What is the mark of ‘effectiveness’? What might be deemed an indicator of ‘effectiveness’? How can facilitators and co-facilitators gather evidence of their effectiveness?
Is ‘effectiveness’ simply ‘producing the intended or expected result’ (Macquarie, Dictionary 1988:299)? But one of the most common responses to facilitated processes is that the outcomes are not what members of the group expected!
Is ‘effectiveness’ ‘producing a striking impression’ (Macquarie Dictionary, 1988:299)? A striking impression might be a very unhappy or negative experience, and indeed I have had occasions where I am sure my co-facilitator and I made a striking impression, but I continue to question whether we facilitated the session ‘effectively’. In some of these situations, it is certainly true that the session has been ‘effective’ for us as co-facilitators, in providing us with a catalyst for marked growth and change. The question that arises here is, ‘effective for whom?’
Paulson, Burroughs and Gelb (1976) suggested that one measure of ‘effective’ co-facilitation might be the willingness of the co-facilitators to work again with one another. How would co-facilitators measure this willingness? Does the willingness of the co-facilitators to work together reflect the group’s willingness to work with them as well? Where co-facilitators are assigned to work together, regardless of their willingness, will they never be effective?
Another indicator of ‘effectiveness’ could be continued employment by the group or organisation. However, if the group achieves its outcomes, learns to work well together, completes an important project, fulfils its responsibilities to the organisation or the community and supports the growth and development of ideas in society and the wider world, the facilitators or co-facilitators will probably cease their work with the group.
Is not continuing to work with a group a mark of ‘effective’ facilitation or co-facilitation? Is ‘graduation’ to the group being able to work without a facilitator a mark of ‘effectiveness’? There are situations where a facilitator or co-facilitators may be needed periodically to facilitate a group so that all can participate. In other situations the facilitator might do a professional job, but the group does not achieve its outcomes, the project is not completed or responsibilities are not fulfilled and the facilitator ceases work with the group. Perhaps one co-facilitator does not do a professional job, the project is not completed and responsibilities are unfulfilled, and neither co-facilitator is hired to continue to work with the group. Perhaps, the co-facilitators do not do a professional job and are not rehired, but the project is completed and responsibilities are fulfilled. Or, perhaps the funding for the project simply runs out regardless of whether either or both facilitators have performed well.
Ideally, product, project and performance outcomes should be observable after the completion of the group session, and this might be another measure of ‘effectiveness’. There remains a question of when any of these outcomes can be measured. Often a group session is but a small part of a larger process and identifying the effectiveness of the facilitators in the process becomes difficult. While there are ways of documenting and recording the process, providing evidence that it has occurred is unlikely to be completed in one session. Short term product, project and performance outcomes may be simply ‘quick fixes’ that may prove to be detrimental or unsustainable in the long-term.
One of the ways I have tried to gather information about ‘effective’ processes is to ask group participants, approximately ten weeks after the group session, to reflect on what has happened for themselves individually, for the group and for the wider organisation or community. The difficulty then is whether they attribute any of the processes we did together as contributing to their current work. Sometimes that which is learned and integrated into one’s way of working and being is no longer recognised as having begun somewhere at some time, but now ‘just is’. Moreover, is the enactment of their goals an indicator of an ‘effective’ group process and does it have any relevance for determining the ‘effectiveness’ of the facilitators?
What are your indicators of effectiveness? What evidence might you gather to demonstrate your effectiveness?
Facilitating Conversations 