FACILITATION

To be successful, organizations must first resolve a basic dilemma: success increasingly depends on learning, yet most employees do not know how to learn, and those who appear to be the best learners may, in fact, be the poorest. The misconception often exists because the approach to learning focuses on obtaining more knowledge (or skills) rather than on enhancing the ability to apply knowledge (or thinking).

The National Park Service has traditionally used a training course model (tell them what you are going to tell them; tell them; tell them what you told them). This approach lends itself to instilling new skills and processing related information, and it places the responsibility for learning squarely on the shoulders of the presenter.

A different approach, facilitated learning, was selected for the leadership seminars based on data that indicated that it was better suited for adult learners. The seminar format allowed participants to use the information presented to draw their own conclusions about adapting behaviors and attitudes to address changes in the National Park Service. Facilitation favors a democratic style that includes a neutral setting and participant interaction. The clarification of ideas and real learning comes from the group.

Facilitation changes the role of instructor to that of someone who presents thought-provoking issues and asks probing questions as a catalyst for learning. A stated goal of the seminars was for participants to develop an awareness of personal attitudes toward a range of NPS issues. Concepts were presented on coping with changing conditions and recognizing perceived and actual barriers to reaching an ideal NPS organizational culture (as defined through group discussion during the seminar).

This technique is much more free wheeling and open-ended than the traditional approach to training. It requires facilitators who have certain skills and abilities and who are good listeners, and are quick, innovative, and adaptable. A behavioral change is required of traditional instructors when they begin facilitating; even after two years in this program, some facilitators still felt a need for additional understanding and clarification of the concept. Other elements that were identified as essential to the success of the process included the need to build trust among the facilitators and the participants and the development of comfort among participants to challenge personal assumptions and accept challenges from others. Some of the participants were never ready, particularly those with preconceived, strong negative attitudes, but the majority eventually obtained a level of understanding and involvement that was beneficial.

Presentation methods and many details varied among teams and seminars to meet specific needs, but all the sessions included common themes, including an examination of the NPS culture and the concept of an ideal organization. Participants discussed whether and to what degree the NPS met that ideal and developed ideas about how each employee could contribute to its achievement. Topics built upon each other daily, and participants were challenged to develop personal solutions, to look to fellow participants for expertise in developing solutions, and to define what it means to be personally responsible.

The Effectiveness of Facilitation

Open discussions led people to test their assumptions and develop new frames of reference, which is what the facilitation model sought to allow. The facilitators guided learning by asking questions so that participants could reflect on their actions.

Facilitation requires questioning assumptions, thinking outside the usual framework, and leveling interaction. Many of the seminar participants were unfamiliar with the concepts and were unprepared for this new learning approach. Consequently, expectations were not in line with the seminar’s stated objectives, and there was often resistance to the facilitated learning model, even after it was explained. This resistance usually lasted for about two days and resulted in what became known as the “Wednesday effect,” for the day when most seminar participants became comfortable with the concept of facilitation and participation in the process. Most NPS employees require time to adjust to the new concept.

Some participants felt embarrassed and threatened by the prospect of having to critically examine their roles in the organization. The idea that individual performance might not always be at its best may have inspired guilt. Some blamed problems on what they felt were unclear goals, and they criticized the amount of time spent on esoteric principles. When participants understood that the seminars were an opportunity to deviate from the norm, many were optimistic and accepting.

The seminar experiences confirmed that facilitation is valuable in meeting the NPS goal of providing an effective learning environment for employees. As the concept is more widely used and adapted, its value as a learning tool will be more widely appreciated and accepted.

Facilitation makes extensive use of different types of evaluation tools. Many techniques were tried during the seminars with varying levels of success. One of the more popular (and successful) techniques was to use daily end-of-session feedback cards to evaluate the content of the day’s program, point out unanswered questions, and provide assessments of what worked and what didn’t in the segments covered.

One of the benefits of the facilitation model was the flexibility it provided to address issues that arose, clarify participant questions, and adjust facilitation and delivery methods for that seminar or future seminars. Feedback also made the participants a part of the learning process.

While the two-year leadership seminar series resulted in identifiable short- and long-term positive results for most participants, a bonus associated with the program was the overwhelming benefits that were realized by the facilitators. By modeling leadership roles and teamwork methods, leadership and teamwork was learned firsthand. A great deal of personal development and growth resulted from the time that each facilitator spent on the program. Facilitators acquired management skills not otherwise readily available in day-to-day assignments. These employees will continue to be important resources for the National Park Service.

Facilitation is not universally effective. It is best suited to situations that are designed to introduce new concepts, permit self-realization, and lead to modified attitudes. Traditional learning techniques are necessary when new material requires memorization and the acquisition of new knowledge. Training is also a valid approach when skills must be learned or when there is a known end result to be reached (for example, the seminars uncovered needs in the area of personnel management, employee relations, and basic literacy). Testing or the demonstration of an acquired skill may accompany traditional approaches.

The seminar program successfully accomplished the NPS objective of exposing a significant portion of the workforce to new program thrusts (safety, diversity, accountability, GPRA) and changes in the organizational culture (teams, coping with change, awards, performance management). For these issues, there are not (and cannot be) clearcut solutions for everyone.

The seminars also, through the facilitators, served as an example of teamwork. The use of continuous feedback reinforced in-progress checks. The two concepts, teams and feedback, tied directly back to Managerial Grid, a facilitated manager development program that has been in use since the 1970s and that regained prominence in the 1990s.

The seminar format promoted an atmosphere in which contemporary management skills were acquired by both participants and facilitators. Specific developmental skills included conflict management and group interaction. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many individuals learned to trust the seminar process and each other.

The effectiveness of facilitation was evaluated for presenting new concepts, methodologies, and strategies for implementing change, for large group discussion of issues, and for the exploration of individual responses to specific events. Distinct advantages and disadvantages of the facilitation method were noted.

Advantages of Facilitation

• Participants must use critical thinking and self-development instead of rote learning.
• More often than not, facilitation creates a nonthreatening environment for learning.
• articipants become personally responsible for learning.
• t provides maximum flexibility in organizing ideas and information.
• It provides greater flexibility for adapting presentations during the seminar based on feedback from participants, including the topics to be covered and the depth to which they are covered.
• articipation allows for the expression of a maximum range of attitudes, experiences, and interactions by each participant.
• ecause the participants become actively involved in the direction of the seminar, they often have greater buy-in with the outcome, including any action plan developed.
• ealizations are more deeply developed because they come from within.

Disadvantages of Facilitation

• It usually takes longer to make a point, if it gets made at all.
• Facilitation requires good instructors with specific skills. For many, to become an effective facilitator requires practice. The best approach is to allow potential facilitators to practice under a mentor who can coach, evaluate, and advise.
• acilitation can be less cost-effective.
• There is a lack of uniformity among seminars in the issues discussed (both type and breadth) and the outcomes obtained.
• It is difficult to ascertain whether the stated objectives of the class are met because each seminar varies greatly, and self-discovery comes after reflective thought about the issues and personal involvement.

Successes

• Self-discovery and evaluation of attitudinal differences were mostly successful and effective but didn’t work for everyone.
• Although not a panacea for all, the process provided a safe and open environment.
• Most participants were forced to examine their ways of doing business (the mirror effect).
• Although approaches and methods may have been inconsistent, a fairly consistent awareness of issues was developed.

Difficulties

• Lack of consistent information gathering by each team about the results of the seminars made completion reports difficult to prepare.
• Some facilitators had to learn presentation skills while they were conducting the seminars.
• Not everyone was comfortable or effective as a facilitator. Screening for desirable and undesirable traits would be helpful for identifying and selecting future facilitators.