I just talked with @apaipi (who btw is an amazing facilitator) about demeaning of facilitation as a skill.
I also regularly see people assume force/coercion in connection with team exercises or trainings.
I have seen that where people in the room don’t notice all the small things like making sure everyone is heard, that decisions are made etc.
It spans from helping two people have a constructive conflict to training with a room full of people. From helping with making meetings worth the time to ensure that all voices are heard.
For example in trainings, where you have exercises. People need to be okay with participating in them.
A bad facilitator can make any exercise unsafe.
I have had remarks like “everyone knows they can opt out” and “don’t treat ppl like they are kids”.
True ppl know they can opt out, but they also want to belong.
The effect of group pressure is enormous. We want to not stand out.
By adressing this and explicitly stating that it is ok to opt out, we change the “rules”. We make it easier to opt out.
That sometimes means stating the “obvious”, which is not always obvious and repeating rarely hurts.
A few ppl have told me over the years: “I did not see the point of stating it every time - until I was at an event where no-one did”
Bad facilitation is easy to spot. Great facilitation is a lot harder.
Just because it is a soft skill, does not make it less valuable or less hard to do.
When reading about an exercise, assume that it will be facilitated well.
Debriefing of an exercise can make the difference between a learning experience or just playing a game.