Content uploaded by Glyn Thomas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Glyn Thomas on Jan 26, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is the final draft of the published article
1st Draft of Chapter in IFA – Group Facilitation Handbook
Page 1 of 14
Dimensions of Facilitator Education.
By
Glyn Thomas
La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria
Abstract
The literature on facilitation describes the skills, methods, models and theories of facilitation but
gives less coverage to the assumptions and philosophies that underpin the processes by which
facilitators develop. This chapter reviews the literature on facilitation in an organisational development
context and provides a model, which helps to organize and differentiate approaches to facilitator
education. In The Dimensions of Facilitator Education Model, technical facilitator education
approaches are skills-based and formulaic whereas intentional facilitator education approaches
purposively ground facilitation skills and methods in theory. Person centered facilitator education
approaches intentionally emphasize the attitudes, personal qualities or presence of the facilitator
whereas critical facilitator education approaches seek to raise the awareness of the political nature of
facilitation. The model provides an interpretive framework to stimulate reflection, discussion and
further research into the theory and practice of facilitator education within the organisational
development field.
The literature on facilitation is primarily
focused on describing facilitation skills and
models for practice, and to a lesser extent, the
theories of facilitation practice. There is
however, considerably less focus on the
assumptions and or philosophies that underpin
facilitation practice. Similarly, there is little
discussion about the processes that may help
facilitators to develop their skills, competence,
judgment and theoretical grounding.
Historically, most of the literature on
facilitation has not has not been grounded in
empirical research although recently there has
been growth in the research based facilitation
literature within the organisational development
(OD) field (see Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002;
Mongeau & Morr, 1999; Niederman &
Volkema, 1999).
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a
model that differentiates the numerous
approaches to facilitator education found in the
facilitation literature within an OD context.
Hopefully, the model presented will provide a
useful interpretive framework to stimulate
reflection, discussion and further research into
the theory and practice of facilitator education.
The aim here is not to provide an extensive
review of the facilitation skills, strategies,
models and theories described in the literature
but rather the focus will be on the assumptions
and or philosophies underpinning facilitator
education as stated or implied in the facilitation
literature. First though, let’s consider the
growing emphasis of facilitation within the OD
field.
The Demand for Facilitator Education in
Organisation Development
The growing need for more facilitative
styles of management seems to be commonly
accepted in the OD literature even though there
is little empirical evidence to support this view.
Global economic change continues to put
increased pressure on organisations via
increased competition for customers, the rapid
development of technology, reductions in
production costs, and the proliferation of
customers who are increasingly sophisticated
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 2 of 14
about choices and pricing (Marsick & Watkins,
1999; Weaver & Farrell, 1997). Hogan (2002)
contends that to meet these challenges there has
been a increase in participatory approaches to
management which has boosted the profile of
facilitation. Pierce, Cheesebrow, & Braun
(2000) also state that “facilitation is
increasingly being used as a participatory tool
for getting results in group dialogue, analysis,
decision making, and planning” (p. 31).
There has been a corresponding shift away
from traditional conceptions of management, of
command and control, to a new focus on
employee involvement, self managed work
teams, and Total Quality Management
approaches (Stahl, 1995). The traditional
management functions of planning, organizing,
leading and controlling are now shared with
non-supervisory employees at different
organisational levels because there is too much
to do, and not enough time to do it. The effect
on managers has been significant, “the pace of
work is faster and more furious … managers
have to deal with a staggering amount of
information … they have far more
responsibilities and fewer resources to get the
job done …technology is rapidly changing the
way people work together ... it is common for
work groups to be geographically dispersed.
Meetings frequently take place over the phone,
and sales transactions are made via e-mail”
(Weaver & Farrell, 1997, p. 2).
Responsive organisations require managers
who are genuinely committed to deep change in
themselves and in their organisations. These
managers lead by developing new skills,
capabilities and understandings and they come
from many places within the organisations
(Senge, 1996, p. 45). Larsen, McInerney,
Nyquist, Silsbee, & Zagonal (2002, p. 31) state
that “group facilitation is often the necessary
process that allows organisations to learn and to
learn how to change” and managers within
organisations are increasingly being expected to
act as de facto facilitators (Webne-Behrman,
1998). Despite the lack of empirical research
examining the roles and behaviors of leaders
and managers and their effect on learning in
their organizations, in many organisations today
managers are exhorted to become teachers,
educators, developers, leaders of learning,
strategic learning managers, and coaches
(Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002).
In one of the rare empirical studies on
facilitation in an OD context, Ellinger and
Bostrom (2002) explored the mental models of
exemplary managers as they were serving as
facilitators of learning. They found that
organisations with new empowerment
paradigms needed to focus management
development initiatives on more than just
behavior (coaching skills) but they must also
focus on the beliefs managers hold. Many
managers in progressive organisations have had
to shift away from a traditional control model to
a learning facilitator model. A supportive
organisational culture was mentioned by
managers in the study as very important in
sustaining and supporting the transition to the
facilitator of learning role - a process which
takes time and presents many challenges
(Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002).
Larsen et al. (2002) also espouse the
importance of the participation of skilled
facilitators in the development of the core
disciplines of learning organisations as
identified by Senge (1990) which include:
personal mastery, mental models, team
learning, shared vision, and systems thinking.
In their summary of the literature (Larsen et al.,
2002) describe the key characteristics of a
learning organisation as, “a belief in the ability
of people and organisations to change and
become more effective, and that change
requires open communication and
empowerment of community members as well
as a culture of collaboration” (p. 31). In
response to this growing demand for facilitation
the Facilitator Competency Model was
developed by the International Association of
Facilitators (IAF) and the Institute of Cultural
Affairs (ICA) (Pierce et al., 2000) to: define the
profession, guide facilitators professional
development, provide a framework for those
who serve as mentors to other facilitators,
provide a system of certification, and be a
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 3 of 14
resource to those developing academic
programs specific to facilitation.
To balance this rosy view of facilitation in
OD, Hughes (1999) warns that although the
workplace is usually seen as a rich and exciting
learning environment, it can also be an
extremely hostile one and it “can be argued that
the role of employers and their supervisors as
facilitators of learning is also fundamentally
problematic because of the hierarchy and
conflict of interest that is inherent in the
relationships involved (Hughes, 1999, p. 34).
In summary, although some aspects of
facilitation within OD may be problematic yet
there is no shortage of literature espousing the
value of facilitation in this context, as we will
see in the next section. However, the
facilitation literature is not in full agreement on
how managers or consultants may be best
educated to fulfill these facilitation roles in OD.
Some of the differences in approaches to
facilitator education approaches evident in the
literature will now be addressed.
Different Approaches to Facilitator
Education
A range of definitions and
conceptualizations of the facilitation process
exist within the literature, which typically
describe how facilitation should occur which
influences how facilitator education should
proceed. This chapter deliberately uses the term
facilitator education rather than facilitator
training or facilitator development because, as
suggested by Hogan (2002), the term
‘education’ implies a deeper level of
engagement than ‘training’ or ‘development’
implies.
Many of the approaches to facilitator
education in the literature seem to fit into one
of the following broad frameworks:
• Technical facilitator education
approaches which are skills-based, and
formulaic in style (see Bendaly, 2000;
Hart, 1991, 1992; Havergal &
Edmonstone, 1999; Parry, 1995; Sharp,
1992);
• Intentional facilitator education
approaches where practice is grounded
in theory and justifications for particular
interventions are provided (see Bentley,
1994; Brockbank & McGill, 1998;
Heron, 1989, 1993, 1999; Priest, Gass,
& Gillis, 2000; Schwarz, 2002; Weaver
& Farrell, 1997);
• Person centered facilitator education
approaches which specifically
emphasize the attitudes, personal
qualities and presence of the facilitator
(see Hunter, Bailey, & Taylor, 1999;
Ringer, 2002; Rogers, 1983, 1989);
• Critical facilitator education
approaches that emphasizes an
increased awareness of the political
nature of facilitation and the effects on
all participants (see Kirk & Broussine,
2000).
These categories are forthwith called
dimensions and figure 1 illustrates their
relationship to each other in the Dimensions of
Facilitator Education Model shown in figure 1.
Previously, Thomas (in press) used a typology
to describe the differences between approaches
to facilitation education in an experiential
education context.
However, following a workshop at an
Australasian Facilitator’s Network conference
in November 2003 where the aforementioned
typology was discussed, feedback from
participants suggested that nested boxes more
effectively communicate the relationship
between the different approaches to facilitator
education than a typology. Before describing
these dimensions it is important to clarify two
issues. Firstly, each larger box implies an
extension on the box, which nests inside it. In
this respect the model implies there is a
progression in the depth and complexity of the
facilitator education process because the
literature describes it that way. Secondly, whilst
many of the approaches to facilitator education
did tend to fit within a single dimension this
was not true of all the literature.
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 4 of 14
Critical
Facilitator
Education
Person Centered
Facilitator
Education
Approaches that
raise an
awareness of
Intentional Facilitator
Education
Approaches
intentionally
emphasizing
attitudes,
personal
the political
nature of
facilitation
Technical Facilitator
Education
Approaches that are skills-
based and formulaic
Approaches
that are
purposively
grounded in
theory
qualities and/or
presence of the
facilitator
Figure 1. The Dimensions of Facilitator Education Model
Some approaches to facilitator education
(see Hogan, 2002, 2003; Hunter, Bailey, &
Taylor, 1995; Hunter et al., 1999; Pierce et al.,
2000) discuss the importance of processes in
more than one of the dimensions presented in
the model. Descriptions of each of the
dimensions will now be provided.
The Technical Facilitator Education
Dimension. Approaches to facilitation that may
be classified as technical, focus on the skills
and competencies required to facilitate groups.
Implicit within these approaches is the
assumption that by mastering a certain set of
skills and methods an individual can learn to
effectively facilitate a group’s process.
However, there is a range of approaches to
facilitation even within this category. In the
“The Facilitation Skills Training Kit” Bendaly
(2000) presents twenty skills-focused modules
that can be used to help people to develop
facilitation skills. The delivery of each module
is highly structured, inflexible, and outcomes
focused. A similar facilitation training resource
developed by Hart (1991; 1992), called the
“Faultless Facilitation Method”, provides an
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 5 of 14
equally prescriptive training program focused
on developing particular facilitation skills. Hart
provides detailed lesson plans, examples of
course overviews, resources, and evaluation
forms. The “Facilitator’s Toolkit” by Havergal
and Edmonstone (1999) takes a similar
approach to facilitator education. All of the
above authors are deliberately prescriptive
about the skills they believe are needed to
facilitate effectively.
In an article focusing on the ‘never-evers’
of workshop facilitation, Sharp (1992) provides
a list of twenty practical tips for potential
facilitators and all but one of the suggestions
relate to specific actions. Only one of the
‘never-evers’ deals with the beliefs or attitudes
of the facilitator. Parry (1995) maintains that
facilitators, in addition to possessing certain
attributes, need a combination of technical
skills, behavioral and interpersonal skills, and
consultancy skills. Not all the literature within
this classification is as formulaic in the way
they conceptualize facilitation as the previous
examples. Although still emphasizing the need
to develop skills, Hackett and Martin (1993)
also consider ideas and concepts. Justice and
Jamieson (1999) predominantly emphasize the
need for skills but they do also provide some
brief discussion on the need to “draw on some
knowledge bases useful to facilitation” and to
“employ personal characteristics that are
helpful to the facilitator role” (p. 5).
In summary, the majority of literature
reviewed that fits into this technical facilitator
education category focuses on the skills that
facilitators need, using what may be described
as a competency based training approach. [At
this point it is important to distinguish the
difference between a competency based
training approach and the Facilitator
Competency Model developed by the IAF and
ICA (Pierce et al., 2000). The Facilitator
Competency Model uses the term competency
in a much broader sense and some of the
“competencies” presented in that model could
perhaps be more accurately described as the
values, goals or commitments of a professional
facilitator (Hogan, 2002; Schwarz, 2000)].
Competency based training tends to downplay
the affective and cognitive dimensions of
learning which means that it may fail to address
values and professionalism, conceptual
knowledge, underpinning experience, and tacit
knowledge (James, 2001). Some sections of the
literature within this dimension provide little or
no discussion about the theories upon which
skills or actions are based, or about the values,
attitudes and beliefs that are conducive to
effective facilitation. Hogan (2002, p. 207)
describes these kind of approaches as having a
“‘box of tricks’ mindset” and she tries to help
emerging facilitators to become “aware of the
complexities of human behavior and the
responsibilities of their facilitation roles”. Some
of the literature within this dimension provide
an impression that facilitation is easy if you
follow the recipes provided, which would be
fine if the “ingredients” were all the same!
Whilst this kind of thinking may facilitate book
sales approaches to facilitator education that do
not move beyond this first dimension belie the
true complexity and difficulty of facilitation in
many OD contexts. Many of the approaches to
facilitator education in the next dimension of
the model explain the importance of helping
emerging facilitators to move beyond this
dimension of technical facilitator education.
The Intentional Facilitator Education
Dimension. Approaches within this category
recognize the important of teaching prospective
facilitators suitable methods, skills and
strategies but in this dimension facilitators are
encouraged be intentional, “in the sense that the
facilitator is conscious of what she (sic) is
doing and why" (Brockbank & McGill, 1998, p.
152). This type of explicit intentionality is
demonstrated: in the dialogue used, through an
awareness of the process, by making otherwise
hidden processes explicit, by encouraging an
awareness of personal stances, and by modeling
desired behaviors (Brockbank & McGill, 1998).
Weaver & Farrell (1997, p. xiv) are critical
of authors who "assume that facilitation is
simply having a sufficiently large stock of tools
that can be selected when a group becomes
bogged down” and they maintain that “effective
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 6 of 14
facilitation reflects a practical set of skills and
knowledge that helps people work together
better to complete real work". Bentley (1994)
states that traditional definitions of facilitation
describe an activity - things that people do.
However, he argues that it also includes “non-
action, silence and even the facilitator’s
absence" (Bentley, 1994, p. 10). Thus, the
intentional facilitator must not only carefully
consider how they act and respond but also how
and when to “not respond”.
In one of the rare articles based on
empirical research, Ellinger and Bostrom
(2002) explored the way that managers frame
their roles and the beliefs that they have about
learners and the learning process. The research
used a descriptive qualitative methodology
which included semi-structured interviews with
twelve managers and an adaptation of the
Critical Incident Technique (Flanagan, 1954;
Ellinger and Watkins, 1998; cited in Ellinger &
Bostrom, 2002). This technique involved
systematic and sequential procedures to record
detailed observations of critical incidents in the
past. The data were then analyzed using content
analysis to establish emerging themes and
develop broad psychological principles
(Ellinger & Bostrom, 2002). A purposive
sampling strategy was used and the managers
who participated came recommended by their
employers as exemplary facilitators of learning.
Weaknesses in the research design, including
problems with the assessment process used to
ascertain the participants’ status as “exemplary”
facilitators and the heavy reliance on memories
of critical incidents, do not detract from the
findings of this piece of exploratory research.
In the study it was found that managers
perceive their roles as ‘manager’ and ‘facilitator
of learning’ distinctly. The findings indicated
that managers will only successfully shift from
a traditional managerial controlling role to a
facilitator of learning role if their corresponding
beliefs are also changed. Ellinger and Bostrom
(2002, p. 173) found that, “while most
management development programs often focus
on skill or behavior development, few if any
focus on the belief aspects associated with
acquired new behaviors”. One of the research
recommendations for improved facilitation
education for managers is that “skill training
and interventions that focus on behavioral
change must pay attention to beliefs” (Ellinger
& Bostrom, 2002, p. 173). The study also
highlighted the need for a supportive
organisational culture in sustaining and
supporting the transition to the facilitator of
learning role, a process that takes time and
presents many challenges.
In one of the more comprehensive texts on
facilitation, Schwarz (2002) outlines “The
Skilled Facilitator Approach” which is based on
a set of core values, assumptions, and
principles. His systems approach integrates
theory and practice and focuses on the internal
and external work of facilitation. The first
premise on which Schwarz builds his whole
approach to facilitation involves making core
values explicit. He explains that, “rendering
them explicit enables you to understand and
evaluate them directly rather than having to
infer them from the techniques I describe”
(Schwarz, 2002, p. 9). The other premise of
Schwarz’s approach is understanding and
establishing ground rules for effective groups,
because they function as a diagnostic tool and a
teaching tool for developing effective group
norms. Schwarz’s (2002) approach is
intentional because he explains that “you not
only need a set of methods and techniques but
also an understanding of how and why they
work … you see the reasoning that underlies
each technique and method … you can
improvise and design new methods and
techniques consistent with the core values…
you can discuss your approach with clients so
they can make informed choices about choosing
you as a facilitator “ (p. 9).
In a critique of technical approaches to
facilitation, Schwarz states it is “not simply a
matter of learning new strategies, tools, or
techniques. Your ineffectiveness results from
the core values and assumptions you hold”
(Schwarz, 2002, p. 66). Schwarz warns aspiring
facilitators of uncritically borrowing methods
and techniques from a variety of other
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 7 of 14
approaches because basing methods and
techniques on conflicting values and principles
can also lead to ineffectiveness. He explains
that simply “changing what you say and how
you say it is not sufficient to significantly
change the unintended consequences you get”
(2002, p. 93). In conditions of low favorability
the facilitator’s theory-in-use (see Argyris &
Schön, 1996) will override any new behavior
that lacks a corresponding change in thinking
patterns, which supports his stance that
facilitation approaches that only teach
techniques to improve facilitation will not work
in difficult situations.
Heron has published numerous books on
the topic of group facilitation over the last few
decades (for example see 1989; 1993) but his
latest book, “The Complete Facilitator” (1999),
presents the culmination of his published work
on the topic of facilitation to date. Heron (1999)
creates a matrix of eighteen options for
facilitation. The matrix is a combination of six
dimensions of facilitation (planning, meaning,
confronting, feeling, structuring and valuing)
and three modes of facilitation (hierarchical,
co-operative, autonomous). Heron suggests the
matrix can be used: to make facilitators aware
of the range and subtlety of options; as a self
and peer assessment tool to work on strengths
and weaknesses; and to devise training
exercises to develop skill within particular
modes and dimensions. Heron is not
prescriptive or formulaic with these eighteen
different combinations of modes and
dimensions of facilitation but from a pragmatic
perspective, the matrix is rather complicated.
Priest et al. (2000) encourage facilitators to
clarify their own personal belief systems and to
develop knowledge of organisational
development theories. With a very pragmatic
feel they present a smorgasbord of facilitation
ideas, methods and models to help facilitators
increase their effectiveness but unlike Heron
(1999) and Schwarz (2002) there is not a
central model or theory to hold things together.
Van Maurik (1994, p. 34) developed a
model that summarizes the range of facilitation
styles that can also be used by facilitators in a
management context. The model outlines four
different facilitation styles with varying degrees
of knowledge input and process input. The
model is similar to the Situational Leadership
Model developed by Hersey and Blanchard
(1993) in that the four styles described utilize
different combinations of emphasis on task
behavior and relational behavior. Van Maurik
maintains that the challenge is for facilitators to
become more consciously aware, and
intentional, about the style they use. He
explains, “the benefits of having models of
facilitative behavior to think about are that the
facilitator can enact a more deliberate strategy
and then look to see how effective it was” (van
Maurik, 1994, p. 34).
One unresolved issue within this dimension
of facilitator education concerns the level of
awareness associated with intentionality. The
work of Schön (1988; 1995), on how
professionals practice, indicates that it is
possible that a professional could effectively
function without being able to articulate clear
rationales for their actions. According to Schön,
“there is nothing strange about the idea that a
kind of knowing is inherent in intelligent
action” and “our bias towards thinking blinds
us to the non-logical processes which are
omnipresent in effective practice” (1995, p. 52).
Proponents of this perspective would argue that
facilitators that draw on intuitive processes
practice a different kind of intentionality, yet
there is little discussion of this kind of practice
within the facilitation literature. Hunter et al.
(1999, p. 76) explain that "being connected
with and using your intuition is essential as a
facilitator” and that “often you will need to act
in the moment, with little time to think”. They
also maintain “facilitation is not a bundle of
recipes. It is much more subtle and complex
than that" (Hunter et al., 1999, p. 76).
In summary, intentional facilitator
education approaches enhance the technical
facilitator education dimension by deliberately
integrating learning about skills, techniques and
methods with learning about theories, values
and beliefs. The next dimension expands
further the facilitator education process.
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 8 of 14
The Person Centered Facilitator Education
Dimension. The person centered approach is
also intentional in nature but rather than
emphasizing skills, techniques, methods, and
the underpinning theories, facilitator education
in this dimension focuses on the qualities of the
interpersonal relationships between the
facilitator and group. Rogers (1983; 1989)
provides a good example of such an approach
because he stated that the personal qualities and
attitudes of the facilitator are more important
that any methods they employ. Rogers
explained methods and strategies will be
ineffective unless the facilitator demonstrates a
genuine desire to “create a climate in which
there is freedom to learn” (Rogers, 1983, p.
157). Rogers (1983; 1989) described the
essential personal qualities of a facilitator as:
being real; demonstrating prizing, acceptance,
and trust; and practicing empathic
understanding.
Also within this dimension, Ringer (2002)
advocates a 'subjectivist' view of group
leadership and facilitation that frees the
facilitator from “the illusion that leaders are in
control of the group. We can see our
interactions with the group in a new light: as
influence rather than control" (Ringer, 2002, p.
62). In this respect, the facilitator is still
intentional in their approach to facilitation but
their role in a group is aided less by technique
and more through the facilitator’s presence
which is developed by enhancing a conscious
awareness of his or her own subjectivity. Thus,
it is the facilitator’s presence that also becomes
the focus of their intentionality not just his or
her actions or responses to the group. Ringer’s
approach, based in psychodynamics, takes the
emphasis solely off learning skills and methods,
and raises the profile of “maintaining your self
fully present with the group and providing
appropriate support for the group to achieve its
goal” (2002, p. 18). Ringer deliberately avoids
providing “algorithmic step-by-step recipes that
are intended to substitute for the judgment and
experience of the group leader" (Ringer, 2002,
p. 38). Ringer (1999) also espouses the need for
facilitators to demonstrate suitable levels of
psychological and emotional maturity to be
make sure that group functioning is bounded,
purposeful and safe. He describes the core
aspects of this psychological maturity as: the
ability to reflect on and take responsibility for
one’s own assumptions; appropriate levels of
involvement with the group; congruence
between feelings, actions and reality; and the
ability to tolerate complexity, ambiguity, and
contradiction.
Although the model of facilitation
competencies identified by the IAF and the ICA
(Pierce et al., 2000, p. 33) focus on technical
skills and knowledge they do also recognize
that “in the art and science of guiding a group
process, facilitators develop an awareness that
they themselves are an important instrument in
getting the work done” and that facilitators
must also develop personal qualities in order to
help groups achieve their purposes. Similarly,
Hunter explains the secret to being an effective
facilitator is “more to do with who you are and
who you are being for the group you’re
working with …. The relationship you develop
with the group is the key” (in Hunter et al.,
1995, p. 201). Similarly, Hogan (2002)
enumerates the importance of relationships and
the need for facilitators to be fully present and
authentic with group members in her approach
to facilitator education.
In summary, the person centered facilitator
education dimension builds upon the previous
two dimensions in the model by encouraging
facilitator educators to also emphasize the
importance of relationships with participants
and the presence that the facilitator maintains in
the group. In the fourth and final dimension to
be discussed in the next section, facilitator
education approaches are “specifically
concerned with the influences of educational
knowledge, and of cultural formations
generally, that perpetuate or legitimate an
unjust status quo” (Burbules & Berk, 1999, p.
46).
The Critical Facilitator Education
Dimension. The dominant theme of facilitator
educator within this dimension is that
facilitators must recognize the political and
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 9 of 14
emotional impact organisations have on them.
Kirk and Broussine (2000) refute the notion of
facilitation as a set of skills and processes
which are value free, objective and neutral.
However, facilitators are often conceived as
people apart, distanced from an organization’s
political networks, and able to comment and
intervene independently and neutrally. Kirk and
Broussine (2000) argue that protestations of
facilitator neutrality show either naiveté or
cleverness because there will always be
tensions between those who wish to preserve
the system and those who wish to change it.
Other authors (Broussine et al., 1998; Cervero
& Wilson, 2001) have also identified the
difficulty for facilitators in organizations to
admit to the emotional and political aspects of
their roles.
Hughes (1999) claims that there is a
fundamental barrier to supervisors becoming
effective facilitators and those who espouse the
value of facilitation in organizations often
assume that there is no conflict of interest
between the facilitator and the learner, or they
ignore the issue altogether. These conflicts of
interest impact on the facilitator’s ability to
develop a trusting relationship and his or her
ability to foster critical reflectivity that probes
for assumptions, values and beliefs underlying
actions. In the related fields of community
development and experiential education several
authors espouse the need for a socially critical
approach to facilitation. Warren (1998)
suggests that socially critical facilitation
requires us to “become more conscious of how
methods can advance or impede social justice”
(p. 21). She is also critical of facilitation
lacking in theoretical validation and describes it
as “empty attempts to practice without a sound
grounding” and that it is particularly
irresponsible if facilitators “attempt to 'do the
right thing' without an understanding of their
own biases or the current anti-bias work
theory” (Warren, 1998, p. 23).
White (1999) adopts a socially critical
perspective by suggesting that “good
facilitators are … committed to empowering
those who are weaker, more vulnerable,
marginalized, oppressed or otherwise
disadvantaged” (p. 9). White explains that
socially critical facilitation entails unlearning,
which starts with “recognizing and countering
disabilities of orientation” which are often
imprinted or inflicted on facilitators in the name
of education and training (1999, p. 9).
Similarly, Warren (1998) is critical of
facilitation training that focuses only on
techniques and she suggests that developing
facilitators must also focus on the “social and
cultural backgrounds of their participants and
the way their locations in privilege or
marginality affect how they teach and
facilitate” (p. 23). Although most facilitation
would aim to be emancipatory, “facilitation can
become part of a system of oppression and
perpetuation of dependant relations, with
facilitators becoming unwitting agents of
manipulation and managerialism” (Kirk &
Broussine, 2000, p. 14).
Kirk and Broussine (2000) identify four
positions of facilitator awareness: partial
awareness–closed, immobilized awareness,
manipulative awareness, partial awareness–
open. They recommend practicing from the
position of partial awareness–open where the
facilitator is “aware of his or her own limited
awareness, actively and openly works with
what they think is going on in themselves, in
the group and wider system … realizing their
own partiality” (Kirk & Broussine, 2000, p.
20). To help facilitators to practice with
authority and confidence, Kirk and Broussine
(2000) provide some practical suggestions in
the context of an increased political awareness.
They suggest, facilitators should acknowledge
their partial awareness, engage in reflective
practice, give attention to their own
development, practice reflexivity, acknowledge
the complexity of facilitation role, and exercise
care about the process and for the people in the
process. The critical thinking integral to this
dimension works on the premise that "where
our beliefs remain unexamined, we are not free;
we act without thinking about why we act, and
thus do not exercise control over our own
destinies" (Burbules & Berk, 1999, p. 46).
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 10 of 14
In summary, critical facilitator education
approaches go beyond critical thinking to
specifically target beliefs, theories, and
practices which are repressive, partisan, or
implicated in the preservation of an unjust
status quo (Burbules & Berk, 1999). It is
possible, that in so doing, critical facilitator
education approaches go dangerously close to
prejudging what might be suitable facilitator
interventions, rather than allowing facilitators
to respond to the group and it’s needs ‘in the
moment’. However, critical facilitator educators
would contend that failure to focus on social
injustices under the pretense of impartiality,
would simply enshrine many conventional
assumptions in a manner that intentionally, or
unintentionally, maintains political conformity
(Burbules & Berk, 1999).
Limitations of the Model and Issues for
Facilitator Education
George Box (source unknown) is the
reported author of the quote, “All models are
wrong, some are even useful”. In the context of
the above quote The Dimensions of Facilitator
Education Model, like every other model ever
developed, fails to perfectly conceptualize the
literature on facilitator education. Some of the
limitations and potential issues with the model
will now be addressed.
As mentioned earlier, although many
examples of the literature seem to focus
primarily on one dimension of the model, some
approaches to facilitator education transcend
several dimensions of the model. The
approaches taken by Hogan (2002; 2003),
Hunter et al. (1995; 1999) and the IAF and ICA
(Pierce et al., 2000) are good examples. This is
potentially confusing but reflects the fact that
some of the literature on facilitation has a broad
facilitator education focus and it addressed a
range of facilitation competencies, knowledge,
values and beliefs. For other authors one
dimension is enough to classify the approach to
facilitator education they present. The model is
also be more user friendly if the boundaries
between each dimension are viewed as
overlapping or at least blurred.
By definition the model implies that each
new dimension incorporates the elements of
previous dimension and then adds an additional
layer of complexity of facilitator education. The
progression is in some respects sequential but
in reality facilitator education has multiple
entry points. For example, a person with
knowledge, interest, and or experience in
critical education (see Freire, 1973) or
community development in developing
countries (see Phnuyal, Archer, & Cottingham,
1997) may gravitate straight towards a critical
facilitator education approach. However, they
may also have to ‘double back’ and experience
the facilitator education approaches of previous
dimensions to master certain competencies,
gain specific knowledge, or develop certain
attributes or qualities. Similarly, before an
emerging facilitator can truly focus on the
approach of a more complex dimension of
facilitator education it could be argued that he
or she must first achieve mastery in a preceding
dimension/s of the model. Literature on the
nature of expertise (Chi, Farr, & Glaser, 1988)
suggests that experts are often able to function
with greater speed and effectiveness because
they have mastered, to a level of automaticity
(Flor & Dooley, 1998), skills or processes
required to perform particular tasks. It is
possible that the same is true for facilitators and
that they must master previous dimensions to
be ‘fully present’ and facilitate using the
approaches recommended in other dimensions
of facilitator education. Further discussion and
research is required to address the above issues.
Secondly, when the literature on facilitation
did not specifically identify processes,
rationales, or values concerning facilitator
education, judgments about authors’
perspectives on facilitator education were
made. It is possible that the critical reading of
the literature presented in this paper is flawed
or that others may interpret implied meanings
differently. It is hoped that further discussion
and research will lead to a better understanding
of facilitator education rationales. It would also
be productive if more authors were explicit
about the strategies and techniques that
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 11 of 14
emerging facilitators could use to continue their
development.
Another issue that warrants further research
is the apparent tension regarding interpretations
of intentionality. As discussed earlier, some
authors advocate an explicit intentionality and
yet there may be a case for a tacit level of
intentionality. It is hoped that further research
and discussion will contribute to an increased
understanding of the relationship between
theory and practice of facilitation in
experiential education. Hovenlynck (1998)
describes the facilitator education process as a
generative process where developing
facilitators learn to articulate what makes-
sense-in-practice, or their knowing-in-action. In
this respect, while it would be unhelpful to use
Schön’s (1988; 1995) work as an excuse for not
questioning one's theory and attempting to
express it when appropriate, Schön balances the
view that facilitators could ever hope to reach a
state of complete intentionality. Approaches
such as action learning (Weinstein, 1999) may
help lead to an alternative theory-practice
relationship which would be beneficial in
facilitator education. The action learning
framework, builds upon programmed
knowledge (pre-existing expert knowledge,
theories, and personal knowledge), by
questioning it, acting on it, and reflecting on it.
Fourth, and finally, there are some apparent
weakness in the facilitation literature at present.
Only a small proportion is grounded in
empirical research and whilst the profession
may not be well suited to positivistic studies,
research using naturalistic or interpretive
methodologies would strengthen and deepen
our understanding of facilitation practice and
theory. Methodologies based on critical theory
(Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2000) would also
be well suited to exploring the dimension of
critical facilitator education. Finally, whilst
there is ample discussion of the skills, theories
and practice of facilitation there is less
discussion in the literature about the processes
and strategies that facilitators can use to
develop their skills, understanding and
experience. The facilitation literature would
also benefit if authors were more explicit about
their assumptions or philosophies on how they
believe facilitators develop.
In conclusion, The Dimensions of
Facilitator Education Model presented in this
chapter has been developed to provide an
interpretive framework for continued research
and discussion about facilitator education.
Hopefully, it will contribute to the facilitation
profession in an OD context by providing a
richer understanding of the assumptions,
philosophies, and processes in facilitator
education.
Acknowledgments
The author would first like to acknowledge the
guidance of Associate Professor Lorraine Ling
(PhD) from La Trobe University, Melbourne,
Victoria. Secondly, thanks and appreciation to
the workshop participants at the Australasian
Facilitators’ Network Conference in November,
2003 who provided valuable comments on an
earlier version of this chapter.
Biography
Glyn Thomas is a lecturer at La Trobe
University, Bendigo, Australia. His main
teaching area is in the area of outdoor
leadership with a particular focus on facilitation
and his research interests lie in the area of
facilitator education. Glyn has 18 years
experience facilitating groups in a broad range
of educational and organizational contexts and
he is passionately committed to helping
individuals and groups with their development.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1996).
Organisational learning II: Theory, method
and practice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Bendaly, L. (2000). The facilitation skills
training kit. New York: McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc.
Bentley, T. (1994). Facilitation: Providing
opportunities for learning. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 18(5), 8-22.
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 12 of 14
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998).
Facilitating reflective learning in higher
education. Buckingham: SHRE and Open
University Press.
Broussine, M., Gray, M., Kirk, P., Paumier, K.,
Tichelar, M., & Young, S. (1998). The best and
worst time for management development.
Journal of Management Development, 17(1),
56-67.
Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical
thinking and critical pedagogies: Relations,
differences, and limits. In L. Fendler (Ed.),
Changing terrains of knowledge and politics.
New York: Routledge.
Cervero, R. M., & Wilson, A. L. (2001). Power
in practice: Adult education and the struggle
for knowledge and power in society. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chi, M. T. H., Farr, M. J., & Glaser, R. (1988).
The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, N.J.: L.
Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000).
Research methods in education (5th ed.).
London: RoutledgeFarmer.
Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (2002). An
examination of managers' beliefs about their
roles as facilitators of learning. Management
Learning, 33(2), 147-179.
Flor, R., & Dooley, K. (1998). The dynamics of
learning to automaticity. Noetic Journal, 1(2),
168-173.
Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical
consciousness. New York: Seabury Press.
Hackett, D., & Martin, C. L. (1993).
Facilitation skills for team leaders. Menlo
Park, CA: Crisp Publications, Inc.
Hart, L. B. (1991). Faultless facilitation: An
instructor's manual for facilitation training.
Amherst, MA: Human Resource Development
Press.
Hart, L. B. (1992). Faultless facilitation: A
resource guide for group and team leaders.
Amherst, Mass.: HRD Press.
Havergal, M., & Edmonstone, J. (1999). The
facilitator's toolkit. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Heron, J. (1989). The facilitators' handbook.
London: Kogan Page Limited.
Heron, J. (1993). Group facilitation: Theories
and models for practice. London: Kogan Page
Limited.
Heron, J. (1999). The complete facilitator's
handbook. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993).
Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). London:
Prentice Hall International.
Hogan, C. F. (2002). Understanding
facilitation: Theory and principles. London:
Kogan Page.
Hogan, C. F. (2003). Practical facilitation: A
toolkit of techniques. London: Kogan Page.
Hovenlynck, J. (1998). Facilitating experiential
learning as a process of metaphor development.
The Journal of Experiential Education, 21(1),
6-13.
Hughes, C. (1999). Facilitation in context:
challenging some basic principles. Studies in
Continuing Education, 21(1), 21-43.
Hunter, D., Bailey, A., & Taylor, B. (1995).
The art of facilitation. Auckland, New Zealand:
Tandem Press.
Hunter, D., Bailey, A., & Taylor, B. (1999).
The essence of facilitation: Being in action in
groups. Auckland, New Zealand: Tandem
Press.
James, P. (2001). The double edge of
competency training: Contradictory discourses
and lived experience. Journal of Vocational
Education and Training, 53(2), 301-324.
Justice, T., & Jamieson, D. W. (1999). The
facilitator's fieldbook. New York: AMACON,
American Management Association.
Kirk, P., & Broussine, M. (2000). The politics
of facilitation. Journal of Workplace Learning:
Employee Counseling Today, 12(1), 13-22.
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 13 of 14
Larsen, K. R. T., McInerney, C., Nyquist, C.,
Silsbee, D. L., & Zagonal, A. A. (2002).
Learning organisations: A primer for group
facilitators. Group Facilitation: A Research and
Applications Journal, 4(1), 30-44.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (1999).
Facilitating learning organisations: Making
learning count. Aldershot: Gower.
Mongeau, P. A., & Morr, M. C. (1999).
Reconsidering brainstorming. Group
Facilitation: A Research and Applications
Journal, 1(1), 14-21.
Niederman, F., & Volkema, R. (1999). The
effects of facilitator characteristics on meeting
preparation, set up and implementation. Small
Group Research, 30(3), 330-360.
Parry, L. (1995). Effective facilitators - a key
element in successful continuous improvement
processes. Training for Quality, 3(4), 9-14.
Phnuyal, B., Archer, D., & Cottingham, S.
(1997). Participation, literacy and
empowerment: Reflections on reflect.
Education Action, 8(October), 27-35.
Pierce, V., Cheesebrow, D., & Braun, L. M.
(2000). Facilitator competencies. Group
Facilitation: A Research and Applications
Journal, 2(2), 24-31.
Priest, S., Gass, M., & Gillis, L. (2000). The
essential elements of facilitation. Dubuque,
Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Ringer, M. (1999). Two vital aspects in the
facilitation of groups: Connections and
containment. Australian Journal of Outdoor
Education, 14(1), 5-11.
Ringer, T. M. (2002). Group action: The
dynamics of groups in therapeutic, educational
and corporate settings. London: Jessica
Kingsley.
Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the
80's. London: Charles E. Merrill Publishing
Company.
Rogers, C. R. (1989). The interpersonal
relationship in the facilitation of learning. In H.
e. Kirschenbaum (Ed.), The Carl Rogers
reader. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Educating the reflective
practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Schön, D. A. (1995). Reflective practitioner:
How professionals think in action. Aldershot,
England: Arena.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator: A
comprehensive resource for consultants,
facilitators, managers, trainers, and coaches.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, R. M. (2000). Comments of facilitator
competencies. Group Facilitation: A Research
and Applications Journal, 2(2), 33-34.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The
art and practice of the learning organisation.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1996). Leading learning
organisations: The bold, the powerful, and the
invisible. In R. Beckhard (Ed.), The leader of
the future. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Sharp, P. A. (1992). The 'never-evers' of
workshop facilitation. Journal of Staff
Development, 13(2), 38-40.
Stahl, M. J. (1995). Management: Total quality
in a global environment. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Thomas, G. J. (in press). A typology of
approaches to facilitator education. Journal of
Experiential Education.
van Maurik, J. (1994). Facilitating excellence:
Styles and processes of facilitation. Leadership
and Organisational Development Journal,
15(8), 30-34.
Warren, K. (1998). A call for race, gender, and
class sensitive facilitation in outdoor
experiential education. The Journal of
Experiential Education, 21(1), 21-25.
Weaver, R. G., & Farrell, J. D. (1997).
Managers as facilitators. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
- Draft only – do not cite or quote– please wait for final draft 2003
Page 14 of 14
Webne-Behrman, H. (1998). The practice of
facilitation: Managing group process and
solving problems. Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Weinstein, K. (1999). Action learning: A
practical guide (Second ed.). Aldershot,
Hampshire: Gower Publishing Ltd.
White, S. A. (1999). Participation: Walk the
talk! In S. A. White (Ed.), The art of facilitating
participation: Releasing the power of
grassroots communication. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
