← Go back
Mary, you (co-)lead the session wonderfully. You created a safe space by recalling the guidelines, putting them into context and also by your warm voice and your natural, calm, and professional facilitation style. You facilitated a nice “warming-up sequence” and asked beautiful open questions regarding impartiality and common humanity. You were great in engaging the group, responding to replies wonderfully. You clearly have a lot of understanding and knowledge about CIT, its structure and content. Wonderful how you succinctly put a “skill for life” and asked to share the experience of reflection and growth.
Please remember to always use invitational language and sometimes be less directive when giving instructions.
o Began with housekeeping message (please get a pen and paper and a drink…) and then began with a centering exercise
The language of the message and the centering was very directive (Do this.. I want you to…) It did not feel safe and inviting, I felt as though I was being told what to do
o Introduced the other facilitators
o Reminder of CIT guidelines
Safe space, what we share will stay here, reminder that we have earlier skills to use if needed, use chat box (reminding participants that we are in a safe space; I’d recommend slowing down a bit here; this still is feeling directive to me but I also recognize that may be my bias)
o Recap/context slide
Mary gives summary of previous skills and then introduces what we will do in skill 5 (teaching rather than facilitating; recommend to ask first how these skills fit together before telling)
Asks group why we are starting with impartiality/common humanity in series 2 (good; facilitating here vs. giving the information)
o Asks if anyone has had an opportunity to practice the skills
o Acknowledges that she can not see everyone in the chat (authenticity)
o Acknowledges the comments in the chat; affirming towards participants’ responses
You facilitated the Common Humanity Stories, excellently. see below
@Video: I appreciated a lot that you asked the group to pretend to be a subject of the “All that we are” video. However, you could have used more invitational language here, too.
@ Wrap-up: Wonderful wrap-up, in particular when pondering on identities and identification.
o Shares all that we are video; follows by putting question in the chat and instructing participants to type answers in the chat
o After Jeanne shares, gives recommendation and tells group to do the who are you activity many times (advice; expert approach); teaches group about the importance of names and where names come from (“we take on and embody the name that is given, in the US we see distortion of names…, this may be one of the most harmful techniques we can do, you may want to explore importance of your name to you.” ; encourages the group to go through CJ questions and practice grounding, etc.
Anja: You facilitated the Common Humanity Stories, excellently. You had an amazing approach to this activity. The sequence of the activity which can be complicated were explained so clearly and very engaging. You focused on the core of the activity. Instead of coming up with common humanity stories in the breakout groups you facilitated the activity very succinctly and nicely in the main room by describing several of the people and focused on the questions, the tracking and the internal development. You revealed the power of personalization. This has been outstanding.
For the sake of timing you could have skipped one of the people. Also, some of your questions were in the chat, some were not. It is a complex exercise, so having all the questions in the chat is helpful.
o Instructs us to get a pen; leading common humanity exercise
o Invites participants to share what story they have about the man in the photo
o Instructs us to fold paper, write differences, “i’d like you to track sensations, we are just observing,” write similarities (this felt a bit more on the teaching side vs. facilitating; the differences are subtle but I definitely feel like I am having an expert tell me what to do)
o Attentive to comments in the chat; acknowledges participants’ input
o Showing mastery over the content
Anja: I can repeat what I have said in earlier feedbacks: Your very natural, professional and inspiring way of facilitation has been outstanding. You were great at monitoring the group and the chat at the same time, picking up the needs here, allowing space for participants and expressing great teamwork regarding your co-facilitators. You clearly have an amazing knowledge of the concepts of skill 5. This has been an authentic session thanks to all three of you.
I honestly have no major improvements. Some recommendations I shared above. As facilitators we should use invitational language and remember that we essentially are one of the group-members: it is a two-way learning. This is one of the reasons, why we are asked to facilitate and not teach. We deliver impulses and inspire questions before we deliver content.
I recommend, to have a look at the recording though and check the sound. I suspect that your notes were hitting the in-built microphone of your laptop which caused a loud sound.
Also, but this is me personally, even though the video “All that we are” might have been more diverse regarding the participants, I sort of preferred the Danish version “All that we share” as it still displays a very diverse group on a different level and due to the close ups and the less distant camera, one really feels part of it and I felt very much impacted by that.
Finally, you as a team decided to have a very active chat and had amazing and deep discussions here which for my taste distracted from the facilitation. It might be better to integrate that into the general group discussion. We want to be inclusive yet not invite competing discussions between the facilitators.