What do you think?
Rate this book
The Skilled Facilitator: A Comprehensive Resource for Consultants, Facilitators, Managers, Trainers, and Coaches
When it was published in 1994, Roger Schwarz's The SkilledFacilitator earned widespread critical acclaim and became alandmark in the field. The book is a classic work for consultants, facilitators, managers, leaders, trainers, and coaches--anyonewhose role is to facilitate and guide groups toward realizing theircreative and problem-solving potential. This thoroughly revisededition provides the essential materials for anyone that workswithin the field of facilitation and includes simple but effectiveground rules for group interaction. Filled with illustrativeexamples, the book contains proven techniques for starting meetingson the right foot and ending them positively and decisively. Thisimportant resource also offers practical methods for handlingemotions when they arise in a group and offers a diagnosticapproach for identifying and solving problems that can underminethe group process.
432 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 1, 1994
138 people are currently reading
1281 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
May 8, 2022
This is truly a comprehensive resource for anyone who would like to pick up the facilitation skill. It breaks down the most basic models, is full with examples that invite criticism and analysis, and it will leave you well equipped for your next challenging meeting.
Even though this is the most recommended book on the topic, Roger Schwartz mentions in the introduction that 'Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams' is on the same topic but specifically for those working in leadership roles - I wish I had known that and you should if you're in a similar position to me. The approach here was very much geared towards full-time facilitators. I've never seen them in real life in any of the companies I've worked at, but I'd imagine they'd be brought in as neutral third parties in high stakes situations, in companies with more rigorous processes, or in those were the toxic culture severely hinders communication. So while I will apply many of the things I've read here, there is a limit.
The author mentions that some wording he used may be seen as jargon, and he recommends rephrasing these in your own words. It's a combination of this, and introducing so much meta discussion about the quality of communication in a meeting that makes me a little apprehensive about following this method by the book in my own meetings. I'm not sure my team would appreciate if I interrupted with questions about their phrasing or process as often as is mentioned in these examples. Sure, it's didactic, it's meant as a learning tool, but in the context of the places I've worked I find it unrealistic.
The main things that will stay with me are the values for mutual learning and the inference ladder (moving from observation to meaning to reaction and stopping the inferral of a message as soon as possible):
1/ Transparency
2/ Curiosity
3/ Informed choice
4/ Accountability
5/ Compassion
What I thought was especially interesting is that the author advocates against anonymity in all situations - including performance reviews, where it's a tool in virtually all modern companies. In my experience, people are initially intimidated about giving critical feedback, but after evaluating potential reactions and consequences they are willing to have a frank discussion. What is even more out there is that the author also strongly suggests to not only give praise in public, but also negative comments. Here's where I'm not sure, and will probably not embrace this technique just yet. In a utopian setting, where there is absolute trust and psychological safety, I see how team members will have no doubt about being put in a vulnerable spot. However, I've rarely seen a team remain intact for long enough to create this sort of culture. People leave, new ones join, there are reorgs, a team will probably change within the span of even 6 months, and such a ferocious trust takes years to build, surely even longer in a virtual context.
I'd highly recommend this book, perhaps even suggest the 'Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams' to my peers instead if that's more angled towards leadership. But do take it with a grain of salt and apply your own vocabulary and style to it.
Even though this is the most recommended book on the topic, Roger Schwartz mentions in the introduction that 'Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams' is on the same topic but specifically for those working in leadership roles - I wish I had known that and you should if you're in a similar position to me. The approach here was very much geared towards full-time facilitators. I've never seen them in real life in any of the companies I've worked at, but I'd imagine they'd be brought in as neutral third parties in high stakes situations, in companies with more rigorous processes, or in those were the toxic culture severely hinders communication. So while I will apply many of the things I've read here, there is a limit.
The author mentions that some wording he used may be seen as jargon, and he recommends rephrasing these in your own words. It's a combination of this, and introducing so much meta discussion about the quality of communication in a meeting that makes me a little apprehensive about following this method by the book in my own meetings. I'm not sure my team would appreciate if I interrupted with questions about their phrasing or process as often as is mentioned in these examples. Sure, it's didactic, it's meant as a learning tool, but in the context of the places I've worked I find it unrealistic.
The main things that will stay with me are the values for mutual learning and the inference ladder (moving from observation to meaning to reaction and stopping the inferral of a message as soon as possible):
1/ Transparency
2/ Curiosity
3/ Informed choice
4/ Accountability
5/ Compassion
What I thought was especially interesting is that the author advocates against anonymity in all situations - including performance reviews, where it's a tool in virtually all modern companies. In my experience, people are initially intimidated about giving critical feedback, but after evaluating potential reactions and consequences they are willing to have a frank discussion. What is even more out there is that the author also strongly suggests to not only give praise in public, but also negative comments. Here's where I'm not sure, and will probably not embrace this technique just yet. In a utopian setting, where there is absolute trust and psychological safety, I see how team members will have no doubt about being put in a vulnerable spot. However, I've rarely seen a team remain intact for long enough to create this sort of culture. People leave, new ones join, there are reorgs, a team will probably change within the span of even 6 months, and such a ferocious trust takes years to build, surely even longer in a virtual context.
I'd highly recommend this book, perhaps even suggest the 'Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams' to my peers instead if that's more angled towards leadership. But do take it with a grain of salt and apply your own vocabulary and style to it.
May 30, 2020
This book is a must read for all facilitators: it provides a solid, value based and clearly structured foundation for thinking about and performing any kind of facilitation work. I especially love the thoroughness of the description and how the book goes into great detail based on a very simple set of values, rules and models. The ground rules are something I will try using; as is the diagnosis-intervention cycle!
May 3, 2017
Highly recommended for every leader/consultant... who is capable of understanding it. Its a massive synthesis of Systems thinking, Action Science, Negotiation skills and Organizational learning, all rolled into form the perfect nutrition needed for the modern-day facilitative leader. Its Senge, Argyris and Cialdini performing together in a massive orchestra. Every detail of what goes into making a unilateral leader, versus a facilitative team-person is sewn together, explaining how one should rethink the motives, methods and material available at his disposal to make teams collaborate successfully... after reading it, you'd immediately start noticing how bright the world seems, and what makes every meeting or brainstorming session seem successful or otherwise. You'd see why some facilitators make you cringe, and some seem to just entertain, while others actually create something in every meeting.... please read it.. and re-read it.. own it.. and keep referring to it! :)
July 15, 2021
I really liked this book. four stars because it got a little bit boring in the middle but then it really picked up at the end once again after a brilliant start. The book, as it says on the tin, is a comprehensive guide to helping you facilitate groups of individuals in a professional working environment. Some really good hints and tips in this book. Here are some of the best bits that I have shamelessly copied directly from the book:
This makes sense from a risk management perspective. For example if you run away from an apparent threat that turns out to be nothing, you just out of breath. But if you fail to run away from a threat that's real, you may end up permanently out of breath.
I've adopted the mutual learning approach from the work of argyris and schon , who developed it and called it model 2, and Robert Putnam, Diana McLean Smith, and Phil McArthur, who adapted it and called it the mutual learning model.
Overtime, I realized that requiring teams to make all their decisions using the same decision making rule, no matter what that rule is, fails to take into account the complexity of teams. Some decisions don't require consensus to be implemented effectively. And there are times too when even high performing teams are unable to reach consensus and the team needs to do a decision to move forward.
What it means to be accountable and accountability: You willingly accept the responsibilities inherent in your position to serve the well being of the organization. You're expected to serve the well being of the client and the larger organization or context in which it functions. You expect that your name will be publicly linked to your actions, words or reactions. You expect to be asked to explain your beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to your team and others you work with. When you operate from a unilateral control mindset, you may try to hold others accountable without making yourself accountable. Or you may not even ask team members to appear accountable because you don't want them to hold you accountable. When your mindset is mutual learning, not only do you want to hold others accountable but you also want to be held accountable. You don't see accountability as a burden but rather as a way to honor commitments you've made that will help you and others achieve results. A key principle for ensuring accountability is that all are responsible for sharing their information directly with those they want to hear it.
One of the mutual learning principles is to move towards the differences.
As Aristotle wrote in the nicomachean ethics: getting angry is easy. But to get angry with the right person, in the right way, for the right reasons, at the right time. That is not easy.
Good facilitation technique identify interests: ask group members to complete this sentence as many times as possible: “regardless of the specifics of any solution we develop it needs to be one that xxxxxxxx ” ...Record the answers in a single list of interests. If people keep identifying positions instead of interests ask them: “what is it about your solution that is important to you? This helps them to identify their underlying interests. (super powerful question)
Just like a real ladder the higher you climb the more dangerous it becomes. We climb up the ladder of inference higher than we need to when we make an inference that is further removed from the data than necessary. I call these high level inferences. You probably seen others make these high level inferences. Imagine that you make a suggestion for how to improve a project and a group member responds: “you're just trying to make me fail”. When you make high level inferences your final inference is supported by many other intermediary inferences. Like a House of Cards if one of those intermediary inferences is false the logic collapses and the final inference can't be supported. We have a clinical term for people who routinely make certain types of very high level negative inferences with little or no data: paranoid.
A good way of making sure that you've understood something: 1.observe. What did I see in her. 2.Make a meaning: using a mutual learning approach what do I think it means? 3.Choose: why is this worth or not worth saying something about? 4.Test observation: James, I think I saw or I heard you say XY or Z. Did I understand that right or did I miss something? 5.Test meeting: I'm thinking that this is what you meant and this is my understanding. What do you think? 6.Jointly design next steps: I think it would be helpful to do this as a form of next step. What do you think?
You can tell when there isn't a good fit. When a group is inappropriately made to work like a team, members don't see the need to attend team meetings. They consider them a waste of time. When they do attend they get frustrated being asked to solve peoples’ problems that don't significantly involve them and to spend time deciding how to work together on issues that don't require the level of coordination being asked of them.
The widely cited four stage Tuchman model of group development. Based on his review of 50 studies of mostly therapy groups, tuchman identified 4 development stages: forming, storming, norming and performing and then he later added a fifth stage adjourning.
If you work with people directly and have concerns about their work, you are accountable for sharing your concerns with them directly, whether they have more less or the same amount of authority as you.
A natural response to ambiguity and confusion as they try to impose some order. The challenge is to become comfortable with ambiguity and not impose order prematurely by rushing to inference and diagnosis. Diagnosing behavior prematurely reduces the probability that you understand important aspects of the group situation. One reason group behavior seems ambiguous at times is that you're observing a complex pattern, but the group has displayed only a part of it.
In the nicomachean ethics Aristotle defined the challenge of dealing with emotions this way: anyone can become angry, that is easy. But to be angry with the right person to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way: that is not easy.
The principle of the mutual learning approach is to move towards conflict and differences. By publicly identifying the conflict in the group and engaging people in a conversation about it you can help the group explore how people contribute to the conflict, how they're feeling about it and how to manage it. This is really aligned with the elephant in the room workshop and the brutiful conversations concept.
As a developmental facilitator you can help group participants respond effectively by reducing the defensive thinking associated with their hot buttons. This first involves working with them to identify the trigger and then helping them reframe their thinking. Some people find it difficult to respond effectively when a person, especially someone with less power or authority, raises his or her voice at them in anger. Granted, raising your voice yelling is not a particularly skillful way of communicating and those who do so are still accountable for their behavior, but people whose hot buttons are triggered by this behavior believe that a person yelling at them is showing disrespect for their official position on their personal dignity.
You might say: from your frown and head shaking I'm thinking that you're frustrated with me, am I correct? If the member agrees you can start to identify the cause of the frustration. I don't mean to do anything that will frustrate you, but I might be doing something I'm not aware of. Can you tell me what I said or did that lead you to get frustrated with me.
There are times when your intuition tells you something is wrong, but you can't identify any group behavior to make or diagnose or have stopped having identified the problem you may have doubts about how to intervene. When this happens consider asking the group for help. “I'm stunned. I'm stumped. I think the group is having a problem but I can't figure out what it is and I also can't point to any behavior that leads me to conclude this. Does anyone else see something that I'm not seeing?” Although it's not helpful to the group if you intervene like this frequently using it occasionally can use the group skill to allow you to see things you are missing and also shows vulnerability and transparency on your side.
This makes sense from a risk management perspective. For example if you run away from an apparent threat that turns out to be nothing, you just out of breath. But if you fail to run away from a threat that's real, you may end up permanently out of breath.
I've adopted the mutual learning approach from the work of argyris and schon , who developed it and called it model 2, and Robert Putnam, Diana McLean Smith, and Phil McArthur, who adapted it and called it the mutual learning model.
Overtime, I realized that requiring teams to make all their decisions using the same decision making rule, no matter what that rule is, fails to take into account the complexity of teams. Some decisions don't require consensus to be implemented effectively. And there are times too when even high performing teams are unable to reach consensus and the team needs to do a decision to move forward.
What it means to be accountable and accountability: You willingly accept the responsibilities inherent in your position to serve the well being of the organization. You're expected to serve the well being of the client and the larger organization or context in which it functions. You expect that your name will be publicly linked to your actions, words or reactions. You expect to be asked to explain your beliefs, decisions, commitments, or actions to your team and others you work with. When you operate from a unilateral control mindset, you may try to hold others accountable without making yourself accountable. Or you may not even ask team members to appear accountable because you don't want them to hold you accountable. When your mindset is mutual learning, not only do you want to hold others accountable but you also want to be held accountable. You don't see accountability as a burden but rather as a way to honor commitments you've made that will help you and others achieve results. A key principle for ensuring accountability is that all are responsible for sharing their information directly with those they want to hear it.
One of the mutual learning principles is to move towards the differences.
As Aristotle wrote in the nicomachean ethics: getting angry is easy. But to get angry with the right person, in the right way, for the right reasons, at the right time. That is not easy.
Good facilitation technique identify interests: ask group members to complete this sentence as many times as possible: “regardless of the specifics of any solution we develop it needs to be one that xxxxxxxx ” ...Record the answers in a single list of interests. If people keep identifying positions instead of interests ask them: “what is it about your solution that is important to you? This helps them to identify their underlying interests. (super powerful question)
Just like a real ladder the higher you climb the more dangerous it becomes. We climb up the ladder of inference higher than we need to when we make an inference that is further removed from the data than necessary. I call these high level inferences. You probably seen others make these high level inferences. Imagine that you make a suggestion for how to improve a project and a group member responds: “you're just trying to make me fail”. When you make high level inferences your final inference is supported by many other intermediary inferences. Like a House of Cards if one of those intermediary inferences is false the logic collapses and the final inference can't be supported. We have a clinical term for people who routinely make certain types of very high level negative inferences with little or no data: paranoid.
A good way of making sure that you've understood something: 1.observe. What did I see in her. 2.Make a meaning: using a mutual learning approach what do I think it means? 3.Choose: why is this worth or not worth saying something about? 4.Test observation: James, I think I saw or I heard you say XY or Z. Did I understand that right or did I miss something? 5.Test meeting: I'm thinking that this is what you meant and this is my understanding. What do you think? 6.Jointly design next steps: I think it would be helpful to do this as a form of next step. What do you think?
You can tell when there isn't a good fit. When a group is inappropriately made to work like a team, members don't see the need to attend team meetings. They consider them a waste of time. When they do attend they get frustrated being asked to solve peoples’ problems that don't significantly involve them and to spend time deciding how to work together on issues that don't require the level of coordination being asked of them.
The widely cited four stage Tuchman model of group development. Based on his review of 50 studies of mostly therapy groups, tuchman identified 4 development stages: forming, storming, norming and performing and then he later added a fifth stage adjourning.
If you work with people directly and have concerns about their work, you are accountable for sharing your concerns with them directly, whether they have more less or the same amount of authority as you.
A natural response to ambiguity and confusion as they try to impose some order. The challenge is to become comfortable with ambiguity and not impose order prematurely by rushing to inference and diagnosis. Diagnosing behavior prematurely reduces the probability that you understand important aspects of the group situation. One reason group behavior seems ambiguous at times is that you're observing a complex pattern, but the group has displayed only a part of it.
In the nicomachean ethics Aristotle defined the challenge of dealing with emotions this way: anyone can become angry, that is easy. But to be angry with the right person to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way: that is not easy.
The principle of the mutual learning approach is to move towards conflict and differences. By publicly identifying the conflict in the group and engaging people in a conversation about it you can help the group explore how people contribute to the conflict, how they're feeling about it and how to manage it. This is really aligned with the elephant in the room workshop and the brutiful conversations concept.
As a developmental facilitator you can help group participants respond effectively by reducing the defensive thinking associated with their hot buttons. This first involves working with them to identify the trigger and then helping them reframe their thinking. Some people find it difficult to respond effectively when a person, especially someone with less power or authority, raises his or her voice at them in anger. Granted, raising your voice yelling is not a particularly skillful way of communicating and those who do so are still accountable for their behavior, but people whose hot buttons are triggered by this behavior believe that a person yelling at them is showing disrespect for their official position on their personal dignity.
You might say: from your frown and head shaking I'm thinking that you're frustrated with me, am I correct? If the member agrees you can start to identify the cause of the frustration. I don't mean to do anything that will frustrate you, but I might be doing something I'm not aware of. Can you tell me what I said or did that lead you to get frustrated with me.
There are times when your intuition tells you something is wrong, but you can't identify any group behavior to make or diagnose or have stopped having identified the problem you may have doubts about how to intervene. When this happens consider asking the group for help. “I'm stunned. I'm stumped. I think the group is having a problem but I can't figure out what it is and I also can't point to any behavior that leads me to conclude this. Does anyone else see something that I'm not seeing?” Although it's not helpful to the group if you intervene like this frequently using it occasionally can use the group skill to allow you to see things you are missing and also shows vulnerability and transparency on your side.
December 13, 2016
Really dense and insightful book. The one you read and savor almost every paragraph.
And I would say that it is much more than merely book about facilitation. It lays out a framework for more efficient communication that can be used in lots of contexts.
Real gem. Recommended not only to those who want to improve facilitative skills but also to anyone who wants to better understand communication process and how our beliefs affect it.
And I would say that it is much more than merely book about facilitation. It lays out a framework for more efficient communication that can be used in lots of contexts.
Real gem. Recommended not only to those who want to improve facilitative skills but also to anyone who wants to better understand communication process and how our beliefs affect it.
October 6, 2019
Successfully resolving conflict is one of the most important tasks in management and leadership. Schwarz, a Harvard-educated organizational psychologist, teaches us how to do just this in this well-received book. Its success can be demonstrated by the fact that it now resides in its third edition. (This review only applies to the second edition.)
Schwarz tells us how to be not just a facilitator but a skilled facilitator of discussion within organization. He consults with companies with difficult cultural situations. He teaches us both psychological theory and hard-earned tricks of his trade. His writing, replete with examples and breakdowns of complex issues, breaks down our thought-processes and rebuilds them in a healthier manner.
The last two chapters address important niche needs of organizations – for someone tasked with the job of being an internal facilitator and someone seeking to provide leadership to an organization through these principles. As such, Schwarz addresses a larger audience than just those who provide outside consulting. He addresses the heart of American professional culture and challenges it to be healthier and more reasonable.
This book thoroughly earns five stars in my review because it addresses need with theoretical wisdom and with practical insight. For a follow up, I suggest Schwarz draws out more implications for organizational leadership. I long to see that embodied in a more concrete form. The last chapters left me tantalized as I never plan to be a facilitator but will still lead conversations with others. I want to prevent the need for a facilitator in the first place. Without that book on my shelf, I am left to apply these principles towards that goal in my personal professional repertoire.
Schwarz tells us how to be not just a facilitator but a skilled facilitator of discussion within organization. He consults with companies with difficult cultural situations. He teaches us both psychological theory and hard-earned tricks of his trade. His writing, replete with examples and breakdowns of complex issues, breaks down our thought-processes and rebuilds them in a healthier manner.
The last two chapters address important niche needs of organizations – for someone tasked with the job of being an internal facilitator and someone seeking to provide leadership to an organization through these principles. As such, Schwarz addresses a larger audience than just those who provide outside consulting. He addresses the heart of American professional culture and challenges it to be healthier and more reasonable.
This book thoroughly earns five stars in my review because it addresses need with theoretical wisdom and with practical insight. For a follow up, I suggest Schwarz draws out more implications for organizational leadership. I long to see that embodied in a more concrete form. The last chapters left me tantalized as I never plan to be a facilitator but will still lead conversations with others. I want to prevent the need for a facilitator in the first place. Without that book on my shelf, I am left to apply these principles towards that goal in my personal professional repertoire.
February 10, 2020
On a regular basis I come back to one of Roger's guidelines in particular, reminding myself to explain why I am saying something or why something is important to me. It's a small thing that has significant positive results for me. I appreciate the way this creates mutual understanding in a wide range of conversations.
I found many similarities between Roger's teachings and the teachings of Marshall Rosenberg so much of the material Roger presents is not new to me. However, I value his work and found the book to be laid out very clearly.
I found many similarities between Roger's teachings and the teachings of Marshall Rosenberg so much of the material Roger presents is not new to me. However, I value his work and found the book to be laid out very clearly.
April 12, 2025
I read the e-book version which allowed me to get through it quickly. Sections were well organized which was appreciated with a dense information-heavy book. The first half of the book was very helpful for my purposes (training students on how to facilitate peer-led meetings). The practical examples were relevant in this context and I will borrow some ideas from the book for sure. The latter half of the book on technology and contracting clients was less relevant for my specific use case and I skimmed most of that.
December 8, 2023
Despite containing a ton of useful information, I found this book a chore to get through. The writing is rather repetitive and verbose, which makes for a dull read and drowned out the information. It also makes the book difficult to refer back to when needed. More overviews like lists and visualizations would've been welcome.
August 29, 2017
Great book with simple, practical model under the cover which is very helpful for someone inexperience in the facilitation.
Plus the model is compliant with my own values so I may be biased (although it's based on some research that shows this is effective)
Plus the model is compliant with my own values so I may be biased (although it's based on some research that shows this is effective)
September 16, 2021
Lots of useful ideas to apply in this one. Too many notes to list here, but if you are interested in becoming a "conversation facilitator", this is a great introduction into doing that. Recommended reading during a leadership workshop - wouldn't have come across this book otherwise.
December 11, 2018
Enlightening
I thought this book did a good job in explaining the role of a facilitator and what makes on successful.
I thought this book did a good job in explaining the role of a facilitator and what makes on successful.
July 7, 2021
This thing is dense but a must-read for anyone wanting to consult or facilitate groups using a mutual-learning approach.
February 3, 2023
Mindset changing. Worth a read.
October 23, 2023
Intended mainly for a practicing facilitator, but there's good material in here for anyone involved in management.
January 14, 2024
Very helpful guide to improve facilitation skills across different roles and contexts.
March 20, 2017
Excellent reminder of the basics but also taught me more sophisticated approaches to soliciting facilitator feedback (including self-critique as a model for group members to grow and lead) and intervening on emotions, observed tacitly or felt intuitively. Very accessible and rich. I should say that the book seems to be focused on change process via inquiry and intervention. Simple skills development and "staying" processes are not necessarily addressed here.
December 26, 2025
One of the better books on facilitation, but it feels outdated. Maybe the third edition is more to the point; this one sometimes feels repetitive. Anyway, here’s what I learned:
Facilitation is a leadership role, but it comes with the price of having to withhold one’s own opinions unless asked.
Embrace conflict. If everybody agrees, why meet at all? If there’s disagreement, seek to understand the why behind someone’s stated position.
Explain your reasoning. Make people tell the group how they’ve reached certain conclusions. Make sure everybody shares all facts and data, even if they seem to contradict their own position.
At the beginning of the meeting, give a quick review on what had happened previously, explain your role as a facilitator, and ensure that everyone agrees on the meeting’s purpose, agenda, and ground rules.
At the end, assess the meeting by discussing what went well and what to do differently (not “better”) next time.
Facilitation is a leadership role, but it comes with the price of having to withhold one’s own opinions unless asked.
Embrace conflict. If everybody agrees, why meet at all? If there’s disagreement, seek to understand the why behind someone’s stated position.
Explain your reasoning. Make people tell the group how they’ve reached certain conclusions. Make sure everybody shares all facts and data, even if they seem to contradict their own position.
At the beginning of the meeting, give a quick review on what had happened previously, explain your role as a facilitator, and ensure that everyone agrees on the meeting’s purpose, agenda, and ground rules.
At the end, assess the meeting by discussing what went well and what to do differently (not “better”) next time.
May 22, 2015
Very good book on how to guide a change process through working as a facilitator rather than as a manager. The last chapter provides some very good guidelines to help improve your leadership process. Highly recommended
August 23, 2019
I read this and now use it as a reference before I have a key meeting, product launch, project kickoff to facilitate. The tactics aren't mind blowing, but every improvement helps the smoothness of facilitation--which is a true art.
January 25, 2016
As you can see from the dates, I took my time on this. Comprehensive and deep information for those that want to help groups figure out a better way.
March 14, 2023
An incredibly important book. The content and the explanations in the book are super. The one star that's missing is because it's a difficult read and needs very focused attention.
June 14, 2020
READ JUN 2020
This is an excellent resource for any internal/external consultant, coach, or facilitator. The mutual learning mindset and team effectiveness model are very helpful tools.
This is an excellent resource for any internal/external consultant, coach, or facilitator. The mutual learning mindset and team effectiveness model are very helpful tools.
Read
July 25, 2014EBOOK
April 10, 2017
The book helped me to reflect on what good facilitation is really about.
Especially the group effectiveness model is a great way to reflect a situation.
Some parts felt a bit too long, this is why I gave 4 of 5 stars.
Especially the group effectiveness model is a great way to reflect a situation.
Some parts felt a bit too long, this is why I gave 4 of 5 stars.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews