Power dynamics and protected characteristics — what have facilitators learned over the years?

By Rajwinder Kaur Cheema and Isaac Samuels

Connect with Raj on LinkedIn and Isaac on LinkedIn

What is this blog about?

On Friday 21st April, Raj Cheema and Isaac Samuels delivered a session focussing on the title above at the annual International Association of Facilitators (IAF) Conference in Birmingham, UK. The session had 16 participants from a range of backgrounds and facilitation experiences. In this blog, Raj and Isaac share the insights gathered and share their reflections on these insights. They also share their thoughts as individuals on what these insights mean for the facilitation community in terms of next steps — please read our 5 calls to action for the IAF below. You can find a write up of the insights (what worked well and why, what did not work well and why, and what the recommendations are for facilitators) from the session at the bottom of this blog.

Why did we do this?

We feel, over the years, there has been a lack of attention paid to keeping people safe, particularly when these people are participants from protected characteristics backgrounds in facilitated spaces. Additionally, as facilitators of colour, it is emotionally and mentally exhausting having to explain to colleagues and funders the importance of safety for participants and ourselves. Dealing with these kinds of dynamics because of our own protected characteristics, because of the protected characteristics of participants and because of the nature of this topic means we often carry the powerful vibrations from these conversations intrinsically for days afterwards. We are having to think about the personal cost of always having to be the people looking after other people’s safety and sensitivity to this topic (those with and without protected characteristics) — while we are continually wounded and experience racism and othering in our own lives. We invite you to pause for a moment and reflect on the heaviness and responsibility that comes with curating and holding these spaces for professionals like us.

“This was the safest space I have been in when talking about such lived experiences of power and privilege” — Workshop Participant

Reflections by Rajwinder Kaur Cheema

It never ceases to amaze me how generous people are with their insights and learning. I’d like to thank everyone who participated in this session for being generous with their learning and enabling us to share this learning openly with others.

As I was writing up these insights, the first thing that struck me is that this topic is a three dimensional conversation for the facilitation community. The insights and learning related to:

1. participants experiences as facilitators — those who identified as having a protected characteristic and those who identified as not having a protected characteristic;
2. their experiences of facilitating participants with protected characteristics in a range of sessions; and
3. their experiences of facilitating spaces where protected characteristics were the subject of the session or showed up in some way.

It’s important to share this because our session was not designed to surface the insights distinctly for the individual dimensions. And I feel we need to delve deeper and understand each dimension better to build a knowledge base that supports facilitators in a nuanced way in relation to this topic.

The insights and learning provide a snapshot of how facilitators are already applying good practice to navigate this space e.g. learning from existing practice to plan ahead, setting the tone and expectations from the start, being flexible with the session design to meet emerging needs, incorporating fun based approaches, and avoiding defensive behaviours. The session also surfaced practices that are not serving this space well and could be harming people, albeit unintentionally e.g. not recognising power dynamics, not preparing those in positions of power, having dominating voices play out, conversations not feeling inclusive and facilitators lacking confidence to do their jobs well.

There were three lessons in particular which I felt did not attract much attention or were not mentioned at all.

First, there was little mentioned about the safety and aftercare support needs of the participants and facilitators. Only one participant mentioned this and noted down the work of another organisation — learning the facilitation community could learn from. Chances are there are other organisations as well. Interestingly, when I asked about safety and aftercare support in the plenary discussion, participants wondered whether this required them to have appropriate qualifications. In my experience, it is very important to have a conversation with partners about duty of care — who does this sit with? This is an aspect that I have personally found to be missing from most conversations before any facilitation work takes place. I also mentioned working with safeguarding colleagues before and during sessions where vulnerable people are involved and where the topic is likely to be sensitive by nature. Letting participants know at the start that you have organised some support for their safety during the session and afterwards, gives participants a sense that you value their safety and you have invested in this. It shifts a session away from feeling extractive to feeling reciprocal. Let me make my point clearly here — acting responsibly as a facilitator does not necessarily mean taking responsibility for participants.

Second, I noticed that co-production did not come up once in the conversation. Designing, planning and co-facilitating the sessions with the very group of people who will be participating in the session and represent the topic at hand did not come up in the notes captured or in the conversation. In fact, the concept of co-production generally was absent from most conversations during the whole conference. It feels like the wider facilitation community is either not aware of what co-production entails or what this concept means for facilitation practice in this space. This is not to say that there are not facilitators who are doing this — I know facilitators who are. But it does not seem to be part of the mainstream facilitation consciousness.

Lastly, there was little mention of how we help our partners (or those who commission us as facilitators) to honour this kind of work through actual actions. A few participants discussed holding those in positions of power accountable during and after a session. Facilitators play an important role in helping systems and organisations to understand what change means for them and what actions they need to take to achieve meaningful change. When we’re facilitating spaces where vulnerable people and marginalised communities are involved — how much do we think about the broken promises these people and communities have already experienced in post colonial neoliberal structures of arrogance and extraction? How much do we think about the level of trust these people and communities currently have in those who hold power and uphold these structures? And how much do we think about whether our work is going to further contribute to this and add to the previous legacy of damage? This requires some serious thought with respect to facilitation practice and how we have uncomfortable conversations with partners before any sessions. I feel it is part of our job as facilitators to ask organisations and systems seeking to do this kind of work about how they will honour these contributions through tangible actions before any session takes place. If they cannot commit to honouring the contributions made by vulnerable participants, then should we be facilitating spaces where more damage is likely to be done with vulnerable people and marginalised communities?

Reflections by Isaac Samuels

I personally find it traumatizing and painful to constantly find myself in facilitated spaces where I experience being wounded — as a result of facilitators not taking the time to understand and plan or pay attention to protected characteristics and how these play out in real time production. This is starkly the case for me as I am often the only non-white face in a space.

Equality means each individual or group of people is given the same resources or opportunities. Equity recognizes that each person has different circumstances and allocates the exact resources and opportunities needed to reach an equal outcome’. Challenging the status quo takes commitment, courage, imagination, and, above all, dedication to learning. See this Framework by Marshall Ganz. The lack of recognition that people like myself who are living with experiences of multiple disadvantages, oppression, exclusion, trauma and othering in facilitated spaces is the norm. By not paying attention to this and treating everybody equally will not lead us to spaces of co-production where everybody is seen as an equal contributor of significant value.

I would like to say from the outset that I would not have done this session without Raj’s support. It took us time to develop the session and we had to keep each other safe — this takes time, energy, commitment, and natural unexplanatory understanding. Building on Raj’s point above, co-producing with people with lived experiences is not like a one-night stand. It’s a long-term relationship that often involves recalling experiences when you have been traumatized. People with lived experiences of trauma need to build trust with facilitators — the very fact that we co-facilitated this session speaks to how it is possible to genuinely build, trust and support each other in a meaningful way.

Lastly I am going to talk about the personal cost to professionals like Raj. I know Raj values her integrity above anything else. Raj is undoubtedly underselling her skills and I cannot emphasize enough about how much she has done to level the playing field and support people with lived experience to become co-facilitators. This comes at a great personal cost to her as usually this approach is not factored into any projects. It’s an add-on that Raj does because she knows it’s the right thing to do. Can we please reflect on what this way of co-facilitating means for our values, codes of ethics, delivery timeframes and budgets so that professionals like Raj are not having to go the extra mile to do the right thing? And for it to not feel like a constant fight with leaders to work in this way?

Current acceptable norms in facilitation practices need to shift and they need to be underpinned by a set of values that speak to these kinds of challenges, like the Coproduction Collective — Human, transparent, inclusive, challenging. Current facilitation practices are no longer acceptable. Raj and I strongly feel that the plural nature of people’s protected characteristics and how these play out in systems of oppression need to be met with nuanced and compassionate facilitation practices that consider safety, inclusion, trauma and cultural appropriateness — we must raise the bar higher.

I will end this blog with the poem Invitation to Brave Space (By Micky Scott and Bey Jones)

Together we will create brave space

Because there is no such thing as a “safe space”

We exist in the real world

We all carry scars and we have all caused wounds.

In this space

We seek to turn down the volume of the outside world,

We amplify voices that fight to be heard elsewhere,

We call each other to more truth and love

We have the right to start somewhere and continue to grow.

We have the responsibility to examine what we think we know.

We will not be perfect.

This space will not be perfect.

It will not always be what we wish it to be

But

It will be our brave space together,

and

We will work on it side by side.

Five calls to action for the International Association of Facilitators (IAF):

We would like to take this opportunity to openly share calls to action for the International Association of Facilitators given the organisation’s Code of Ethics. We feel there is a great deal of work that needs to be done to support the facilitation community to do this kind of work better.

1. We call on the IAF to fund some sessions so that we can surface more insights and learning around facilitation practice on the three dimensions mentioned above. What does it mean to facilitate sessions well when you are a facilitator with protected characteristic(s) and dealing with challenging and disrespectful behaviours? What does it mean to facilitate sessions safely and supportively when the participants have protected characteristic(s)? What does it mean to facilitate sessions where the topic of conversation is centred on power and protected characteristic(s)?
2. We call on the IAF to partner with organisations supporting different population groups with protected characteristic(s) to understand what they have learned about facilitation practice over the years so that this can be shared and applied by the facilitation community more widely.
3. We call on the IAF to work closely with safeguarding and trauma experts to understand what it means to ensure vulnerable people’s safety and aftercare support is considered in facilitation practice — it is high time the intersection between these disciplines is brought together for the benefit of vulnerable people. And to help the facilitation community to understand what this might look like in terms of their own competencies or working with other experts. We strongly feel it is time for the facilitation community to explore what inclusive, safe and trauma-informed facilitation practices and spaces look like.
4. We call on the IAF to build a Knowledge Hub to share good and bad facilitation practice building on the above calls for the benefit of the facilitation community.
5. Based on the learning gathered from the above actions, we call on the IAF to revise and raise its standards for excellence when it comes to the facilitation of spaces where vulnerable people and marginalised communities are involved.

SESSION WRITE UP

Think about a session where protected characteristics (including social class) were noticeable/played out/affected the outcomes of a session facilitated by you.

What went well and what contributed to this?

Planning ahead

• Knowing the diversity upfront and being able to plan it well and meet everyone 1:1 beforehand.
• In a public dialogue workshop, one participant had Tourettes. His ticks were swear words. Through the recording process we knew before. We asked the Tourette’s Society for advice — they advised giving the participant space to talk about his condition and how to respond — what not to worry about. He did this and felt supported and understood.

Set up of the session (e.g. tone, expectations)

• Openers — people expressed their pain, keeping it ‘real’.
• Involving people who could identify with nearly all protected characteristics. Prompted discussion and inquiry, seeking to understand. Emotional, safe space for sharing, reflections on poor experiences.
• Multinational leader group — the intent and effort to level ground was good.
• Empathy/step into another’s perspective. Did language CQ training before!
• People listened. Space for individual reflection, clear expectations around safety.
• People seemed comfortable to speak from their own experience honestly. Articulated no right or wrong answers and expectations of different opinions and experiences at the beginning.
• Creating an environment that allows people to bring their whole selves — no judgment. Using activities to grow that in the room before tackling meatier issues.

Responding to the needs in the room

• Openness of clients to be flexible with the agenda on the day.
• Changed agenda to meet the needs.
• Mother with baby in the meeting. Welcoming and accommodating group and venue.
• Creating an inclusive space for a deaf colleague in a group session. Helped by asking what she needed, planning appropriately, talking openly with the group, being open to changing plans.

Depersonalise

• Used Lego Serious Play (LSP) method. Took the conversation away from self to lego. Enabled deeper conversations.

Make it enjoyable

• People enjoyed being surrounded by people from different racial backgrounds. Added to the sense of community. Contribution — open space to talk about our backgrounds.
• Playing Aretha’s young, gifted and black, and dancing in the room. Gratitude and celebration.

Avoid defensiveness (Have people modeling supportive/challenging input)

• Other people didn’t defend their position or power.
• NHS Citizens Pilot Trans Experience. 1) Lived experience expert was so open, reassuring that the team and participants could ask questions 2) Jury members were open, listened and asked good questions 3) During livestream, the jury didn’t insult or belittle the topic.

What did not go well and what contributed to this?

Lack of preparation

• Some felt pressured, rail-roaded, left behind, unheard…?
• Lack of time/opportunity to be prepared for diversity of experience and perspectives and pressure to achieve in limited time.

Power not recognised or challenged appropriately

• Power of the most senior person was left unchallenged. It was challenged by me [facilitator] but not followed through.

Lack of inclusive contributions

• One and only black member of the team, female, did not speak into the plenary space for the whole day.
• Four participants on the table with the one participant who didn’t come to the subsequent workshop. (Tourettes example).
• ESL speakers found it difficult to understand my questions and answer them. A common understanding among native English speakers about the meaning of questions and my expectations.
• Accessibility — one session required moving around which somebody wasn’t able to do and was difficult for another person.
• Reach. There should have been people in the room that would have benefitted but chose not to attend, and were allowed.

Defensive contributions

• People were defensive and wanted others to know that even though their experiences were not good there were good examples of innovation and services out there so not all bad.

Dominant perspectives/voices

• But still very ‘western’ culture dominant early on (changed over 5 years)
• Some people dominated. Took all the airspace. Even when asked not to. Even when asked directly. Led to a really bad energy and upset. Disrupted session.
• Large group of mostly male retired veterans. One mocked me by saying “Yes, Miss” in a patronizing voice whenever I asked the group to do something. I experienced this as being about age and sex.
• When some voices are louder than others, or respected more than others, influencing how much or when others speak e.g. local politicians.

Uncomfortable emotions

• Emotional and felt uncomfortable. Asked them to sit with their emotions. Centered themselves, their discomfort.

Lack of facilitation experience

• Having no idea of the diversity and feeling a bit self-conscious, probably over accommodating, awkward.
• NHS Citizens Jury Pilot — Trans experience of ‘unrelated’ healthcare. I was nervous, didn’t feel competent because I was worried about screwing up, which meant I didn’t trust the group enough.

Recommendations for facilitators

Participant-centred planning

• Ask participants for their needs
• Requirement to proactively enquire as to inclusivity needs in planning any session
• Examples of asking about what will help someone fully participate (access/language etc)

Educated and informed facilitation

• Undertake ongoing CPD in issues of equity, diversity and inclusion
• Minimum requirements around protected characteristics — being aware, informing sessions, taking intersectionality into account
• Educate ourselves on diversity of individual experience — e.g. read fictions, watch films, listen to music.

Help to build the knowledge base

• Cultural intelligence — how to communicate effectively with others who are different from you
• Get better at getting things wrong — avoiding a topic to avoid making a mistake isn’t better.
• Review what it means to use the word neutral in relation to facilitate

Consciously reflect on the space you’re curating

• Find spaces and support to meet needs e.g. dealing with difficult feelings — shame, exposure.
• Only use venues with full accessibility — including dietary — no exceptions.

Pass on the job!

• If there is a job that should be led by someone else — pass it on. Support other facilitators who aren’t the same as you.

Recommendations for IAF

1. Be persistent about opening the space for this self reflection
2. Seek to share good/better practice which already exists e.g. about safeguarding, triggering, being trauma-informed e.g. Involve have done good work on this. Involve.org.uk