What it takes

26 December 2010

Multi-stakeholder processes (MSPs) are processes that aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication and decision finding (and possibly decision making) on a particular issue. Multi-stakeholder approaches became a ‘buzz’ term and the concept was promoted in a number of international processes including the UN Global Compact and the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002. Since then, donors have amplified their emphasis on public-private partnerships and entrepreneurial multi-sector initiatives. Looking back, we can say that the expectations of these partnerships may have been slightly naïve.

We have learned – yet again – that communication is challenging, even more so between different stakeholders and across cultures. Collaboration not only requires commitment, but also entails genuine readiness for change, which is quite rare. Creating innovative ‘win-win’ situations where everybody’s interests are integrated is extremely difficult, and where it is not possible, reaching a compromise can be very cumbersome. Another thing we have learned is that MSPs take considerable time, effort and resources. And because of this, they need to become part of people’s job descriptions and key performance indicators in order to allow them to convene, lead, facilitate and participate. We are also learning that even then, we cannot assume that people have everything it takes to proceed successfully.

When we think about the competencies needed for designing and facilitating MSPs, many areas of knowledge, skills and experiences come to mind. These belong to a range of disciplines and professions, and include cognitive, emotional and social abilities. Many can be acquired through reading and listening, and others largely depend on practise and experience so that together they constitute a combination of art, science and skill (1).

This multi-layered, epistemological mix is uncomfortable for some people, at least initially, as it can seem eclectic and lacking a solid and consistent theoretical base. However, this set of competencies is grounded in values, principles and a constantly growing body of experience (2).

In practice, it is most important to find what works, and, in particular, what works for each of us as an individual process professional. The field is in constant development, and we need to continuously learn from our own experiences, from peers, networks, and from new research in order to fulfil our tasks successfully and responsibly.
The following are among the main competencies necessary for designing and facilitating successful MSPs.

Understanding the context

We often hear people debate about whether facilitators should be knowledgeable about the issues at hand. If they are, they will have opinions about the issues, and that can create challenges in terms of neutrality in the process and being trusted by all stakeholders. However, I have not seen a well-designed and facilitated process where the facilitator was uninformed about the systemic context that the MSP was operating in. Process professionals should at least be familiar with the main terms, the pros and cons of the problem; the key characteristics of the relevant stakeholders, such as their worldviews, interests and theories of change; and the main (power) dynamics in the system. The more knowledge we have, the more important it is to demonstrate neutrality by communicating transparently about opinions and how we are keeping them out of the process.
 

Knowing and developing yourself

Self-awareness is essential when operating in a multi-stakeholder environment, and facilitation requires significant levels of individual development. Self-awareness includes awareness of one’s own characteristics and behavioural tendencies, particularly in dialogic situations. It takes account of your awareness of how others react to you and awareness of your own assumptions, feelings and blind spots. Self-awareness also involves understanding that we use ourselves as tools in the process – as tools of perception, diagnosis and intervention. Essentially, we are using ourselves to genuinely connect with participants, model authentic communication and get to know individuals, groups and issues that sometimes deeply affect us. Facilitators often hold the process together emotionally by reaching out to each and every one, showing friendliness, respect, confidence and good humour. As in other, similar professions such as training, teaching, coaching and therapy, the idea of self-awareness and working with oneself as a tool is grounded in careful reflection, constant establishment and re-establishment of boundaries and attentiveness to one’s own limitations and needs.

Individual development is necessary in order to exemplify the principles of the process and evoke trust and trustworthiness, authenticity, flexibility, honesty, goal orientation, a keen sense of justice and excellent empathy from all participants. Process professionals should have developed the ability to exercise dialogic core competencies such as voicing opinions, listening carefully, respecting the ‘other’ and suspending judgement. Individual development also helps us to not be afraid of conflict, crisis, protests or expressions of distrust, and enables us to turn these into opportunities for reflection and creative problem solving.

In my experience, these rather psychological aspects of the work often get overlooked. Yet they are essential if MSPs are to succeed – and equally essential in protecting process professionals from exhaustion and burnout.

Envisioning the process

This refers to the ability to imagine and design the whole of the MSP over time, embedded in the systemic context and subject to dynamics from within and outside the system. Envisioning an MSP includes the ability to consider whole systems as well as social groups, institutions and structures, the individuals within them and all inter-relations between such entities.
 

Short- and long-term thinking and planning, and the ability to communicate and encourage these is vital. Many process professionals work with one of the MSP life-cycle models and they cultivate a profound understanding of the dialogic approach as a way to connect and collaborate with individuals, groups and cultures. They move between different perspectives and world views, exemplifying role taking, and understanding the benefits of conversations that foster shared understanding and allow new solutions to be generated.

Epistemology and theoretical knowledge

Everyone approaches the MSP from the perspective of what is true for them. But, no one, including the facilitator, can claim to hold ‘the truth’. This is a basic epistemological assumption that underpins MSPs. Our viewpoints depend on our position and roles in society. Recognising that there are different ‘truths’, held by different stakeholders, can help to build commitment to the process, and foster respect for one another – not necessarily for our respective opinions but for the fact that opinions are indeed diverse.

In an MSP, the challenge is how to respect every stakeholder’s truths while creating integrated solutions. Facilitators are expected to design a process towards that goal, proposing plans, methods and agendas. However, the facilitator’s ‘truth’ can, and will, be questioned. In such cases, facilitators need to be able to share the reasoning underpinning the process design – explaining why, at times, meetings should be closed, stakeholders should work in small groups first, separate task forces are needed, draft agreements should be discussed line by line, and so on.

Models, methods, tools

These are what we use to put our understanding and design of an MSP into practice. They include tools that allow quick stakeholder identification and analysis as well as numerous meeting and documentation formats for different purposes. Facilitation literature is full of creative ideas, conditions and goals – and new ones are being developed all the time. For example, when the objective is to promote understanding and transform conflict, tools such as Open Space or World Café are particularly useful. And when the aim is to explore future views, Future Search and Scenario Building are useful instruments.

Many process professionals do not emphasise monitoring and evaluation as much as they should – methods such as Outcome Mapping are very useful for planning and monitoring, and engage participants in a continuous process of observation and meta-communication, which in itself helps MSPs to succeed.

Being able to identify appropriate tools is an essential skill. While individual preferences and experiences play a role, we should not limit ourselves to a small set of methods. Rather we should choose from the wide range of available methods – in consultation with a core group of stakeholders. On the basis that form follows function, purpose and desired outcome should guide our choice of tools, while the context and framework conditions will dictate what can be done.

Teamwork

All the competencies described above are necessary for designing and facilitating successful MSPs. But does one individual need to hold all of them, or can a group of people with a combination of these competencies make a successful team? In practice, many contributions come from various persons; for example, process conveners and participants hold significant pieces of understanding of the systemic context. By sharing tasks, people learn more intensely from each other. I have often observed how stakeholders and experts pick up facilitation methods and hone their skills during an MSP and by working with a process professional.

Creating a core team consisting of the facilitator, process conveners and main stakeholders is a way of pooling necessary competencies, as well as creating shared ownership within an ‘MSP nucleus’. Creating and working with such a team requires another crucial competency on the process professional’s side: the ability to act as part of a team. Facilitators who tend to view their work as some kind of magician’s performance may have difficulties sharing their competencies freely and bringing them into a mix of equally important competencies from other members of the team. Maybe there is a tinge of narcissism, maybe the desire to remain needed, and indeed paid. Neither is helpful in an MSP nucleus team, and this again highlights the importance of self-awareness and individual development.

Getting What It Takes: Learning to Design and Facilitate MSPs

When working with MSPs, attending to the competencies described above is a matter of professionalism and quality control. In my experience, an understanding of the epistemological and theoretical underpinning of the work, along with self-awareness and self-development, are the competencies that are least developed among the broad and varied group of sustainable development professionals engaged in MSPs. Often, the ‘big’ issues tend to dwarf the ‘small’ ones – staying on top of issues such as poverty or climate change seems to demand more attention than perfecting your observation skills in a dialogic setting, for example. Those working on the ‘outer world’ challenges often do not easily relate to the ‘inner world’ phenomena.

Yet investing the time and resources in all competencies is necessary to achieve maximum effectiveness and sustain change. This also has a political dimension of ensuring that funders keep providing resources for MSP design and facilitation: only successful processes, and long-term data about success factors, will speak to this investment in the long run.

Yet, opportunities for honing MSP-related competencies are rare. The goal is not to create a more homogenous group of process professionals – there is great diversity in MSP facilitation, and that is welcome as it speaks to a very diverse range of people and contexts. Supporting these professionals in their learning and development, however, is an important investment.

As we continue learning, researching and evaluating multi-stakeholder processes, I favour combining more traditional ways of studying with an action learning approach. Practitioners need courses and materials, and they need peer groups and coaches that help them reflect, improve and develop further.

Further reading

Hemmati, M. (2002) Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability – Beyond Deadlock and Conflict. Earthscan.

Mann, T. (2007) Facilitation – an Art, a Science, Skill or all Three? Resource Productions

Footnotes

1. Mann, T. 2007.
2. Key values and principles include accountability, equity, flexibility, good governance, inclusiveness, legitimacy, lifelong learning, outcome orientation, transparency, universal participation & ownership (see Hemmati 2002).

Search Terms analytical frameworks toolkits