When does it make sense? And when doesn't it?
When a new method emerges, people like to attribute magical powers to it: "Finally, there is a tool that can be used to deal with all problems effectively." It was no different with the moderation method: from one day to the next, every workshop and every meeting had to be moderated. That couldn't work: The moderation method is a wonderful tool for turning those affected into participants. But it is not a panacea.
The euphoria that the moderation method was able to trigger at the beginning has subsided somewhat over the last few years. Word has long since got around that the moderation method also has its limits. This forces those responsible to consider in advance of meetings and discussions whether the moderation method is the right tool for the next meeting or not.
If the aim of a workshop is to give a decision that has already been made a democratic touch, the moderation method is definitely the wrong tool. After all, the aim of facilitated meetings is to develop new, promising ideas, solutions or alternatives. The outcome of a facilitated working session cannot be predetermined: Facilitated working groups have their own dynamics.
The moderation method takes time
A moderated working session requires a certain amount of time: it cannot be carried out in 15 minutes. Experience has shown that meetings in which several people participate and exchange ideas require more time than meetings in which only a few people speak. For this reason, the time for facilitated workshops must be adapted to the topic, the objective and the size of the group. In addition, all participants in a facilitated meeting should be of equal value and equal importance - if line managers take part, they must be prepared to act as equals among equals.
The moderation method requires one moderator for every 12 participants
Experience has shown that the best number is six to twelve active participants. For particularly labor-intensive or conflict-ridden events with groups of more than ten participants, it is advisable to work with two moderators. In this case, one moderator pays more attention to the work process while the other focuses on accompanying the group. In addition, the two moderators support each other with visualization.
Successful moderations require a room in which work can be carried out undisturbed. This also means that all cell phones must be turned off. Professional visualization tools, attractive options for meaningful breaks, light meals, plenty of water, coffee and tea and a stimulating environment that invites creative thinking and experimentation are further guarantees for successful moderations.
The moderation method needs a trained moderator
Almost all contemporaries want to learn how to lead, influence and control other people. Accordingly, they start training at an early age: with their siblings, with their girlfriend, on the football pitch, at the gymnastics club, at the school strike, in the military, at work, in the family or at the bar. The more or less secret principle applied and still applies everywhere: "Get involved with your interests and your content and assert yourself wherever possible." This principle does not apply to the moderator. For this reason, a successful meeting needs a moderator who has learned their trade.If the group openly rejects the moderation method, no moderation can take place. In this case, the moderator must find out what the objections are specifically directed against. It is then easy to explain the background and promote understanding.
Book tip:
Moderation tools by Amelie Funcke and Eva Havenit
Order
