1. What influenced your perceptions and beliefs about faciliation roles and responsiblities in relation to context?
Well, simply, roles of facilitators will change depending on the context they are facilitating. For instance, if a facilitator faces a particularly acrimonious setting, they will need to take a different role on than one who is going into a meeting to push forward a stalled project that has no acrimonious tone.
2. How aware were you / are you about the affect of these influences?
I am usually very aware of external influences on how you approach situations. Working in a political environment, one has to be aware of their audience, and how to approach them with suggestions and constructive criticism. I expected that a poor facilitator would be able to miss many of these points when dealing with a group; whereas a good facilitator would be able to innately sense them, and capitalize on their existence.
3. What do you suppose is the basis for your perception?
I would further the theory that knowing how emotional people can get when things involve their personal work is the basis for my understanding of how facilitators work well.
4. What new learning do you take from this exercise?
I am taking a few new methods of dealing with different situations as a facilitator.
5. How might you apply your learning?
I will take some of the scenarios that were played out as good and bad examples of facilitation – especially how one facilitator ensured that all parties had an opportunity to speak and kept everyone involved. He was particularly aware of body language and facial expressions as cues to encourage people to speak.