John Warfield writes
> The ... facilitator who .. asks the group to design its own process is
> raising a question as to why the facilitator is even present at all.
Getting the group to design at least part of its process is a most
successful way to get each member to buy into the process. It is my
experience that plunging a group into a new process without preparing them
is counter productive. They don't know why each step of the process is
necessary. I prefer to start groups off in a work- shop about the process
that ends with a plan of the project they will do. I find it most
effective when members of the group volunteer to be responsible for the
completion of project tasks. It is a sign that they have sign up for the
goals and objectives and the process. This is a sign that the group can
be "self organizing".
Again John writes
> The role of the group member should NOT be to design process (sic), nor
> to determine the context ... . The role ... is to provide content ...
In my humble opinion the content provided under these circumstances will
not reach the depth of understanding that provides substantial benefit
from the process. Content provided from a position of intrinsic
understanding of the context and the process is much closer to the core of
the substantive issues involved. Group members can provide knowledge by
simply answering questions, they can provide wisdom from fully
understanding the context and the position they are in with respect to the
process.
I don't want the group to merely answer questions. All the right
questions will not be asked, they never are. Wisdom is being able to
arrive at truth without having someone ask question after question. I
think the group needs deep understanding of the context and process as a
prelude to providing wisdom.
-- "William J. Hobler, Jr." <bhobler@cpcug.org>