Mapping the field of facilitation
Do you ever find that an idea lands in your lap and instantly opens up a new way of thinking for you?
That’s how I felt when I came across Mintzberg’s ‘Ten Schools of Strategy’. It maps the field of strategic thinking into ten different traditions - each with its own assumptions about how strategy is formed and what the purpose of it is.
The thing about this discovery (which was an accidental find via a LinkedIn post by Andrew Marcus - thanks, Andrew!) was that Mintzberg’s ‘Ten Schools’ gave me a new lens to think about a question I had been pondering for the past few years: what would it be like to map the field of facilitation?
Before I became a facilitator and trainer, I spent the first 10 years of my career working in research and policy - conducting interviews and literature reviews, and writing up research reports. I found field mapping like Mintzberg’s so helpful at bringing simplicity and clarity to complex topics, and identifying important differences which separate different schools of thought.
Closer to the field of facilitation, this map of Systems Change practicesis another example of how a field of practice can be mapped, highlighting the different influences and applications of systems change work.
As a trainer and the director of Facilitation 101, I train hundreds of people each year in facilitation skills. In my own way, I’ve tried to explain where the different approaches I use come from, but I’ve always wanted to be able to share something more systematic that helps them see the bigger picture. I also think a field mapping activity like this could help practitioners articulate their own work more clearly in relation to others, and make some of the implicit beliefs about their practice more explicit.
What’s the guiding question?
If I had to frame this as a research question, it would be something along the lines of …
‘What distinct approaches, schools, or traditions exist within the field of facilitation?’
Facilitation, as a field, is surprisingly under-researched. It’s also quite a broad field - and is a skill set that has porous boundaries and edges - bleeding into other disciplines such as coaching, agile and lean, design sprints, psychotherapy, peacebuilding, strategy and more.
As a facilitator and trainer, I have dived deep into many different schools of facilitation. I’ve been driven by a desire to be led by the group I’m with - and what skills they need - so I have sought over the years to grow my own skill set widely. I’m also a learning addict - who loves nothing more than sitting in the participant seat.
What does the term ‘traditions, schools and approaches’ mean?
When I think of a ‘school’ of facilitation - I think of practices that are distinct, and have unique methods and approaches that they use. For example:
Lego serious play - using Lego, and having specific approaches such as individual builds, and group builds.
Dialogue based approaches, such as Bohm dialogue which is a slow, embodied, non-hierarchical practice that suspends judgment and removes pressure for agreement, inviting a group to listen deeply and let fresh collective thinking emerge.
Open Space Technology, which has a specific methodology to structure self led group conversations.
Constellations work - which draws from the field of psychotherapy and applies it in group settings.
There are many, many more approaches and traditions within the field of facilitation - I’ve been cataloguing them over the past year or so and have documented over 50 so far, and the list keeps growing.
These traditions come from different places. Some originate from the arts and activism - such as the Theatre of the Oppressed. Others work with the body using somatic practices, while others facilitate Futures work, or run large-scale participatory decision-making. The same word - facilitation - covers all of it.
Some facilitators I know have specialised in one school or tradition, while others draw from many. I draw from quite a few - integrating them into my practise and adapting them depending on the work I am doing. I lean more heavily on some than others - and favour participatory approaches such as Liberating Structures and Lewis Deep Democracy. I also draw a lot from my work as a coach and action learning set facilitator in the way I facilitate, and I’m becoming more and more interested in Constellations and Process work, which are two other approaches to facilitation.
Creating a map of the field
The field is vast, and yet so far I’ve not found a map of it that shows the differences between these approaches, their similarities, their strengths - and their limitations. I’m also curious to learn more about approaches to facilitation that come from outside North America and Europe, which is where my main influences and training are from.
I’m curious to explore this question more and am writing this as an invitation - to potential collaborators, interviewees, or indeed people who want to push back on the framing and bring some challenge to the question I’m asking.
I’d love to start some conversations with facilitators from different fields, traditions, and backgrounds and begin to map the field. There are two ways to share your views and experience:
If you’d like to set up a call, drop me a line at hello@facilitation101.co.uk and I’ll be in touch to set up a 30-minute interview.
