Cultivating Respect in Facilitation

Through attending decades of Vermont Town Meetings, I learned that effective facilitation requires respect.

For over two hundred years, my little hometown of Marlboro, Vermont, met at least once a year for “town meeting”: a form of local government where every eligible resident can directly participate in town governance. At our main annual town meeting, we discussed and voted on published agendas that included the town and school budgets and many other articles. Debate, facilitated by a town moderator, was common, people made amendments and voted on them, and the meetings (one for the town and one for the school) could last most of the day.

Photograph of people filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting. Photograph by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer
People filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting. Photograph by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer

In my experience, though people in the room had different points of view, town meetings worked as well as they did because our town moderator respected everyone present and, for the most part, town residents respected each other. We remembered that the folks around us were our neighbors. They were people who, if we needed help, would be there for us despite our disagreements about politics and other issues. Sometimes votes wouldn’t go how we liked, yet we shrugged and moved on.

We could listen and make (sometimes) painful decisions because our moderator modeled respect and we respected each other despite our differences.

Facilitation and respect

Effective facilitation requires respect. An image of two women facilitating a group of participants standing in a well-lit meeting room.

So, how can we cultivate respect in facilitation?

As a facilitator, I sometimes struggle to keep my opinions of the sayer and what’s said and the sayer to myself. It can be hard to shut up and listen when facilitating, and I’m occasionally tempted to offer unsolicited advice.

However, I’ve learned that listening is a gift you can’t fully give when you don’t respect the person you’re listening to. Effective facilitation is inherently rooted in showing respect to each individual involved. A facilitator needs to respect diverse perspectives and honor the contributions of each participant. This involves active listening—truly tuning in to what others are saying without judgment or interruption.

Respectful facilitation also involves fostering inclusivity and fairness. It means ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to speak and participate, regardless of status or background.

In essence, effective facilitation is a delicate dance between structure and empathy, where respect serves as a guiding principle. When participants feel respected, they are more likely to engage authentically, share ideas openly, and collaborate productively.

A perspective from meditation practice

Meditation practice can teach us how to cultivate mindful respect. Recently, one of my meditation teachers, Helen Narayan Liebenson, has been speaking about respect from a Buddhist perspective.

One concept she shared is “loosening judgment”. We continually interpret our sensed experience. When this involves listening to others, we may judge them or what they say. Some form of judgment is, perhaps, inescapable, but when we notice it we can practice loosening judgment: moving away from judgment and towards direct experience of another.

She also described performing an “inner bow“. This is a way of honoring either another or oneself, a conscious intention derived from an external act of respect: the act of bowing to another.

Ultimately, such language only points to the action to convey. Listening, loosening judgment, or performing an inner bow are ways to treat others with respect. All of these actions are intertwined and reinforce each other in the process.

Postscript

Marlboro abandoned traditional town meetings at the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020. My town has not readopted them, though many Vermont towns still practice this form of local government. We’ve switched to voting on articles via Australian ballot so there are no more large spring gatherings, debates, or amendments. I appreciate that our new form of government allows all eligible residents to vote, rather than only those who attend an in-person meeting. But I miss meeting with townsfolk and discussing our town’s direction and future together.

No matter our differences, I hope we continue to respect our neighbors, in the same way effective facilitators respect those with whom we work.

Photograph attribution: People filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer.

Facilitating: try to remember we are all different

when facilitating try to remember we are all different: original photograph of a finger by Geoffrey Fairchild, under a CC BY 2.0 Deed license While facilitating, I try to remember that we are all different. Here’s why that goal can make me a better facilitator.

I can be better than I expect at noticing differences

I know that everybody’s fingerprints are unique, though that doesn’t help me facilitate better. But sometimes, to my surprise, I become aware of subtle useful differences between members of a group.

For example, most weekdays I meditate with an online group. Each day, while my eyes are closed, one of several teachers starts the group and rings a bell. By now, I can tell which teacher is leading us simply by hearing how they sound the bell.

Another example. Long before the internet existed, I taught introductory programming to college students. They’d hand in their printouts of short programs and sometimes forget to write their names on the paper. No matter. By the second week of class, I could easily recognize the way each student wrote code and know whose program it was.

Having enough time for helpful noticing is often a problem, though, unless I have the luxury of working with a group for a day or more, or meeting with them multiple times.

Facilitation is necessarily imperfect

What’s difficult, of course, is that participants differ in countless ways, most of which I don’t know.

Consequently, when leading a group, any instructions or guidance I share might be just right for some. For others, what I say may be ineffective or even counterproductive.

However, trying to please everyone is invariably counterproductive. My facilitation will always be imperfect.

Knowing this, what can I do to make my facilitation as good as I can?

Knowing my facilitation strengths and weaknesses

To help work with differences, facilitators need to be aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Here are some of mine:

  • I am usually good at reading faces, body language, and the emotional content of speech.
  • However, this focus means that my visual awareness of other activities in the room leaves something to be desired. (For example, don’t expect me to notice, at least for a while, the new floral centerpieces that staff installed during a break!)
  • I’m easily distracted by superfluous noise.
  • My academic training makes me prone to providing more detail than sometimes is necessary.
  • Unlike some facilitators, I don’t have much of a gift for rapidly getting participants’ attention.
  • As I age, my ability to keep track of multiple issues and conversational threads continues to decrease.

Knowing my facilitation “fingerprint” helps me be aware of situations where I need to be especially careful, and perhaps get help. For example, I’ll sometimes co-opt a charismatic participant or two to help me regain participants’ attention. And I often ask volunteers to use a flipchart or projected Google Doc to capture things we need to remember and/or return to.

Noticing differences that matter

Thankfully, although facilitators generally know little about participants, many differences aren’t relevant to the current circumstances. And we often notice valuable differences. Facilitators obtain information from all kinds of things: facial expressions, body language, emotional responses to events, and what people say and do.

Such observations are key to working with a group and responding in useful and supportive ways to what comes up.

For me, noticing differences that improve my facilitation is motivated by deep curiosity and love of people. Curiosity helps me notice potentially important clues to what’s going on, and what people want and need. Love gives me the energy to do what is often hard in-the-moment work.

Noticing differences that matter guides me in one of the more challenging aspects of facilitation: steering a responsive path between the extremes of providing rigid directions for everyone to follow versus letting people do whatever they want with the group. Noticing differences helps me choose the right words and actions that offer appropriate structure and support while still allowing different approaches and responses.

That’s why, while facilitating, I try to remember that we are all different.

Image attribution: Geoffrey Fairchild, original image under a CC BY 2.0 Deed license

Exploring the Second Question

A photograph of a room with a woman holding a sign that says “What do I want to have happen?” Back in 1992, I developed The Three Questions as a fundamental opening process for participant-driven meetings and conferences. I’ve used it myself at hundreds of events, and many facilitators and meeting designers have also adopted it as an effective way for attendees to get to learn about each other and uncover what they would like to discuss while they are together. I’ve written about The Three Questions in all my books, and the links above and this video provide introductions so I won’t describe it further here. Instead, I’ll share how I encourage deeper responses to the Second Question:

“What do I want to have happen?”

How people respond to the Second Question

The Second Question goes to the heart of the peer conference (aka unconference) process. Answering it gives every person present, in turn, an opportunity to share what they would like the ensuing meeting to be about.

Over the years, I’ve noticed a subtle difference between first-time peer conferences and subsequent gatherings of the same community. At first-time gatherings, it’s more likely that some people (typically ~10%) will respond with an answer that comes down to:

“I’m here because I want to learn from others.”

These people are hesitant to share specific top-of-mind issues or questions they have. Of course, that’s OK because there are no wrong answers to The Three Questions. On the other hand, I suspect that many of those who respond this way do have topics or questions, but for a multitude of reasons don’t share them when it’s their turn.

At subsequent community conferences, my experience is that such a response is less likely. Those who offer it are usually first-time attendees. I think participants are more likely to be specific at repeated events because they have experienced the flowering of discussion and sessions based on what is shared during The Three Questions. They have seen that they have the potential to personally shape the peer conference toward their wants and needs.

The limitations of “I want to learn from others”

Again, there’s nothing wrong with an attendee’s answer: “I want to learn from others.” From a group perspective, however, this response doesn’t enrich the set of ideas, topics, and questions that the ensuing meeting could address. (If everyone answered this way, the group would know no more about its collective wants and needs than before The Three Questions started!)

So, a few years ago I added an extra prompt to my original introduction to The Three Questions.

How I encourage deeper responses to the Second Question

I simply add this refinement:

“Some people say ‘I want to learn’. That’s fine, but try to go deeper if you can. See if you can come up with three specific things you’d love to get out of this conference.

Depending on the conference, I then sometimes supply an example of ideas, topics, and questions that my client thinks might be top-of-mind. For example, writing this in 2023, I might mention artificial intelligence. Then I’ll add that anything of interest can be shared, at any level of detail. For example:

  • They are using artificial intelligence and want to talk to others who are exploring the same approach; or
  • They are wondering how AI will affect their profession; or
  • They simply want to learn more about AI.

How well does this refinement work?

I know that this simple addition has encouraged some people to share more deeply because I now routinely hear attendees say something like, “The N things I want to learn/understand/have questions about are…”. And I suspect that others have been nudged to be more specific too.

Do I still hear “I want to learn from others”? Yes, I do! But not as often as before. And that’s fine!

Combining facilitation tools

 

Conference participants using facilitation tools RSQP and dot voting A June 2023 conference gave me a perfect opportunity to use one of my facilitation tools: Reminders, Sparks, Questions, Puzzles (RSQP). RSQP can be thought of as a highly interactive debrief after an information dump. It’s an efficient way to get participants to rapidly engage with and explore presented content in a personally meaningful way. And, as we’ll see, RSQP offers the potential to devise on-the-fly sessions that meet participants’ uncovered wants and needs.

My 2014 post on RSQP gives a clear example of how it works (and my book Event Crowdsourcing includes full details) so I won’t repeat myself here. The 2014 and the recent conference each had around 200 participants, so the process and timing (around 25 minutes) were pretty similar.

But there were two significant differences.

Two significant differences

1. Conference length

The 2014 conference ran for three days.

But the 2023 conference ran a mere eight hours, from 8:30 AM – 4:30 PM on a single day.

2. How we used the gallery created by RSQP

The 2014 conference didn’t use the RSQP gallery to directly influence what would happen during the rest of the conference. A small group of subject-matter experts clustered key theme notes into a valuable public resource for review throughout the event. Participants simply used the clustered gallery to discover what their peers were thinking.

In contrast, I designed the 2023 conference to explore the future of a 50-year-old industry, and we needed to use the information mined by RSQP to create same-day sessions that reflected participants’ top-of-mind issues, questions, and concerns. We had just 2½ hours to:

  • review the information on nearly a thousand sticky notes;
  • determine an optimum set of sessions to run;
  • find facilitators for the sessions; and
  • schedule the sessions to time slots and rooms.

Combining facilitation tools

 

An example of facilitation tools: a wall of RSQP plus dot voting flip charts To make our 2½ hours of participant-driven session determination a little easier, I combined RSQP with another facilitation technique: dot voting.

So, at the end of the standard RSQP process, I added a dot voting step. While the participants individually shared their ideas with the others at their table, the staff gave each table a strip of three red sticky dots. When the flip chart sheets were complete, I asked each table to spend three minutes choosing and adding red dots to the three topics on their sheet they thought were the most important for further discussion. Here’s an example of one table’s work.
facilitation tools example: an RSQP plus dot voting flip chart

An initial review of the gallery’s red-dot items, allowed us to quickly zero in on needed and wanted topics. We saw a nice combination of popular ideas and great individual table suggestions. Being able to initially focus on red-dot topics on the flip charts saved us crucial time.

As a result, we determined the topics, assigned facilitators, and scheduled a set of nine sessions in time to announce them during lunch. (Once again, refer to my book Event Crowdsourcing for the step-by-step procedures we used for session selection and scheduling.) We ran the sessions in two one-hour afternoon time slots, and, as is invariably the case with program crowdsourcing, every session was well-attended and received great reviews.

Conclusion

I’m sure there are still great group facilitation techniques I have yet to discover. But my facilitation toolbox doesn’t get as many new tools added each year as when I began to practice professionally. However, when I consider how many possible combinations of my existing tools are available to solve new group work situations, I feel increasingly confident in my ability to handle novel facilitation challenges that may arise.

As my mentor Jerry Weinberg wrote:

“I may run out of ideas, but I’ll never run out of new combinations of ideas.”
Jerry Weinberg, Weinberg on Writing: The Fieldstone Method

Using pair share for group work practice

Group work practice. An image of two people who are seated in adjacent chairs looking at each other. They are part of a circle of chairs filled with other people. I’m a big fan of the core facilitation technique pair share. After pairing up participants and providing a short time for thinking about a topic or question, each pair member takes a minute or so, in turn, to share their thoughts with their partner. I use pair share regularly to move participants’ brains into active learning, introduce them to someone new, and share relevant ideas and information about what we’re currently exploring together. But there’s always more for me to learn. Last week, a client pointed out that we can use pair share for group work practice too!

Rachel and I were preparing for another core facilitation technique I use at the start of meetings: The Three Questions. Participants think about their answers to the questions and then share their answers, in turn, with the group. We were reviewing Rachel’s outline and I came across an addition to the process.

“Practice Round (3 minutes). Now, turn to the person next to you and in 60 seconds or less, share your answers. Ask for feedback.”

Rachel had added a pair share to allow all participants to practice their answers before sharing with the entire group.

I immediately loved and saw the value of her idea!

I devised The Three Questions thirty years ago and have run it hundreds of times, but I’d never considered this improvement. Though I mention common slip-ups to participants, such as spending too long on the first question, they sometimes still occur. Allowing everyone to practice their answers with one other person before group sharing is a simple and effective way to help each participant:

  • Feel more confident about their answers;
  • Get personal feedback; and
  • Provide better answers to the group.

Conclusion

I will be adding Rachel’s small but valuable improvement to my future sessions of The Three Questions. As a proponent of lifelong learning, I’m happy to use observations, feedback, and trying new things to continually refine what I do. A generous hat tip to Rachel LaForgia, Senior Program Director of the Peace and Security Funders Group, for sharing this simple application of pair share for group work practice with me!

Working with both sides

After a school board informational meeting the other day, I chatted with the moderator, Steve John. We discussed several aspects of the meeting, including the difficulty of working with both sides of an issue.

Working with both sides: A photograph of The Meeting for the Town/Community Center, Marlboro, VT. Photo by David Holzapfel. I'm the guy wearing a checked shirt.
The Meeting for the Town/Community Center, Marlboro, VT. Photo by David Holzapfel. I’m the guy wearing a checked shirt.

It’s rare for groups larger than a few people to agree unanimously on an issue. Sometimes the group needs to make a choice between alternatives. Our school board meeting included a discussion of an upcoming vote on whether to keep junior high students educated at our local school or have them “tuition out” to other schools. Strong opinions on both sides were evident during the meeting.

Sometimes there are win-win alternatives to win-lose situations, as I’ve described elsewhere. But sometimes there aren’t, and the group needs to make a choice that some members are going to be unhappy about.

Even though facilitators or moderators need to stay non-judgmental, I sometimes agree more with certain points of view. Steve and I talked about how hard it can be to facilitate discussion on an issue when we have an opinion about it.

Learning from practicing facilitation

Though I find it difficult at times, one of the things I like about facilitation is that it challenges me to practice non-attachment to a perspective.

I probably don’t moderate contentious issues as often as Steve—who has decades of experience running public meetings—as my clients are mostly associations and non-profits. In my work, however, there are often underlying tensions between subgroups.

One common example is conferences where suppliers and practitioners attend the same sessions. Generalizing, suppliers (who also sometimes sponsor the meeting) are there to sell their products and services, while practitioners primarily want to learn from and connect with each other. This can cause friction between these two groups. Part of my pre-meeting work is to uncover, understand, and prepare for potential discord. This involves designing the meeting to respect the wants and needs of each group and facilitating any sticky situations that surface.

Another example is when participants work for organizations of very different sizes or focuses, have disparate ideas about the meeting’s goals, but have historically avoided discussing the resulting tensions with each other. My job, then, can be to open and facilitate uncomfortable but essential conversations about the invisible elephant in the room.

Working with both sides and empathizing with all points of view is good practice for staying open to possibilities in my work and my life.

Image attribution: Photo [source] by and with the permission of David Holzapel.

Facilitation listening as meditation

Most weekdays, my wife and I join a fifteen-minute online meditation offered by teachers at the Insight Meditation Society. The other day, teacher Matthew Hepburn introduced a dharma practice of meditating, not on one’s breath or body sensations, but on another person. As Matthew talked, I realized that I experience good facilitation listening as a meditation.

Matthew Hepburn, sharing about listening as meditation
Matthew Hepburn

When I’m listening well, I’m practicing a form of meditation where I focus my awareness on the person who is speaking. Not just what they are saying but the totality of their being in the moment.

I believe that being truly heard and seen at meetings is a gift, because someone to tell it to is one of the fundamental needs of human beings.

Giving the gift of listening is hard work—until it isn’t. Sometimes, facilitative listening is simple because it’s all that’s going on. The speaker has my full attention. That’s it.

Distractions

At other times, unfortunately, I’m feeling hungry, wondering if we’re on schedule, noticing that the carpet is ugly, etc. A myriad of possible distractions seduce me from full attention, and I succumb to them over and over again.

This is just like meditation.

In doing either, there are moments when you’re just here, and then all the moments when your attention wanders. Facilitators and meditators do the same thing: we notice that our attention has wandered and then bring it back to the object of attention. Over and over again.

Practice

Of course, facilitators don’t have the luxury of devoting their entire allotted time to meditative listening. We have other responsibilities: bringing sharing to a close, breaking on time for lunch, and framing the next segment of our work, to name just a few. Preparing for these transitions requires us to leave listening as a meditation.

But when we’re listening to people, treating such time as a meditation with the speaker as the sole object of our attention is a great practice to practice.

If you’re a facilitator, do you experience facilitative listening as a meditation? Feel free to share your experiences in the comments below.

Tip to improve breakout gallery walks

Photograph of women at a gallery walk, illustrating how to improve breakout gallery walks In a typical in-person conference breakout session, participants divide into small groups to discuss one or more topics. Each group records members’ thoughts and ideas on one or more sheets of flipchart paper. At the end of the discussions, groups post their papers on a wall and everyone walks around reading the different ideas. Facilitators call this a gallery walk. Here’s a tip to improve breakout gallery walks.

Why use gallery walks?

In the past, it was common for small group work to be “reported out”: a representative from each group verbally shared their group’s work with everyone. If there are many groups this takes a while, and there’s typically a fair amount of repetition which makes it hard to maintain focus. In addition, if the groups are covering multiple topics, it’s likely that some or most of the reporting will not be of interest to attendees. In short, reporting out is tiring to take in and inefficient.

A big advantage of gallery walks is that participants can easily concentrate on the topics, thoughts, and ideas that interest them. If a flipchart page is of no interest, it can be ignored. Also, it’s simple to customize a gallery walk to meet specific wants and needs. For example, if there are experts on a specific topic, they can stand near their flipchart notes and answer questions or support discussion. In fact, gallery walks allow ongoing interaction around the captured ideas, something that isn’t possible during “reporting out” which is a broadcast-style activity.

And this leads to my tip…

My tip to improve breakout gallery walks

You can improve the effectiveness of a gallery walk by adding one small step before it starts. Ask everyone to pair up with someone they don’t know and walk the gallery together while discussing what they see. When you do this, each participant:

  • Gets introduced to and learns about someone new.
  • Gains new perspectives on the topics under discussion.
  • Continues to actively learn about the topics after the end of their small group.

In essence, pairing participants increases the reach and impact of the breakout session by extending connection and interaction into the concluding gallery walk.

As usual, lightly ask participants to pair share. I like to think of such requests as giving people permission to do something they might want to do but feel a little awkward asking for it. If folks want to go around with someone they know or have just met, or decide to walk as a trio or alone respect their choices.

Thank you!

A hat-tip to my friend, photographer Brent Seabrook, for inadvertently sparking this tip when we took a gallery walk together at the Clark Institute a few months ago. Looking at art together with Brent added so much to my appreciation of what we saw—and I got to know him better too!

Image attribution: Georgia State University, College of Education & Human Development

Stooa review — a free online fishbowl tool

Stooa review: an animated image of four active fishbowl participants in Stooa I’m a big proponent of fishbowls as a tool to manage wide-ranging group discussions. (To learn in detail about the use and implementation of fishbowls and fishbowl sandwiches, see Chapters 29 and 30 of my book Event Crowdsourcing.) So when I heard about a free tool for online fishbowls — Stooa — I thought I’d take a look. Here’s my Stooa review.

How to start with Stooa

It’s easy to start working with Stooa. Registering a (free) account requires the usual information: name, email, and password. You can also add your Twitter and/or LinkedIn profiles if desired.

Once you’ve registered your account, you’re ready to create a new fishbowl.

As you can see, you can specify a discussion topic, add a description, and schedule the fishbowl start and duration (up to four hours; though that would be cruel and unusual punishment). You can also choose a language to use. Currently, the choices are English, Spanish, French, and Catalan. On clicking Create fishbowl you’ll see a summary of your new fishbowl, together with a link to distribute to others so they can join it. You’ll also receive an email with the same information — a nice touch.

Starting your fishbowl

When you click on Go to the fishbowl, Stooa will ask for permission to use your camera(s) and microphone(s). (Once you’ve joined a fishbowl, you can choose which ones to use.) Enter how you’d like to display your name, and you’ll see this screen:

When you’re ready to begin, click Start the fishbowl. At this point, the camera and microphone will be active just for you. Share a short introduction with the waiting attendees. When done, you’ll appear in one of the five fishbowl “seats”. Click Allow attendees to join the conversation to begin a discussion.

Running your fishbowl

At the top of the screen, you’ll see the remaining time for the fishbowl, a button to end it, and the number of attendees present. Clicking on the latter displays a list of people currently in the seats, followed by the remaining attendees. The list includes links to the Twitter and LinkedIn profiles of each attendee if they entered them.

At this point, attendees can enter/leave one of the fishbowl seats by clicking on the Join/Leave the conversation button at the bottom of the screen. The other buttons allow participants to choose and control their camera and microphone.

Five participants is a good maximum for a controlled and useful discussion. Stooa smoothly implements the entry and departure of fishbowl participants.

When your discussion is over, use the End fishbowl button to close the session.

Stooa review — what do I think?

Here are my initial impressions from a brief look. First, I want to acknowledge Stooa’s creator, Runroom, for developing this tool and making it Open Source: software with source code that anyone can inspect, modify and enhance. Hosting the software so that anyone can use it is another Runroom gift. They explain why they did so here. Thank you Runroom!

Stooa was easy to register and use on Chrome or Safari. First-time users should have little difficulty, as the entire onboarding process is designed very well. I haven’t used the tool with a large number of attendees, so I can’t say how it holds up under load. Given that the number of folks simultaneously on video chat is limited to five, I expect it will work fine.

Stooa succeeds admirably in its purpose as a single process tool that facilitates effective group discussion.

Limitations

Currently, you can’t remove a fishbowl participant. This could be a problem if you used Stooa for a public fishbowl discussion, publicized via a link on social media.

In addition, with all seats filled, there’s no way for waiting attendees to indicate that they’d like to join the discussion, so a fishbowl host doesn’t know how many others are waiting to speak. To deal with this, attendees could use a backchannel tool like Slack to message the host that they’d like to join in. Alternatively, adding a hand raise option to the attendee list would help to solve this problem. And incorporating a simple text chat for all attendees into Stooa would provide even greater flexibility.

Stooa is not the only tool for running online fishbowls. In July 2020, I shared how to use Zoom to run fishbowls online. Zoom is, of course, a fee-based platform, but many organizations own a license and Zoom does many other things as well. In this situation, Zoom includes attendee text chat and hand raising. And its breakout rooms allow you to create, inside a single tool, the fishbowl sandwiches I use to facilitate group problem-solving.

In an ideal world, the tools we use would include only the features we need. We don’t live in such a world, and Stooa is a well-crafted platform that allows groups to meet and discuss online. Whether it includes everything you need to make such discussions effective and fruitful is ultimately up to you to decide.

More about Stooa

I hope you’ve enjoyed this Stooa review and found it useful. Here are some additional resources for exploring Stooa. Feel free to add your experiences and thoughts in the comments below!

Support the bottom — a Thanksgiving reminder

Photograph of an aluminum foil baking dish with the words "SUPPORT THE BOTTOM" embossed at its center.
After our prime Thanksgiving dinner, I was sleepily washing a large turkey foil platter when I noticed its embossed central message: “Support the bottom.”

I’m going to blame the tryptophan in the turkey for causing me to muse, from a facilitation perspective, about the significance of this unexpected Prime Directive. I have no other excuse.

Support the bottom

It makes sense. We don’t want our heavy turkey to break through or slide off the tray as we’re bringing it to the feast. The manufacturer suggests we shouldn’t take for granted the strength of the thick aluminum foil holding our main course. We should be mindful that the bottom of our feast needs support.

Well, when working with a group of people, the “bottom” of the group also needs support.

Making assumptions

During group work, it’s tempting to assume that things are going well when we’re hearing from many people. When there’s significant interaction between group members. When folks are coming up with new ideas and interesting approaches to explore.

So it’s easy to overlook some people. Without checking, you might not see them. After all, they’re not bringing attention to themselves. People who say little or nothing. People who are distracted or disengaged.

It’s important to suspend judgment of these folks. There have been many times when I’ve been understandably silent/disengaged/distracted during meetings, and I’m sure everyone else has too. Perhaps:

  • what’s going on is of no interest;
  • we’re completely lost and confused;
  • feeling unwell is wrecking our attention;
  • we’re seriously short on sleep; or
  • a personal crisis is all we can think about;

and you can probably think of plenty of additional unexceptional circumstances when someone may be currently incapable of doing useful work in a group. We might say they have hit rock bottom.

But then there are the border cases. Frequently, there are people who might just need a nudge. They are at a momentary personal bottom, and they could use some support. A reminder, a reason, an opportunity to engage or reengage.

So what do we do?

How can we support group members at a (hopefully, momentary) bottom?

Noticing

The first step is noticing them. When working with a small group, the quiet folks are easy to spot. A good facilitator will gently check to see if they have something to say, and bring them into the work if they’re willing. With large groups noticing the quiet folks is hard, because, obviously, they’re not drawing attention. If you, as a facilitator, are concentrating on the people who are contributing and interacting — an important piece of your job — it’s easy to overlook those who aren’t.

How can we avoid missing the quiet folks in large groups? By making time for you to notice them! Luckily, this is typically part of good meeting design — it’s not something that you need to awkwardly or artificially introduce. Good large group work includes short breakouts, where impromptu small groups meet, think, discuss, and share. While these activities are going on, it’s fairly easy for a facilitator to roam the room and pick up on disengaged attendees. (Unfortunately, this is much harder to do online, as I mentioned in last week’s post.)

Engage/reengage

The second step is to provide regular opportunities for the “bottom” folks to engage or reengage. Appropriate small group work, like pair or trio share, is an obvious way to do this. When working in small groups, check to see if participants who haven’t spoken for a while have anything they’d like to add. If you’re running a fishbowl or fishbowl sandwich, ask that people not share more than once until everyone’s had a chance to contribute. And be patient when asking people to share. Staying quiet while people are thinking about whether they want to speak and what they might want to say is a tangible form of respect. So remember to shut up and listen.

Don’t expect to engage everyone

Finally, bear in mind that, no matter how brilliant a facilitator you are, your meeting will not be perfect for everyone. Hey, if it’s the best meeting ever for just one person present, I think that’s great! Because you can’t please everyone — and you shouldn’t even try to.

Instead, do your best to respectfully and appropriately engage as many people as you can. Yes, the “bottom” participants will generally need greater support. But focus your time and attention on maximizing the overall group energy, with as many people as possible actively on board.

You may not hear much of the resulting Thanksgiving. But you’ll know you did the best cooking you could.