The Pros and Cons of Open Discussion

For most groups, open discussion (where people speak to the topic whenever they're ready) is the default choice for how to work a topic. That said, familiarity is not destiny, and there are a number of format choices extant. Good facilitators, in my view, need a working knowledge of at least a half dozen to be able to consistently deliver solid meetings, and to accurately pair formats with needs.

Despite its being the default format—which means it's relied on heavily in some groups—I've observed that many groups struggle to realize the potential of open discussion, and dissatisfaction with this plenary experience has motivated some to try something more structured and more diffused (where more heavy lifting is attempted in small groups or committees). Instead of running the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water, however, I want to take a close look at why and how to improve open discussions, which is a format I believe offers a number important advantages—as well as liabilities.

For the purposes of this essay, let's consider open discussion in the context of a plenary of 20+ participants.

Pros
• It tends to be quick. You can get a lot of information and viewpoints out on the table in a short amount of time. While consensus (and other forms of inclusive decision-making) protect the right of participants to give relevant input on all topics, the truth is, it is rarely necessary for everyone to speak in order to get all input expressed. (Rounds, for example, do a terrific job of protecting everyone's chance at the mic, yet can be incredibly boring as later speakers have little to offer that's new, yet use their time to say it anyway.)
• It's great at flushing out the diversity of views (so long as strong speakers are not allowed to dominate or intimidate) where it can be digested and weighed in the context of the whole group (it's not the same thing to aggregate small group output, where people are hearing summary reports, but not receiving the full presentations). When views are shared in plenary, everyone gets a chance at the information at the same time—all from the horse's mouth and with full affect.
• If the group is facile at working with differences (warning: this is a mature skill; new groups typically struggle with this and so do green facilitators) even a large breadth of opinion can be handled expeditiously.
• It is possible to build cohesive energy when work is accomplished in plenary that is not available as the sum of committee work. If you were in the room and the outcome reflects your input, the buy-in (and therefore the implementation) is noticeably enhanced.

Cons
• It favors those who are quicker to formulate their thoughts.
• It favors those who are more comfortable speaking in a large group.
• If the group is unsure of its footing in working emotionally, it favors the emotional demonstrative.
• Because open discussion in larger numbers is both more free wheeling (read chaotic) and can result in more balls being in the air, it calls for a higher level of skill to manage. This is a tough format for beginning facilitators to master.
• There will tend to be a wider range of participant familiarity and comfort with the topic—simply because there are voices in play. In consequence, it can be tricky getting the unfamiliar up to speed without experiencing chafing among the more clued in. Also, some participants may be uncomfortable with a topic that others are eager to explore and the facilitator may have a pacing issue accommodating both subgroups.

Taken all together, this is obviously not a simple calculus, and should make clear why it's a good idea to rotate formats. It's not a good idea to always use open discussions, and not a good idea to never use open discussions.

Tools
Now let's get into the trenches and try to demystify how to get the most out of open discussions. Here are a double handful of specific skills that the facilitator will be glad to have mastered. (To be fair, these are skills that will be beneficial in a wide variety of situations, yet they'll be especially helpful when facilitating open discussions.)

1.  Knowing how to focus the conversation, so that you can guide the group productively and will be in position to redirect those who try (inadvertently or purposefully) to steer things in a different direction.

2.  Having a good idea about how to contain (I did not say "gag") those who tend to speak a lot or whose contributions tend to result in others being quiet (perhaps because they don't want to risk voicing a differing view that might place them in that person's cross hairs; perhaps because they don't think they can speak as eloquently or persuasively and are afraid of sounding stupid). If left unmonitored, the 15-20% of members who eat the mic will take up more than 50% of the air time, which is dangerously unbalanced.

3.  The ability to accurately and even-handedly summarize the conversation every 6-8 speakers. This does a number of things: a) keeps everyone on the same page; b) cuts down on repetition (if a point of view is in the summary it doesn't need to be said again); c) gives the group a sense of progress; and d) helps people focus on what's missing (what hasn't been said yet).

4.  The ability to notice and bring to the group's attention when body language is not aligned with statements—signaling that something is off. While you may not know what it means, it's worth exploring.

5.  Being able to quickly and accurately distinguish signal from noise, noting which threads are worthy of including in a summary of product, and which comments don't need to be highlighted. While it turns out that only a small number of contributions are original and insightful, you need to be diligent about capturing them.

6.  Being light enough on your feet to sense when a tangent is powerful and timely enough to justify suspending the approved agenda to follow.

7.  Being skilled at seeing common ground among viewpoints that can serve as the basis for a balanced solution. Oftentimes the facilitator is the first to see the way through a complex issue, merely because good facilitators look for agreement before looking for differences—a skill that is glaringly underdeveloped in our culture.

8.  Being willing and able to sensitively name strong feelings and interrupt attacks whenever they occur. Of course, this work will be significantly aided by a group agreement to work emotionally, but the facilitator should attempt this even without such an agreement, because of how powerful it can be to accept a wider range of relevant information (embracing emotional knowing) and to calm potentially troubled waters.

9. Knowing how to structure the conversation so that the group agrees on what a solution needs to address before attempts are made to craft one. (Hint: if your first plenary consideration of an issue begins with a statement of the problem and the presentation of proposed solution, then you've already placed the cart before the horse. Oops!)

10. Being diligent about making sure that the plenary is only engaging on matters worthy of its attention and that details that fall below that standard are promptly delegated to managers or committees.

• • •

While this essay doesn't provide a foolproof screen for when to use open discussion to examine issues, it hopefully gives you a richer sense of its potential and the facilitative tools that are needed to get good results. 

May your meetings be frutiful.

Group Works: Shared Airtime

This entry continues a series in which I'm exploring concepts encapsulated in a set of 91 cards called Group Works, developed by Tree Bressen, Dave Pollard, and Sue Woehrlin. The deck represents "A Pattern Language for Bringing Life to Meetings and Other Gatherings."

In each blog, I'll examine a single card and what that elicits in me as a professional who works in the field of cooperative group dynamics. My intention in this series is to share what each pattern means to me. I am not suggesting a different ordering or different patterns—I will simply reflect on what the Group Works folks have put together.

The cards have been organized into nine groupings, and I'll tackle them in the order presented in the manual that accompanies the deck:

1. Intention
2. Context
3. Relationship
4. Flow
5. Creativity
6. Perspective
7. Modeling
8. Inquiry & Synthesis
9. Faith

In the Relationship segment there are 10 cards. The ninth pattern in this segment is labeled Shared Airtime. Here is the image and thumbnail text from that card: 

Everyone deserves to be heard, and everyone has a piece of the truth. Find ways to invite sharing from all, not just the loudest, most senior, or most articulate. Actively draw out the wisdom of quieter or hesitant participants.

Overwhelmingly, intentional communities aspire to develop cooperative culture (in contrast with the competitive culture of the mainstream). In pursuit of that, consensus is the most common form of decision-making among communities.

There are two main roots of consensus: Native American culture (witness the Iroquois Confederation) and the Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers, who have relied on it to reach congregational decisions their entire history. Of the two, the Quaker tradition has had the stronger influence on the way consensus is practiced among cooperative groups today (a tip of the cap here to the trail blazing work done in the '70s by anti-nuclear activists—think Clamshell Alliance and Movement for a New Society—to adapt consensus to secular settings).

Quaker practice (which goes back three centuries and change) happens in a spiritual context, and there is a phrase associated with the Quaker approach which can be traced all the way back to George Fox, the original articulator of Quaker beliefs (circa 1650): "There is that of God in everyone." While George was probably thinking about there being no excuse for wickedness and corruption because God acts as a witness within us all, this phrase has been passed down through the years and is more commonly interpreted today to support pacifism (to kill another is to kill a piece of God) and environmental consciousness (in the sense that God dwells in all living things).

In the case of intentional communities, most rely on a secular adaptation of consensus, where there is no assumption of spiritual alignment among the membership, nor is there an attempt to find the way forward by discerning divine guidance. Instead, many have translated "that of God in everyone" to "everyone has a piece of the truth."

It's important to understand that this does not necessarily mean that everyone has a unique piece of the truth, such that everyone's piece needs to be assiduously solicited and identified before the best response can be formulated. Rather, it means that it's a healthy baseline assumption that everyone has something relevant to contribute to the consideration—though they may not necessarily be adept at articulating what that is, and their contribution may have already been covered by others.

With this in mind, I think it's worthwhile to create a way (or ways) for all participants to contribute what they have on the topic with minimal impedance. This accomplishes two things: a) doing the best you can to see that all potentially useful input has been gathered; and b) enhancing the likelihood of solid buy-in with the outcome—because people who feel heard are much more likely to hear; people who feel stretched toward, are more likely to stretch toward others.

Many groups stumble here because they make the naive assumption that open discussion is an equally accessible format for all participants, just because it's intended to be. The fact is, some people are quicker thinkers than others, some are quicker at composing what they want to say, some are more comfortable speaking in front of a large group. 

Some of this can be addressed by varying formats (Hint: If you're in the habit of gathering input the same way every time, you're susceptible to inadvertently creating dead spots, where contributions from some segments of your group are systematically under-represented because the format doesn't have a clear on-ramp for their input.)

What do I mean? Instead of open conversation, where people simply speak as they are ready and called upon, consider:

o  Rounds

Where you go around the circle with everyone being given a chance to speak in turn, and no one speaks twice until everyone who cares to has spoken once.

o  Small Group Work
Having the full group break into smaller circles of 3-5 people where those who find speaking in front of larger numbers daunting can practice what they want everyone to know in a less intimidating setting.

o  Individual Writing
Some people are better able to express themselves in writing than orally. You can cater to that by occasionally giving everyone time (five minutes?) to jot down the points they want to make before speaking begins.

o  Spectrum

Instead of using words, you can ask people to position themselves along a line that indicates where they stand (literally) between two extremes positions (say those who think affordability trumps everything at one end of the line, and those who think environmental impact is supreme at the other, with those who prefer some balancing of the two somewhere in the middle). This is a way that important meaning can be conveyed without using words at all (though it's often helpful to have people explain why they chose their position).

Finally, let's focus on what it means to "draw out the wisdom" of:

—The Inarticulate 
If this is a question of stage fright, changing formats may make a difference (see the options above). It might also help if the facilitator can be their ally: "Take a moment to organize your thoughts and try again, We'll wait for you."

Further, the facilitator may be able to help by offering an educated guess at the speaker's meaning. Even if the facilitator gets it wrong, it will eliminate a possible misunderstanding and demonstrate to the person struggling that there's help in the room.

—The Obscure
Sometimes people have an unusual way of organizing thoughts (perhaps English is not their native tongue). In cases like this translation is often needed. The facilitator (or anyone else inspired) can attempt to paraphrase what has been said such that: a) the speaker agrees that it conveys their point(s); and b) the meaning is now accessible to the rest of the group. Voila—the curtain has been raised and meaning revealed.

—The Overwhelmed
If it's nerves, a different format may help. Another option is taking a break and having the facilitator sit down (or go for a walk) with the tongue-tied for the purpose of helping them gather their thoughts. If it's a pattern, the facilitator may even anticipate this dynamic and spend time ahead of the meeting with persons prone to having their boat get swamped, providing them with a prompt about what to prepare for.

—The Marginalized
When people feel marginalized, they don't experience others caring about their input. Worse, if this is a pattern, they typically go into meetings expecting to not be cared about. The antidote is explicitly working to contradict that. This means making sure that their input is solicited (in a way that's accessible to that person), not moving on until that person reports that they've been heard correctly, and then making sure that their input has been duly considered in developing the group response. (Note: I'm not promising that they'll be agreed with.)

If all of this sounds remedial, that's because it is. It takes effort to repair damage. 

—The Upset

If someone is experiencing non-trivial distress, it's important (even essential) that this be attended to before attempting to connect with, or process that person's input about what needs to be taken into account or how to proceed. The idea here is that upset functions as virtual earwax that distorts what the person hears, and your first order of business is unclogging the ears. Ignoring it simply doesn't work.

The bad news is that most groups are not adept at working authentically and non-judgmentally with distress. The good news is that it can be learned.

Gender Dynamics Redux

Following my post of Nov 30 (Gender Dynamics in Cooperative Groups) I received three comments. They were so interesting that I've decided to keep the dialog going...

Anonymous wrote:
It might be interesting to look at the research about how women and men resolve arguments. Men seem, according to this research, to leave an encounter where some agreement has been reached with an ability to leave it behind; women tend to come back minutes, hours, or days later with "and this is a pattern of yours" to restart a broader discussion. It's not over for them. When I heard this I was in the car with my ex-husband, who is now in a committed relationship with a man, and he was somewhat offended because he said his husband is definitely more female in that way. Of course I recognized myself and him in the examples. We were trying to think of an evolutionary advantage to the female behavior and we could come up with only the hunter vs. gatherer advantages...being able to kill and eat something differs psychologically from growing or gathering edibles...and what roles that meant "feminine" gay men and butch lesbians did in early society. But maybe it's more about creating community and resolving issues....somebody has to say "it's done" and somebody has to remember for next time.

While I'm not an anthropologist (and therefore don't know jack—or jill, for that matter—about the evolutionary explanation for different gendered responses to arguments), I can build a picture about why relational people (who may be women) tend to hang onto disagreements that results-oriented people (who may be men) claimed to have moved beyond. If the argument ends without an energetic resolution, the dynamics persist. Relational people know this, and therefore attempt to engage in a holistic way (even if they're not particularly distinguished as problem-solvers). However, if the other person isn't emotionally articulate (or even available), this may not go well. In such cases, all parties may reach an acceptable rational solution, but everyone doesn't feel heard or "done." Those aware of the unfinished business are likely to cycle back to it.

All of that said, in the community context it has not been my experience that women tend to hold on to hurts any longer than men, or, for that matter, that women are any less quick to be ready to move on.

Abe wrote:
I have had a lot of experience visiting communities and hearing this bigoted viewpoint about men being one way and women being another way. I mean, I hear it outside communities as well, but I would have imagined more critique of the concept of the gender binary or the idea of gender being anything more than a concept in our heads, in communities. I have heard quite a bit of critique of these ideas of men are this and women are that in the circle of Acorn, Twin Oaks, and Living Energy Farm. Still, there is a womyn's gathering and a womyn's collective at Twin Oaks.

I remember, at an early Gaia U board meeting, there was a proposal to divide the Board by gender (just women and men, no one else). It was decided there be two heads of the board, because, you know, "you have to balance the feminine and masculine energies" and "men and women have a different way of looking at things."

What does this idea that men and women think and do things differently serve? Let's say it's not being said from a biological perspective of sex, rather than gender, and you're only talking about the cultural norms and how people were raised. Even then, what can this thought even serve? First, it is said from a cisgender perspective speaking only of women and men and no one else. It excludes intersex people. It excludes transgender people. Beyond that, what do you do with an idea like that? You apply it to the people around you and make judgments on individual people based on what your belief is about people of their gender. The problem with prejudice like that is that there is no way to take a whole classification of people and accurately apply it to any one individual within the classification.

I wrote the original piece because I believe there are important differences in the way that boys and girls are conditioned in the mainstream culture. It was not my aim to encourage stereotyping or to promote the assumption that all feminine-presenting people act one way and all masculine-presenting people act another; it was to describe a gulf that I see played out repeatedly in cooperative group dynamics and which I believe we must learn to recognize and develop the capacity to bridge between.

The most important part for me is the ways in which cooperative culture differs from competitive culture with respect to how it solves problems. In the wider culture, we venerate rational problem solvers and systems thinking. In cooperative culture those qualities are still an asset, yet so is the ability to work relationally and empathetically.

What was intriguing for me about my friend's observation (which was the inspiration for my Nov 30 blog) was: a) that both styles persisted in his well-established community; and b) that the clash between the styles was the major impediment to peaceable resolution of conflict. I was not so interested in the analysis that women were never strident, or consistently did a better job of setting aside their egos to think of the whole, yet I was interested in how gendered cultural conditioning could explain what my friend observed. That's exciting because it means that there is every reason to believe that if all children were trained to be skilled at human relations, then we could all be better cooperative problem solvers.

MoonRaven wrote:
I hear your [Abe's] frustration with the division by gender raised by this article. I also realize how much I appreciate the issues raised by the article. Rather than proving the point of Laird's 'thoughtful friend' (since I'm a cisgendered—and an old white guy at that) by drawing 'positional lines' (and I could—I still have those testosteronal reactions), I'd rather try to look at the truth of what you're saying as well as the truth of Laird's post. There is a good bit of truth in each.

First, I want to acknowledge that many individuals do not fall within the cultural norms of their gender—and many also fall outside gender norms at all. But I also think it's important to look at what is perhaps the heart of what Laird wrote here, his list of relational skills. I think that anyone using these skills, whether cisgendered, transgendered, genderqueer, or intersex, any human being using these skills will further the building of communities. I also think that we need to encourage anyone who is quick to speak up (regardless of gender) to wait and step back and encourage the quiet people to speak up so that all voices are heard.

Personally I would like to live in a community with more strong women and less strong men (I've seen what's been described too often for my liking), and definitely with more queer folk of every type, with many people who flout and challenge gender norms.

And I agree that we need to look at each individual as their own unique self. I think there is a place for looking at gender dynamics and a place for looking beyond gender dynamics.

I'm wholly in agreement with MoonRaven's concluding paragraph. However, I want to comment on the admonition that those who are quick to speak up should step back, and the idea that groups may be better off with fewer strong men.

I believe what we need are groups where all members are strong—by which I mean articulate, unafraid to voice their views (even if unpopular), able to take full responsibility for their feelings and their actions, and possessing a strong enough sense of self that they do not feel unworthy or damaged as a consequence of others disliking their words or behavior. (Note that I am not equating strength with stridency or obstinacy.) The meek or insecure do not, in my view, get strong as a result of shackling others. That's coddling.

As a professional facilitator, here's the way I prefer to handle the dynamic where air space is unevenly distributed in open discussion (which only happens all the time). I have two main strategies. First, if I notice that a minority is dominating the conversation (or that there are a number of people who have not yet spoken), I will often offer an observation along the lines of, "We have had an animated conversation the last 15 minutes and a number of useful ideas and concerns have surfaced. I notice though that a few people have spoken a number of times while others have not spoken at all. For the next while I'd like to make room to hear from those who have not yet contributed to the conversation."

This does a number of things all at the same time:
o  It honors the contributions received so far, which means those who are quick to speak or are less daunted by speaking in front of the whole group are not punished or made to feel bad. (While I don't want to celebrate being rash, it's fine to be quick.)

o  It expressly encourages those who have spoken a lot to sit on their hands. It's now other people's turns.

o  It creates an explicit opening for the shy or the more deliberate thinkers to step up. Don't come back later with the complaint that there was no opening.

Note that this approach does limit the quick for a time, but only after they have already contributed, not before.

The second strategy I employ to equalize participation is to mix up formats. Instead of relying solely on open discussion—which is often the quickest way to get at things—I intentionally use a variety of other approaches. Here are three:
—Go Rounds (where no one speaks twice until everyone who cares to has had a chance to speak once).
—Small group breakouts (where it's easier for people to test out their ideas).
—Individual writing before sharing in the whole group (some are more articulate that way than orally—why not occasionally give them a format at which they excel?).

All together, these are strategies for getting everyone into the conversation without gagging the strong, which, by the way, has nothing to do with gender, yet has everything to do with getting everyone's wisdom into consideration—all the while encouraging all participants to get stronger without pretending that we're all alike.

If the Form Fits, Wear It

Today is the final installment of a series of three blogs on the topic of meeting facilitation, covering:

—Preparation
—Managing Open Discussions
—Selecting Formats

• • •

While open discussion is the most common form of plenary engagement—and the one groups will default to if nothing else is suggested—it's by no means the only choice, nor is it often the best one. Here's why:

o Not everyone is equally quick to be ready to speak.

o Not everyone is equally comfortable speaking in the whole group (this may not be much of a factor in a group of six, but it can be a big deal in a group of 40).

o When group members are not well disciplined regarding the appropriate use of plenary time, a more structured format will help remind them of appropriate contributions, cutting down on diffusing and extraneous contributions.

o Meetings tend to be highly verbal, somewhat visual, and minimally kinesthetic. However, as human beings we're naturally a mix of all three and it generally enhances the energy and quality of the work if you can offer variety with these tendencies in mind.

o The objectives for a given topic can be a rich stew that shifts between focusing on energy (sense of cohesion and connection among members) and content (problem solving). Sometimes it's smart to shift the format to better serve the specific objective.

o Other things being equal, it's typically a good idea to change formats just to change the energy (sociologists refer to the Hawthorne Effect to describe the phenomenon where there's a temporary boost in attention and productivity simply because there's been a change—not because the new format is inherently better).

As a facilitation teacher, I don' think that mastering formats is the major challenge of he job. To be specific, I believe all of the following skills are more consequential in midwifing a good meeting:
—Can hear accurately what's being said.
—Able to shift perspectives easily to fully understand the lens through which speakers are seeing the topic at hand.
—Can identify themes in a discussion (sorting the wheat from the chaff).
—Can articulate bridges between disparate positions (based on what people have told you are their core interests).
—Know when it's time to start problem solving, and when you've heard enough that a workable solution has emerged.
—Is able to create and maintain an atmosphere of curiosity, authenticity, and compassion among the group.

For all of that though, I believe that every facilitator should develop familiarity and facility with a basic set of meeting formats. I think of it as part of the essential facilitator toolkit. While there are always more tools available—many of which are excellent in certain circumstances—you don't need more than a basic set in order to accomplish solid work.

In no particular order, here is an overview of the formats I think every facilitator should know (Hint: don't get hung up in the names):

A. Heart Circles
Sometimes referred to as Sharing Circles, this is a construct where the pace is slowed down, and people are invited to speak from their heart, one at a time, as they are moved. The emphasis here is on relationship and connection and typically does not involve problem solving at all. The point is to hear deeply, the better to understand each person's emotional experience. You typically ask people to speak only for themselves. You are not looking for dialog in this format; you are looking for emotional honesty.

Sometimes, in order to reinforce the idea of a more deliberate pace and deep listening, groups use a talking object, with the understanding that only the person in possession of the object may speak. It's often a good idea for the facilitator to retain the right to ask clarifying questions, or to remind participants to keep their comments directed to the focus question of the circle ("How do you feel about Dale's decision to leave the group?")

B. Small Group Breakouts
When you have a large group and it's awkward for people to feel comfortable speaking in front of everyone, it can be helpful to divide the group into small groups (3-6 people per group) with instructions for each group to discuss a topic that the whole needs to tackle. The concept here is that the conversation will flow more purposefully and inclusively if everyone is guaranteed a small amount of airtime to explore their views (and to practice expressing them) in a more accessible environment first.

C. Individual Writing
Some people are better able to express themselves in writing than orally. Others are able to express themselves differently in writing. For both of these reasons, it can can occasionally be a significant enhancement of a group's ability to get a purchase on a topic (especially a complex one that isn't yielding easily to straight forward discussion) if you pause and ask participants to get at it another way. This option can work especially well as "homework" between meetings, where the time devoted to it comes at individual discretion and not out of the limited budget available for plenaries.

D. Guided Visualizations
As another change of pace that temporarily stills the aural symphony (or cacophony, depending on how amicably and productively you're proceeding), it can be insightful to try to access each participant's intuitive relationship to the topic (in contrast with their rational or emotional intelligence). The facilitator can create a scenario relevant to the topic, where group members are asked to place themselves (typically with their eyes closed) and then simply observe what unfolds in their minds eye, as in a waking dream. They are asked expressly to not attempt to steer what happens; all they need do is observe it and report back to the group what happened in their "movie." In my experience this technique can lead to some surprising clarity in the event of a rational logjam.

E. Reflective Silence
Similar to the previous suggestion, if you find yourself on a merry-go-round, where the contributions are tending toward the circular and not advancing, sometimes it's beneficial to simply stop the music and ask everyone to reflect on all that's been said and see what bubbles up. I can recall a powerful example of this from my early days of working with cooperative groups (more than two decades ago) where I asked everyone to pause for two minutes, to see if stepping back allowed anyone to access a reflection on the topic that had not yet been voiced. Sure enough it did, and the blockage resolved!

F. Go Rounds
This is a classic technique that ensures air time for the quiet while simultaneously limiting air time for the vocal. In its most common version, everyone is giving a protected chance to speak, such that no one speaks twice until everyone who cares to has spoken once.

There is a noteworthy variation on this called Inspiraling where the group continues with the Go Round as many times as needed for all members to feel complete. While the amount of summarizing and reflecting by the facilitator between rounds can vary, the core concept is that the group will use what's said in previous rounds as a springboard for forward movement in successive rounds. This technique can lead to a high level of buy-in while at the same time making an effort to equalize participation. That said, it may take longer than some approaches, and its efficacy will relate directly to how well the group can remain open and fluid in the face of differing viewpoints.

G. Brainstorms
This is an expansive technique, where everyone is encouraged to offer whatever occurs to them on the question at hand. ("What factors should we take into account when thinking about replacing the roof on the common house?") The key to a thorough and productive brainstorm is that the focus question is well crafted and that you assiduously steer clear of evaluative comments (assessment will come later). You want an up-tempo, creative—even playful—atmosphere where all ideas are captured. While you want suggestions to be on topic (it's OK to ask clarifying questions if you don't understand someone's contribution), it's important that participants feel free and unjudged.

One of the benefits of this technique is that it can significantly lighten the mood and is unparalleled for quickly gathering ideas. While not all of the seeds will sprout or land on fertile soil, it's often well worth it that some do.

H. Card Storms
This is an interactive sorting technique where all the ideas in play (perhaps generated by a brainstorm) are written in shorthand on slips of paper and then clumped by like items by the participants. While this can probably be accomplished by having the group direct the facilitator on which items go best together, it's typically quicker and more kinesthetic if the facilitator simply gets out of the way and asks the group to do this on their own.

It's amazing how fast groups can do this without any involvement from the facilitator whatsoever. Once the group is finished (five minutes is often sufficient), the facilitator can step back in and review with the group its freestyle efforts, both to name each clump and to determine whether things have been sorted in a way that works for everyone. The outcome is an ordering from which the group can decide how to proceed—in what order to tackle subsets, whether different subsets should be handled by the plenary or a committee, whether research needs to happen before the subset can be discussed, etc.

I. Spectrums
This technique is another example of how physical movement can be incorporated into information gathering. Instead of asking people to talk out their opinions, they're asked to walk out their views. Once the group has identified tension between two positions on a topic, it can be illuminating in both a quick and nuanced way to ask people to place themselves—without words—on a line where one edge of the room represents total support for one of the positions and the opposite side of the room represents total support for the other. It can be highly instructive seeing the pattern. Do you have a dumbbell shape with almost everyone at one end or the other? Is it imbalanced such that there's a dominant pull? Are most folks clumped in the middle, indicating ambivalence?

While care is needed in setting up the right ends of the spectrum, this technique can be potent and at the same time provide much-needed movement— a terrific antidote for meeting butt.

• • •

While I think mastery of the above set of basic formats is sufficient to have great meetings, the possibilities are nearly endless, with new ones being concocted all the time. Here is a suggestive handful of some of the more popular ones, all of which can be explored online (in cases where FIC offers a title on that technique through Community Bookshelf, I have provided a hyperlink):

Appreciative Inquiry
Open Space
Restorative Circles
World Cafes
SWOT Analysis

In thinking about how to use these various tools properly, the prime directive is which will best serve the objective and the dynamics you are expecting to field in the attempt. Do not let your fondness for a technique determine which you select (the phenomenon where everything starts looking like a nail once you fall in love with your hammer). The test of a good meeting is not the facilitator's virtuosity with the instruments; it's how sweet the music.