What does it mean to be a ‘neutral’ facilitator?
Neutral to the outcome content? Sure, this is why they hire you – to guide the process so that the participants can focus on the content. (Knowing that the process design, and the interventions, do impact content creation.)
Neutral to what people say? Theoretically, this is essential so that participants feel encouraged to bring their truths to the table, without being judged by the facilitator - the person who often holds the most power in an event/gathering.
Practically, it may be unrealistic. Facilitators are not machines: as all humans, we have internal reactions that are not entirely controllable.
When a participant says something that I perceive as very contrary to my key values, I might experience shock, anger, sadness ..;. a whole range of emotions that can throw me off-centre.
Part of my facilitator ‘neutrality’ skillset is noticing my inner reactions and choosing to act in a way that serves the group and the purpose for which we met.
On a deeper level, ‘neutrality’ for me means to be radically, equitably empathetic to all opinions expressed in the group. I mean radically, without exemption.
I work a lot in central Europe, and in the Balkans; in very heated environments where people can be very direct and emotional.
When a participant challenges another participant, or an idea, in a passionate way that might alienate half of the group, the shift in the room is palpable.
It’s a moment to lean toward, not away. To harness the passion expressed in the hard-to-hear words, and steer it to support alignment.
In those moments, in my facilitator role, I choose to listen deeper than just for the words expressed: I listen for the quality, need, and value that is important to each speaker – the positive core that drives their perceiving, thinking, speaking and behaving. And I check for accuracy.
Example:
In a multi-stakeholder workshop on co-habitation between the Roma and the majority Slovenian population, specific stakeholder subgroups were crafting guidelines for the solutions we planned to co-create.
Given the level of frustration with the topic in the group, I wasn’t surprised when the guidelines presented to the whole group were far from clear, effective principles that could guide further work. Predictably, frustrations sneaked in.
Neighbours (representing the Slovenian majority) said: “We are tired of shooting, partying, polluting that is happening in our backyards. Our kids can’t play outside, it’s too dangerous. Let them go where they came from. “
My attempt at ‘translating’ their frustrations into guidelines: “Do you want to feel safe in and around your own homes? And you want the solutions that we will come up with to support that?” “Yes, ...”
When the Roma community was asked to share their guidelines, they – for the first time that day – started speaking in their own language (that no one else understood).
It was a potent moment when all the eyes tuned toward me. No, I didn’t try to ‘straighten them out’, saying Slovenian was the official language ... the participants are not kids, and I am not their teacher or preacher.
My mind did work fast. What might be the real message under this? How can I hear their pain?
Then I remembered, from previous multi-stakeholder engagements on the issue, how frustrated the Roma community had been with the highly bureaucratic letters that various administrative officials kept sending them – about rules, regulations, permits, fines etc.. Those notes were often incomprehensible to many highly-educated Slovenians – let alone to the Roma who often struggle with basic Slovenian. (Why this is so is another issue.)
“Would you like the solutions to be written in a clear way that the Roma community can understand?” A big ‘yes’ – in Slovenian this time, thanksgod.
For more inspiration, see here. This type of intervention is based on nonviolent communication. It takes practice, and a willingness to unlearn reactive, judgmental interpretations: to purposefully search for more generous & generative ones.
My practical version of neutrality (as a facilitator) in heated, conflictual situations is to be
(1) radically empathetic to ALL that participants bring up;
(2) purposefully go for the ‘gold’ under what they say – the shared values/needs/qualities that (a) underpin their thinking and (b) other stakeholders resonate with;
(2) articulate them & check for accuracy: I reframe what they say; digging deeper to unearth the shared value that others can resonate with. This usually catalyses relief, and restores (at least some) connection, in the group.
If I miss (= fail to articulate the exact quality they care for), they eagerly correct me, valuing being seen and heard for what matters to them. This is something we all long for in collective moments together, almost regardless of the context.
