I understand Dr. Meadow's has a lecture on the topic of virtual teams and Joe plans on doing his presentation on virtual teams so I won't pursue the topic here. Let it be known I have had an interview for a project management position for a "virtual" company where I would work out of my home and conduct 95% of my business via phone, email and instant message. Therefore, this topic is of specific interest to me. I am looking for any thoughts or knowledge everyone would like to share.
That being said, I will change this weeks topic to that of team facilitation. Team leader and facilitator are often interchanged or defined as a single role. Due to company finances this is sometimes necessary. My belief is in order to run more effective meetings and thereby have more productive teams a facilitator is a necessity, not a luxury. The main argument is that a facilitator is merely an observer. They lead the "process" of making decisions, not the decisions themselves. A facilitator has no stake in the outcome. If they become involved, they should be replaced immediately as they will have lost their objectability. Team leaders, on the other hand, should have a hand in choosing the team and are directly involved, if not in the process then in the outcome.
So, my specific question is what quality, characteristic or role does a facilitator hold that is unique to that position and not shared with the role of team leader or any other role?
~Margaret
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Interesting perspective on team leader vs. meeting facilitator. We've learned a good team leader builds consensus toward decisions that help the team reach objectives. Could a neutral facilitator bring the team to the same place with no personal investment in the outcome of the decisions? It depends I guess... jan
I would think that a facilitator is more appropriate for a group activity or task, not as good an option for team tasks. A facilitator may be effective in a team setting if they can get the necessary team leadership aspects needed from others on the team. Many times teams function with various members taking on the needed leadership roles at the times they are needed. If a facilitator recognizes these needs and aids the team members to adopt the roles as required for effective team functioning, then a highly attuned facilitator can work in a team environment.
Gary
I’m going to go against the opinion of this week’s blog by suggesting that there should be no separate position for a team facilitator. I say this for a couple of reasons. First if I’m given the role of creating “processes” I’m going to want a stake in the outcome. I think it is only human to want to reap the rewards of a newly created process, and adjust it if it doesn’t work out as initially thought. I think having a facilitator only position can set up a situation where that person doesn’t receive recognition deserved, or set up to be a “fall guy” if processes created aren’t successful for whatever reason.
The other reason I wouldn’t want a facilitator position created separately from a leadership position is due to the balance of information received from team members. With all this studying of team behaviors, and team tasks everything I read says teams should participate and receive information in a balanced manner from all team members. Having a facilitator only position sets up an imbalance. The team will see that processes are only being created by one individual, which can lead to social loafing, and a lack of commitment to the team(shameless plug for the group project). Members won’t participate as a team if they know that processes and information are coming from one individual.
Chris
I don't believe that a facilitator is a necessary entity in a team setting. It can create a conflict if the roles of leader and facilitator aren't succinctly defined.
A facilitator, as stated, must maintain objectivity, and not become involved in the process of doing the work.
Facilitator, I believe, is just one of the responsibilities of a leader when in a team setting. He/she must enable and empower his/her team by bringing on board the necessary elements for reaching their goal.
I agree with Gary that a facilitator may be more effective in a group setting for the reasons given.
John
I don't believe it can be as black and white as described. In my opinion, the facilitator "facilitates" discussion...which is a pretty active role.
Depending on the meeting structure, the facilitator may indeed have a vested interest in the outcome. They may be required at times to also play a devils advocate role which does not necessarily mean they have lost their objectivity, but have instead facilitated discussion that may have otherwise not occurred, but was needed for the group to make the best decision.
Melissa
I am not sure it is easily answered or defined. Although I do believe that a characteristic of a great leader is that of facilitation. The ability to draw the best out of others without leading the "jury" to get true insights and spurn active thoughts within a group is key to solving for many of today's business challenges.
Jim
I have worked on a team where the "facilitator" played a mentoring role or "coach". This worked well for this particular team. With that said, the facilitator did have a stake in the outcome; and I cannot imagine them not having such. I think that as a facilitator; you can maintain objectivity. The goal is getting the team to consensus with a successful outcome. Your job is to assure that the team "plays nice" and works toward this goal. How can you facilitate without having concern over the outcome as the outcome weighs toward your performance as well. With that said; leadership on a team can be shared or it can be designated. The facilitator can set this up to work either way.
Post a Comment