Module 6 quiz | Facilitation Foundations

Question 1 of 8

You invited nine people and three of them did the talking. Why is that a problem, and what is the wrong fix?

It is a sign the six are disengaged; the fix is a more energising activity. It is inaccurate — you paid for nine people’s knowledge and used three — and the wrong fix is encouragement, which spotlights the people who least want one. It is unfair on the six; the fix is to invite fewer people so everyone gets airtime. It is a facilitation failure in the moment; the fix is to call on the quiet people directly.

Question 2 of 8

Before any discussion, everyone writes on their own for two minutes. What do those two minutes actually buy?

It slows the pace, which lowers the temperature in a room that disagrees. People arrive at the discussion better prepared, so the discussion is shorter. It gives you a written record of the room’s thinking for the write-up. Everyone has a position before anyone else’s is in the air, and the unusual idea gets written down before its owner hears the room and decides it sounds stupid.

Question 3 of 8

Alone, then pairs, then fours, then everyone. What is the four doing that the pair is not?

It gets more voices in before the plenary, which builds momentum. It gives the facilitator time to prepare the plenary share-back. It surfaces disagreement, which the pair is too small to contain. It is where ideas combine, and where weak ones drop out without anyone having to be told they are weak.

Question 4 of 8

You want a specific person’s view in the room and they have not spoken. What do you do?

Ask them in the break whether they would be willing to make the point when you come back, then invite them by name in the room. Leave them be. If they had something to say they would say it. Ask them directly and warmly: “Sarah, you’ve been quiet, what do you think?” Ask the group a question you know is in their area and hope they take it.

Question 5 of 8

One person is answering everything. What is the first move, and what is worth knowing about them?

Speak to them privately at the first break, before it becomes a pattern the room resents. Point at the working agreements the group wrote and let the group intervene. Say directly in the room that you want to hear from people who have not spoken yet. Change the format — a dominator cannot dominate a silent minute — and bear in mind they are usually anxious rather than arrogant.

Question 6 of 8

A participant made a decision you want to understand. Which question gets you the better answer, and why?

“Why did you do that?” — it is direct, and directness signals you take them seriously. “Can you walk us through your thinking?” — the only version that avoids putting anyone on the spot. “What led to that decision?” — it asks for the same information but about circumstances rather than the person’s judgement. “Does everyone agree with that approach?” — it opens the question to the room rather than the individual.

Question 7 of 8

Which pair of statements is right about psychological safety and the order people speak in?

Safety means everyone is comfortable and getting on, and the leader should speak first to set a clear direction. Safety means a pleasant room, and the leader should speak first but explicitly invite challenge. Safety is the absence of a penalty for saying the awkward true thing, and the most senior person should speak last. Safety is built by the facilitator’s warmth, and speaking order matters less than tone.

Question 8 of 8

Two senior people are four exchanges deep in a genuinely good disagreement. The other seven are watching it like tennis. What do you do?

Widen it — “this is the right argument to be having, let’s get everyone into it: two minutes on your own, whose position are you closer to and what would change your mind?” Ask each of them to summarise the other’s position, so the disagreement gets sharper before you open it up. Let it run. It is the right argument and interrupting a good conversation is worse than the airtime cost. Stop it and move on, noting the disagreement for a separate conversation.

0 of 8 answered

Creating Participation

A letter for facilitators who give a damn.