Discover more from Facilitate Better with Jeffrey Cufaude

Helping you Facilitate Better discussions, decisions, and results in meetings and workshops.

How do I handle someone describing a group's discussions as "woke nonsense?"

Jeffrey Cufaude

Feb 27, 2023

Approximate reading time: six minutes.

This essay explores a facilitation situation related to the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Please note that what follows is a high-level summary and not an in-depth accounting of the full complexity of our conversations on such an important topic.

“I think we’re going overboard with all this woke nonsense.”

How to manage a participant making this comment was a recent discussion topic for a facilitation community of practice (CoP) in which I participate. Another CoP member was facilitating a committee meeting of nonprofit volunteers when someone made this comment.

Our CoP discussions might provide some guidance should you find yourself in a similar situation, either as the facilitator or as a group member trying to be facilitative in response to such a comment. Here are a few themes or guiding principles that surfaced from our conversations.

Turn to existing norms.

Unsurprisingly, everyone in the CoP first focused on whether the committee had any shared agreements to guide their discussions or if the organization had professed core values. The answer was no to the former and yes to the latter. One of the stated core values was “to foster a diverse and inclusive community.”

Existing organizational commitments like ground rules, shared agreements and/or established core values provide a natural (and presumably neutral) reference point for responding to almost any comment or situation. Effective facilitation uses them to guide subsequent discussions and often applies them as a prism or filter for any individual comments.

Ensure everyone is respectfully heard.

Our discussion around this theme was lively. Many in the CoP felt that some members of a group (staff team, committee, board, et al) might react so negatively to the “woke nonsense” comment that they would struggle to genuinely listen to any explanation of the reasoning behind it. Creating (or recreating) an equitable and inclusive climate where individuals feel safe speaking freely is a key facilitation consideration here.

We also explored how some comments or opinions are so malicious or reprehensible that asking a group to explore them further could be unjust or harmful to some members of the group. The CoP collectively decided the comment under consideration here probably was not one of them. We also hypothesized that others (on the committee or among the organization’s membership) might to some degree share the commenter’s perspective.

Where to start: focus first on the commenter.

My colleagues had mixed feelings about where they would first focus. One cadre thought it would be most useful to probe the comment in question, holding the space so the commenter could unpack the thinking and feeling behind it.

This approach would ask the individual to stay away from subjective or potentially inflammatory language like “woke nonsense” and instead objectively describe exactly what in the committee’s discussions was “going overboard.” The goal here is to surface information more likely to engender constructive reactions or responses from others in the group.

Facilitators often act on this goal by restating participant comments in more neutral language. Doing so can make it easier for others in the conversation to hear and address the substance of the initial comment rather than the language or tone of its expression.

In this instance, a facilitator might respond to the questionable comment with, “So you think some of the committee’s discussions go beyond what your organization’s stated commitment to creating a diverse and inclusive community requires.” The commenter likely would respond with additional thinking and/or specific examples. Facilitated group discussion could follow.

Where to start: focus first on the other participants.

Some CoP members felt that “clearing the air” might be required if a fair percentage of the committee members had strong negative reactions to the “woke nonsense” comment. But instead of trying to make that determination ourselves, a facilitative option is to first surface participants’ actual reactions. Here are two approaches.

Option A

“Jonathan (random name) shared that he thinks some of the committee’s discussions or ideas have gone too far. How do others assess your efforts?”

Notice the focus on inviting other assessments of the committee’s efforts rather than merely responding to the isolated comment. We collectively felt that this was a critical path to consider lest the facilitator response itself bias others in the group to see the comment in question as offensive or out of line. Let’s consider a facilitative response that might do exactly that:

Option B

“Jonathan shared that he thinks some of the committee’s discussions have gone too far. How do the rest of you react to his perspective?”

While this seems like an appropriate facilitative response, notice its language and focus. Imagine the subsequent conversation that might occur. This option potentially invites what to Jonathan could feel like an attack.

If other committee members want to specifically respond to Jonathan’s comment, nothing in Option A’s invitation precludes them from doing so. Someone easily could say, “I don’t share Jonathan’s perspective at all. I think our conversations are substantive and on point. Frankly, I find dismissing them as ‘woke nonsense’ to be offensive.” But the committee member has chosen this direct response focus rather than the facilitator’s invitation requiring it.

Ultimately we concluded both options could work depending on the size of the group, the existing relationships dynamics among its members, and how “charged” the atmosphere in the moment might be. Option B likely holds more potential for small, ongoing groups that have cultivated strong connections among members.

Finally, we noted that it would be pragmatic to prepare for a group that might “pile on” the lone commenter even if the initial facilitator response tries to prevent that from occurring.

Reaffirm shared beliefs and commitments.

One other major theme of our CoP conversations focused on the likely expectation that individuals in an organization’s volunteer structure share some degree of commitment to enact the organization’s stated core values in their efforts.

Looking beyond how to manage a comment in the moment, we agreed that effective volunteer recruitment and orientation articulates an organization’s beliefs and core values, as well as expectations for how volunteers will align their efforts with them. It is more difficult to engender accountability for commitments that people are not explicitly asked to make.

We also discussed how reasonable people can be committed to a value like “create a diverse and inclusive community,” but differ greatly on the means, degree, and pace for operationalizing it in policies and programs. It is not unusual for some members of a group to be deeply passionate about any specific core value and want to apply it with great zeal and few exceptions while others’ feelings and commitments are more measured.

Facilitators can help group members reaffirm their shared commitment to any value in play and restart discussions from this more unified position rather than focusing only on the differences about how the value should be enacted.

Further, as decisions are contemplated or made, we can go beyond relying on general consensus and help surface individuals’ commitment and reaction to them. A tool like Fist to Five makes it easy to do so.

Bottom Line

Facilitative responses to potentially divisive comments must be carefully calibrated, particularly on issues or questions that are politically charged. We can help create the space for group members to respectfully address the potential substance of any individual comment, as well as reactions its language and tone.

Facilitate Better with Jeffrey Cufaude