Facilitation #3: Bridging Local Grassroots Organizations

and International Aid Agencies: Card and Chart
Reflection and Feedback

A. What do you feel your group did really well? Choose three things and provide
some details around why you chose these.

1. Creative adaptation: We had a creative adaptation of the card and chart exercise. We
added a “bridge” between the local NGOs and the international aid agencies and asked
the group for strategies to bridge the similarities and differences between the two.

2. Overall organization: Our activities were clearly and creatively organized with
different colors. We used flip charts and whiteboards effectively. Transitions between
activities and segments were smooth.

3. Group dynamics: Facilitation style was authoritative enough to foster good
participation and group cohesion but not overbearing. The icebreaker created a safe
and comfortable space.

B. What would you change if you were to facilitate this session again? Choose
three things and provide some details of what you would do differently.

1. We would engage the group more in the bridge exercise and have people write down
their ideas instead of the facilitators writing them for the group.

2. We would make changes to the silent clustering activity which was meant to equalize
power dynamics but in fact reinforced them. For example, we might only invite
participants that were not speaking much to participate in the activity.

3. We would pay more attention to “meaning making” -- this part of the facilitation was
unclear to some participants.

C. At what points in your session did you feel that participants were most
engaged and why?

Our participants were very engaged during our icebreaker because it was fun and
energizing. Through that exercise, they were able to build a sense of trust among each
other that segued well into the following activities. They were also engaged in the
smaller groups session when asked to brainstorm together 5 ideas for each of the two
questions posed. They actively shared ideas and some participants even related to
personal experiences that were relevant to the fictional NGO/grassroots leaders context
that we presented.

D. How well did your session address issues of power, privilege and
marginalization? How could you rework the session to more effectively engage
with power issues?

Our ice breaker addressed issues of power, privilege and marginalization explicitly by
having an activity in which some participants were blind and mute and had to rely on
their peers.

One way we could rework the session to address power issues would be to encourage
more active participation within the small groups, because some participants were not
speaking up as much as others. In addition, our silent activity created an imbalance in
power dynamics because less assertive people fell by the wayside. If they had had the
chance to speak, they may have had an easier time getting up to the board to see the
placement of the cards.

E. How would you describe your teamwork in preparing and facilitating this
exercise?

Team work to prepare for the facilitation was pretty evenly split. Team members
generally felt prepared for the facilitation. During the facilitation there were power issues
between team members that led to roles becoming muddled, and areas of responsibility
being crossed over.

F. What is the most important feedback that you received that you will take with
you and apply?

Using our equity process monitor to identify participants that are not speaking and
coming up with ideas to encourage their participation -- we are realizing just how
important this role is in a successful facilitation.

There were a few areas where we would have liked to engage participants more instead
of leading discussions and or carrying out activities as well. This especially relates to
involving participants in a multi-sensory way.