Creating Participation

01 Title

On screen "Creating Participation" · Module 6 · Facilitation Foundations

A pub quiz, a few years ago. Six of us on a team. And we had a guy on that team, a good guy, who answered basically everything. He'd hear the question and he'd say the answer, confidently, and someone would write it down, and we'd move on. Fast. Efficient. Felt like a well-run team.

We came fifth out of nine.

And afterward, walking out, one of the quieter ones said, almost apologetically, 'I did know that Dylan one. I was pretty sure it was Blood on the Tracks.'

And it was. We'd put down the wrong album because the confident person said it first and nobody wanted to argue over a pub quiz.

He wasn't a bad teammate. He was quick, and the format rewarded quick.

Hold onto that quiz.

02 Three people talk, everybody else waits

On screen a room of nine, three speech bubbles

Here's the state you will walk into by default, in almost every room, on almost every day.

Three people talk. Everybody else waits.

And it looks fine from the front. There's discussion. There's energy. Somebody's making good points. You can run a whole session like that and feel like it went well, and get good feedback, and go home pleased.

0:24 · then: nine invited, three heard, six read as agreement

But you invited nine people and you got three people's thinking, plus six people's silence, which you will incorrectly read as agreement.

Then two weeks later the decision runs into a problem one of the silent six could have told you about on the day.

And I want to be precise about why this matters, because people hear 'participation' and think it's about fairness, or being nice.

It isn't. It's about accuracy. You convened nine people because nine people know different things. If you only extract three people's knowledge, you've paid for nine and used three, and you'll make a worse decision than the room was capable of.

03 A design problem, not a personality problem

On screen "Encouragement doesn't work. Structure does."

Here's the reframe the whole module rests on, so I'm going to be blunt about it.

When people notice this, their instinct is to fix it with encouragement. 'I'd love to hear from some of the quieter voices.' 'Anyone who hasn't spoken yet?'

It doesn't work. And worse, it puts a spotlight on exactly the people who least want one.

0:24 · then: "Perform being not-quiet. In public. With no warning."

Think about what you've actually just asked for.

You've asked a quiet person to perform being not-quiet, in public, with no preparation, in front of everyone, while everyone watches to see whether they'll do it. That's harder than the thing they were already not doing.

And the reason three people talk isn't that six people are shy. It's that open discussion is a format, and that format rewards fast, confident, and comfortable-with-interruption. That's a design choice. You made it when you wrote 'discussion' on the agenda.

So change the format. Everything from here is a structure, not a request.

04 Write first, talk second

On screen "Silent writing before any discussion."

The single highest-return move in this module, and it costs you two minutes.

Before any discussion, everyone writes on their own, in silence. Doesn't matter what: sticky notes, a notebook, a shared doc with a line each.

Two minutes. Then talk.

0:16 · then: two effects

Two things happen, and they're both worth more than they sound.

Every person now has a position before anybody else's is in the air, so their thinking is genuinely theirs rather than a reaction to whoever spoke first.

And the unusual idea survives, because it got written down before its owner had a chance to hear the room and quietly decide it sounded stupid. The unusual ideas and the quiet people are very often the same people, and you lose both in the same moment.

The mechanism underneath it: groups converge on the first idea spoken, fast, whether or not it's the best one. Two minutes of silence is the cheapest protection you will ever buy against that. It's also the entire pub quiz.

05 1-2-4-All, applied

On screen 1 alone · 2 in pairs · 4 in fours · then all

You met this in module three. Here's how to actually use it, because it isn't one activity, it's a shape you can put almost anything into.

One minute alone, in writing. Two minutes in pairs. Four minutes in fours. Then share with everyone.

0:17 · then: four steps, four jobs

And the escalation is doing something specific at every step, which is why the order can't be shuffled.

Alone protects the idea, for the reason we just covered.

The pair is where you find out whether it survives contact with one other human. If it's wrong you find out quietly.

The four is where ideas combine, and where the weak ones drop out without anyone having to be told they're weak. Nobody has to reject anything. It just doesn't get carried forward, and that's a gentler machine than a vote.

And by the time anything reaches the whole room, it's been through three filters and has a group behind it rather than a person.

If you're ever unsure how to structure a block, this is a good default.

06 Two more structures

On screen Round robin · Silent brainwriting (6-3-5)

Two others worth having.

Round robin. Go round in a fixed order, everyone says one thing, passing is allowed. Blunt, completely reliable, and the right call when you need to hear from literally everyone.

And the 'passing is allowed' is not a nicety. Without it you've built a trap: someone with nothing to say has to invent something under pressure, in front of everyone. Say it out loud when you set it up. 'Pass is a completely fine answer.'

And silent brainwriting, the 6-3-5 version from module three. Three ideas each, five minutes, pass the sheet, build on what you find. Volume in writing with no performance at all, and the right call in a room where you already know one person will dominate.

07 Powerful questions

On screen closed → open

Now the questions themselves, because the format only gets you so far if the question is bad.

Closed questions get closed answers. 'Does everyone agree?' gets nods, and nods are worthless. You genuinely cannot tell the difference between agreement and politeness in a nod.

'Are we happy with this?' is worse, because now disagreeing means being the person who made everyone unhappy, and you've made the social cost of dissent explicit.

0:28 · then: four open questions

Four that do real work, and you can have all of them.

'What would have to be true for this to fail?' That gives people permission to be negative by making it a hypothetical rather than an accusation.

'What's the strongest argument against this?' Same move, and it turns dissent into a task.

'What would you need to see to change your mind?' Excellent when two people are stuck, because it moves them from positions to evidence.

And the best one: 'What are we not talking about?' It gives explicit permission for the thing everyone's avoiding, without you having to name it, or even know what it is. I've had rooms go quiet for eight seconds after that question and then produce the actual issue.

08 What, not why

On screen "Why did you do that?" → "What led to that decision?"

One small swap with a big effect. Use 'what' instead of 'why'.

'Why did you do that?' puts a person on trial. It's an accusation with a question mark on the end, and people answer it defensively even when you didn't mean it that way at all.

'What led to that decision?' asks for exactly the same information and gets a much better answer, because it asks about circumstances rather than about the person's judgement.

Same intent. Completely different room. And once you notice this you'll hear how often 'why' shows up in meetings, and what it does every single time.

09 The silence after a question

On screen a count to seven

You ask a good question. Nobody answers. Three seconds go by and it feels like a minute.

That silence is not a failure and it is not yours to fill. It's people thinking. Your discomfort is their thinking time, and those are not the same currency.

Nobody has a considered answer to a good question in under four seconds. And if they do, it's a pre-formed opinion, and probably not the most interesting thing they could have said.

So count to seven. Somebody almost always goes at four or five, and it's frequently a person who wouldn't have spoken if you'd rescued it at two.

Notice what the trade is when you fill it. You're buying off your own discomfort with the room's thinking, and you'll make that trade about fifty times before you stop. I still make it, usually when I'm tired or when the session matters more than usual, which is precisely when I shouldn't.

One trick if you can't stand it: count in your head and look at your notes while you do. Having a task makes seven seconds survivable, and looking down takes the pressure off the room, because nobody's being watched while they think.

10 Redirect to the group

On screen "What do others think?"

Somebody asks you a question. A real one, about the content. 'Should we ship to everyone or just enterprise?'

Your instinct is to answer, especially if you know. Don't. Turn it back. 'What do others think?' Or 'who's dealt with this before?'

Because when you answer, you're the person holding the pen, so your answer becomes the answer, and the eight people with actual experience go quiet because you were quick.

I've killed more conversations by being helpful than by being wrong.

You're not the expert in the room. You're the person who gets the experts talking. That's a different job and it's the one you were hired for.

11 The dominant voice

On screen structural · the agreement · direct

Now the two people everybody asks about. The dominator first, and there are three moves in escalating order. Most of the time you never get past the first one.

Structural. If one person is dominating, the format is the problem: switch to silent writing, or round robin, or pairs. A dominator cannot dominate a silent minute. You've solved it without a conversation and without anybody losing face, which is worth a great deal.

0:29 · then: the flipchart, then the sentence

If structure isn't enough, use the working agreement the group wrote at the start. Point at the flipchart. 'One conversation at a time, that's yours.' It's the group intervening, not you.

And only if you have to, do it directly and generously. Here's the sentence: 'Dave, that's useful, hold that thought. I want to hear from people we haven't heard from yet, and I'll come back to you.'

Then actually come back to him. Genuinely, before the end, in front of everyone.

If you don't, you've just made an enemy and he'll be right to be annoyed, and you'll have taught the room that your promises are a management technique.

1:13 · then: "Filling silence because silence feels like failure to them too."

One thing that changes how this feels, and it's changed how I handle it.

The dominator is very often anxious rather than arrogant.

They're filling silence because silence feels like failure to them too. They're the person who's been rewarded their whole career for having the answer fast, and they're doing the thing that has always worked.

Which means a structure that gives everyone a turn frequently relaxes them more than anyone else in the room. They stop having to hold the whole thing up.

And it means the tone matters. If you handle a dominator as an obstacle, they'll feel it. If you handle them as someone who's working hard, they'll usually meet you.

1:59 · then: two people, seven exchanges, nobody else

A problem that isn't quite the dominator and needs a different move.

Two people get into it. Both senior, both engaged, both making decent points, and now four exchanges deep in a conversation the other seven are watching like tennis.

It doesn't feel like a problem, because it's a good conversation. That's what makes it expensive. You can lose twenty minutes to a genuinely interesting disagreement between two people.

The move is to widen it rather than stop it, because stopping it is rude and unnecessary.

'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?'

Now the same disagreement has nine people in it, and nobody's been told off.

12 The quiet voice

On screen "Never cold-call."

And the quiet one. One rule, and it's absolute.

Never cold-call.

'Sarah, you've been quiet, what do you think?' feels inclusive and it is the opposite. You've put someone on the spot with no preparation, in front of everybody. And if they haven't got anything ready, they'll say something safe, and then they'll say less for the rest of the day, because the thing they were worried about just happened.

0:28 · then: write first · round robin · pairs

Create a slot instead. Three ways, and you already have all of them.

Write-first means they arrive at the discussion holding something. The hardest part of speaking up isn't the speaking, it's not having anything ready.

Round robin means their turn is coming, and they can see it coming, so they can prepare. Predictability is the whole thing.

And pairs mean they've already said it once, to one person, before they say it to nine. Second time is much easier than first time.

None of those single anybody out. That's the point. Every one of them is a structure that happens to everyone.

1:09 · then: the break, then the room

And one more, for when you specifically want a particular person's view in the room.

Ask them in the break. Quietly, one to one. 'I thought what you said about the onboarding data was really useful. Would you be up for saying that when we come back?'

Then in the room: 'Sarah, you made a point earlier I think everyone should hear.'

Now they've been asked, warned, and endorsed before they open their mouth. That's about as safe as speaking in front of a group gets, and it takes forty seconds in a coffee queue.

The thing that makes it work is the warning, not the endorsement. Nobody minds speaking. People mind being surprised.

13 Safety, and who speaks last

On screen Amy Edmondson · psychological safety

Underneath all of this is psychological safety, which is Amy Edmondson's work, and it means something quite specific.

It's the shared belief that you won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up. Not comfort. Not niceness. Just the absence of a penalty for saying the awkward true thing.

And that's worth separating, because 'safe' gets used to mean 'pleasant', and a pleasant room where nobody says the difficult thing is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Citation: Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 44(2), 350-383. Also *The Fearless Organization* (2018).

0:30 · then: "The most senior person speaks last."

And the most powerful lever you have on it is stupidly mechanical.

Have the most senior person in the room speak last.

Because the moment the boss states a view, the room converges on it, and it does not matter how much they insist they want challenge. Everybody's read the situation faster than they can be reassured out of it.

If the leader speaks first, you are no longer running a discussion. You're running a ratification.

So say it to them beforehand. 'I'm going to come to you last on this one.' Most leaders are relieved, in my experience. It's a lot of pressure being the first voice.

14 When the topic is too hot

On screen anonymous input

One more tool, for when the subject is genuinely risky.

Take names off it. Anonymous sticky notes, or index cards collected and shuffled.

You lose something real: the ability to follow up with an individual, and the accountability that comes with attribution. You gain the thing nobody would have said with their name on it.

On the right topic that's a very good trade. On the wrong one it's a way of dodging a conversation the group needs to have out loud, so use it deliberately rather than as a default.

0:36 · then: a grid of tiles, one person talking

Quick word on remote, because the default is worse there, not better.

Turn-taking online has a delay in it, so people wait for a gap that never quite arrives and the confident ones talk into the pause. A remote discussion concentrates airtime more than a room does, not less.

Three things help. 'Everyone put one line in the chat before anyone speaks' is a silent-writing round that takes ninety seconds. Breakout rooms are pairs, and they work extremely well. And name the next speaker rather than asking who wants to go, because 'anyone?' online produces a very long silence and then two people at once.

The principles are identical. The mechanics need more deliberate help.

1:22 · then: "Some people genuinely don't want to contribute."

The objection, and it's fair.

It goes: some people don't want to speak, that's a legitimate preference rather than a problem to be solved, and forcing participation on an introvert is its own kind of rudeness. Some of the structures here can feel like being made to perform.

I think that's right, and it's why 'passing is allowed' matters and why cold-calling is out.

But I'd separate two things. Not wanting to speak in a plenary is extremely common and completely reasonable. Not wanting to contribute at all is rare. Most people who stay quiet in a discussion will write, or will talk in a pair, quite happily.

So the goal isn't to make everyone talk. It's to make sure everyone has a route in that suits them. If somebody uses every route and still chooses to pass, that's genuinely fine.

2:18 · then: an empty chair

One more, because participation isn't only about the people in front of you.

There will be someone whose view matters and who isn't in the room. On leave, in another timezone, too junior to be invited, or the customer.

Ask them beforehand and read it out with their name on it. 'Before we start, I asked Sam what they'd want us to know, and here's what they said.' Thirty seconds, and it puts a constraint into the room that nobody can wave away.

The failure this prevents is the decision that's perfectly sensible in the room and impossible for the two people who have to implement it.

15 The practice

On screen This week's practice

Here's your one thing, and it doesn't need a session of your own to practise on.

Picture four rooms. A ten-person retro where the loudest voice is the team lead. A cross-functional planning meeting where two directors do all the talking. A five-person kickoff where nobody's worked together before. A remote all-hands where the chat stays silent and three names carry the whole call.

For each one, pick the structure that fixes it and say why in one sentence: silent writing first, 1-2-4-All, round robin, or the pre-brief.

If you've got an agenda of your own in front of you, run the same read over it. That part's optional.

You don't fix participation with encouragement in the moment. You fix it by choosing the right structure before anyone walks in.

16 Callback close

On screen the quiz, an answer sheet

We came fifth in that quiz, and we should have come higher, because the answer was in the room the whole time.

It was sitting next to me. It never got said, because the format we were using rewarded whoever spoke first.

That's every workshop where three people talk. The answer is in the room. It just needs a format that lets it out.

0:25 · then: Next: Module 7 - Managing Time and Energy

Next, module seven.

Every structure in this module still has to survive four hours in a real room. And the room you have at half past three is not the room you had at ten.

## The practice (recap)

Take four rooms (a dominated retro, a two-director planning meeting, a five-person kickoff where nobody knows each other, and a silent remote all-hands), choose the structure that fixes each one, and say why in one sentence. Change the format, not your handling of the person. If you have an agenda of your own to hand, run the same read over it, but that part is optional.

## Callback

We came fifth, and the answer was in the room the whole time. It just needed a format that let it out.

## Sources

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. *Administrative Science Quarterly*, 44(2), 350-383. Also *The Fearless Organization* (2018). Beat 23 uses both for the definition of psychological safety.

Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. *Liberating Structures*. Source of 1-2-4-All and 6-3-5, used in Beats 8, 9 and 10.