the probability of fulfilment and to prevent any disappointments. It has proven useful to

6.2  Ensuring Transfer and Connectivity

127

distribute responsibilities for larger packages among several shoulders. In this way, the parties involved can remind each other of their mandate. It is essential to clarify by when and in what form the first results are to be expected and at what intervals the other participants are to be brought up to date. Those who have participated intensively in a facilitated process also want to know how the tasks are progressing or what is currently lacking in implementation. Ensuring continuity in follow-up communication is an essential component of organizational learning. Social commitment based on the principle of voluntariness also increases the likelihood of implementation. Instead of defining for others what they have to do, in many cases it makes much more sense for the person in charge to outline the extent and feasible scope of his or her task (cf. Sutherland 2015, p. 171 ff.). If it were up to the wishes of superiors or the group, implementation could not go fast enough with the highest quality demands. At the same time, the new tasks often collide with the existing workload. The goal cannot be to constantly put together additional packages for which it is clear in advance that they cannot realistically be completed. With the help of the group, existing priorities, scopes and responsibilities can be put to the common test. Finally, most of the results of facilitated events have not only individual but organizational relevance. This also means that when it comes to the question of possible implementation agents, it is possible to think beyond the group of people present. Who in the organization is already working on this task anyway? Where can synergies be created? Who could provide support as an additional resource? Who has already gained experience in similar projects and could provide ideas for working on it? What do third parties need in order to be brought up to date on this task and to be able to work on it? Targeted inquiries by the facilitator support the search for suitable candidates and functioning information channels. It would be a great misunderstanding to believe that all tasks must be worked on collectively after a workshop. On the contrary. With many tasks, the question of the next steps arises much more at the individual level. Who is going to continue with what in concrete terms? This also involves the seemingly trivial clarification of who communicates what from the meeting that has just ended to superiors, team members, partners, customers or other departments. This does not necessarily require official minutes, but at least an agreement. A brief understanding of who informs whom about what helps all those involved to achieve clarity and removes the last degrees of uncertainty. A pragmatic bridge into the organizational world and beyond is established. It has proven useful not to start these transfer considerations at the very end of a workshop, but already when closing the respective thematic rhombus. In this way,

128

6  Including Organization and Context

the list of measures grows visibly for everyone with each completed task and is only checked once again for completeness at the end. Here it makes sense to check the priorities of the tasks once again with a common critical eye before saying goodbye to each other. At this point the facilitator becomes an implementation consultant. He or she must keep a careful eye on the transfer, both in terms of individual capacities and team-related or organizational tasks. At the same time, however, it is also important to learn to let go. The participants are responsible for the implementation of the agreed solution steps, even if sometimes clever attempts are made to reverse this relationship. Supportive questions regarding a realistic assessment of resources, clarity of the task, feasibility of the next steps and discussion of the envisaged communication channels help decisively to finish even the last few metres before the goal is reached in a concentrated manner. The rest is then no longer in the hands of the facilitator. Develop Structures and Routines For the implementation in the follow-up, short sequences in regular intervals have proven themselves, as they have become common through working with agile methods (cf. Sutherland 2015, p. 111 ff.). A standardized process, compact information units, clear rules, and strict time management help to develop routines here. The aim of such short meetings is not to discuss everything again, but only to inform each other about the current status of projects. Deeper analyses, pending decisions or even considerations to approach topics in a completely different way can be discussed, but not fully debated. For this, extra appointments should be made with the relevant people. In the case of extensive task lists, a traffic light system helps to keep track of all tasks. And it prevents that, as is usually the case, not only those tasks are discussed that are currently on red. These forms of exchange within organizations have little in common with direct facilitation. Essentials are transferred to fixed structures and a corresponding set of rules. The tasks experience continuity without further involvement of a facilitator. Co-initiating such formats can be a valuable legacy from a workshop. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

References

129

◄

References Baecker, D. 1994. Postheroisches Management. Ein Vademecum. Berlin: Merve. Bolte, A., J.  Neumer, und S.  Porschen. 2008. Die alltägliche Last der Kooperation. Abstimmung als Arbeit und das Ende der Meeting-Euphorie. Berlin: Edition Sigma. Cohen, M.D. et al. 1988. A garbage can model of organizational choice. In Decisions and organizations, Hrsg. J. March, 294–334. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Freimuth, J. 1996. Wirtschaftliche Demokratie und moderatorische Besprechungskultur. In Demokratisierung von Organisationen. Philosophie, Ursprünge und Perspektiven der Metaplan-Idee, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und F. Straub, 19–40. Wiesbaden: Gabler. ———. 2010. Moderation. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Heintel, P., und E.  Krainz. 2015. Projektmanagement. Hierarchiekrise, Systemabwehr, Komplexitätsbewältigung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. König, E., und G. Volmer. 2014. Moderation als Steuerung eines sozialen systems. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und T. Barth, 257–268. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Krainz, E. (2008): Gruppendynamik als Wissenschaft. In betrifft: TEAM.  Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P. Heintel, 7–28. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. March, J. 1988. Decisions and organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Seliger, R. 2015. Einführung in Großgruppenmethoden. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Simon, F. 1998. Radikale Marktwirtschaft. Grundlagen des systemischen Managements. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Sutherland, J. 2015. Scrum. The art of doing twice the work in half the time. London: Penguin. Zirkler, M., und A. Raschèr. 2014. Zur Ordnungsstruktur von Moderationsprozessen: Funktionen, Rollen und Konfliktpotentiale. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und T. Barth, 99–120. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

7

Establishing Relationship and Contact

A company of porcupines, on a cold winter’s day, crowded quite close together […] until they had found out a moderate distance from each other at which they could best endure it. (Schopenhauer 1988, p. 559 f.)

Anyone who wants to guide others in their communication projects must inevitably enter into a relationship with them. Trust is a good basis for this. Where there is mutual dependence with regard to the achievement of goals, a good interpersonal foundation is an elementary prerequisite. The group needs the facilitator to provide order, the facilitator needs a committed group and both need a clear task orientation from the respective client. Building this relationship begins even before the actual facilitation starts. The first official point of contact is often a preliminary discussion to clarify the assignment. In addition to factual issues and organizational questions, this provides an opportunity to check whether the interpersonal chemistry is right. This is essential for the energy to flow well later in the workshop. On the customer side, the search for a suitable companion is not only a question of business cost-benefit calculation. It also has a profoundly social dimension (cf. Schwing 2016). Clients have corresponding questions and thoughts in mind when they look for a suitable candidate. To whom do I want to entrust the facilitative process support for my success-critical topic? Will this facilitator be able to achieve a concrete result in the end? Does the type fit to us and our peculiarities? Will the group get involved in this way of working? What kind of resistance is to be feared? Do behaviour and appearance fit in with how we imagine a process at eye level?

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_7

131

132

7  Establishing Relationship and Contact

Will the facilitator manage to get us out of our ingrained thought patterns and provide us with sufficient fresh impulses? These issues, which span the relationship triangle of client, facilitator and group, are explicitly or implicitly in the room when it comes to questions of interpersonal fit. Their clarification should be of highest relevance; not only for the client side, but also for the facilitator. Processes rarely fail because of difficult factual issues, but often on the relationship level. Constellations that turned out to be particularly difficult in the further course already announced themselves with an irritating gut feeling at the first contact. In these cases, therefore, the power of intuition can be relied on even more (Gigerenzer 2007). Interventions lose their effectiveness, processes become tough, motivation wanes if facilitator and group cannot get along. Some requests are better helped by supporting the search for a suitable replacement. Precisely because of these rather soft factors, facilitation is a business that is based in many places on habits or personal recommendations. The choice falls on a consultant you already know, or you trust the good experiences of others. If something is at stake in a workshop, there is not much space for interpersonal experimentation. It is enough if the process itself offers some imponderables. The personal leap of faith is also helpful later in the process. A sustainable relationship is of great importance, especially in phases where things are sluggish and seem to be going nowhere. With social cement, bumps in the way can be smoothed out more easily than if the relationship is always put to the test. Even in preparation for facilitation, a leap of faith can prove useful. It prevents unnecessary rounds of coordination and levels of detail in the process planning that might otherwise be requested out of a need for security. Relationship building, shaping and nurturing have their own success-critical importance for facilitation. Their role must not be underestimated in comparison to the other areas of competence.

7.1 The Triangular Relationship Between the Actors All three actors in the field, the client, the participants and the facilitator himself, are relevant variables for shaping relationships. In addition to a well-functioning triangular relationship, it is above all the individual relationships that require special attention. It is clear that these are fragile, dynamic constellations that can be changed and shaped. They are not fixed once and for all, but must constantly be brought into being anew.

7.1  The Triangular Relationship Between the Actors

133

The Relationship with the Client The respective client is often an active part of the group setting as primus inter pares. He bears special responsibility for the negotiated topics and the alignment of goals. He has to decide in case of doubt. And he is under special observation. At the latest, when it comes to questions of responsibilities and resources in organizational implementation, decisions are required that usually go beyond the group’s powers. These role expectations can be discussed in advance. Most importantly, however, there needs to be re-framing of this throughout the process. The facilitator needs a reliable sparring partner with whom he can agree on the relevance and scope of a topic addressed in a short official manner. The course is then set in private. In the course of a workshop, these critical moments repeatedly become decisive for the overall success. Participants are willing to get involved in a discussion when they see that their commitment is worthwhile because something actually happens with the results. Only the client can make this promise. He represents the decisionmaking circle of an organization. He can ensure afterwards that promises made are actually kept. In workshops, not everything is settled in participatory mode. Just as not everything can be decided by the facilitator only at his or her own discretion. How far should we go with individual questions? What are the highest priority issues for the organization? How much is good enough? What happens to aspects that have only become apparent in the course of the discussion? Who gets the decision makers on board? Are employees released from other projects to continue working on the tasks? What happens to the results? In short communication and feedback loops between client and facilitator, clarity can be created in this regard. This rarely requires the entire group, but always a direct line between facilitator and client. In this respect, trust is a deeply cooperative practice (cf. Hartmann 2011, p. 82 ff.). Trust is not something that is possessed once and for all. Trust is not only ascribed from the outside. Trust is a relationship that is permanently established and renewed through concrete actions, during the short manoeuvre critique in the coffee break or through a direct, constructive involvement. Especially where the actual course of events cannot really be planned in advance, trust is required – not blind trust, but actively shaped trust. When the process is open, the contact between the client and the facilitator for fine-tuning must not be allowed to break. Otherwise it will be difficult to lead the process to a satisfactory result for all parties. The External Relations of the Group Good contact with the group is of enormous relevance for the facilitation process. If disturbances occur somewhere along the axis between the facilitator - group, the client-group or within the same group, the achievement of the goal is massively

134

7  Establishing Relationship and Contact

endangered. No methodological trick can then save the process (cf. Thomann 2010, p. 120 ff.). While the facilitator can directly shape his relationship with the group, in the case of difficulties in the relationship between the group and the client he must find indirect ways of exerting a positive influence and mediating there. Often the client is not sufficiently aware of his important role. Many would like to be just normal participants. A wish that is based on the misunderstanding that the facilitator is responsible for everything in the workshop. In order for the system of the three parties to unfold its cooperative potential, it must be clarified between the client and the group what the participants are needed for, what scope and expectations there are, what boundaries should not be exceeded, who makes what decisions. The client is jointly responsible for this framework. Therefore, there is also a high self-interest of the facilitator that he oder she does not disappear permanently in the group. It is helpful if the client actually appears on stage from time to time. Particularly the introductory, closing and transitional situations are special moments in which the client should have his say to the group. In these short sequences, he can describe his point of view, provide relevant background information, and make references to higher-level organizational goals. In addition, in such situations, it is possible to invite the group to address previously unasked questions, express concerns, or show appreciation. Conducive, helpful relationship maintenance. If the relationship is intact on this axis, there is no need for facilitative interventions. If there is a disturbance in the room there, mediation is urgently needed so that the workshop does not degenerate into an alibi event. As a service provider, the facilitator is just as obligated to the client as to the group. The importance of the relationship between group and facilitator has already been mentioned several times. There is a mutual dependence, which at the same time constitutes an enormous closeness, but also requires professional distance (cf. Stahl 2002, p. 248). The facilitator can only achieve his goal with active and motivated participants. On the other hand, for many participants the facilitator is also something like a bearer of hope, who is sometimes confronted with exaggerated expectations; a projection surface for unfulfillable wishes for change. “He’ll give them a good talking to up there!”, “He’ll tear down the walls between the departments!”, “Hopefully he’ll solve all the problems at once!”, “He’ll motivate us!” It is a good thing to engage in a clarifying expectation management together at an early stage in order to sound out what is actually possible and where boundaries have to be drawn in order not to fall into too many “idealization traps” (Stahl 2002, p. 275). Where there is transparency about what is needed and expected from each other for good cooperation, the likelihood of unnecessary stress or disappointment at the relationship level is reduced.

7.1  The Triangular Relationship Between the Actors

135

Disruptions in the Group and Design Opportunities Ruth Cohn once coined the slogan “Disturbances take precedence” for theme-­ centred interaction, a paradigm which is still taken up again and again in numerous publications (cf. Cohn 1993, p. 42). Whoever feels hindered in their active participation as a group member must have the opportunity to address and express their perceived disturbance. What is experienced as difficult in this process is subjectively highly variable. The disturbance signals are not always perceived by everyone with the same clarity. Sometimes it is the social behaviour of a participant or one is annoyed by dissenting opinions. Ideas that are difficult to connect with can be just as much a cause as a failure to take responsibility or a lack of commitment. These are all examples of reasons why the atmosphere in a group can deteriorate. However, they can hardly be generalized. Every disturbance is different. With Ruth Cohn, however, there is also a second principle, that of personal chairmanship (cf. Cohn 1993, p.  39). All participants are responsible for themselves and their situation. “Everyone is responsible for perceiving and maintaining his or her own boundaries and must also show and express them” (Thomann 2010, p. 123). If the issues and needs are addressed, they can be dealt with. If someone expresses a concrete expectation it can be taken into account. The fact that there is a space for this is the responsibility of the facilitator. How it is used in the event of a disruption and what is discussed there is the responsibility of the group members. In the interaction and contact phase at the beginning of each facilitation, the essential cornerstones for a functioning relationship are laid. In addition to orientation in terms of content and organization, interpersonal warming up is needed instead of a “cold start” in every group (Krainz 2008, p. 17). Those who save this phase out of efficiency-rational considerations in order to get to work as quickly as possible may be making a serious mistake. At least, this is what study results from social psychology regarding small talk suggest (cf. Yoerger et al. 2015). Solid relationship building and a constructive working atmosphere obviously require more than just being in the same place at the same time. Groups need “time to emerge as a social system, to create a community around the common goals of the group, to develop an awareness of their own boundaries, i.e. of belonging and not belonging, to ensure that each member finds a good place, that accepted authority structures can grow” (Wimmer 2008, p. 50). The transparency phase at the beginning offers the group, the client and the facilitator a central opportunity to get in good contact with each other. Everyone gets an impression of each other, can reduce possible inhibitions and gradually create a social climate for open interaction. This does not require a sophisticated methodological superstructure or tricky questions, but usually just an explicit space that can then be used.

136

7  Establishing Relationship and Contact

If a high degree of interaction between all participants is necessary to achieve the workshop goals, numerous opportunities must be offered from the outset to establish the network of relationships between them as closely as possible. This provides stability and mutual support. The facilitator does not need to be the centre of attention in all this. An unobtrusive presence, regular enquiries, a little small talk and sufficient signals inviting people to make contact are effective without being intrusive. It is like having a good waiter in a first-class restaurant. Excellent service quality is not characterized by pushiness and much talking. Instead, it is the small gestures of attention, the foresighted coordination of work processes in the background, the personal glance and the attentive observation from a polite distance that make the stay an unforgettable experience.

7.2 Proximity and Distance When it gets cold, the Schopenhauer’s porcupines push close to their conspecifics in search of warmth. With its prickly fur, nature has ensured in an inimitable way that a proper distance is always maintained between porcupines. This is different in a professional context among humans in meetings or workshops. There, such natural cues for maintaining a measured distance are missing. Accordingly, we are all challenged when it comes to being mindful, marking boundaries and addressing transgressions. The longer one knows each other, the more personal the cooperation becomes, the more difficulties have already been mastered together, the more challenging it becomes to maintain a good distance. It is true that coherence is an important building block for successful cooperation (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 255 ff.). At the same time, however, there is also the danger that certain carelessness creeps in with increasing duration. Roles are then no longer taken quite so seriously, specifications are no longer adhered to exactly, discipline wears thin. The critical distance to the matter and to the persons can also get lost. If everything becomes too intertwined, the triangle of actors ceases to exist effectively. This happens, for example, when the manager wants to act as both client and facilitator, but is unable to consistently distinguish between the two roles in the process. Then it happens that in a controversial discussion the power card is pulled in order to assert one’s own position. Or an open exchange is made impossible by permanent attempts at justification. It is also difficult when the client does not take a corrective position even though the discussion is going in a completely wrong direction. It is just as problematic if the external facilitator identifies so much with the problems and difficulties of the group that it is no longer possible for him to

7.2  Proximity and Distance

137

support the process. For an effective triangle, minimum distances must be maintained on all axes. Keep Distance The best position for the facilitator is slightly outside the found network of relationships. Only from there is a non-partisan view possible. Closeness can be established at any time, but distance must be maintained, both to the client and to the group. As a consulting observer and process controller, it is necessary to be able to intervene in the dynamic events between all participants in a coordinating manner and at the same time to have the option of withdrawing from them again. This becomes an alternation between stage and back room. Despite a large number of people present in the room, this role can sometimes be quite lonely. The relationship work in workshops is a dynamic task. There is no fixed place in the constellation. Finding the right balance and relationship in the changing events is always a latently risky undertaking. As a facilitator, you can quickly get caught between the fronts in thematic as well as personal areas of tension. It is therefore all the more important, in addition to the ability to empathically engage with the different positions and points of view, to maintain “the ability to distance oneself and to think in terms of alternatives” (Buchinger 2008, p. 111). This is the only way to provide added value to the group and the client. Excessive identification would be a false sign of solidarity. “Those who are entrenched in an internal perspective inevitably lose sight of the bigger picture” (Simon 1998, p. 61). Only with a distance-keeping view from the outside can the fundamental differences be recognized, reflected upon, and new solution spaces opened up for the participants and the process. Knowing less exactly about everything therefore helps. Real added value exists when those perspectives of those affected are also included who are not themselves in the room. What will other employees say about the negotiated results? What impact will a decision have on neighboring departments? What would be a good outcome for those? What cross-cutting functions would need to be involved? What questions might the management ask? What customers’ expectations will be met? Where should disappointment be expected? These questions, objections and concerns can only be formulated by someone who is not completely absorbed by an ongoing discussion. Only those who do not belong to any party themselves, but pursue the overriding interest of finding the most comprehensive solution possible, can feed such concerns into a process. The detailed elaboration is then again left to the other participants. Wistfully, with perhaps a somewhat sad look, the facilitator can watch the group and the client make their case. Only those who see the potential for an even better result have not yet assimilated to such an extent that they have become useless as facilitators.

138

7  Establishing Relationship and Contact

Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Buchinger, K. 2008. Teamarbeit und der Nutzen der Gruppendynamik für heutige Organisationen. In betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P. Heintel, 92–125. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Cohn, R. 1993. Es geht ums Anteilnehmen. Die Begründerin der TZI zur Persönlichkeitsentfaltung. Freiburg: Herder. Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Bauchentscheidungen. Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition. München: Bertelsmann. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Hartmann, M. 2011. Die Praxis des Vertrauens. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. Krainz, E. 2008. Gruppendynamik als Wissenschaft. In betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P. Heintel, 7–28. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Schopenhauer, A. 1988. Parerga und Paralipomenia: Kleine philosophische Schriften, von Arthur Schopenhauer. Zweiter Band. Herausgegeben von Ludger Lütkehaus. Zürich: Haffmann. Schwing, R. 2016. Auftragsklärung. In Systemische Therapie und Beratung  – das große Lehrbuch, Hrsg. T. LeBdd und M. Wirsching, 172–174. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Simon, F. 1998. Radikale Marktwirtschaft. Grundlagen des systemischen Managements. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Thomann, C. 2010. Klärungshilfe 2. Konflikte im Beruf: Methoden und Modelle klärender Gespräche. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Wimmer, R. 2008. Das besondere Lernpotenzial der gruppendynamischen Trainingsgruppe. Seine Bedeutung für die Steuerung des Kommunikationsgeschehens in komplexen Organisationen, In betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen, Hrsg. P. Heintel, 36–52. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Yoerger, M., F. Kyle, und J. Allen. 2015. So much more than “chit-chat”. A closer look at premeeting talk. In The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, Hrsg. J. Allen, et al., 153–173. Cambridge: University Press.

8

Developing Role Clarity and Self-­Image

Initially rescuers from the chaos, the experts themselves are part of the forces that create consistently new confusion. (Pfizenmeier et al. 2016, p. 9)

Most of the time, those who hire a facilitator are looking for an expert in making the process as smooth as possible. Someone who leads the group directly to a high-­ quality result. Someone who manages to produce results through cleverly arranged participation that cannot be achieved without conflict without facilitation. If it were up to the wishes and hopes of clients, a facilitation expert would make the participants no longer question decisions afterwards (cf. Zirkler and Raschèr 2014, p. 107 f.). This bundle of expectations provides a fragmentary outline of the demands from the perspective of a client. At the same time, the brief outline of this perspective makes it clear that not everything can be accepted without contradiction from the facilitator’s point of view. If there is too much discrepancy between the points of view, an intensive preliminary discussion can help. There it can be specifically agreed which expectations can be fulfilled and which ones have to be disappointed from the outset because they are beyond what facilitation can seriously achieve at all. In workshops, for example, there is a fundamental difference between process and result expectations. The facilitator is responsible for the participatory process. The quality of the outcome, on the other hand, depends on the commitment of the group. Whether and to what extent facilitation as a method is the right instrument at all is determined by the scope of participation defined by the client.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_8

139

140

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

While it is possible to discuss, argue and negotiate with participants and clients about their needs and expectations, the complexity of the situation also triggers search movements towards one’s own self-image as a facilitator. Sooner or later, a stance is needed regarding some fundamental questions. Which of the expectations placed on me can and do I want to fulfil at all? What is the responsibility, where are the limits? How do I deal appropriately with the different needs of those involved in the process? Which of these should I bring up and when? What is worth keeping quiet about? What does this mean in concrete terms for role design and behaviour as a facilitator later in the process? How can you deal with the multitude of expectations in an appropriate and professional way? Where do you have to stop? What do I do if I am suddenly no longer only asked to be responsible for the process, but also to provide assessments of the content? These questions and dilemmas are by no means only interesting for theoretical debates, but have immediate practical consequences. However, their answers are neither short nor unambiguous. Simple formula statements and shoulds lead to a dead end, because they do not do justice to the complexity of the situation or the multi-layered nature of the task. The role self-image of the facilitator is based on many different aspects, which on the one hand are closely interrelated, but on the other hand also deal with contradictory dimensions. These are fields of tension within which one has to position oneself. All of this leads deep into “inner plurality as a human characteristic”, as Friedemann Schulz von Thun once wrote in the introduction to his model of the inner team (Schulz von Thun 2001, p. 16). Neutral and Multipartial In classic role definitions, the facilitator is referred to as either “neutral” or “all-­ party”. Neutrality refers to the matter at hand. The facilitator has no vested interest in a particular solution. All-partiality refers to the effort to give space to all existing perspectives, free from personal preferences or micro-political considerations. In mediation, in addition to “neutrality in the process”, which is guaranteed by a large number of formalities and rules, “neutrality of the person” in the form of personal independence and multipartiality is a second central component (Kracht 2002, p.  370). The personal factor represents a necessary condition in many places in order to be recognized at all as a process shaper by the participants. Double roles are a complicated matter. For this reason, managers in particular often fail to act as facilitators within their own organization. Not because they are basically unable to master the balancing act between self-interest and multipartiality or because they lack the openness for a group result. The essential hurdle is the attribution from the outside. For employees, it always makes a difference whether they are guided

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

141

through the process by an external party without internal political entanglements or whether it is a member of the management team. However, even for an external facilitator, the perception of the participants regarding his neutrality and multipartiality remains a weighty yardstick. Full attention must be given to the process. The facilitator must be equally responsive to all parties. His commitment is to the common cause. Especially when it comes to conflict resolution or momentous decisions, the requirement of neutrality is of paramount importance. To be able to understand these two postulates of neutrality and multipartiality is one thing. Translating them into consistent behaviour is another. The latter is a challenge that every facilitator has to face anew. Take a Stand A first difficulty already exists in the fact that every methodical intervention itself inevitably represents a positioning. Every controlling intervention in a group process happens out of an intention and wants to achieve a concrete effect. In doing so, the facilitator clearly takes a stand: for the process, for the common goal, for a principle. This is done from a position of power. His interventions are not neutral. “The facilitator cannot be neutral about the content of a group’s discussion when it involves how to manage group or interpersonal process effectively” (Schwarz 2002, p. 61). Facilitators have sovereignty in the process. They are in a prominent position. The facilitator has overriding responsibility for what does and does not happen in the workshop. The participants concede this power to him. For this reason he is required to use his influence consciously and thoughtfully (cf. Hanson 2006, p. 139 ff.). In case of doubt, every word counts. Where much is at stake, even thoughtless statements can lead to fundamental problems of acceptance. As soon as interventions become biased, it becomes difficult to keep a joint process going in which everyone can find themselves. Restraint is needed. Therefore, every operation should be guided by the principle of multipartiality. Relevant indications for this are not so much in the form of unambiguous rules and commandments. Rather, a few warnings must suffice. For example, those who advocate too strongly their own position will sooner or later also be identified with it. This does not mean that it is not permissible to think aloud in between thematic questions. Further impulses can free a discussion from an impasse. Concretely sharpened suggestions may help to speed up the process. Weighty, but so far overlooked arguments can give a discussion a good new direction. All structural suggestions are valuable building blocks for moving forward together. Such interventions are real interruptions. When they come from the facilitator, they always carry special weight in any discussion.

142

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

That is why every contribution needs prudence and foresight. All attention must be paid to connectivity. The contribution must serve the common goal. All parties must be able to do something with it. Where this is not guaranteed, it is better to remain silent in the role of facilitator. Modesty also includes not presuming to know the actual benefits for the participants. After all, some of them have lived in their context for years and will continue to do so. They remain the experts on their problem, the facilitator on how to deal with it in the most meaningful way together now. The roles remain clearly distributed. Support Others The principle of multipartiality means that, as a facilitator, you can also help to justify positions whose line of argumentation you yourself may not immediately understand. For the overall understanding, such thoughts, which at first glance seem somewhat unwieldy, may play an important role. The quality of some statements can only be recognized when their topic is jointly explored. Here a facilitator is needed to build bridges of understanding and to establish connections. This short-term support mandate for a participant can change sides and fronts several times in the course of a discussion process, in order to help all contributions and thoughts to their right. Personal preferences are of secondary importance. What is supported is what seems useful for the process and just requires a higher commitment. It is usually not the loud positions that need help, but rather the quiet ones that like to be overheard by others in the busy hustle and bustle. Or those perspectives need to be strengthened which have not yet been represented at all, but which may ultimately play a central role in the quality of the outcome. Foresight is required, which can only be possessed by someone who is not interested in imposing his or her position. All relevant views are kept in play until the end, until they are brought together in a result. The facilitator’s responsibility for the process is paramount. However, the participants must always help decide on the extent, depth and duration of the discussions. When is it enough with a topic? What do we need more of? What does it need less of? What needs to be discussed again in a different way? Continuous self-­ reflection on the part of the facilitator is an essential prerequisite for this, in order not to erroneously conclude from oneself to others. Furthermore, consistent questioning and permanent curiosity help to remain alert to one’s own blind spots. “Only by recognizing the limits of our brain’s greatest sense will we have the humility to understand others as they actually are instead of as we imagine them to be” (Epley 2015, p. 188). Those who have the capacity for self-distancing and the humility for personal withdrawal can accomplish something for the group that none of the other participants in the process can: reveal

8.1  With Balance and Ease

143

undiscovered thematic dimensions, accelerate decision-making processes, promote mutual understanding, prevent superfluous detours, enable depth; all this always in a commitment to the common good. Success will only be achieved by those who make the interventions of the facilitator from a supportive attitude without self-interest or taint.

8.1 With Balance and Ease A closer look at the root words of the German term “moderator” and its English counterpart “facilitator” provides further clues regarding the description of tasks and the understanding of the role. In each case, different nuances become discernible, which enrich the spectrum of activities and the considerations of attitude by essential aspects. The Right Measure and the Middle Moderare indicates a temper, balancing and regulating function (cf. Neuland 1995, p. 55 ff.). Ensuring the right degree in order to find the appropriate mode can take different forms. In emotional situations it will be a matter of calming the waters, mediating between conflicting parties or at least ensuring an even distribution of speaking time. The right measure is decided in each case in the dynamic events. An absolute setting makes no sense. The middle is always the middle of something. Or it must be constantly rebalanced. As an active part, the facilitator intervenes “authentically and according to the situation” where it is necessary to shift the focus (Schulz von Thun 2001, p. 13). And he restrains himself moderately where it works without him. In this way, he becomes a referee who plays along, and who can take on other roles as needed in the course of the process. He becomes an attentive listener where someone is not paying attention. He amplifies emotional signals where they are not perceived. He steers in a focused way where everyone starts to drift. He balances and keeps calm, when hecticness sets in all around. He is a motivating coach where the belief in self-efficacy is lacking. As a host, he invites people precisely when not everyone feels welcome with their opinion. The specific quality required on the part of the facilitator is therefore not fixed. It is oriented towards the needs of the group in its respective situation (cf. Stahl 2002, p. 253 ff.). What is required is a flexible adaptation to the circumstances with an always integrative intention. This is precisely why the group needs a moderation-seeking and moderation-­ maintaining process facilitator. In the foreground is the question of what energy is needed to keep a good discussion process going or to get it moving in the first

144

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

place. Being able to intervene and then take it back again, setting impulses without demanding compliance, occasionally also provoking without pressuring; these are all colourful facets of the multi-layered role of the facilitator, which create a systemic balance that is selfsustainable. Facilitate and Enable A facilitator makes something easier, simpler or at least less difficult. The support refers to three aspects: the working process of the group, the interpersonal interaction and useful framework conditions (cf. Schwarz 2002, p. 19 ff.). The arrangement of circumstances is thus meant as well as the provision of methodical stirrups in the processing of tasks. A process guide who sees himself as a facilitator does everything to ensure that the group can concentrate primarily on working together. A wide range of services is available to facilitate the working and coordination process. Providing working materials, making regular suggestions for breaks, weaving in interim summaries, guiding feedback rounds or addressing concrete implementation steps for practice; large and small interventions that help. Some groups find it difficult to work together because roles and responsibilities are unclear. Others need a structure so that they can begin to move from talking to doing. Still others seek help with vision, purpose and mission because they have no real idea why they are here. The facilitative challenge is to find those knots that complicate the exchange in the group to the maximum. To solve such a difficulty means to create the conditions for the process to start rolling more and more on its own. In doing so, a twofold guiding question serves as a more precise determination: What is needed so that the group can get into contact with each other as quickly as possible, without barriers and in a focused manner, and become capable of working? How do I manage to withdraw as far as possible as a supporter from the beginning and make myself superfluous as soon as I notice that the group is making good progress on its own? What helps in the first step has to be well observed in the further course, so that the provisional arrangement does not become a permanent state that creates unnecessary dependencies. It always becomes easier when something works on its own and no longer needs external support. As experts for an appropriate process design, facilitators make their contribution to this not only through their actions but also through their omissions (cf. Hanson 2006, p. 130). Until the end, it should be made as easy as possible for all those involved to participate in the process and result in the best possible way. In this respect, an original service can also become a development assignment (cf. Schwarz 2002, p. 50 ff.). In addition to system maintenance, in which existing structures are kept running, transformations can also occur. At the first level, facilitation is limited to

8.2  The Expert Status of the Facilitator

145

leading a group to a good result using efficient methods in the shortest possible way. If the facilitation task goes beyond this, the group is supported in its self-­ organization. The collective learning and reflection process leads to the participants developing in their cooperation in such a way that the external dependencies are gradually reduced more and more. “A truly self-directed work team must be self-facilitating” (Schwarz 2002, p. 52).

8.2 The Expert Status of the Facilitator Facilitators are “strange borderline figures” (Zirkler and Raschèr 2014, p.  118). They help others to achieve something that could not be done without them. At the same time, in the exercise of this supporting role, they should permanently strive to make themselves as superfluous as possible. This requires not only theoretical knowledge, but also practical know-how on how to design such learning processes. As active experts, facilitators reduce complexity. They create trust. They define situations and identify options for action not only for themselves, but always for the entirety of those involved (cf. Grundmann 2016, p. 116). In principle, the rank of expert can be attained in two completely different ways (cf. Mieg 2016). Experience and Attribution The first path is through a longer development process. Experience, talent, training and learning-oriented practice lead to excellence in the end. Acquiring knowledge, practicing, trying out, applying, making mistakes, reflecting, doing things differently and reinventing oneself specifically each time; these are the activity descriptions that are indispensable on this path (cf. Sennett 2008). This takes time, routines to develop, different ways of applying, helpful feedback or impulses from others involved in the process, and a lot of perseverance. Competence develops in the practice-oriented field through constant doing. It also requires a fair amount of frustration tolerance. One constantly discovers others who can do something even better, do it even more easily, seem to achieve even more effect. The second path to expert status is much shorter. It leads via attribution by others. In short: “An expert is someone who is considered to be one” (Mieg 2016, p. 25). Whoever succeeds in being considered competent by others in their perception with regard to a matter does not need to worry about further proof of qualification. He is considered an expert, even if his self-image occasionally says otherwise (cf. Caspers 2016). For the field of facilitation, both paths to expertise are relevant: On the one hand, a facilitator needs the specific knowledge about the dynamics of group

146

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

p­ rocesses, the use of methods, the context experience. These components create security and self-confidence that they can actually master the demands made on them. On the other hand, it also requires the recognition of the group. The facilitator must be given full responsibility for the process in order to be able to fully engage with the procedure. Only a facilitator who succeeds in obtaining an unrestricted mandate from the group for shaping the process can fulfil this function in a beneficial way. Power and influence, which are prerequisites for being able to steer effectively, are based on this attribution. “Power is never possessed by an individual; it is possessed by a group and remains in existence only as long as the group holds together. When we say of someone that he ‘has the power’, it really means that he is empowered by a certain number of people to act on their behalf” (Arendt 2013, p. 45). Any expertise is useless in the absence of legitimating attribution by participants. Situation-specific authority is based on this acceptance, which can also be taken away from a facilitator at any time.

8.3 Process Design, Information Control and Interaction Support The primary task of the facilitator is the participatory communication process. This is accompanied by the responsibility to “support groups in such a way that they can also deliver the expected services” (Witte 2012, p. 37). As an expert, he is a process designer, method engineer, discussion facilitator, goal navigator, regulating authority, energy manager, deep diver, bridge builder, conflict clarifier and constant observer with an unbiased view from the outside. The process itself is his most powerful intervention. This leads to success when the procedure is supported by all participants and the facilitator is accepted in his expert role. Therefore, it must always be checked whether all relevant positions, voices and persons are sufficiently involved and have their say. Where this is not the case, another mode must be found with which this succeeds better. The great challenge is to translate what is developed on flipcharts and cards together in the workshop room into binding decisions and to make them adaptable to the organizational context of action. No sham discussions. The substantial core must be filtered out as a common denominator from the mixed “mush” of stories, feelings and subjective perceptions (cf. Bushe 2006, p. 153 ff.). An open and constructive exchange about backgrounds, decision criteria and hidden motives enables new insights and a holistic view of the matter.

8.3  Process Design, Information Control and Interaction Support

147

Five Anchor Points for Facilitation Five areas of responsibility crystallize for the role and task of the facilitator, each of which must be performed in a specific way for the group. They outline the central orientation lines and give cause for continuous self-examination. In essence, facilitation is about structuring and organizing the work process, activating the attendants, integrating all participants, perspectives and points of view, creating transparency and helping everyone to follow the common line (Fig. 8.1). Structuring and organizing encompasses all aspects that ensure, in the form of a secure framework, that the group can concentrate on the exchange of content. This begins with the questions about the selection of the appropriate room and Fig. 8.1  Five anchor points for facilitation

Transparency

Integrate

Activate

Follow the line

Structuring & Organizing

148

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

l­ocation in advance and continues with the invitation process, the creation of the flow chart, the organization of the required materials, to the reconstruction during the coffee breaks and the clean-up at the end. This opens up communication spaces that the group can enter and use on its own responsibility. Activating the participants means paying attention to the form and manner in which the spark can be ignited so that those involved understand the process as their own and take responsibility for it. Those who are there are exactly the right people to work on the subject. And they are also the ones who have to take the result back to the organization and ensure its subsequent implementation. Those who are actively involved in the joint process from the beginning will also identify with the result at the end of the joint effort. Nothing can be forced. The energy in the group is an essential seismograph that indicates at an early stage how the tasks are likely to proceed in the day-to-day life of the organization after the workshop. It is therefore important to sound out what the time spent together is really worthwhile for. Integrating all participants, perspectives and points of view only succeeds if one finds one’s own point of view outside the group events. From there, one can mediate, link and recognize in time where differences appear that need to be clarified. Group structure, coherence and issues relating to power and influence form the basis of observation on which facilitative interventions are built or against which they are directed. The crucial factor is the maturity of the group, which is also reflected in its tolerance of ambiguity. Where it is not possible to integrate divergent opinions and positions, the probability increases that the solution found will also bump along in its implementation. On the basis of mutual recognition, it must be possible to reconcile different demands, goals, desires and abilities. This requires connecting elements that serve as a provisional solution until the full load-bearing capacity has been established. Creating transparency is indispensable in order to provide orientation as a basis for decision-making. Where do we stand? What have we already achieved? What is still missing? How do we continue? These questions outline the dimensions that one must weave into the process as a tour guide; from the beginning, at intermediate stops, after coffee breaks or whenever the overview threatens to get lost. It is helpful to intersperse your own observations, to make offers, to introduce or change rules. Where concrete decision alternatives are worked out, the choice is easier. Making relevant issues visible to everyone in good time gives the opportunity to make changes at an early stage. Helping participants to follow the line of the discussion requires less expert knowledge than questions that promote understanding and some common sense. Following a discussion on specific technical issues into the world of abbreviations

References

149

and technical terms is quite demanding, not only for the facilitator, but also for all those participants who are not specialists themselves. It is therefore all the more helpful if there is a facilitator who consistently keeps an eye on comprehensibility for all and, with his trained layman’s understanding, ensures connectivity and continuity. He may ask the questions that others do not dare to ask. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Arendt, H. 2013. Macht und Gewalt. München: Piper. Bushe, G. 2006. Sense making and the problems of learning from experience. Barriers and requirements for creating cultures of collaboration. In Creating a culture of collaboration. The international association of facilitators handbook, Hrsg. S. Schuman, 151–172. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Caspers, R. 2016. Im Grunde habe ich von nichts eine Ahnung. In Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt, Hrsg. R.  Pfizenmaier, et  al., 42–49. Frankfurt aM Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Epley, N. 2015. Mindwise. Why we misunderstand what others think, believe, feel, and want. New York: Random House. Grundmann, R. 2016. Die allgegenwärtige Expertise. Über Vertrauen und Legitimation in der Wissensgesellschaft. In Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt, Hrsg. R. Pfizenmaier, et al., 112–125. Frankfurt aM Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Hanson, M. 2006. Make-or-break roles in collaboration leadership. In Creating a culture of collaboration. The international association of facilitators handbook, Hrsg. S. Schuman, 129–148. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kracht, S. 2002. Rolle und Aufgabe des Mediators – Prinzipien der Mediation. In Handbuch Mediation, Hrsg. F. Haft und K. von Schlieffen, 363–392. München: Beck.

150

8  Developing Role Clarity and Self-Image

Mieg, H. 2016. Wer oder was ist ein Experte? Wie Expertise entsteht, gemacht und gemessen wird. In Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt, Hrsg. R. Pfizenmaier, et al., 24–38. Frankfurt aM Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Neuland, M. 1995. Neuland-Moderation. Eichenzell: Neuland. Pfizenmaier, R., et al., Hrsg. 2016. Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt. Frankfurt aM Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Schulz von Thun, F. 2001. Miteinander reden 3. Das ‚innere Team‘ und situationsgerechte Kommunikation. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Schwarz, R. 2002. The skilled facilitator. A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sennett, R. 2008. Handwerk. Berlin. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Zirkler, M., und A. Raschèr. 2014. Zur Ordnungsstruktur von Moderationsprozessen: Funktionen, Rollen und Konfliktpotentiale. In Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen, Hrsg. J. Freimuth und T. Barth, 99–120. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

9

Using Visualization Effectively

Done is better than perfect. (von Tiesenhausen 2015)

Visualization plays a fundamental role in focused, effective and efficient process facilitation. The visual accompaniment of discussions on posters, pinboards or flipcharts has always been a core component of facilitation (cf. Schnelle 2006, p. 95). This has not changed in the digital age. Even in methods such as Design Thinking or Scrum, colourful sticky notes on the walls are a trademark. Sometimes even the back of a napkin is enough to write on in order to solve profound problems (cf. Roam 2008). The essentials emerge live in the process before and with the group. In this way, the collective attention is focused (cf. Eppler and Pfister 2012, p. 2 f.). Spontaneous reactions and adjustments are possible at any time. The red line is developed step by step. Questions of understanding can be asked immediately. The contributions are visible in the room. Further suggestions can easily be made based on the previous ideas. Changes, jumps and cross connections are also possible at any time. “It’s not always linear, actually” (Roam 2008, p. 43). Consistent visualization helps to resolve misunderstandings, to create clarity and to focus together (cf. Neuland 1995, p. 160; cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 78 ff.; cf. Groß 2013). Complex tasks become workable on different levels. The facilitator remains in direct contact with the group via the medium. All together keep the overview. Tasks can remain parallel to each other. If desired, it is possible to drill down into the depths at any time without running the risk of not being able to find

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_9

151

152

9  Using Visualization Effectively

one’s way back to the actual topic. Connections and differences become visible for all. The written word sticks better in the memory and at the same time triggers new associations. Duplications and redundancies are avoided, while variance becomes visible. Each contribution receives its own appreciation by being written down. What is then stated, is there for the time being. Nevertheless, it can be added to, modified or deleted at any time. Visualizations have an implicit prompting character. Everyone is encouraged to relate to them and take a stand. Otherwise, silence means agreement. At the end of a workshop day, there is a good feeling of having actually achieved something together. The full sheets of paper, the filled grids and the clarifying structural sketches are colourful witnesses to a fruitful course of discussion. And they provide a good template for consistent follow-up communication. Further protocols are rarely needed with consistent process visualization. To achieve all these positive effects, it takes a certain amount of courage. Visualizing live in the process means exposing yourself. And it requires a certain indulgence towards one’s own demand for perfection. Of course, one or two strokes could sit a little straighter. If you had more time, the writing would be a bit more legible. The colouring would also be more expressive. For the conversation process, however, it is more about the effect and less about the aesthetics. The significance in the communication situation is the highest quality criterion, artistic design a secondary question of taste. What is decisive is the difference the visualization makes for the participants in their conversation. And in case of doubt, this almost always means that as a facilitator you can decide to do it without hesitation. It can always be made a little more beautiful with the second finishing touch. The real effect is achieved with live visualization only in the moment. And sometimes that moment is quickly over.

9.1 Visual Intervention Tools Three basic components are available for visual interventions. Texts, images or structures can each be used to achieve different effects (Fig. 9.1). In many places they can also be used in clever combination to unfold their bundled potential. Ad hoc visualizations make thinking visible and promote shared understanding (cf. von Tiesenhausen 2015). If they are used consciously, they provide invaluable assistance in the facilitation process. Thus, visualization is a powerful tool. Whoever wields the pen has the authority to interpret. What is visualized provides the framework and the guidelines. Caution and attentiveness are therefore required in its use. And it requires knowledge about the different modes of action.

9.1  Visual Intervention Tools

153

Fig. 9.1  Visual interventions: text, image, structure

Text

Image

Structure

Text The writing down of verbal contributions has a long tradition. Whether chalked on a blackboard, drawn in ink on parchment or carved in stone, writing down words has the same effect everywhere. It creates clarity, unambiguity and commitment. Compared to the spoken word, the scope for interpretation is significantly reduced. Numbers, data, facts provide resilient arguments. Contributions that are recorded in writing invite people to take a stand on them. Agreement, contradiction, additions or questions follow and create further deepening clarity in the group. The common written reference ensures that one does not get lost in the conversation. The literal transcript creates a strong identification with the result among the participants. And it encourages everyone to clarify their contribution before it is spoken (cf. Groß 2013, p. 94). This effect exists not only in the content, ideas and contributions that come from the participants, but also applies to everything that the facilitator needs to shape the process. In this respect, not only answers need to be recorded in writing, but the more good questions. Where these are already visualized at the start, every discussion framework is neatly marked out from the outset. In combination with grids or structural suggestions, this becomes a closely manageable process. In the case of decision alternatives, writing them down ensures that the options can be clearly distinguished from one another. Where this is not possible the first time, space is visibly created for the necessary clarification. The documentation of upcoming tasks in an action plan clearly regulates who has to do what afterwards and by when. Whenever a process is about differentiation and specification, as much as necessary should be written down.

154

9  Using Visualization Effectively

However, caution is also called for. Once you set out on the path of writing, you have to follow it consistently to the end. There are no half-measures. Where cards with expectation questions are collected, these must also be answered. If measures are recorded in writing, everyone involved assumes that they will be implemented without question. Lists that have been started must be completed in full. If at some point in a process provocative statements are visualized in the room, they cannot be ignored but must be acted upon. Even with written results, something should happen at the end. Implicit expectations accompany visualization in text form. Image Sketches drawn with a quick hand and clear lines, roughly outlined orientation maps or small graphics for illustration; images that emerge live in the process can take on a variety of manifestations in the context of facilitation. At the same time, they develop a similar effect in all variations. Their special feature is that they are immediately connectable and have a spontaneous plausibility. “The restriction to the simplest testifies to the intelligence of the image-maker” (Arnheim 1989, p. 24). Often a quick glance is enough and the viewer immediately has an idea of what is meant. Pictures stick better in the memory (cf. Schuster 1989, p. 146 ff.). They give a helpful overview and provide orientation. Even contradictions and differences, complexity and heterogeneity can be depicted coincidently without being confusing. A successful composition allows the same image to be used both to discuss the big picture and to address specific levels of detail. Without too many words, connections, hierarchies, structural relationships and orders become visible. “Images form, order and generate knowledge, and they communicate it at the same time” (Heßler and Mersch 2009, p. 11). Their vague definiteness holds a lot of chances for the use in communication processes (cf. Schmeer 2006). Room for interpretation and association remains open. In this way, it is possible for all participants to find themselves in them with their individual understanding. In an intercultural context, too, they prove to be highly adaptable. When it comes to opening up subject areas, images have a key function. They create the basis for a collective mind-set. It becomes interesting when different images are used to work on the same task. In this way, participants can be invited to put down on paper their own ideas about a topic, their organization or a specific project. In the subsequent comparison of pictures in the context of a vernissage, similarities and differences are worked out. Perhaps it will even be possible to agree on a common image in the end. In any case, the process leading up to this is much different than the approach via definitions, keywords or the formulation of guiding principles. Emotions and a corresponding context are always transported with every image (cf. Schuster 1989, p. 144). It is possible to under-

9.1  Visual Intervention Tools

155

stand tasks and problems differently than if they were dissected with a structural grid. It is possible that new approaches to solutions emerge that would not have been discovered via a conventional processing path. The translation into concrete actions is then again more a question of clarifying text work. As soon as unambiguity is needed, pictures reach their limits. Moreover, they bear the danger of leading unnoticed onto wrong paths of thought (cf. Dörner 2008, p. 296). Critical attention is therefore required in order to keep the closeness and the difference between image and reality well in view. Those who do not overload their images but remain limited, who use them at selected points and do not use them inflationarily, who spark lightness with them without neglecting seriousness, will enrich the process in a special way without having to be an artist because of it. Structure As a third variant of visual interventions, structures provide a further specific quality alongside text and image. Ordering, differentiating, juxtaposing, clarifying, making processable cannot be achieved by any intervention as easily as with a grid. Depending on the cause, various basic patterns help to create additional expressiveness (cf. von Tiesenhausen 2015, p. 120 ff.). Linear grids, axes, tables, triangles or rectangles provide a clear schematic sorting. Simple strokes create structures that make two, three, four or more aspects distinguishable from one another. Individual elements and relationships can then be discussed in the same way as cross-connections. Over-, under- and interrelationships facilitate the common conversation. With the help of two axes, four fields are created at a stroke, which can serve as a basis for decision-making (cf. Krogerus and Tschäppler 2008; cf. Lowy and Hood 2004). Structures in the form of grids simplify considerably and provide handles for complexity. A second variant offers the arrangement in the form of a central system. Here, a topic extends from the core to the periphery. Mindmaps are probably the best-­ known example of this. A question grows organically from the inside to the outside. In system maps, relevant stakeholders are thus mapped via proximity and distance relationships. In addition to the factual content, relationship information can also be discussed. As a third variant, development paths and process sequences offer the possibility of sorting in chronological order. Linearity, cycles or spiral dynamics each underline different statements. Causes and effects are contrasted, logical links and connections made visible. The order over time provides valuable information on possible priorities both for analysis and for future action orientation.

156

9  Using Visualization Effectively

Finally, organic sets and clusters form a fourth variant for working out intersections on the basis of various ordering criteria. Cards and other flexible media can be shifted, grouped and mixed up again on pinboards, tables or smart boards until orders have been found that help the process along. In the course of a conversation, the formations can change permanently. A game with the possibilities until clarity is established. And a good way to effectively support each participant in sorting and visualizing their own thoughts. In this way, structures make a task easier to work on in a group. One-sided discussions can be prevented, guided search movements become possible. Defined work grids make it easy to work on tasks in parallel. The subsequent consolidation of the results is also made much easier with uniform work grids. Structural guidelines help to channel a process and to bundle work energy, regardless of whether they have already been created in advance or are developed live in the process. Visualized, they make a difference!

9.2 Control Components Visualization is a powerful tool in many respects for controlling the group process. Where it is used purposefully and consciously, it can unfold its full power. Where this happens rather casually, untapped potential falls by the wayside. The interesting thing is that the effects work implicitly and do not even have to be made an issue. Specify and Clarify A flipchart on the stage provides every facilitator with good opportunities to focus on the ongoing discussion process, regardless of whether central questions are written down, contributions are recorded or a working grid is presented. Cross-­ communication decreases. Together, everyone focuses on what is happening up front. The focus is set and remains until something new is written. Visualization sets anchor points to which further thoughts, ideas, questions or concerns can be attached. What is written down takes on meaning. Everything that is not written on the chart sooner or later disappears from the discourse of the group. At the latest in the aftermath, the topics that were only discussed on the soundtrack in a meeting no longer play a role if there are minutes for the other points. Accordingly, the facilitator must be careful to ensure that everything relevant is always recorded. The joint completeness and comprehension check must become routine. Good decisions are needed as to what is actually picked out of the flood of possibilities and written down in the end. Often, the visualized question or the discus-

9.2  Control Components

157

sion grid is enough to steer the process. The essential contributions can then be compiled for the minutes if they are relevant for further work. This creates commitment instead of arbitrariness, security instead of diffusion, but only in those places where it is necessary. The visualized results outlast the moment and are still valid the next day when they are implemented in the organization. Anyone can refer to the documentation and make specific enquiries. Even uninvolved third parties can be brought up to date. Where this is foreseeably to be the case, care must already be taken during the discussion to ensure that the visualization is as generally comprehensible as possible. Decelerate and Objectify Especially in conflicts and controversial discussions, visualization helps to decelerate. The written recording of points of view, expectations and wishes makes a significant contribution to objectifying the discussion (cf. Zubizarreta and zur Bonsen 2014, p. 35 ff.). Everything that is to be given relevance must pass through the eye of the needle of the moderation marker. New attention to the matter arises. The flood of information becomes manageable. Especially when the facilitator takes a little longer to take notes, the participants have the opportunity to resonate with what has been said. Slowing down becomes a quality factor. Important differentiations also become possible as soon as a visual anchor is set. The factual content becomes detached from the sender. With moderation cards, at some point it is no longer important who wrote them, but what the topics have to do with each other. This allows ideas to build on each other better. The facilitator then also has the opportunity to contribute on the factual level without becoming too much of a focal point. Written interim summaries create the space in a discussion to check together what has already been clarified and which points are still open. Enable Distance and Self-Efficacy The first dot on any white sheet of paper makes all the difference (cf. Roam 2008, p. 156 ff.). The first stroke solves the blockade of starting somewhere. Visualization makes it possible to relate to a problem, to detach it from the person and to make it the object of different perspectival considerations. The “fruitful detour of looking” opens up (Mayer 2008, p. 4). This is especially true in the case of complex questions and problems or conflicts. Instead of waiting for someone to have the big picture at some point, visualization helps to get into action already on the micro level. Structures, illustrations and representations, even of sections of a complex situation, help to generate options for action that have not yet been in the field of vision. Decisions can be made better when all alternatives and scenarios are on the

158

9  Using Visualization Effectively

table. Step by step, levers, starting points and adjustment screws become apparent, which can then be effectively turned (cf. Schmeer 2006). If something is on paper, one can take a position on it. Third parties can intervene with ideas, perspectives and feedback. To form a picture or a plan of something means to create a second point of reference next to reality from which useful considerations can be made. Communities Where participation is not just a word in a workshop, but a serious principle, any form of visualization creates important conditions for this. The ideas and thoughts that lie dormant in the participants’ heads are made visible and can be further developed co-creatively. Especially a joint visualization is a deeply participatory process in which everyone can get involved. With markers and cards everyone is equal. Resonance instead of lack of contact. Words experience written response. The end result is that of a group, not an individual effort. With participative media, such as moderation cards, participants can contribute directly and immediately to a process. Or the facilitator supports representively with a pen. If the facilitator visually accompanies the course of a discussion in the plenary session, it provides the participants with simple opportunities to refer to each other. Direct comments, precise questions or opposing points of view can be elaborated and clarified. Consensus is not always reached. However, the remaining dissent becomes more understandable, clearer and thus possibly more tolerable. Visualization creates a common orientation. At least on paper, all participants can find each other again. The fact that there are so many good ways to support the communication process of a group through visualization should not obscure the fact that this still happens far too little in everyday meetings. The reasons for this are probably less to be found in the technical area than in the personal area. Those who visualize expose themselves. That always means a risk. Especially when one is uncertain whether the content actually hits the nail on the head. Anyone who is drawn into a debate to such an extent that the necessary distance is lost can basically only write a lot or resign. When the “what” becomes a bigger question than the “how”, the inhibition to make a start increases. Silent reticence then still seems the greater signal of competence. Secretly, quietly, one hopes that the issue will resolve itself as soon as possible. This is probably especially true where the facilitated process is not experienced as a co-creative joint project, but as a competition. Then winners and losers are produced, among whom the facilitator can also be counted. Even a large blank space in a transcript would here offer enormous potential for clarification.

References

159

Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Arnheim, R. 1989. Abbilder als Mitteilung. In Nonverbale Kommunikation durch Bilder, Hrsg. M. Schuster und B. Woschek, 23–32. Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Dörner, D. 2008. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Eppler, M., und R.  Pfister. 2012. Sketching at work. 35 starke Visualisierungs-Tools für Manager, Berater, Verkäufer, Trainer und Moderatoren. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – Das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Groß, S. 2013. Visuelle interventionen. Über die machtvolle Wirkung von Live-­ Visualisierungen in Kommunikationsprozessen. In Von der Herausforderung, die Lösung (noch) nicht zu kennen. Entwicklungskonzepte für Organisationen und Menschen in Zeiten rapiden Wandels, Hrsg. T. Hake, 87–106. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Heßler, M., und D.  Mersch, Hrsg. 2009. Logik des Bildlichen. Zur Kritik der ikonischen Vernunft. Bielefeld: Transcript. Krogerus, M., und R.  Tschäppler. 2008. 50 Erfolgsmodelle. Kleines Handbuch für strategische Entscheidungen. Zürich: Kein & Aber. Lowy, A., und P. Hood. 2004. The Power of the 2x2 Matrix. Using 2x2 thinking to solve business problems and make better decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mayer, C. 2008. Hieroglyphen der Psyche. Mit Patientenskizzen zum Kern der Psychodynamik. Stuttgart: Schattauer. Neuland, M. 1995. Neuland-Moderation. Eichenzell: Neuland. Roam, D. 2008. The back of the napkin. Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. London: Penguin. Schmeer, G. 2006. Die Resonanzbildmethode  – Visuelles Lernen in der Gruppe. Selbsterfahrung-­Team-Organisation. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Schnelle, W. 2006. Diskursive Organisations- und Strategieberatung. Norderstedt: BoD.

160

9  Using Visualization Effectively

Schuster, M. 1989. Bilder in didaktischem Material. In Nonverbale Kommunikation durch Bilder, Nonverbale Kommunikation durch Bilder, Hrsg. M.  Schuster und B.  Woschek, 143–164. Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Von Tiesenhausen, M. 2015. Ad Hoc Visualisieren. Denken sichtbar machen. Göttingen: Business Village. Zubizarreta, R., und M.  Zur Bonsen. 2014. Dynamic Facilitation. Die erfolgreiche Moderationsmethode für schwierige und verfahrene Situationen. Weinheim: Beltz.

Virtual Facilitation

10

The yes is much quieter than the no. The no is always loud. (Han 2013, p. 11)

Anyone who has fundamentally mastered his or her facilitation craft can also use his or her skills effectively on digital terrain. In this respect, facilitation in a virtual environment is fundamentally based on the same principles as in a physical space. And yet it is different. The technical infrastructure is the bottleneck. Anyone who has difficulty getting into the virtual meeting room is out of the joint process. Anything that does not work immediately is difficult to fix spontaneously. The stress level rises. The desire to participate dwindles. If you cannot intuitively find your way around a tool, you will find yourself more and more disconnected as the process progresses. Technical questions override the discussion of content. The medium sets the pace. On the one hand, this can overtax multifunctionally, or on the other hand, it can restrict enormously. That is why the use of the medium needs routine. This applies to facilitators as well as to participants. Virtual collaboration is not a matter of course: the roles, the use of the tools and also the interaction with each other must be explicitly clarified (cf. Allison et al. 2015, p. 689 ff.). For each virtual workshop, this basically becomes necessary anew. All of this takes time, which needs to be factored in. And it needs a realistic view of what is possible in the digital world. Paradoxically, the time frame for a meeting is often even tighter than for a non-­ virtual meeting. Where at least 2 h are scheduled for a physical meeting, because otherwise the journey would not be worthwhile, it is sometimes supposed to take © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_10

161

162

10  Virtual Facilitation

30 min virtually. Compression increases the pressure. In order for the communication process to succeed in a focused manner, everything must be planned even more precisely in advance. The time saved together should instead be put into even more intensive preparation. Even plan B, like the white rabbit in the hat, must have been put in the digital back-up drawer beforehand. Only then can it be conjured up spontaneously when needed. As a result, virtual workshops in total are often more time-­consuming for the facilitator than classic events. In addition, there are a number of uncertainties. What about the digital fitness of my participants? How do I myself get practice in using the various functions of the communication platform? Which tool is the right one? How do I keep an eye on participants, presentation slides and the chat at the same time? How much time does a card collection actually take to come up with useful results? How long does the virtual attention span last? When does it become too much? How do I keep the interaction level high? Who gives me feedback if everything fits? In addition to the general challenges of process support, there are further requirements in the virtual space. Special Challenges in the Virtual World Our communication in the digital world, despite all the features, is severely limited. The written and the spoken word clearly move into the foreground. Intermediate tones, body language, emotions and moods are largely lost. Disruptors always get attention. But what about the majority of silent participants? How do I, as a facilitator, maintain a sense of the totality of the group? How do I stay in relationship with each individual? How do I build points of contact, cross-communication, and lines of connection between participants? Successful facilitation also thrives on the magic that happens between people. Although we are able to adapt our communication in the virtual environment – with emojis, chat comments, etc. – fundamental differences remain (cf. Boos et al. 2017, p. 43 ff.). The gallery view is deceptive. In the end, everyone sits alone in front of their screen. The exchange of glances is not possible mediated by cameras. Basically, even goldfish in their aquarium have a broader perceptual spectrum at their disposal. Where the speaker or the presentation always (automatically) takes centre stage, the comprehensive overview is quickly lost. The digital image of the other is not his or her face after all (cf. Han 2018, p. 61 ff.). Consequently, the focus quickly remains on the matter at hand. Contacts no longer arise spontaneously because people are standing next to each other at the coffee machine during the break. No more random hallway or side conversations. At most, secret chat messages. This eliminates valuable resonance. Every encounter in the digital space needs to be proactively organized. There are

10  Virtual Facilitation

163

advantages to this. Adherence to deadlines and punctuality are usually high. Even small groups can be organized quickly and without effort. At the push of a button, everyone is back in the plenary immediately, without detours. Then, when the facilitator wants it. Other things remain more challenging for process guidance. Those who want to create meeting spaces for others have to get creative in order to allow a similar closeness of encounter as experienced in presence (cf. zur Bonsen and Mathys 2020). Relatively little happens in a virtual plenary compared to the energy of a large group meeting physically. Virtual workshops therefore easily become pure entertainment or information events; with a large reach, broad audience, but without real interaction and active participation. Consuming instead of participating. This can be done; but is something distinctly different from an interactive communication process carried by the group. “Without the presence of the other, communication degenerates into an accelerated exchange of information” (Han 2018, p. 97). In addition, the concentration and attention span in virtual space is significantly lower. The possibilities for distraction and unseen parallel activities, on the other hand, are much higher (cf. Jekel and Skipwith 2020, p. 12). A quick check of the latest e-mails, a glance at the live ticker of the news portal, or even writing the list for the shopping later; no one can see. Distractions lurk everywhere. If the link breaks, it can be difficult to connect it again, alone, in real time, under stress, with technical obstacles and under time pressure. So everything has to be packed into consumable and preferably easily digestible bits. Questions tend to get in the way. Criticism anyway. That is why there is no dislike button. Unfortunately, virtual facilitation also requires time-consuming feedback loops. Is it all right? Can you still follow? Am I talking too fast? Is it okay to move on? Are there any questions? Does everybody know what to do? Are you guys still there? Explicit approvals through active questioning is a mode that takes some getting used to. A moderate balancing act between permanent short activation and annoying continuous loop. Whether the group is actually present, however, remains difficult to assess. For all the acceleration and simplification, working digitally also brings with it a lot of uncertainty and waiting time. Despite these challenges, virtual facilitation offers enormous additional potential for shaping communication in groups. Meetings are scheduled quickly and spontaneously. If one does not make any progress, an alternative time for a meaningful continuation can usually be found quickly by looking at the digital calendar. Decision-making processes can be streched over several meetings, and project statuses can be regularly synchronized. Travel costs and, above all, travel times and their coordination are eliminated. Different experts from different locations can be involved depending on the situation. On collaboration platforms, work can be

164

10  Virtual Facilitation

c­ ontinued a-synchronously on a continuous basis. The visible progress brings people together and motivates them. Those who are uncertain about their ideas can gain confidence that they are on the right track by means of spontaneous feedback loops. Therefore, virtual facilitation should not be played off against its counterpart in physical space. It has its own qualities, but also special features that you have to pay attention to so that the digital interaction in a group succeeds. Facilitation, Co-hosting and Technical Support In the virtual space, it makes sense to divide the facilitation task, at least mentally, among three different roles. The facilitator is still responsible for the focused guidance of the group’s communication process. He designs the process, develops helpful structures, makes decisions about the appropriate setting and regulates the cooperation. In addition, the support of a co-host is recommended. This person helps, for example, with documenting and visualizing, keeps an eye on the questions and comments in the chat, organises the small groups and can also support them in their work phase. One of them acts visibly on the stage, the other in the background in a relevant and relational way. Based on the schedule, both roles can be well aligned. For a regular comparison of perspectives, the co-host is a valuable sparring partner for the facilitator, who has his sensors on the participants. How are you experiencing the group and the process right now? Do you need any clarification? At what point can we cut short? Should we drill down on the topic again or leave it as is? Do we have everyone on board? Are there sensitivities we should respond to? While the facilitator takes care of the big picture, the co-host is the one who keeps in touch with the group and helps with individual questions. Always close to the action, yet a tad outside the participant community. Quasi the friend of the house. Spreading the process support over two shoulders significantly reduces the burden, increases spontaneous flexibility, creates closeness and provides entertaining variety. If interaction and cooperation is exemplified with two facilitators, this has a formative effect on the cooperative behavior of the group. If you are facilitating solo, you can at least arrange to work with two screens at the same time. One is used to keep a constant eye on the group. The second one shows the presentation, the working document or the chat history. A smartphone or tablet can also serve this function well. This makes it easier to maintain an overview without having to constantly click back and forth. For larger groups, a printed list of participants also helps as an anchor point. Here you can quickly make notes or write down questions. In addition, you can see immediately who is still missing. Especially at the beginning of a virtual workshop, it can be useful to provide technical first aid via a third host role. Are all participants there? Where can I get

10  Virtual Facilitation

165

help with login problems? Is the internet bandwidth sufficient so that the video function can remain on? Can everyone be heard? Can I see everything? How can I mute myself? How does screen sharing work? What setting is it that I …? Individual questions of this kind lead to necessary individual case help, which is best solved in a short one-to-one situation. The problem here is that those who care intensively for individuals cannot be there for the whole group at the same time. If the caravan is constantly stopped because of individual failures, there will be no flow of movement. In this respect, an additional technical problem solver, especially at events with many unknown participants, is a valuable relief resource in which it is worth investing. Create Technical Conditions The basic condition is that the technology works. Malfunctions always have priority, especially in the virtual environment (cf. Kresse and Herzog 2020, p.  61). Every event stands and falls with the digital infrastructure. Individual tools and communication platforms can only usefully expand the spectrum of facilitative intervention if they can be used intuitively. Or, if there is a willingness to deal intensively with their functionality. The chapters in the guidebook literature for online meetings are correspondingly extensive in this regard (cf. Bütefisch and Möller 2020, p. 45 ff.; Jekel and Skipwith 2020, p. 15 ff. or Kresse and Herzog 2020, p. 20 ff.). The right microphone for intelligible sound, an additional camera for a good picture, different light sources for a professional look and holder systems with whose multi-functional settings everything can be fixed accordingly; technical equipment offers numerous possibilities to set the scene digitally. The market is constantly awakening new needs. In most cases, a laptop with headphones and a stable internet connection will do the trick. For all its importance, the hardware and the software used should not be the focus of the workshop, but should serve the process and the cause. Fundamental decisions concerning the infrastructure must be made in advance. In the workshop it is too late. Stability and reliability are paramount. Less can sometimes be more, because it is also less prone to failure. Unobtrusiveness is the second. “Technology is good when you don’t notice it” (Thilo Baum in Jekel and Skipwith 2020, p. 15). Each major update of the collaboration software also requires a reorientation with regard to the functions that are constantly being added, disappear or find themselves, all at once, in an unfamiliar place. The new is the enemy of the familiar. Different end devices, browsers and setting variants require a lot of technical problem-­solving imagination; the world might look a little different on other screens than it does on your own. In this respect, every new feature for the common

166

10  Virtual Facilitation

process is not only a contribution to progress, but initially an imposition. If participants (or facilitators) get into technical overload, no content contribution is possible anymore. All the more, composure is required from all participants. And mutual consideration. The slowest determines the progress of the group. Therefore, it must be carefully considered which tools are of real benefit to the collaboration process. Doing less can increase the quality of the process. From the philosophy of technology there are insights of timeless topicality on the uselessness of tools (cf. Heidegger 1993, p.  72 ff.). According to Martin Heidegger, unusability can show itself in three different ways: Conspicuousness, obtrusiveness, and obstinacy. Tools can be conspicuous because they simply do not work. They can be obtrusive because they are missing just when you need them. Or they can be obstinate because they are unusable for the user in exactly the way they function. In everyday understanding, these three variants often blur together. In the context of virtual facilitation, the distinction helps to sharpen the facilitative senses for problem diagnosis. For this has decisive consequences for the search for solutions. In the case of conspicuousness, the cause can either sit in front of the computer (the user) or be in the system (hardware or software problem). “I press the button and nothing happens!” In the first case, targeted behavioral cues help. In the second, often a reboot or an update to the latest version. In both cases, however, you can only continue working once the problem has actually been solved. If an essential function is missing, as in intrusive mode, improvisation is called for. It may be possible to combine digital tools in such a way that one fills the gap that exists in the other. In any case, it is advisable to describe the system requirements for the facilitation in detail in advance and to test the interaction. In this way, it is possible to decide at an early stage what is needed for good virtual collaboration. For more complex projects, this should not only be discussed, but also tested under live conditions. Decisions on the technical infrastructure are part of the framework that the facilitator must set so that the communication process can succeed. Annoying are obstinate tools, as in the third variant, which are disturbing because they (stupidly) work exactly as conceived, but thus prevent a speedy and pragmatic deployment. “For data protection reasons, we have to make it so cumbersome!”. In practice, this is often where the biggest, sometimes insurmountable hurdles lie for the facilitator and the event. There may be useful tips from other practitioners on how such system requirements can be cleverly circumvented (cf. Kühl 2020, p. 67 ff.). Or one embarks on the long road to IT approval to be allowed to use a functional device. If this is not possible, the best possible arrangement must be made with the circumstances.

10  Virtual Facilitation

167

In principle, it is recommended, especially with inexperienced participants, to arrange a short appointment for a technical check before the actual workshop. There, everyone can familiarize themselves with the virtual environment in peace. In addition, this preliminary meeting can be used to get to know each other and for an initial comparison of expectations. This not only ensures the technical workability, but it already begins to humanize between bits and bytes. Develop Routines and Basic Skills A functioning technical infrastructure is therefore one condition. Routine in the application by all participants is the other. In order for virtual collaboration to work, fundamental decisions must be made, also about the use of the technical infrastructure. Which system do we want to work with? Who gets which authorization? What happens if something does not work? What rules apply to chat use? How do we want to document in the course? Which technical possibilities do we ignore for the time being in order to be able to work immediately? Shared answers to these questions are a condition for the formation of collective routines. “Just possessing the available technology does not guarantee that meetings with virtual presence will be effective. Organizations need to promote these technologies and create a positive attitude towards new offerings” (Cichomska et al. 2015, p. 670 f.). Every new tool needs time for explanation and familiarization until it can be used with confidence. This is not only about the individual competence development of the facilitator. What helps with regular cooperation are joint search and development movements in the group, which best begin small and playful, in order to then lead to central course settings: Which tools do we use specifically for what? What do we keep in mind for the time being? Which numerous alternatives do we do without? What is the minimum standard that everyone who collaborates should master? “The possibilities of digital tools are tempting. Until technical problems arise” (Houf et al. 2020, p. 97). The facilitator should adapt to the technology standard and the level of ambition of the group, while staying one step ahead of it if possible. Rules provide “tendency expectations” and behavioural safety (Luhmann in Kühl 2020, p. 39). This also helps with facilitated collaboration in virtual space (cf. Wilkinson 2012, p. 300 ff.). However, depending on the digital fitness level of the group, these rules can look very different. For beginners or a very heterogeneous field of participants, basic rules must be established to enable the smoothest possible collaboration. Mute the microphone in the plenum! Leave cameras on! Use the chat for questions and comments! With more routine, the level of regulation shifts to more specific aspects: What do we need to pay particular attention to here

168

10  Virtual Facilitation

today on this topic? What tools do we want to work with? In what form should the results of the work be processed later? Regularly questioning and sharpening the set framework helps not to get lost in tool discussions, but to learn in an improvement-oriented way (cf. Mütze-­ Niewöhner et  al. 2020, p.  18 ff.). A low-threshold exchange of experiences, for example during a defined lunch break (Lunch and Learn) or after work (Think and Drink), supports such development processes. Short retrospectives on the technical set-up help to quickly identify the essential parameters: What was particularly helpful today? What was disturbing or annoying? What can we do without? What do we need to do differently in advance next time? What could be added? What do we need to do differently? As a user community, you can support each other in finding solutions (cf. Hildebrandt et al. 2013, p. 21 ff.). Virtual communication must be “learned, practiced and regulated” in its practical implementation (Groß and Hardwig 2020, p.  26). If the basic certainty increases, specific readjustments can be made (cf. Boos et al. 2017, p. 75 ff.). The decisive factor remains the effect. In order to experience this concretely, facilitators should regularly slip into the role of the participant, especially in the virtual space. In this way, the process, the pace and the atmosphere can also be experienced and reflected upon from the other side. Offer Process and Structural Support A clearly outlined task, a defined goal and supporting visualizations increase the quality of a virtually facilitated communication process. In addition, there is a clearly structured schedule with concrete time specifications and sufficient breaks between the blocks. The work units should not last longer than 75  min each. Transparency, even before the event begins, helps to ensure that no one loses their bearings. In this respect, the link to the event, the schedule, the most important charts and an emergency number for technical difficulties can already be sent in a package with the invitation email. As in a classic workshop, the introduction is followed by an explanation of the goals and a clarification of the framework for the collaboration. This can be supplemented by technical information and a few key ideas about the setting. This investment of time at the beginning pays off, even and especially for one-time events! If you sharpen the saw at the beginning of the work, you will get through the process more smoothly. Using a star facilitation, everyone can then have their say briefly. The signs are set for activation. Technique check included. In larger groups, for example, this takes place in a five-minute small group phase with question impulses. What exactly is my concern here today? With which core idea am I involved

10  Virtual Facilitation

169

today? What do we need to clarify in order to work well together? When was the workshop worthwhile? Where do we go from here and when? In the joint process, prepared visualizations with guiding questions, structures or central impulses help for comprehensibility. The live visualization of answers, the joint filling of grids as well as written comments, additions and critical objections during the process support in the same way as they do in the physical space. They show appreciation, help focus, and provide important raw material for thought during the post-process reflection. Sentence beginnings invite completion. Discussion grids, rather than single questions, open up differentiated conversations; even and especially when working on digital whiteboards. By using simple survey tools, everyone can be involved and have a say, immediately, in real time. This is useful for setting the focus of the content as well as for a quick check of the current mood. Breaking up into several modules creates useful breaks. This is just as true between blocks in a workshop as it is for a series of short meetings. Especially virtual decision-making, learning and creative processes benefit from having time and space to let what has been discussed sink in. So plan sufficient break times! For facilitators, these off-stage segments provide an opportunity for follow-up, a brief feedback session, or to think ahead to the next step. Create Closeness Despite Distance The central question regarding the quality of collaboration is: How can I, despite the physical distance, still create closeness in the virtual exchange? (cf. Hildebrandt et al. 2013). This requires a setting that decelerates, allows for in-depth listening, and promotes open communication among each other. Short moments of pause are just as much a part of this as the deliberate instigation of controversy. Are we on the right track? Do not we actually need something completely different right now? If we continue like this, what are we giving up? What would help you to go deeper together? Where does anyone still sense resistance? What will our critics say? Have we missed something essential? Questions that are not only aimed at the substantive work process, but also make togetherness an issue, promote cohesion in the group. By taking time and opening up interstices of questioning, facilitation supports the balance of matter and relationship in the virtual space as well. Analogous to the classic workshop, working together on a topic is only experienced as meaningful if it is possible for each participant to make a “subjectively meaningful contribution” (Boos et al. 2017, p. 32). From the outset, this is the core challenge and at the same time the opportunity in the workshop design of collaboration from distributed locations. And it remains throughout the entire duration of the process.

170

10  Virtual Facilitation

Exclusively the plenary, with everyone, is the wrong place for this. Accordingly, you should switch frequently to more intimate small groups of three to seven people. This group size allows all microphones and cameras to be left on continuously. Intensity and degrees of interaction increase. Closeness becomes tangible. Everyone can have their say and be heard. It is precisely the random constellations in small groups that lead to their own productive form of encounter quality in virtual workshops. Exploit Asynchronous Potential A great potential of virtual facilitation is that participants do not need to be at the same time or place to collaborate. Collaboration tools make it easy to work together in asynchronous form in addition to live online (cf. Groß and Hardwig 2020). Digital whiteboards, online documents on which several authors can work at the same time, or virtual workspaces with avatars expand the spectrum of action and interaction. There – theoretically – 24 h a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, everyone can (continue to) work on common questions or their own topics whenever they want. Activities, intermediate updates and work results can be viewed by everyone at any time, without effort. Feedback loops can be quickly and pragmatically drawn in via comment functions. Surveys are easy to conduct anonymously, even with a large number of participants. Many applications also work from mobile devices. So you can actually participate from any location. Both the facilitator and the participants can continue to work in short and spontaneous work sequences, read up, deepen, add to, copy content and reassemble it elsewhere. The facilitation space can thus be expanded as desired. Nothing is lost digitally. Hundreds can participate in a process without effort. All results can also be easily taken away, shared or reconstructed at other locations. Behind all these factors lies a quality of participation that is not present in physical space. Everyday practice in the realm of the digital becomes a culture of “taking out, bringing together, changing and adding” (Stalder 2017, p.  127). Participation is possible for those who are technically able to do so. The asynchronous work phases can now themselves be interrupted by classically facilitated synchronization rounds. Here, it is possible to react to the current work status, to give or request direct feedback, to set priorities and to agree on the next steps. For individual questions, further experts or those affected can be included in a focused manner and immediately enter into the topics in a productive way. In a virtual context, situational facilitation becomes comprehensive process support. The virtual space knows no boundaries. It can be expanded endlessly, at least as far as the digital storage space goes. A whiteboard is quickly created, duplicated or

10  Virtual Facilitation

171

a new group opened without any effort. Of course, there is also a danger in this. Often the collective compiling, condensing, sorting, understanding, keeping in mind and questioning cannot keep up with the speed of digital card production. There is a danger of confusion. Quantity sometimes belies quality. If you want to avoid digital data garbage, you have to tidy up regularly. Keeping things tidy remains a core facilitation service. It is good if you have planned for this time. Analog, Digital, Hybrid Conclusions can now be drawn from successful virtual facilitation to the design of classic workshops. Which rules, procedures and principles can also be used sensibly in the physical space? Which experiences can be built on together? Where does a short, focused virtual workshop make more sense than one in physical presence? What asynchronous formats can we use to jointly prepare for or follow up on our face-to-face events? Which digital tools help us when we come together in the meeting room? Which standards make life easier for us? It makes no sense to simply digitize the mistakes from the physical meeting world. What does not work in real life will almost certainly have no effect digitally. On the other hand, it is advisable to develop your own virtual understanding of facilitation, which makes use of the specific qualities. It will be exciting if, in addition to these two forms, a third, hybrid variant emerges that combines the success factors from both worlds. This is certainly one of the most demanding facilitation challenges for the future. Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

172

10  Virtual Facilitation

References Allison, B., M. Shuffler, und A. Wallace. 2015. The successful facilitation of virtual team meetings. In The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, Hrsg. J.  Allen, 680–705. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boos, M., T. Hardwig, und M. Riethmüller. 2017. Führen und Zusammenarbeit in verteilten Teams. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Bütefisch, S., und U. Möller. 2020. Fit für Online-meetings. Virtuelle Treffen erfolgreich planen und durchführen mit dem KAViA-Prinzip. Norderstedt: BoD. Cichomska, K., V. Roe, und D. Leach. 2015. Meeting organization strategy. The why and how of meetings with virtual presence. In The Cambridge handbook of meeting science, Hrsg. J. Allen, 663–679. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Groß, S., und T. Hardwig. 2020. Über den Wolken. Moderation im virtuellen Raum. In Organisationsentwicklung. Zeitschrift für Unternehmensentwicklung und Change Management (2/2020), 25–30. Düsseldorf: Handelsblatt Media Group. Han, B.-C. 2013. Im Schwarm. Ansichten des Digitalen. Berlin: Matthes und Seitz. ———. 2018. Die Austreibung des Anderen. Gesellschaft, Wahrnehmung und Kommunikation heute. Frankfurt aM Main: S. Fischer. Heidegger, M. 1993. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hildebrandt, M., L.  Jehle, S.  Meister, und S.  Skoruppa. 2013. Closeness at a distance. Leading virutal groups to high performance. Oxfordshire: Libri. Houf, L., R. Funk, und A. Zoll. 2020. Mini-Handbuch Moderation. Klassisch, agil, digital. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Jekel, T., und T. Skipwith. 2020. Online meetings. 30 Minuten. Offenbach: Gabal. Kresse, A., und J. Herzog. 2020. Live goes online. Meetings, präsentationen, seminare online erfolgreich durchführen. Berlin: Edutrainment. Kühl, S. 2020. Brauchbare Illegalität. Vom Nutzen des Regelbruchs in Organisationen. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus. Mütze-Niewöhner, S., W.  Hacker, T.  Hardwig, S.  Kauffeld, E.  Latniak, M.  Nicklich, und U.  Pietrzyk, Hrsg. 2020. Projekt- und Teamarbeit in der digitalisierten Arbeitswelt. Herausforderungen, Strategien und Empfehlungen. Berlin: Springer Vieweg. Stalder, F. 2017. Kultur der Digitalität. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Wilkinson, M. 2012. The secrets of facilitation. The smart guide to getting results with groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. zhu Bonsen, M., und M.  Mathys. 2020. Open space online. Virtuell mit Großgruppen arbeiten. In Training aktuell. Die Zeitschrift für Training, Beratung und Coaching. 31. Jahrgang Nr. 10/2020, 38–43. Bonn: managerSeminare Verlags GmbH.

Learning to Facilitate

11

Self-education is something that people do with themselves and for themselves: One educates oneself. Others can guide us, but everyone can only educate themselves. (Bieri 2007)

Facilitation is a craft. The sovereign handling of methods, concepts and media distinguishes the expert. At the same time, facilitation is “an art for improving human communication” (Klebert et al. 2002, p. 21). The best way to learn both is to do it frequently. For that, it helps to be shown how to do it properly once by an experienced professional. The rest is then a lot of practice until hand movements and formulations have become familiar. Step by step, procedures are refined until they become routine. Experiential knowledge is created through learning-oriented practice. The excellence level for this has been defined in the research literature with the 10,000-hour formula (Ericsson et al. 2006). This is how long one has to train a skill in a focused manner until the many specific individual experiences are systematically integrated (cf. Mieg 2016, p. 27). Facilitation competence in this respect is built up bit by bit over different development stages. The path leads through step-by-step optimization from the simple to the complex. Practice makes perfect. In addition to the practical work, facilitation also has a lot to do with understanding communication processes and the existing group dynamics. Corresponding knowledge is available, which is provided by experts in books or seminars (cf. Witte 2012). Much of it is available in operationalized form as a theoretical

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6_11

173

174

11  Learning to Facilitate

approach, process model or diagram. This material of condensed knowledge provides guidelines for answering very practical questions. How can you tell if a group is capable of working? How can loss of motivation be avoided? In what way can contact and relationship building between participants be supported? How can differences and tensions be overcome? When is the right time for which i­ ntervention? How can each individual participant be shown ways to generate added value for themselves? As knowledge increases, the nature of the questions changes. New searches survey the field, leading to further insights and knowledge. This approach continues to shape judgment as a companion to communication processes (cf. Neuweg 2004, p.  389 ff.). Explicit and implicit forms of knowledge go hand in hand for this purpose (cf. Polanyi 1958). Knowledgeable experts see things earlier and differently than ordinary people. Their trained intuition ensures that they react confidently even in unfamiliar situations (cf. Gigerenzer 2007, p. 49 ff.). Not all of this is explainable, some not even for the agents themselves. The key to competent facilitation is a clear understanding of one’s role. On the way there, reflection, introspection, collegial exchange and differentiated feedback are necessary learning steps that trigger clarification processes and create awareness; no standard answers, but permanent questioning. An ongoing process without a static end. In this respect, according to Friedemann Schulz von Thun, personal development must be seen as a very individual and deeply touching matter, “in which any kind of ‘standard training’ misses the mark or only changes the speech bubbles superficially” (Schulz von Thun 2001, p. 11). For Carol Dweck, the fundamental prerequisite for this is a dynamic self-image (cf. Dweck 2016). Those who see change as an imposition, challenges as obstacles, and defeats as mistakes will not be able to draw much learning potential from it. A static self-image provides security, continuity and stability. But everything remains as it is, for better or for worse. On the other hand, those who see experienced failures as special learning opportunities, who see them not as obstacles but as stirrups for the next stage of development, can gain valuable insights for themselves. According to Carol Dweck, we always have the choice of which self-image we want to react to a new situation (cf. Dweck 2016, p. 25). Theoretical concepts for orientation, empirically secured knowledge paired with practical experience and proven recommendations for action together offer good nutrient for reflection, learning and further development. What is also needed are places, spaces and opportunities in which such learning processes can take place. And it needs other people who accompany you on this path in different roles.

11.1  Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces

175

11.1 Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces In order to advance one’s own development in terms of facilitation, there are various possibilities, formats and settings. Facilitation does not always have to be explicitly on the agenda. If facilitation is generally understood as the guidance of communication processes in groups, many places can be considered as learning and transfer spaces. The special thing about this is that the other participants do not even have to know explicitly that they are sparring partners in a personal training sequence. Aspects from the field of questioning and communication techniques can be tested in any discussion, as can the effect of visualization on a conversation. It is important that the learner is clear about what the discussion is about, which competence is in focus, what he wants to observe, to which question he is looking for an answer. According to John Hattie, making one’s own learning progress visible is the most relevant criterion for pedagogical teaching and learning success (cf. Hattie 2009). In addition to the specific points of development, there will always be experiences that are incalculable but all the more effective in terms of fundamental understanding. One can learn from good role models just as much as from bad examples. Moreover, there remains an unavailable residue that makes facilitation an inherently unteachable thing (cf. Klebert et al. 2002, p. 11). The floor plan shown here pursues the idea of providing insights into learning and transfer spaces that are basically available to everyone (Fig. 11.1). Learning takes place in highly different ways. Each type of learner has their own preferences for how to proceed. Each has rooms in which they prefer to spend time. Some of them have a spontaneous plausibility, others have to be explored. The spaces themselves each support and reinforce what happens in them. Some of them are social spaces that work particularly well together with others. Others are preferably used alone. Some are used for production, tinkering and fiddling, discarding and rethinking. Others are used for storage and stockpiling. Here, what was once found to be good is collected and stored for future challenges. Who knows what can be used again and in what form. Thus, each room supports in its own way that facilitation becomes easier, more effective and more efficient. The structure of the floor plan allows differentiated insights into the many ways of learning facilitation. This also offers opportunities to better understand one’s own learning behaviour. And it may reveal places that have not yet been used to build up competence in this way. The personal learning and transfer places invite to a development path that can lead to what Peter Bieri calls “self-education [Bildung]” (cf. Bieri 2007).

176

11  Learning to Facilitate

Fig. 11.1  Learning spaces

Anticipate

Share Store

Participate

Make

Play

Relax

Orientation in the Entrance Area Before entering the different learning and transfer rooms, one should first get a good overview in the entrance area. It may also be necessary to discard old roles and ideas at the cloakroom. It is recommended to have a look at all the rooms before deciding which one you would like to spend more time in. Changes are of course allowed at any time. For one and the same facilitation event it can be quite useful to stay in different rooms. Each place provides its own insights. There are several options when it comes to the order. First think ahead before sitting down with others to share, or the other way around? First look in the warehouse to see if anything already exists on the current case, or playfully try something new? Go

11.1  Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces

177

into the workshop well-prepared or start open to process and see what happens? Important decision questions that can never be answered in a general way, but for which it can be worthwhile to try out new approaches to see what happens. Not every room is equally suitable for all topics. What has proven itself for the personal learning process and works well should definitely keep a fixed place. Routine and habits lead to being able to orientate oneself quickly and to know exactly what is important in each case. On the other hand, spending time in previously less frequented corners also opens up new perspectives. In this respect, pleasurable exploration can certainly become part of one’s own learning journey. And anyone who travels through the spaces together with others and engages in a joint process will discover that there are several good ways to reach a learning goal. Anticipate The desk is a place where workshops are classically planned. Systematic forethought of new requests and intensive evaluation of past workshops is standard. With calmness in advance, it is considered what all needs to be done. First sketches for new concepts are created. Specialist literature is consulted in order to get new ideas or to build up a deeper understanding. Process examples from colleagues provide blueprints for further thinking. One’s own archive holds proven ideas that can perhaps be used again. While rummaging around and looking at materials, new ideas are constantly being added. In the end, a plan or mind map is created that can be shared with others before it goes into a more precise revision loop. Such dry runs are useful to concretize the idea of the task at hand. Key questions are an essential support for this. What will the participants expect from the workshop? What will their individual and shared goals be? What is known about the context of the workshop? How much knowledge is there about the organizational context? Which milestones have already been set? How can a good introduction to the topic be made? Is there a preference for a certain way of working? What is the significance of the workshop? What happens in the overall process before and after? The systematic evaluation of experiences from past events helps to prepare well for upcoming tasks. It is also a question of type whether one proceeds more systematically in one’s work behaviour or looks dynamically at what is coming. Depending on this, the time will be spent more focused or used as an open space for inspiration. The door to the study can be open to others. Sometimes even small tips in passing help. In the same way, it makes sense to be temporarily to oneself for rest and concentration. In any case, the work-intensive hermitage should be left at regular intervals to make contact with colleagues or clients. In this way, it can be checked

178

11  Learning to Facilitate

whether what one has come up with in the sketchbook is also comprehensible and connectable for third parties. Sometimes it helps to look over the shoulders of others in their preliminary work. In this way, new approaches can be explored. The preparation forms the basis for the later process. If you are looking for variants for your workshop design, you can already start with the first modifications here. Share In a relaxed atmosphere, different conversations are held than in the classic working environment. In the hustle and bustle of everyday life, there is seldom enough time to pursue an idea for longer, to connect thoughts together, to get to the bottom of a new concept. In this respect, it is good to have a comfortable place where such an exchange can take place. Instead of standing somewhere between door and door and already being on the go again, it is possible to consciously decelerate there in order to have conversations of the kind that are becoming less and less common. A place without PowerPoint slides and far away from moderation materials. The aim of such a dialogue is to let others share one’s own thoughts, to get to know different perspectives on a topic or to explore a recurring phenomenon. There is not necessarily a concrete result. Everyone is given space to tell their story and to give insights into their world of thoughts. Questions are asked that would otherwise never come up. Answers, doubts, insecurities and mistakes can be discussed without fear of embarrassment. The trusting atmosphere is carried by a “relaxed, non-­ judgmental curiosity”, as it characterizes a genuine dialogue for David Bohm (Bohm 2011, p. 11). With time and calm, things clarify and new perspectives open up. Good questions and sufficient time help to find the appropriate answers. Places for exchange create spaces for social learning (cf. Schwäbisch and Siems 2003). Everyone can make progress there on different issues from their own personal background. In organizations, explicit learning spaces can be set up for this kind of dialogue. Collegial counselling rounds, mentoring programmes, fireside chats, workshops for exchanging experiences, lunch talks and speed dating or bar camps offer the chance to get into good conversation with each other with low inhibition thresholds. In a protected setting, it becomes possible to do what is usually more successful in private: to open up, to meet interested discussion partners and to be in contact with people with whom one otherwise has less to do. Here it is not necessary to think in terms of exploitation dimensions. In such rounds, there is no need for an agenda, just numerous opportunities to talk about topics that really interest you.

11.1  Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces

179

Make Facilitators need stage experience to learn; it does not have to be overall responsibility for a large project. Opportunities often arise during team meetings where facilitation can make a difference for everyone. Those who offer to take over individual sections can almost be assured of the group’s thanks. Rarely is such an offer of support turned down. In front of a hand-picked audience, you can try out your role, use new methodological tools, co-visualize and ask for specific feedback at the end. Protective spaces help in early development. Through facilitation, however, the workshop also becomes a place of learning for all (cf. Graeßner 2013, p. 33 ff.). Active participation makes it possible to learn something about a topic, about oneself, about cooperation in a group and about the organizational culture on different levels. In terms of content, the learning material is oriented towards the concrete question. Thanks to facilitation, the aspects, dimensions and central findings are available in systematic order at the end of the process. At the same time, one also learns basic facts about the mode, for example about decision-making or the dynamics of conflicts. Through the facilitative support, the formative cultural patterns become visible for all. Phenomena emerge that fundamentally play a central role in the quality of collaboration. What are the benefits of interdepartmental communication? In what way does facilitation contribute to the efficiency and effectiveness of facilitated processes? In what way does the potential for solutions increase when different perspectives on a problem are brought to the same table? Where do clear frameworks help to avoid getting bogged down? The process design holds something like learning gifts in store for all participants. Without a pedagogical pointing, through the direct experience of efficiency and benefit, the comprehension grows that it makes great sense in many places to no longer dispense with the useful factors of facilitation. The concrete use of methods in facilitated workshops provides a multitude of large and small ideas that everyone involved can easily copy for their own everyday meetings. They can become building blocks of cultural change. It is in the forethought, the reflection and the creative action that facilitation makes the difference. Some people need solid preparation before they dare to get started. The complete plan is in place even before the group enters the room. Where so much service orientation is practiced, the guest can concentrate entirely on the substantive exchange. However, for the host it means having to do most of the work in the background. Organizing a workshop in this way has its appeal, but it also involves a high proportion of “domestic work” (Simon 1998, p. 49 ff.). In other cases, almost everything is created live in front of the eyes of the participants. This mode is appealing, but risky. You have to know your participants

180

11  Learning to Facilitate

well to be able to estimate to some extent with whom this way of working is well possible. If there is an explicit facilitator, something different is usually expected. Openness to process demands a lot from all involved parties. Category errors and irritations are not excluded. Little routine, much creative improvisation. This can sometimes lead to confusion. The learning spaces for facilitation focus on direct experience. Everything that one plans, considers and prepares in terms of interventions has no end in itself, but serves to guide real communication processes of real people. For the participants, this often involves serious issues and momentous questions. Fundamental decisions are to be made, actual conflicts are waiting to be clarified. Practical ideas are sought. The less artificial the form and type of facilitation, the closer the exchange gets to what really moves the participants. Workshops are special worlds compared to everyday organizational life anyway, especially when they are accompanied by a facilitator. The more authentic and natural one’s own appearance is, the higher the chance that the other participants will follow suit. If the participants succeed in meeting each other in an undisguised way during the conversation, it also becomes easier for the facilitator to provide effective support. On the other hand, facilitation becomes extremely strenuous if the conversations remain artificial and the atmosphere is full of distanced politeness. Here, genuine cooperation at eye level is difficult. Participate Those who are not in the position to shape the process themselves experience and learn first-hand what facilitation feels like on the other side, in the auditorium. In well-facilitated events, this leads to beneficial experiences and strengthened conviction. In the same way, the participant perspective provides insightful material when such meetings do not go well. Where this is the case, the projective question always arises as to what one could be doing right now instead of the facilitator. Instead of letting time pass unproductively and hoping for a quick end, this could be the starting point for a differentiated situation analysis. What would it take to pick me up again as a participant? What are the causes of the current situation with regard to the interaction triangle? When did it start to become unproductive? Who should or could become active now, although they are obviously not doing so? What are the reasons for not intervening? What would happen if a rule was introduced or the setting changed? Which method would have which effect now? What good questions could help? What would have to happen for me to leave my comfort zone and take action myself? How would I want to be addressed? A good guide for the right balance at this point is ourselves. Thinking with a pen on a piece of paper may provide some initial personal clarity on these issues. It still

11.1  Entering Learning and Transfer Spaces

181

remains to be considered whether one shares one’s insights with others. The six areas of competence show systematic starting points that help to understand what is important in facilitation and the reasons why the effects fizzle out. They can serve excellently as an observation and learning grid. From there, it is actually only a small step to energetic process design and clarifying interventions. Asking concrete questions helps to check one’s own hypotheses. The other participants can also be held responsible for what happens and the way it happens. Regular monitoring can quickly lead to routine boredom, both for the facilitator and for the group. In order to escape paralyzing habituation effects, the question arises where processes can be changed, improvised with new methods or played with roles. Especially if facilitation wants to promote the self-organization of the group and is not limited to efficient service, it should be jointly considered at which points the facilitator can gradually withdraw from actively shaping the process. The benefit for the participants increases enormously once again as a result. Store Developing smart logistics for materials of all kinds is a science in itself. Especially when it comes to not only storing things, but also finding them again. Without a system, it is easy to get cluttered in the pantry. If you are spontaneously looking for something that has not been used for a while, you have to be quick. It is therefore unfavourable if everything is stored in such an over-, under- and jumbled-­up way that the useful things can no longer be found. Regular clearing out provides a remedy. The individual wealth of experience in good ideas, useful methods and useful application tips should not disappear in the dark archives, but should be regularly brought out to check the functionality. The beauty of this is that this practice check does not only have to be done in personal application, but others can be involved in it. Those who are regularly in exchange with colleagues and give each other insights into the current stock, keep the overview themselves and possibly help others to find good solutions to problems. Instead of gathering dust, working flowcharts, presentations, helpful graphics, charts, and best practices get a regular update. Knowledge multiplies when shared. Anyone who takes a close look at their own wealth of experience, which they have accumulated in the course of their facilitation time, will quickly have everything they need to accompany standard processes. Universal tools and exotic individual items can be recycled in innovative ways and combined in new ways. Searching in one’s own cellar holds many a useful surprise in store.

182

11  Learning to Facilitate

Play The playful examination of tasks, questions and methods succeeds most easily where creative freedom is allowed and experimentation is explicitly permitted. Small-scale puzzling is just as possible as tinkering with daring large-scale projects. Different media and materials are intensively tested and new ones combined. Everyday objects can be repurposed and creatively transformed. As a precaution, a “Do not enter” sign can be hung on the door. To test effects and limits, you have to leave familiar paths. Not everywhere is the right place. It is not always the right time. Where experimental spaces are explicitly marked, the willingness for unusual forms of cooperation to find broad acceptance increases. Without the ease and freedom to try out new things in a protected setting, innovation will hardly succeed. Instead, people prefer to reach for the tried and tested, with which nothing can go wrong. A playroom offers numerous suggestions on this side and beyond standard materials. In a pinch, you can always go back to the routine. Trying something out playfully does not mean that the whole set of rules always has to be changed. Small modifications are often enough to create a new kind of tension. In the long run, playful development alone is no fun. In addition, the creative potential also increases when five or six heads think up new things at the same time and tinker together. Optimisation ideas are just as important as radical new approaches (cf. Schön 1983, p. 21 ff.; Argyris 1993, p. 90 ff.). This may well be done with a serious character. Light, uninhibited and free of airs and graces is what the playroom is all about. Approaches other than the usual standards open up new points to enter. In the innovation environment, this has been known for quite some time. With methods such as design thinking, a creative approach to problems is slowly gaining acceptance even in traditional corporate areas (see Erbeldinger and Ramge 2015). As a result, there is less and less shame in having crazy ideas with potential. Relax In addition to the level of tension in the spotlight, it also needs occasional distance in moments of quiet and contemplation. Time to let the many impressions, thoughts and options sink in. With distance comes a special kind of clarity. Instead of frantically trying to force a solution or having to deliver it at the push of a button, it helps to step out of the context. In this way, one can experience that a relaxed second look at a topic suddenly makes essential and other things recognizable. Beyond the immediate pressure to act, the circumstances sort themselves out anew.

11.2 Outlook

183

This also applies to the concrete facilitation situation. Those who can, create regular places of retreat. Short breaks to sort out your thoughts before the event begins, in between breaks or on the way home to reflect afterwards. Such moments of tranquillity enable you to make clearer decisions. Away from the stage, the key decisions are made in a relaxed half-distance. Such time-outs can be used in very different ways: In an active or passive mode, more focused, broadening or thinking in completely different directions. Sometimes it helps if open points are first closed internally before a joint conclusion is drawn. In a fast forward through the process, all the essential situations and decisions are shown once again in fast motion. Afterwards, a causality is constructed that can be instructive for the next steps. Time-outs also help to think ahead to the transition to the next phase of work. Or they are simply used to clear the mind. It is also true for facilitators that the alternation of tension and relaxation must be present to a reasonable degree in order to facilitate learning well. You probably do not need to worry so much about the necessary degree of tension in your job. This usually arises on stage all by itself. Sometimes it also helps to walk out the door, out of the situation for a pattern break. When heated debates are taking place and emotions are boiling up in conflicts, it is a challenge especially for the facilitator not to get infected. Only then can he or she concentrate on his or her part of the task. To this end, safe spaces must be maintained, to which others with their topics, demands and expectations have no access.

11.2 Outlook Anticipate, share, make, participate, store, play and relax. Highly diverse learning and transfer places for facilitators. In these places one can meet oneself in one’s preferences, likes and dislikes as well as others. Each space contributes in its own way to making facilitation successful. It is a continuous learning process. Each allows for special development opportunities that can be used alone or together; an open space concept that can be reconfigured and adapted to individual needs at any time. All of this offers countless opportunities to take action in facilitation to change yourself, colleagues and the culture in an organization. Either through active process design or through intensive reflection. Joint communication in participation processes provides excellent conditions for this. No more excuses. Now we actually have to begin.

184

11  Learning to Facilitate

Working Material for Download

Scan this QR code for tried and tested structural aids, templates, checklists and project outlines. Or go directly to https://www.stefangross.org/werkzeuge/

◄

References Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bieri, P. 2007. Wie wäre es, gebildet zu sein? Audio-CD. Grünwald: Komplett Media. Bohm, D. 2011. Der Dialog. Das offene Gespräch am Ende der Diskussionen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Dweck, C. 2016. Selbstbild. Wie unser Denken Erfolge oder Niederlagen bewirkt. München: Piper. Erbeldinger, J., und T.  Ramge. 2015. Durch die Decke denken. Design Thinking in der Praxis. München: Red Line. Ericsson, K., et al. 2006. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge handbooks in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Bauchentscheidungen. Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition. München: Bertelsmann. Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Klebert, K., et al. 2002. Moderations-Methode. Das Standardwerk. Hamburg: Windmühle. Mieg, H. 2016. Wer oder was ist ein Experte? Wie Expertise entsteht, gemacht und gemessen wird. In Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt, Hrsg. R. Pfizenmaier, et al., 24–38. Frankfurt aM Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Neuweg, G. 2004. Könnerschaft und implizites Wissen. Zur lehr-lerntheoretischen Bedeutung der Erkenntnis – und Wissenstheorie Michael Polanyis. Münster: Waxmann. Polanyi, M. 1958. In Knowing and being. Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. Marjorie Grene. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

References

185

Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schulz von Thun, F. 2001. Miteinander reden 3. Das ‘innere Team’ und situationsgerechte Kommunikation. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Schwäbisch, L., und M. Siems. 2003. Anleitung zum sozialen Lernen für Paare, Gruppen und Erzieher. Kommunikations- und Verhaltenstraining. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Simon, F. 1998. Radikale Marktwirtschaft. Grundlagen des systemischen Managements. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: ­Hogrefe.

Further Reading

Abel, G., und M. Plümacher, Hrsg. 2016. The power of distributed perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter. Allen, J., et  al., Hrsg. 2015. The Cambridge handbook of meeting science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antons, K., et al., Hrsg. 2004. Gruppenprozesse verstehen. Gruppendynamische Forschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Arendt, H. 2013. Macht und Gewalt. München: Piper. Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Arnold, R. 2020. Wie man lehrt, ohne zu belehren. 29 Regeln für eine kluge Lehre. Das LENA-Modell. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Baecker, D. 1994. Postheroisches Management. Ein Vademecum. Berlin: Merve. ———. 2013. Beobachter unter sich. Eine Kulturtheorie. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Bateson, G. 1981. Ökologie des Geistes. Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. ———. 1982. Geist und Natur. Eine notwendige Einheit. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. Beck, H. 2020. Das Neue Lernen heißt Verstehen. Berlin: Ullstein. Berkel, K. 2005. Konflikttraining. Konflikte verstehen, analysieren und bewältigen. Frankfurt aM Main: Verlag Recht und Wirtschaft. Besemer, C. 1994. Mediation. Vermittlung in Konflikten. Baden: Werkstatt für Gewaltfreie Kommunikation. Bohm, D. 2011a. Der Dialog. Das offene Gespräch am Ende der Diskussionen. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Bolte, A., J. Neumer, und S. Porschen. 2008. Die alltägliche Last der Kooperation. Abstimmung als Arbeit und das Ende der Meeting-Euphorie. Berlin: Edition Sigma. Buber, M. 1997. Das dialogische Prinzip. Gerlingen: Schneider.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 S. Gross, Facilitation Skills, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-40015-6

187

188

Further Reading

Busch, D., und C.-H.  Mayer, Hrsg. 2012. Mediation erforschen. Fragen  – Forschungsmethoden – Ziele. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Cobb, J. 2013. Leading the learning revolution. The expert’s guide to capitalizing on the exploding lifelong education market. New York: Amacom. De Dreu, C., und M. Gelfand, Hrsg. 2012. The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. New York: Taylor & Francis. Deutsch, M., P. Coleman, und E. Marcus, Hrsg. 2006. The Handbook of conflict resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Dörner, D. 2008. Die Logik des Misslingens. Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Dueck, G. 2015. Schwarmdumm. So blöd sind wir nur gemeinsam. Frankfurt aM Main: Campus. Dweck, C. 2016. Selbstbild. Wie unser Denken Erfolge oder Niederlagen bewirkt. München: Piper. Epley, N. 2015. Mindwise. Why we misunderstand what others think, believe, feel, and want. New York: Random House. Eppler, M., und R.  Pfister. 2011. Sketching at work. 35 starke Visualisierungs-Tools für Manager, Berater, Verkäufer, Trainer und Moderatoren. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Erbeldinger, J., und T.  Ramge. 2015. Durch die Decke denken. Design Thinking in der Praxis. München: Red Line. Ericsson, K., et al. 2006. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge handbooks in psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erpenbeck, J., und W. Sauter. 2013. So werden wir lernen! Kompetenzentwicklung in einer Welt fühlender Computer, kluger Wolken und sinnsuchender Netze. Berlin: Springer Gabler. Faschingbauer, M. 2010. Effectuation. Wie erfolgreiche Unternehmer denken, entscheiden und handeln. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Frei, F. 2016. Hierarchie. Das Ende eines Erfolgsrezepts. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers. Freimuth, J. 2010. Moderation. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Freimuth, J., und T. Barth, Hrsg. 2014. Handbuch Moderation. Konzepte, Anwendungen und Entwicklungen. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Freimuth, J., und F. Straub, Hrsg. 1996. Demokratisierung von Organisationen. Philosophie, Ursprünge und Perspektiven der Metaplan-Idee. Wiesbaden: Gabler. Freudenthal, T. 2020. Digitales Lernen? Wie du mit der richtigen Lernstrategie neues Wissen aufbaust. Schneller, hochmotiviert und nachhaltig. Hückelhoven: Remote Verlag. Frieling, E., et al. 2000. Flexibilität und Kompetenz: Schaffen flexible Unternehmen kompetente und flexible Mitarbeiter?Münster: Waxmann. Fuchs, T. 2017. Das Gehirn. Ein Beziehungsorgan. Eine phänomenologisch-ökologische Konzeption. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Funcke, A., und E.  Havenith. 2011. Moderations-Tools. Anschauliche, aktivierende und klärende Methoden für die Moderationspraxis. Bonn: managerSeminare. Gawande, A. 2010. The checklist Manifesto. How to get things right. New York: Picador. Gigerenzer, G. 2007. Bauchentscheidungen. Die Intelligenz des Unbewussten und die Macht der Intuition. München: Bertelsmann. Gnahs, D. 2010. Kompetenzen – Erwerb, Erfassung, Instrumente. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.

Further Reading

189

Graeßner, G. 2013. Moderation – das Lehrbuch. Gruppensteuerung und Prozessbegleitung. Augsburg: Ziel. Groß, S. 2020a. Großgruppenmoderation. Bonn: Socialnet. https://www.socialnet.de/ lexikon/Grossgruppenmoderation. Accessed on 28 Feb 2021. ———. 2020b. Open space. Bonn: Socialnet. https://www.socialnet.de/lexikon/Open-­ Space. Accessed on 28 Feb 2021. Grote, S., Hrsg. 2012. Die Zukunft der Führung. Berlin: Springer Gabler. Haft, F., und K. von Schlieffen, Hrsg. 2002. Handbuch Mediation. München: Beck. Hake, T., Hrsg. 2013. Von der Herausforderung, die Lösung (noch) nicht zu kennen. Entwicklungskonzepte für Organisationen und Menschen in Zeiten rapiden Wandels. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Hartmann, M. 2011. Die Praxis des Vertrauens. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge. Heintel, P., Hrsg. 2008. betrifft: TEAM. Dynamische Prozesse in Gruppen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. Heintel, P., und E.  Krainz. 2015. Projektmanagement. Hierarchiekrise, Systemabwehr, Komplexitätsbewältigung. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Herrmann, U., Hrsg. 2020. Neurodidaktik. Grundlagen für eine Neuropsychologie des Lernens. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Herzog, W. 2013. Bildungsstandards. Eine kritische Einführung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Heßler, M., und D.  Mersch, Hrsg. 2009. Logik des Bildlichen. Zur Kritik der ikonischen Vernunft. Bielefeld: Transcript. Hörning, K. 2001. Experten des Alltags. Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens. Göttingen: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Kahneman, D. 2011. Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken. München: Siedler. Klebert, K., et al. 2002. Moderations-Methode. Das Standardwerk. Hamburg: Windmühle. Krogerus, M., und R.  Tschäppler. 2008. 50 Erfolgsmodelle. Kleines Handbuch für strategische Entscheidungen. Zürich: Kein & Aber. Kühl, S., und J. Muster. 2016. Organisationen gestalten. Eine kurze organisationstheoretisch informierte Handreichung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Leitner, H. 2007. Mustertheorie. Einführung und Perspektiven auf den Spuren von Christoph Alexander. Graz: Nausner & Nausner. Levold, T., und M. Wirsching, Hrsg. 2016. Systemische Therapie und Beratung – das große Lehrbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Lowy, A., und P. Hood. 2004. Power of the 2 × 2 Matrix. Using 2 × 2 thinking to solve business problems and make better decisions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lutterer, W. 2009. Gregory Bateson  – Eine Einführung in sein Denken. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Maleh, C. 2000. Open Space. Effektiv arbeiten mit großen Gruppen. Ein Handbuch für Anwender, Entscheider und Berater. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Mandl, C., M.  Hauser, und H.  Mandl. 2008. Die schöpferische Besprechung. Kunst und Praxis des Dialogs in Organisationen. Gevelsberg: EHP. March, J. 1988. Decisions and organizations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Mayer, C. 2008. Hieroglyphen der Psyche. Mit Patientenskizzen zum Kern der Psychodynamik. Stuttgart: Schattauer.

190

Further Reading

Meier, R. 2016. Das Einzige, was stört, sind die Teilnehmer. Schwierige Seminarsituationen meistern. Offenbach: Gabal. Meyer-Grashorn, A. 2009. Spinnen ist Pflicht. Querdenken und Neues schaffen. München: Allitera. Montada, L., und E.  Kals. 2001. Mediation. Lehrbuch für Psychologen und Juristen. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. Muuß Merholz, J. 2019. Barcamps & Co. Peer-to-Peer Methoden für Fortbildungen. Weinheim: Beltz. Neuland, M. 1995. Neuland-Moderation. Eichenzell: Neuland. Neuweg, G. 2004. Könnerschaft und implizites Wissen. Zur lehr-lerntheoretischen Bedeutung der Erkenntnis – und Wissenstheorie Michael Polanyis. Münster: Waxmann. Oser, F., und M. Spychiger. 2005. Lernen ist schmerzhaft. Zur Theorie des Negativen Wissens und zur Praxis der Fehlerkultur. Weinheim: Beltz. Owen, H. 1997. Open space technology. A user’s guide. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Pfizenmaier, R., et al., Hrsg. 2016. Auf dem Markt der Experten. Zwischen Überforderung und Vielfalt. Frankfurt aM Main.: Büchergilde Gutenberg. Polanyi, M. 1958. In Knowing and being. Essays by Michael Polanyi, ed. Marjorie Grene. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ———. 2009. The tacit dimension. With a new foreword by Amartya Sen. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Redlich, A. 1997. Konfliktmoderation. Handlungsstrategien für alle, die mit Gruppen arbeiten. Mit vier Fallbeispielen. Hamburg: Windmühle. Rief, S. 2015. Methode zur Analyse des Besprechungsgeschehens und zur Konzeption optimierter räumlich-technischer Infrastrukturen für Besprechungen. Stuttgart: Frauenhofer. Roam, D. 2008. The back of the napkin. Solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. London: Penguin. Rosa, H. 2005. Beschleunigung. Die Veränderung der Zeitstrukturen in der Moderne. Frankfurt aM Main: Suhrkamp. ———. 2016a. Resonanzpädagogik. Wenn es im Klassenzimmer knistert. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. ———. 2016b. Resonanz. Eine Soziologie der Weltbeziehung. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Rosa, H. und W.  Endres. 2016. Resonanzpädagogik. Wenn es im Klassenzimmer knistert. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Rustler, F. 2016. Denkwerkzeuge. Das kleine Handbuch der Innovationsmethoden. Zürich: Midas. Schallmo, D. 2017. Design Thinking erfolgreich anwenden. So entwickeln Sie in 7 Phasen kundenorientierte Produkte und Dienstleistungen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Scharmer, O. 1991. Ästhetik als Kategorie strategischer Führung: Der ästhetische Typus von wirtschaftlichen Organisationen. Stuttgart: Urachhaus. Schmale, H., et al., Hrsg. 2009. Wissen/Nichtwissen. München: Wilhelm Fink. Schmeer, G. 2006. Die Resonanzbildmethode  – Visuelles Lernen in der Gruppe. Selbsterfahrung-­Team-Organisation. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Schnelle, E. 1973. Metaplan-Zielsuche. Lernprozess der Beteiligten und Betroffenen. Quickborn: Metaplan. Schnelle, W. 2006. Diskursive Organisations- und Strategieberatung. Norderstedt: BoD.

Further Reading

191

Schnetzler, N. 2006. Die Ideenmaschine. Methode statt Geistesblitz – Wie Ideen industriell produziert werden. Weinheim: Wiley. Schön, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schulz von Thun, F. 2001. Miteinander reden 3. Das ‚innere Team‘ und situationsgerechte Kommunikation. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Schuman, S., Hrsg. 2006. Creating a culture of collaboration. The international association of facilitators handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schuster, M., und B.  Woschek, Hrsg. 1989. Nonverbale Kommunikation durch Bilder. Stuttgart: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie. Schwäbisch, L., und M. Siems. 2003. Anleitung zum sozialen Lernen für Paare, Gruppen und Erzieher. Kommunikations- und Verhaltenstraining. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Schwarz, G. 2000. Die “heilige Ordnung” der Männer. Patriarchalische Hierarchie und Gruppendynamik. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher. Schwarz, R. 2002. The skilled facilitator. A comprehensive resource for consultants, facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwarz, G. 2014. Konfliktmanagement. Konflikte erkennen, analysieren, lösen. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Seifert, J. 2001. Visualisieren, Präsentieren, Moderieren. Offenbach: Gabal. Seliger, R. 2015. Einführung in Großgruppenmethoden. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Senge, P. 2008. Die fünfte Disziplin. Kunst und Praxis der lernenden Organisation. Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. Sennett, R. 2008. Handwerk. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. Siebert, H. 2003. Didaktisches Handeln in der Erwachsenenbildung. Didaktik aus konstruktivistischer Sicht. München/Unterschleißheim: Luchterhand. Simon, F. 1991. Meine Psychose, mein Fahrrad und ich. Zur Selbstorganisation der Verrücktheit. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. ———. 1998. Radikale Marktwirtschaft. Grundlagen des systemischen Managements. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. ———. 2013. Gemeinsam sind wir blöd!? Die Intelligenz von Unternehmen, Managern und Märkten. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Stahl, E. 2002. Dynamik in Gruppen. Handbuch der Gruppenleitung. Weinheim: Beltz. Storch, M. 2011. Motto-Ziele und Motivation. Wie Ziele mit Kraft, Lust und hoher Wirksamkeit entwickelt werden. 2 DVD. Müllheim-Baden: Auditorium Netzwerk. Strauch, A., S.  Jütten, und E.  Mania. 2009. Kompetenzerfassung in der Weiterbildung. Instrumente und Methoden situativ anwenden. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann. Sunstein, C., und R.  Hastie. 2015. Wiser. Getting beyond groupthinking to make groups smarter. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Sutherland, J. 2015. Scrum. The art of doing twice the work in half the time. London: Penguin. Sutrich, O., et  al. 2016. Wie Organisationen gut entscheiden. Innovative Werkzeuge für Führungskräfte, Projektmanager, Teams und Unternehmen. Stuttgart: Haufe. Thomann, C. 2010. Klärungshilfe 2. Konflikte im Beruf: Methoden und Modelle klärender Gespräche. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

192

Further Reading

Thomann, C., und F. Schulz von Thun. 2007. Klärungshilfe 1. Handbuch für Therapeuten, Gesprächshelfer und Moderatoren in schwierigen Gesprächen. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Tietze, K.-O. 2010. Kollegiale Beratung. Problemlösungen gemeinsam entwickeln. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. Varga von Kibéd, M., und I. Sparrer. 2016. Ganz im Gegenteil. Tetralemmaarbeit und andere Grundformen systemischer Strukturaufstellungen  – für Querdenker und solche, die es werden wollen. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Vieweg, W. 2015. Management in Komplexität und Unsicherheit. Für agile Manager. Wiesbaden: Springer. Vollmer, A., M. Dick, und T. Wehner, Hrsg. 2015. Konstruktive Kontroverse in Organisationen. Konflikte bearbeiten, Entscheidungen treffen, Innovationen fördern. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. Von Hertel, A. 2005. Professionelle Konfliktlösung. Führen mit Mediationskompetenz. Frankfurt aM Main: Campus. Von Kanitz, A. 2016. Crashkurs Professionell Moderieren. Freiburg: Haufe. Von Pierer, H., und B. von Oetinger, Hrsg. 1997. Wie kommt das Neue in die Welt?München: Hanser. Von Tiesenhausen, M. 2015. Ad Hoc Visualisieren. Denken sichtbar machen. Göttingen: Business Village. Weinbauer-Heidel, I. 2016. Was Trainings wirklich wirksam macht. 12 Stellhebel der Transferwirksamkeit. In Mit Beiträgen von Masha Ibeschitz-Manderbach. Hamburg: Tredition. Weiss, M. 2011. Management in Skizzen. Die Kraft der Bilder im Change Management. Bern: Haupt. Wendorff, J. 2009. Das LEHRbuch. Trainerwissen auf den Punkt gebracht. Bonn: managerSeminare. Wenger, E. 1999. Communities of practice. Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitmore, J. 2009. Coaching for performance. Growing human potential and performance. The principles and practice of coaching and leadership. London: Nichoals Brealey. Will, H. 2010. Psychoanalytische Kompetenzen. Standards und Ziele für die psychotherapeutische Ausbildung und Praxis. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. Willke, H. 2004. Einführung in das systemische Wissensmanagement. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Witte, E. 2012. Gruppen aufgabenzentriert moderieren. Theorie und Praxis. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Zepke, G. 2005. Reflexionsarchitekturen. Evaluierung als Beitrag zum Organisationslernen. Heidelberg: Carl Auer. Zubizarreta, R., und M. zur Bonsen. 2014. Dynamic Facilitation. Die erfolgreiche Moderationsmethode für schwierige und verfahrene Situationen. Weinheim: Beltz.