Field Reflections: Virtual & Live Facilitation
Photo by Emre Can Acer
For twenty years, we developed our reputations and repertoire facilitating live and in person. College campuses, rustic retreat spaces, even corporate boardrooms—those were our crucibles. We prided ourselves--indeed, saw our distinct value proposition--on being able to create containers for people to do their best, most meaningful work in the same physical time and space.
And then, in an instant, that was taken from all of us who are engaged in social impact work. Admittedly, we were utterly stuck for two months. Looking back, March-June 2020 was nothing short of an identity crisis. Without physical gatherings, who were we? What could we add?
Now, obviously, we wouldn’t be writing these words if, like the rest of our colleagues, we didn’t knuckle up and figure out virtual facilitation. Agendas were tweaked. Sessions were moved to the screen. We adjusted to communicating with boxes on a screen instead of bodies in a circle. We learned new technologies, and in some instances benefited, even, dare say, flourished.
Such was our reality for 16 months. Still, as relatively smooth as was our transition, we couldn’t help feeling as though some critical component—our special flavor?—was … missing. But since we couldn’t put our finger on it, we were left to compare the merits of virtual vs. in-person facilitation in the abstract, without a controlled experiment to test out our assumptions.
Fast forward to August 2021: we’re invited to facilitate two in-person workshops on back-to-back days, our first in-person facilitation since the pandemic reshaped the world of work!
That is, until another unexpected event—Big Ida—forced the second day session back online. Two years ago, we would have been screwed. In August 2021, presence of mind kicked in. We were like, ‘Ok. We’ve done this before. We know how to adjust.’
But there was also an opportunity. Here we had the same facilitators, same agenda, same organization, same number of participants (100+ by the way), the same week. One session in person and one session virtual. I don’t know about you, but we saw a chance to run a controlled experiment.
As facilitators, we’re accustomed to unpacking our experiences as a means of learning and growing. We believe in the power of dialogue to expand our awareness, develop ideas, and increase our capacities. Thus, in the immediate aftermath of the sessions, we had a conversation about the experience in order to unearth the resonant wonderings and revelations. Some of the “findings” were surprising, some obvious. But our reflections fell into four categories, all of which we see as fundamental elements of facilitation: logistics, relationships, engagement, and equity.
Logistics
Set-up: We believe that the way we set up physical space has a profound influence on a group’s behavior… arrangement of chairs, hooking up microphones, preparing and testing the tech… all of these elements take time when in person. In contrast, over the last 16 months of virtual facilitation, we’ve tended to log on a few minutes before a workshop,
Tech savviness: The virtual space, of course, requires a certain amount of familiarity and comfort with digital platforms. We’ve seen this be an obstacle for people and their ability/willingness to engage as fully as they might in person.
Documentation: One benefit we noticed in the virtual workshop was how much easier it was to capture key moments. Having the option to video-record a session (or a segment of one) flat out takes less labor than physically writing out ideas on newsprint. (Not to mention virtual whiteboards, murals, and other virtual platforms that allow for downloading or screenshotting with the click of a button.)
Relationships
“We rode together.” This was literally true… we three facilitators travelled together to another city for these sessions. AND it was significant for our ongoing team development. We caught a meal together. We talked about our families, projects in the works. This is often lost in the virtual facilitation space--something that is true for both facilitators and participants. The relationship-building that comes during unstructured time (before, between and after a session) is critical for team-building, and for mentorship. As younger facilitators, we learned a ton from our elders in these informal “jam sessions” that sometimes wandered into the early morning hours. This just doesn’t exist when people convene online.
Intimacy: facilitating in-person came with more opportunities for intimacy… For example, when a participant shares something deep and personal, a facilitator can literally walk over and offer a hand to hold, a shoulder to lean on, a tissue to wipe one's eyes. These subtle yet crucial facilitation moments are hard to emulate in the virtual space.
Observing the real-time relating: One role of the facilitator is to be in tune with how the participants are relating… not just to the content, or us as the facilitator, but also to each other. In the live setting, we got a different sense of the real-time relating going on... Who's sitting next to whom? Who’s having side conversations? Who’s making eye contact when so-and-so speaks? These can be crucial data points for tracking interpersonal dynamics in human systems and are really challenging to pick up on in a virtual setting. Especially when part of our role as equity-focused facilitators is to shine a spotlight on the covert processes that are often invisible to people in positions of power.
Engagement
Nonverbal data: When in person, we were always aware of who was not speaking, or whose attention had wandered. In the live setting, we had so much more data coming at us, which is both a good thing and can make the facilitation more challenging. In the virtual world, we found it easier to lose track of those who weren’t engaged.
The role of the chat: And yet, the virtual setting allowed for the opportunity for people to reveal what’s going through their minds as they experience the conversation. As someone spoke, others participated and engaged without needing to “wait their turn.” That 1) provided a whole new set of data for the facilitator, and 2) expanded the conversation amongst participants, and brought in more voices and participation. In fact, upon recognizing this, we are inspired to start thinking about how to mix certain technologies to add this dynamic to a live session.
Relatedly, the live setting was more fundamentally about the facilitator. One or two or three people facilitating that experience for the participants. The virtual world, by contrast, created space for a cacophony of voices to operate in relation to the facilitated experience everybody was having, and by the end, more people, we believe, may have received what they needed.
Equity
In this way, the virtual space facilitated more accessibility. With multiple ways to engage, people employed multiple and diverse modes of participation. There was room for more voices.
One thing we noticed was that people tended more often to ignore certain social norms in the virtual world. One example: respecting who is going to speak next. We noticed less awareness (or less care) for this in the virtual session.
Underlying these reflections is one conclusion: both the virtual and in-person options can coexist for facilitated dialogue. In fact, nearly two years into this virtual facilitation world, we find ourselves in agreement that they are both needed for intergroup change work. So the question becomes, what needs to be live? And what needs to be virtual? And in order to weigh those choices, we—facilitators, leaders, convenors—need to really ask ourselves what do we know about the group? The space? The content of the workshop? And perhaps most importantly, our purpose in this facilitation? If we start from the premise that both are viable options for people to have meaningful experiences, we open up the realm of possibilities for what can be achieved through facilitated group experiences. Hopefully, we’re just beginning to scratch the surface of what’s possible.
Postscript
We also recently led a “hybrid” session where participants were mostly in person, with some people joining us virtually. Both facilitators were in person. Some quick lessons we learned on the fly:
One facilitator joins the virtual “room” and shares any media concurrently with live and virtual participants.
Facilitator physical location matters a lot. How virtual participants see you affects their sense of being included in the exercises—so facilitate in front of, or in view of a camera, addressing both in-person participants, and remote attendees.
Breakout groups need to be more autonomous, so plan simple, self-directed activities so they can get right to it as you set up exercises with live participants.
Be vigilant about calling on remote participants.
Invest and test audio so virtual participants can be heard, and live participants can be heard too. Installing a close captioning add on is a must for accessibility and inclusion.