I wonder what's you're seeing that's new in the field of facilitation. I've been doing some reading, and have found a few interesting things, but I suspect there's more. Sometimes the neatest things are invented in the field because of a problem situation.

I ask because we're starting a new issue of Consulting Today, on Faclitation, and are looking for some cutting edge ideas. We will have an article by Marv Weisbord, who has a new book on the topic, and a few others, but if you know someone who's doing new things or writing on this, please let me know or have them contact me.

Thanks so much,

Paula Griffin

Paula,

Sounds like a great issue.

For me, the perfect bookend to Marv's work would be to contact the folks at Interaction Associates . (CA/Boston). As you may already know, David Strauss and Michael Doyle (RIP) wrote How To Make Meetings Work so many years ago. But that book, along with Weisbord's "Productive Workplaces" put down a wide and deep foundation for facilitation techniques so many of us use today. IA is still out there on the edge.

I realize that you are looking for new stuff on facilitation. However, it seems to me that the basics of facilitation are unknown to many people - if for no other reason than the fact that new people are constantly joining this industry.

Perhaps one of the most valuable things you could do is to clearly define what facilitation is and what it is not. Also, how it relates to training per se- or if it does. Facilitators call themselves trainers and vice-versa. How would you define both roles?

Many people who call themselves facilitators advocate doing nothing more than having the participants provide ALL the content - all the meat of the course. The only contribution they make to the course is getting the participants talking and interacting. Is this just an excuse for not knowing the subject matter? Otherwise, anyone with any background can facilitate most HR type courses. Wouldn't that be a little dangerous?

I strongly believe facilitation has a place - for example, in negotiating conflict situations, helping decision-making processes along, etc. But I question when people "facilitate" training courses in the manner above. If employees can learn all they need to know about a subject from talking to and interacting with their colleagues, then it is not training. It's an encounter.

So, the long and short of it is, I would like to see someone take the lead in clarifying the role of facilitator and the role of trainer - including when each is appropriate and when not appropriate.

And that post clearly provides an example of a very, very wide gap in understanding what learning facilitators do. Or, rather - provides evidence of why it's important to clearly define what you're really looking for.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LoveLearning,

To me, trainer is a better term than "learning facilitator." Trainers also facilitate learning, but in addition, they train - and by that I mean that they contribute knowledge on the subject that is not generally known by the participants. They also present skills that the participants do not yet have - and they direct the way the participants learn that knowledge and skills through guided practice and experimentation. The term learning facilitator seems to restrict what is done in the classroom to only facilitating - and not training. Training includes facilitation. If adding knowledge and skills not yet known to the participants is the goal, then it is training, not facilitating - at least to me. Facilitation is for helping people arrive at a solution to some problem - to carryout some process. I don't think it is training though. So, I don't understand the term learning facilitator. I don't think the two words go together. You're not learning anything by having someone "facilitate" a process. A great trainer is also a great facilitator - otherwise, he/she would not be a great trainer. But the reverse is not true - at least I can't see how...............

I guess it's all how you define the terms. The problem though is that no two people define the terms the same way. And as a result, you never know what you're going to get when you take a course that is facilitated. I wouldn't take one if I had a choice. I have attended too many seminars that were facilitated - and I didn't learn a thing. I couldn't do any more when I left the seminar than when I started it. And the extent of my knowledge about the subject had not changed. What I did find out (not learn) was the opinion of other participants - so I was not trained. Maybe I had a good time and a few laughs, but I felt cheated.

CT editor - can you shed a little light on what it is you call facilitation and why you call it that? Also, do you make a distinction between facilitators and trainers? How do you define the two terms?