Group 3 Facilitation 3 Deliverable

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.