The English version is at the back of the article.
身為一名引導師，接案是我主要的經濟來源。但一件案子從意願、探詢、對焦到定案，其實需要很多層次的判斷，這極其仰賴引導者的經驗與直覺。有時候，那些「不接」的案子，反而讓我對引導的初心有更多省思，也讓雙方都能從中學到更多。
去年，一位合作多次、默契十足的委託人找上我，希望能為團隊主持一場策略共創會議。原本我以為這會是一次快速有效的電話對焦，但在初步溝通中，我發現他當下很難決定會議的核心。我認識他很久，他具備極強的會議主導能力，團隊專業技術也沒問題，他更是一向快、狠、準的決策者；但在當晚的對談中，我感受到了他的遲疑與不安，跟過去明朗爽快的他截然不同。
於是，在對談結束時，我給了他另一個選項：「在決定要不要辦工作坊之前，你要不要先做一場個人教練會談？」
我們相約在一個陽光的午後。在明亮的氛圍中，他展開了近期的無奈與煩惱。聽起來，過往的挫折讓他對判斷團隊方向失去了把握。許多不在掌控內的部門策略與關係，讓他覺得自己讓團隊受委屈了。因此，在工作坊的定調上，他若對團隊有要求，會覺得自己在壓迫大家；但不推動，又覺得對不起自己的角色。
幸運的是，一旦人有了覺察，調整就不再那麼困難。他本就是個能力強、有才華的人，當看見了卡點與期待，就能找到位置處理糾結。當天談完，他跟我說：「莉安，我覺得我可以自己帶這場工作坊了ㄟ！」這一刻，我感覺比自己帶完一場工作坊還要有成就感。
那一刻我更確信：領導者的狀態，必然是團隊整體狀態的縮影。只要領導者的心態穩了，就像準備好的土壤，有了對的種子，就能發芽。
雖然我非常推崇引導，但就像世上的各種工具一樣，引導並非萬靈丹。因此，引導師在工作前期多少帶點「醫生」屬性，必須本著服務各方（委託者、參與者等）的中立角色，透過訪談中的互動與經驗做判斷，不能只跟著需求表面走。如果主管正處於「電力不足」或「方向迷失」的狀態，硬要把團隊拉進會議室共創，只會讓大家在「假民主」的過場中感到疲憊。最浪費的，除了費用，還有現代人最珍貴的「注意力」。
我相信引導與教練的同時，也相信最好的合作應建立在互信上。當我選擇對委託人「誠實」，告訴他現在最有效的介入點在哪裡時，我們之間才建立了真正的夥伴關係。這就是我的「第零步」：不強買強賣，而是透過專業診斷，確保每一位夥伴的每一分資源，都花在刀口上。
As a professional facilitator, taking on projects is my primary livelihood. However, the journey from an initial inquiry to final execution requires multiple layers of judgment, relying heavily on a facilitator’s experience and intuition. Sometimes, the projects I choose not to take offer me the deepest reflections on my original intent, providing valuable lessons for both my clients and myself.
Last year, a long-term partner I had collaborated with many times approached me. He wanted me to facilitate a strategic co-creation workshop for his team. Given our history, I expected a quick and efficient alignment call. However, during our initial conversation, I realized he was struggling to define the core focus of the meeting. Having known him for years, I knew he was an exceptionally capable leader, his team was technically sound, and he was typically a decisive, “straight-to-the-point” executor. Yet, that evening, I sensed a hesitation and unease in him that was entirely uncharacteristic of his usual bright and decisive self.
Instead of jumping into the workshop design, I offered him another path: “Before we decide whether to hold a workshop, would you like to have a 1-on-1 coaching session first?”
We met on a sunny afternoon. In that bright, open atmosphere, he unburdened himself of his recent frustrations. It became clear that past setbacks had shaken his confidence in steering the team’s direction. Many factors beyond his control—inter-departmental strategies and complex relationships—made him feel as though he was letting his team down. Consequently, when it came to defining the workshop, he felt that setting demands was “oppressing” the team, yet not pushing them felt like a failure of his role.
Fortunately, once awareness dawns, adjustment follows. He is naturally talented and capable; once he identified his “sticking points” and clarified his expectations, he found the internal space to resolve his inner conflict. At the end of the session, he said to me, “Lilian, I think I can actually lead this workshop myself now!” In that moment, I felt a greater sense of accomplishment than if I had facilitated the workshop myself.
That experience reaffirmed my belief: A leader’s state is an inevitable reflection of the team’s overall state. When a leader’s mindset is stable, they become the “prepared soil”—where the right seeds can finally sprout.
While I am a strong advocate for facilitation, it is not a panacea. In the early stages of an engagement, a facilitator must embrace a “diagnostic” role. Acting as a neutral party serving all stakeholders (the client, participants, etc.), we must use our experience to look beyond the surface level of the request. If a leader is currently “low on power” or “losing their way,” forcing a team into a co-creation workshop will only lead to exhaustion in a “pseudo-democratic” process. The greatest waste, beyond the financial cost, is the most precious resource of modern professionals: attention.
My belief in facilitation and coaching is built on mutual trust. When I choose to be “honest” with a client—pointing out the most effective point of intervention rather than the most profitable one—we build a true partnership. This is what I call “Step Zero”: it’s not about a hard sell, but about professional diagnosis, ensuring that every person’s resources are spent where they matter most.
