Rough, Jim. "Dynamic Facilitation and the Magic of Self-Organizing Change." Journal of Quality and Participation, June 1997. Facilitators need to transition from extrinsically managing change to attending to the process of change. Self-organization is key for the latter, resulting in a subtle ongoing shift from dependency to empowerment -- sort of considering the organization more of a "garden" rather than a "machine." Self-organization cannot be planned and defies rational sense.

When successful, it almost feels magical. The danger becomes when the "magic" is then packaged into a "technique" that trainers are hired to teach and facilitators hired to make sure that people did the technique right. However, organizing and formalizing that which is "alive" will actually end up being destructive and not necessarily cause the "predicted" change.

Much current facilitation training focuses on techniques (brainstorming, visioning, Pareto, charts) -- "Static" facilitation -- but a "dynamic" facilitator would make rules and techniques secondary to supporting the self-organizing dynamic.

Think of a classroom:

Dynamic 1 ["fundamentals," goals, roles, action plans, formal measurement of overall progress]

1) All children on the same page facing front of the room,

2) Tests measure progress toward objectives--gold stars are displayed,

3) Teacher is in charge--presence assures order and progress,

4) Teacher leaves room-organized structure dissipates.

Dynamic 2 [elements of above needed, but not as ends in themselves]

1) Children working in groups on projects of interest to them,

2) Charts track individual progress, but mainly for self-assessment,

3) Low level of disorder that is actually self-ordering,

4) Teacher leaves room-work continues.

If Teacher 1 tries Dynamic 2, he or she will claim, "I tried it, but it didn't work." Of course--either they let go of keeping tight order, but didn't facilitate or they tried to keep order and manage change through techniques ("static"). Mixing the dynamics virtually guarantees failure.

Dynamic 2 threatens the "common sense" of Dynamic 1. It is not a static, step by step process, but a framework to guide the facilitator in supporting the natural, creative process to unfold. Dynamic 2 implicitly builds integrity, respect, trust, relationship, fun, quality, and creativity into a culture. Unfortunately, most organizations, consultants, and advice columns are deeply rooted in Dynamic 1.

There's a story of a company president who understood Dynamic 2, but his next level of management did not. They wanted to be told "exactly what to do" so they could "excel" come review time. The brilliant solution: They were told, "Never do the mission of this company" (!). In other words, their job was to help the people under them do the mission of the company.

The time is here where "profit and loss" need to be replaced (in priority) by sense of integrity and mutual respect of people working toward a shared mission. The latter can't necessarily be measured, but needs to be self-assessed frequently (How's that for a paradox? Think of a swimmer crossing a lake -- does he or she necessarily need formal measurement to know how far they've gone? Somehow, they can just tell.).