The One Incredibly Reliable Question for Improving Discussions (Facilitation Friday #63)
Regardless of how well meeting or workshop participants know each other, this simple question surfaces valuable information.
Unable to survey participants in advance and pressed for time on the agenda, but still want to quickly surface useful information that will help produce better discussions and decisions?
Tempted to forgo any sort of introductory activity because you’re working with participants who know each other very well?
Facilitating a decision-making meeting with a group of people who don’t know each very well, but are unlikely to value any extensive icebreaker activity?
Know you should do something to launch a gathering, but are unsure of a simple way to surface information that participants will value?
Let me suggest one simple participant question I have found invaluable in my facilitation for the four scenarios described … as well as many more: How are you most likely to “show up,” engage, and contribute today?
Why This Question
If you’re active on any social media, I imagine you make somewhat calculated choices about what you share on each platform. It is not unusual for someone to primarily post personal information on Facebook and professional information on LinkedIn while maintaining a private and a public TikTok or Instagram account for different audiences.
Calibrated sharing and code-switching is not new. People have always made choices about what to say, when to say it, and how to say it based on the setting and who else is present. Different cultures, be they geographic of organizational, have different boundaries that are implicitly or explicitly enforced in this regard.
This incredibly reliable question’s power is that it quickly and easily surfaces how participants have decided to engage for a specific gathering. Doing so can help reduce concerns about hidden agendas. Other invaluable benefits, regardless of how well the participants know each other, include:
Offering a preview of how some individuals will engage differently than how others in the session are accustomed.
Example: People could perceive disapproval from a normally talkative CEO who is quiet during a brainstorming session when in fact, she has chosen to be more reserved to avoid unduly influencing the ideas shared.
Helping people avoid jumping to conclusions and creating a false narrative about how others contribute.
Example: Individuals unknown to others who are immediately very vocal in a session could be perceived as bossy or dominating when they simply do their best work thinking out loud.
Revealing the mix of engagement and contribution styles present and making it easier to discuss their potential implications for the event’s outcomes.
Example: A group heavily populated with self-described detail-oriented analytical thinkers may need to disrupt this style of participation in a session convened to imagine a bold and innovative long-term future.
Illuminating what relevant knowledge and experience people bring to the session and their investment in its outcomes.
Example: At a committee meeting of association volunteers, someone unknown to others may bring deep subject matter expertise, but not have particular attachment to any decision under consideration.
In short, this simple question can quickly reveal quite a bit of immediately useful information that can help foster better collaboration and understanding while avoiding unnecessary conflict or misunderstanding. Responses provide useful context for observations participants might make about others during the meeting. This context will help them make more informed and accurate inferences about what others say and do.
Tips for Using this Question
Participants answers to this question make known to everyone how they will engage during the session. Unless clear value exists for people reacting to or discussing each others’ sharing, I tend to avoid it as it can eat up a lot of time. Discussion is reserved for exploring the implications of what collectively was shared in relation to the gathering’s outcomes.
The following tips focus on how to effectively execute this icebreaker question in the most efficient manner:
Provide the question—and basic guidance for answering—in advance so people come ready to respond.
Offer a sample response (perhaps for yourself) that models the length and content of an ideal answer.
If possible, collect individual responses in advance, aggregate, and distribute to all participants to read prior to the session.
For any verbal sharing when the group is convened, set a time limit. I usually use 60 seconds.
Consider a visual rather than verbal sharing process. People could bring their written response or note one when convened. These could be rapidly read and passed among all participants or posted on the wall for everyone to quickly scan.
Ask participants what they would like others to share in their responses so the information is more customized: What information about others, if you knew it upfront, might help produce better discussions and decisions today? This can be particularly useful with a group meeting for the first time where individuals do no know each other at all.
Variations to Consider
To surface and share participants’ responses, I sometimes use one of these more creative approaches if time and the group culture allow:
Human Graph/Number Line
Participants form a single-file line down the center of the room. I offer pairs of words describing possible engagement or contributions (i.e., extroverted or introverted, creative thinker or analytical thinker) and assign one to the wall on their left and the wall on their right. When each pair is read people move to the position between the center and the walls that best represents how they will contribute.
Slider Bar Sandwich Board
Place the same descriptor pairings from the Human Graph in rows (one descriptor left-justified, one descriptor right-justified, line in between them) on an 11x17” sheet of paper. Have individuals place an X on the line for each pair to indicate how they will show up and contribute. Individuals could then hold their sheets in front of them and quickly mix and mingle to read each others’ choices or post their sheets on the wall for everyone to quickly scan.
Fill in the Blank
This approach provides structure and support for those who might feel challenged by a more open-ended instruction. Create a simple fill-in-the-blank introduction/narrative that surfaces information answering the core question. Participant responses’ can then be verbally or visually shared.
Adjective/Descriptor List
Provide a list of 30-50 different adjectives or descriptors individuals might use to answer the core question. Let hem also add their own. Ask them to select 5-7 to verbally or visually share. If using nameplates that have some blank space, they could add their choices to them.
Bottom Line
Knowing how others are likely (or plan) to show up and participate in a meeting or workshop can enhance understanding and help avoid unhelpful misperceptions of their behavior. Because individuals often vary how they engage and contribute, helping surface this information almost always improves discussions.
Getting in Action
How might you use this question—or your variation of it—in the meetings and workshops you facilitate?
Think about how you participate in meetings and workshops. What influences the choices you make about how you will show up, engage, and contribute? How might this inform your facilitation efforts?
Generate a few additional multi-purpose icebreaker questions that are likely to surface useful information and reliably enhance discussions in almost any setting.
© Facilitate Better and Jeffrey Cufaude. All rights reserved.
To affordably license this content for reprint on your site or in electronic or print communications or to contact me regarding customized facilitation skills workshops or consultations, complete this form.