Comments on facilitator competencies: Michael Wilkinson

Authors Virginia Pierce, Dennis Cheesebrow and Linda Mathews Braun are to be highly commended for putting forth an excellent starting point for defining facilitator competencies. I would like to highlight several strengths of their work.

First, the authors have offered a superb framework for thinking about facilitation competencies. They start first with the domain of the facilitation profession: "the design and delivery of participatory processes." They then provide us with an understanding of the purpose of a competency model: "an aid to understanding what facilitators value and what they do." They also offer working definitions of competence: "to have the requisite or adequate ability or qualities" and "the ability to use skill and knowledge for effective results."

Second, I especially resonated to the authors' practical approach to competencies by focusing on the "skills, knowledge and attitudes necessary to demonstrate [the] competencies." This approach mirrors that used in well-designed training curricula. For example, each training module might be introduced with the following: "As a result of this module, the participants should:

(a) Buy-in to ... (attitude),

(b) Demonstrate their knowledge of... (knowledge),

(c) Demonstrate their ability to...(skill), and

(d) See you model...."

Third, the authors have grouped the skills, knowledge and attitudes into six categories and provide narrative for those of us "into the detail," as well as a one-page, bulleted summary that can serve as a communication tool for the masses. While much can be debated about each of the six categories-what to include, what to exclude-I believe it is more important at this point to step back and solidify the foundation before moving forward.

Foundation Issues

In my first reading of the competencies, I was very uncomfortable but didn't understand why. I strongly agreed with most of the words, and yet, the framework was somehow "bent." It was in the second reading that it became clear. I was reading the competencies from the perspective of certification. As I read the competencies, I was asking the question, "Must a facilitator be able to. . . (skill)?" or "Must a facilitator know. . . (knowledge)?" or "Must a facilitator believe in. . . (attitude)?" Yet I continually ran into problems. Below I present three examples from the model which "passed" the test of my three questions, as well as three examples which appear to "fail" the test:

By the end of my second reading, the distinction became clear. It appears that the authors were writing under a context different from my questions. They appear to be answering the question, "What does a competent facilitator do?" In this context, examples 4, 5 and 6 make sense. However, I believe these items represent activities that a facilitator does to support a competency, not a competency in and of itself. The reason to "participate in a facilitation network" is to maintain a base of knowledge (Competency A1). Participation in the network is not a competency.

Recommended Solutions

This mixture of competencies and activities can lead to significant difficulty for those users of the framework. I believe it is important to address this fundamental problem before moving forward. Below are recommendations for addressing the issue discussed.

While there are other suggestions I would like to make about the contents of the model, for space considerations this article has focused solely on the framework itself. The competency model, once complete, has the potential to serve as a significant tool for furthering the art and science of facilitation. To its credit, the IAF once more is leading the way in providing tools and processes for increasing the professionalism of our industry.

Michael Wilkinson

Leadership Strategies, Inc., mwilk@minspring.com

Copyright International Association of Facilitators Winter 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved