Shadow facilitation
- Jan 10
- 10 min read
Updated: Feb 10
Navigating unwritten pressures
Introduction: Your TOR vs your ‘real job’ as an expert facilitator
You may be contracted to design and facilitate an event or process, or be assigned a key role as an internal staff person. Most parts of facilitation Terms of Reference (TOR) are matched to specific deliverables: a concept note, an agenda and session plans, an evaluation strategy, facilitation of a process.
Through 40+ years of consultancies as a facilitator, I’ve learned that while your TOR sits in the foreground, a background exists as well, rarely acknowledged but constantly active. In the shadows of what’s written is your “actual job”.
Examples include navigating unspoken politics, protecting a process from power abuse or grand-standing, and staying focused on delivering transformative results. These are part of the job even if they make some people temporarily unhappy.
That shadow job doesn’t replace the explicit part, the visible part. That stays in the light and needs to be delivered to standard. The shadow responsibilities give depth of field and a reality check to what is contained in a contract or agreement.
You may not find out about those actual job requirements until circumstances force it, and you are challenged to ensure a designed process progresses smoothly, or recovers from disruption.
Communication in such experiences can be tense, confusing and stressful.
The people you’re working with may not have clarified their own thinking, and disagree or be unable to amicably reach key decisions.
You may have a disgruntled spoiler on the team whose body language and interventions are prickly and domineering, frustrating other participants.
Seniors may pull rank and use up available air time.
Your first and continuing job becomes to clarify and seek coherent guidance, maintaining professionalism while taking direct or indirect action when the process requires it.
Not all the “shadow specifics” apply consistently or to the same degree in all situations. If you’re lucky, you may not ever meet some of them. As you strengthen your facilitation skills, you will be better able to anticipate some of the shadow tasks. You’ll see the outline of what’s coming before it materializes, be able to head off the higher risk ones and be as prepared as possible to deal professionally with the unexpected.
The defined facilitation job - TOR elements you’ll recognize
Terms of Reference for a facilitator usually cover such elements as:
· Work with a lead organizer to …
· Develop a concept note for ...
· Design a programme, develop an agenda …
· Prepare or support preparation of session plans …
· Develop a run-of-show with detailed tasking …
· Facilitate an event or process – as a lead facilitator, or with others …
· Hold daily debriefing meetings with an organizing team …
· Evaluate an event or process … `
Clients understand and expect you to deliver on these parts of the job. Most elements of a facilitation TOR can be matched to specific deliverables: a concept note, designed agenda, session plans, training curriculum and plans, implementation of an agreed agenda, an evaluation strategy.
Positive and less positive shadow elements of facilitation
The shadow elements of facilitation can seldom be articulated or made explicit as a necessary part of the function. They tap into both positive and less positive influences and pressures. This post and the related series focus on less positive ones because they are often the most challenging, occuring in the moment and requiring rapid response.
Many positive influences serve as the connective tissue that brings and holds people together in a common purpose, across differences. These include interactive design, continuing opportunities for feedback, variety of methods, planning for social interaction and networking. That connective tissue needs to be nurtured and developed in very particular ways that match what the client wants and client system can support. Other parts of the Facilitate It methodology address integration of the positive dimensions of shadow facilitation. Co-facilitation is a key approach: capacitating and enabling others to deliver well within a shared design.
The shadow job: nine client system pressures that can influence facilitation
To bring a strong counterpoint to client system pressures from internal organizing leads, resource people or participants, your job as a facilitator may need to expand from the TOR to tactics. Many examples from experience relate to speaking truth to power, holding more senior people accountable for process norms, and applying these equally across all participants.
You may struggle to balance what you know about effective processes with collective pressure to:
agree with the boss – pressure to defer to senior people, even when their input weakens the design and contradicts norms or plans.
make the organization look good – pressure to protect organizational image, prioritizing appearance and positive narrative even when data or experience point to gaps.
exempt senior figures from process norms, allowing extended interventions or deviations out of deference to hierarchy.
accommodate dominant voices, allowing those who speak at length to take disproportionate air time rather than applying agreed equitable time boundaries.
prioritize participant enjoyment over challenge, avoiding difficult conversations or necessary tension to secure positive evaluations.
overlook problematic behaviour, bypassing micro-aggressions, disrespect or boundary violations to maintain surface harmony and momentum. “Nothing too hard.”
affirm success for external stakeholders, emphasizing strengths and downplaying weaknesses to maintain funding, credibility or political support.
treat all contributions as equivalent in value, giving equal weight to inputs regardless of evidence, credibility, expertise, or alignment with purpose.
shield organizers from shared process responsibilities, allowing them to prioritize individual tasks over modelling collective norms.
Case Study: The Bangladesh Training
Capacity building for gender equality raises difficult questions about sex, gender, cultural norms, attitudes, roles, and responsibilities for social change. Men and women both may resent and resist the idea that their fundamental gender identity is anything other than a norm to be respected, much less a dimension of being human that may need adjustment.
One example from experience has stayed with me for four decades: training agriculture specialists on gender equality with CIDA (Canadian International Development Agency). Participants were Bangladeshi and Canadian colleagues.
A Bangladeshi trainer and I co-designed and co-facilitated the 3 day training. The methodology was an exemplary blend of proven Bangladeshi and Canadian methods and techniques.
It was based on solid adult education principles: participatory, phased, with learning objectives focused on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes.
We invited project beneficiaries as resource people to share experiences, particularly women farmers.
The training drew on local voices of experience and authority.
It was fully aligned with the policy, the constitution and laws, and addressed cultural norms as potential obstacles to the achievement of the country’s legal commitments.
It introduced concepts and measures as tools that project staff were required to integrate into their work.
All participants evaluated key aspects of the training. Consolidated evaluation findings were shared in reports and transferred forward to adjust training design and curriculum.
The signed evaluation from the senior-most government official was laudatory. He told an anecdote on himself about following suggestions from the course, sharing some domestic roles. When he got home from the work on the day he heard the suggestion, he put the kettle on and his wife asked, “What are you doing?” ‘I’m putting the kettle on to make you a cup of tea.” She called out: “Children, children, come see what your father is doing!”
Meaningful change can be inferred from anecdotes about individual experience about attitudinal change, as well as from codified conclusions from evaluation and data analysis.
The evaluations were 95% positive, rich with specifics of how participants planned to apply what they had learned, actions they committed to take when they returned to projects. But feedback from one participant, a male white Canadian, was very negative.
Within two weeks of the evaluation report reaching the desk of the responsible person at headquarters, the Bangladeshi trainer and I were called to a meeting with senior managers. We were asked to explain the negative input, questioned about why we had not removed the negative inputs from the evaluation report, criticized for not having been more capable of managing the person’s inputs, and chastised for not having been diplomatic enough in our training approach.
The "almost" majority of positive input shrunk in the harsh light of one person’s criticism. The reality of one person’s voice being given equal weight to the inputs of 39 others who found the learning experience positive and meaningful was not part of the meeting.
It turned out the complainant was the son of a senior executive in the organization who agreed with his son about gender equality being a western concept inconsistent with the cultural norms of the context. Both felt they had the right to express that opinion and have it considered as legitimate a perspective as official policy and national laws.
The programme managers were caught between the objective evaluation findings and the perception of the protected negative participant. The programme manager later briefed us that a senior manager had suggested we not be hired again, though we had done what a majority of participants identified as a stellar job in challenging circumstances.
In a hierarchical organization, the best action for vulnerable staff may be to lay low and stay quiet, though they may not agree with what the bosses say or with management practices. Part of the “actual job” of a facilitator can be to follow good practice and take the flak for what internal organizers may not be able to say.
What does the case illustrate?
This case illustrates misogyny, power dynamics and political shielding. It crystallizes multiple shadow pressures. Organizational optics were prioritized over data, a protected opinion above policy and law, and the weight of hierarchy in determining whose voice matters. It also shows how unconscious privilege and entitlement, and hierarchy, can distort collective deliberations and results. These pressures present some of the most challenging interventions to facilitate.
The full job framework – an integrated model of expert facilitation
A comprehensive profile of an integrated model of expert facilitation addresses the explicit parts of the facilitation TOR and the shadow pressures. Without compromising the purpose, quality of results or engagement, an expert facilitator’s job includes these inter-connected elements for process success
GROUND THE INCREMENTAL PROCESS IN VALUES AND COLLECTIVE PURPOSE
You anchor the group in what matters most, shared values/principles and clear objectives.
Integrate and model core values. E.g.: Embed principles of inclusion and mutual respect into norms and design, model them and honour contributions respectfully.
Anchor the process and group in purpose and results. Regularly and explicitly link all activities back to core objectives to maintain focus and momentum. E.g.: this session connects directly to objective 2. Summarize regularly, with similar links to key results.
Build validation and sustain engagement with iterative recaps. Use progressive summarization to bring the full group along, ensuring they endorse the final outputs.
SHAPE AND STEWARD THE PROCESS – THE TECHNICAL CRAFT
You design and manage the mechanics, ensuring flow, structure and disciplined progress.
Maintain tight process focus. Act as a choreographer for the facilitation team, keeping the group on task, on target, and on time from start to finish. E.g. adjust on the fly to recover lost time while still keeping the objective in focus.
Design for diverse participants. Create a range of entry points, engagement points and cofacilitation opportunities. E.g. offer quiet reflection, work in pairs, small groups and plenary; offer “eyes and ears” role to representatives of different participant groups.
Weave in social, relational and reflective elements. Use graphics and art, music, humour (carefully!), icebreakers to sustain energy, and quiet reflection points to encourage absorption. E.g. use a brief visualization or energizer to reset energy after heated discussion.
Balance the “balcony and the dancefloor” views. Continually move between managing fine details and observing the whole-group dynamic to guide the process artfully. E.g.: use “lighthouse” technique to observe if a quiet group is disengaging and adjust facilitation midstream. Introduce a quick table conversations to engage everyone.
CULTIVATE PEOPLE AND RELATIONSHIPS – THE HUMAN ECOSYSTEM
You elevate the people who make the process unique – participants, colleagues, organizers.
Champion and support the organizers. Actively celebrate the organizing team’s efforts and maintain a forward-looking, positive stance, especially when challenges arise. Protect them where you can. E.g.: privately reassure a stressed lead organizer and publicly acknowledge their backbone role and contributions.
Foster participant value and connection. Create opportunities for sharing, learning, and meaningful contributions, reinforcing how each person's work connects to larger purpose and results. E.g.: invite participants to summarize, harvest insights from one another, rather than only having a facilitation team member provide recaps.
Delegate and guide from the background. Empower the facilitation team and participants, stepping into the foreground only when necessary to serve the process. E.g.: have a co-facilitator lead a segment while you support with timekeeping and observation.
Be ready to step in to provide support or redirect at any time. Granular attention to a process and influencing factors is required for smooth choreography. It needs a team! And that team needs your full support so they can do well without being undermined. E.g.: be strategic, respectful and careful when you intervene in a process being managed by a co-facilitator.
Strengthen capacity in real time. Provide immediate, constructive feedback, public or private, to develop the skills of all involved during “teachable moments”. E.g.: coach a resource person on pacing after a session, or praise a participant’s unique insights in public.
NAVIGATE POWER AND COMPLEXITY – THE SHADOW WORK
You protect the process and results by competently navigating shadow facilitation.
Speak truth to power, strategically. Advocate for the group’s needs to leadership, prioritizing private, well-planned conversations for maximum impact. Do it with purpose. E.g.: brief a senior leader privately on why they need to limit remarks to 5 minutes, to protect the group’s time to engage with what they hear.
Facilitate sense-making and meaning-making. Guide the group to analyse its own experiences and data, inviting expert input as nourishment for emerging conclusions. E.g.: spot substantive tensions among organizers and managers and adjust the agenda to address them safely. Encourage views from operations, technical teams, managers from different levels, for as full a picture as possible.
Stay open to resistance and pushback. Avoid quick reactions or defensiveness. Important points may be masked by an aggressive or combative tone. Listen past it. Sometimes people engage with new content by arguing with it, and later integrate it into their thinking. E.g. paraphrase the essence of a point a participant makes, without reaction to tone.
See Facilitate It's separate post on "embracing shadow facilitation" with counter-actions to client system pressures, and the shadow facilitation tactical series for more on client system pressures.
Conclusion and actions
Use your Terms of Reference as your primary starting reference in a facilitation contract or experience. Widen your lens of focus to include the identified client system pressures as well as others, and strengthen corresponding shadow facilitation. Approach facilitation with a fully integrated set of responsibilities, explicit and shadow.
Work with the extended facilitation team to distribute some of the shadow facilitation assignments, according to who can most logically and best carry them forward. Draw on insights from situational leadership: the best person to lead on specifics may not be the most senior or a person in a superficially logical function. Co-facilitation is part of a strong solution to client system pressures and risks that they may weaken a process. Engage as many people as possible in an active co-facilitation role.
Embrace the whole landscape! When participants see that you remain open and positive to whatever is raised, they can more readily do the same. As facilitation practice evolves into shorter sessions, on-line and in-person, and is increasingly recognized as a core leadership skill, mastering this integrated view of the job is what separates effective guides from transformative ones.
Strengthen your tactical tool kit. The related blog series covers tactical measures to address and manage each of the nine client system pressures points introduced here. (Link).
