The trap of "staying a step behind"
One of the main things people say about being a good facilitator is that you should "Follow the participant" -- or, as Ron Hering often used to say, "Stay a step behind."
What this means, simply, is that the process should be about the participant, not about you, the facilitator. You shouldn't lead a transformational process with an "agenda." Fair enough.
But trying to "stay a step behind" can also be trap that can DESTROY a process.
I'm not kidding -- I've often seen it happen.
That's why this is such an important email.
Of course the process must be about the participant, and about what he/she wants. But too often carpet-work leaders use the "Stay a step behind" dictum to abdicate their leadership of the process.
Here's what happens when things go wrong:
The process may be somewhat set up. Perhaps there is a big mean character out, like an angry Dad, for instance, faced off with a small, weak part, like the participant at five years old. The parts have lines, but it's unclear what the participant should do next.
Not wanting to "get ahead of the participant," the facilitator asks,
"What do you want?"
And the participant is stumped.
So the facilitator says,
"This is a magical space. We can do anything you want here. What do you want?"
And the participant is still baffled.
Things can rapidly get much worse from there. The processes can start to be about, "Why don't you know what you want? What is that about? How is this like your life?" It can become a morass, and the participant might leave the process feeling ashamed, like he or she did the process "wrong."
It turns out that "Staying a step behind" is NOT the same as abdicating your responsibility to actually LEAD the process.
Participants know what they want in the process, in the sense that they have an idea of how they want to feel at the end of it. Usually they want to feel empowered, or want to feel connected, or want to feel blessed.
What they do NOT know is HOW to get what they want. They do NOT know the path they must take through the process to get their outcome. You, as the facilitator, are responsible for providing that.
To do that, you must:
1) Listen to what they say, and
2) Offer options, rather than prescriptions, about what they might try.
Many facilitators are great at listening to the participant, but not so good at offering options.
That is, they are able to get role-players out on the carpet, but they are not good at moving the process forward once the role players are set up.
The key to moving the process forward is NOT to simply ask the participant what he or she wants, or what he or she needs. The key is to offer menus of OPTIONS for them to chose from.
Offering menus of options can change a potentially "stuck" process into a successful one.
Menus of options are usually pretty simple to use -- they actually make the facilitator's life easier, because they move the process forward, while leaving the power and choice in the hands of the participant.
Here's how to do it:
First, get the participant into a position where he or she can see the entire process, from the outside.
Have them watch all the parts say their lines to each other.
Then ask, "What needs to happen here? Is there something you feel drawn to do, when you see this?"
Sometimes a participant will have a physical reaction that will make this pretty obvious:
If he or she looks angry, you might say, "It looks like you might be feeling anger. Is there a part on the carpet that you'd like to set a boundary with?"
If the look is sad, or they are starting to cry, you might say, "It looks like you are feeling something here -- is there a part you'd like to bring love or blessing to?"
If they don't seem to be having any specific response, or seems baffled by what you are saying, then it's time to offer a menu of options.
You might say,
"It looks like there are several things we could try here. You might want to get angry with, and set a boundary with this part [pointing to the big, mean part]. OR, you might want to bring love and blessing to this part [pointing to the small, helpless part]. Or you might want to try one, and see how it goes, then perhaps try the other. Or you might want to do something else that you have in mind. What might you like to try first?"
When you give options, you get the process moving again. They can always try one, and if they don't like that, they can always go to the other option.
If the participant really doesn't like any of the options, and can't readily think of something else to do, it's perfectly fine to say, "It looks like simply seeing this might be enough for right now," and non-shamingly have them step off the carpet.
When you provide menus of options to carpet-work participants, you both stay a step behind, and lead the process forward.
Until next time,
Dmitri "Otter" Bilgere db@dbweb.org 608-217-4956