I don’t have answers in this post. Or probably many words.

I do have an observation.

It’s difficult to be a facilitator while also being a participant. It’s even more difficult if you have strong opinions or key information about the topic.

A few weeks ago, I stumbled across the term “neutral convener”¹. That’s a great description of the role of facilitator. A facilitator’s goal is getting a group to the best decision, having heard all the needed information, without a lot of unnecessary detours².

The easy thing to say here is that a participant, especially one with key information or strong opinions, isn’t positioned well to facilitate.

I would even go a step further: for a participant to also facilitate makes the participant an ineffective facilitator—and an ineffective participant. The job of a participant to share information or to advocate for their position. The job of a facilitator is the process that will achieve the participants’ goal.

A human that has to split their attention between content and process will do both less well. Decisions with higher stakes increase the mental distance between content and process.

A good facilitator can help make progress in tedious or difficult conversations. By paying attention to the process, the facilitator makes the participants more effective.

It seems like bringing in a facilitator is viewed as wasteful³.

I don’t get it.

We don’t usually object to other effectiveness-improving measures⁴. We buy hammers instead of using rocks. We use trucks instead of wheelbarrows. A stand mixer is probably less authentic than hand-kneading, but it’s a lot faster. We hire accountants who use spreadsheets and calculators instead of doing our own accounting on paper. We microwave our lunch instead of digging up some roots, chasing down a rabbit, and making a stew in a large shell balanced over the nearby natural hot spring.

After writing this, I at least think I have a better question. Or at least an additional question. What makes some effectiveness-improving measures hard to accept, while others are adopted quickly?

As for why facilitation is often questioned, well, I still don’t get that.

1. In the podcast I was listening to, Kevin Pulau explained a “neutral convener” as a trusted person or organization, not bringing a personal agenda, that has enough credibility or influence to get people in the room. Source: episode 613 of the Carey Nieuwhof Leadership Podcast, about 33 minutes in. [↩]
2. Sometimes, some detours may be needed. Someone may need to say their piece. A rant may open doors to a deeper discussion. Tedious background information might be the key to a better decision. Figuring out what’s necessary is part of what makes facilitation a valuable skillset. [↩]
3. This sometimes sounds like “You’re all smart people. You have all the knowledge and skills to come up with an answer. We don’t need to bring in someone else.” But it means “don’t waste their time”. Or sometimes, it means “I don’t trust them.” But that last part is a whole separate topic. [↩]
4. Or. Wait. We do, if it conflicts with our preconceived notions. Writing tests, collaborating across organizational boundaries, working iteratively, focus time, limiting queue size or WIP—all these “soft” tools are things that I’ve seen objected to in real situations. And, heck, I’ve seen purchasing equipment that would pay for itself in less than a week in time savings be a contentious decision that dragged on for months. [↩]