Facilitation vs

Facilitation vs. Mediation – Similarities and Differences: Should I Facilitate Because I Mediate?

By Shari Swoish and Louise Wildee

Presented by: Ruth Britt, Rita Callahan & Janice Fleischer

The presenters told us that they were here to get our input and share their experience instead of simply providing details on how to facilitate. This lively and interactive session was cleverly presented by demonstrating facilitation techniques as if the attendees were members of a facilitation group. The three presenters offered a variety of approaches to highlight the differences between facilitation and mediation. The goal was to educate mediators about how to expand their practice to include facilitation and to do so effectively.

Introduction:

The discussion was captured using graphic recording—Ruth used a long piece of paper to draw the process as it unfolded, adding dialogue and pictures to graphically record the participants’ comments and create a group memory of the event.

Rita asked participants to introduce themselves in order to reveal something fun about group members; sharing something personal with the group can be an effective way to break down barriers.

During a facilitated discussion, attendees offered the following ways that this session mirrored an actual facilitation session:

Setting the agenda

Checking in with the group

Acknowledging the time

Writing legibly

Blending the speakers’ styles

Laying out expectations—what would and would not be addressed

Creating environment / setting tone

Establishing credibility; demonstrating what they want to convey

Keying in on the group’s language

Self-monitoring in a public way

Ruth summarized the goal of the opening activities using the Drixler/Sibbet Team Performance^TM model which she often uses as a framework for process design. The facilitation opens with the first three elements of the model:

1. Why are we here? (Orientation)

2. Who are you? (Building Trust)

3. What are we going to do? (Goal Clarification)

Guidelines:

Janice asked/told the group:

Have you ever been facilitated before?

We’ll develop meeting guidelines for this meeting (ground rules)

Janice asked for two rules: (1) Phones/beepers on vibrate and leave the room to accept phone calls and (2) no side conversations.

Other guidelines that the group might develop or would be suggested by the facilitator for acceptance by the group (i.e., no personalizing; no making assumptions; agree on the meaning of important words, etc.)

Ruth used the term ‘norms’ and let the group decide the norms

Mediation vs. Facilitation

The following are elements that attendees offered as being unique to mediation, though this may not be the case.

Confidential

Take as long as needed

Number of parties

Language (party v. participant)

There is always a conflict as a catalyst

Parties are involved in the conflict

Discusses the past

Fluid agenda

Emotions dealt with differently; spends longer time in mediation

Is more personal and focused on individual goals

No exercises or activities

Mediation is more closed-ended

What Makes a Facilitation a Facilitation?

Participants may be representatives of a group or entity (government, citizen group, environment, development, etc.)

Facilitation is interested in ensuring that the right participants are at the table (no empty seat that could ultimately spoil the results of the process)

Participants are often designated to attend by their entity, making participation potentially non-voluntary

Janice:

If the conflict is crystallized, she is mediating.

If the conflict does not exist or is to be prevented, she is facilitating.

Rita:

When a legal element is involved, it may be mediation.

When it is a confidential matter, it may be mediation.

When the neutral provides the process and the participants own the content, it is mediation. When the facilitator designs the process, in collaboration with stakeholders, and executes the process to meet the goals of the stakeholders, it is facilitation.

Janice:

The definition has nothing to do with the number of participants; it is the process used.

Mediation involves a general knowledge of the process; in facilitation, the process has not yet been defined.

In mediations, the mediator may first hear about the parties when everyone sits down at the table; in facilitations, you never go in without first doing homework on the topic and participants (stakeholders).

In facilitations, there hasn’t always been a conflict. The question may be asked: “How do you want me to handle the conflict when it happens?”

In a facilitated discussion led by Ruth, participants offered the skills or knowledge needed to be a facilitator:

Ability to deal with large groups; using microphones
Convening
Investigation
Handling layered dynamic of communications
Skills around the process
Surface and understand to have others hear
More energy
How to manage the energy of the group
Is not always a highly dynamic process
Do not assume consensus is needed
Conversations before the facilitation (i.e., how invested are they in the design process, is everyone necessary included?)

In a facilitated discussion, participants offered the different types of roles when facilitating:

1. More flexible (what do you need me to be?)

Mirror, or what might be referred to as ‘naming the elephant.’ The facilitator notes what they are observing and asks the group to comment and consider…helpful when group dynamics need to be addressed or if there is a conflict that isn’t being dealt with.
Designing the process
Controlling the process (monitoring time, providing directions, keeping the group on target)
Recording the process
Using techniques and models – e.g. graphic facilitation, Drixler/Sibbet Team Performance^TM Model, etc.

2. Examples of Application:

· Mentoring

· Visioning

· Strategic planning

· Retreat

· Public policy

· Team building

· Program work

· Environmental

· Conflict Resolution

· Decision Making

Janice notes: do not confuse the verb “facilitating” as in “facilitating a dialogue” with the noun “facilitation.”

Tips and Tools:

Knowledge and use of facilitation tools and techniques will help you to design interactive processes that fully engage participants in the event. For instance, graphic recording can be done by the participants, using a ‘sticky wall’ to brainstorm, sort, and group ideas; use icebreakers and energizers to build rapport and change the group dynamics or try some of the following ideas:

Ask: who will provide the fun?

Ask: who will be the consultant? (brings in bizarre ideas, especially when group knows each other).

Walk the room: review what the group has done by walking around the room and summarizing.

Question from an attendee: “How do you keep track of power balances?”

Answer: Facilitators can deliberately design who is in each group and encourage people to disagree. This is only one answer among many techniques that can be used.

Summary:

Importance of contracting the facilitation engagement

Homework is done prior to the facilitation

Outcomes and goals vary by needs of the group

Use or can use a variety of processes

The process is not yet defined

You can just “trust the group”

For additional information, please contact the presenters:

RUTH BRITT

I C Me in the Solution

Building TSA’s Model Workplace & Integrated Conflict Management System

571-227-3607