Cultivating Respect in Facilitation

Through attending decades of Vermont Town Meetings, I learned that effective facilitation requires respect.

For over two hundred years, my little hometown of Marlboro, Vermont, met at least once a year for “town meeting”: a form of local government where every eligible resident can directly participate in town governance.  At our main annual town meeting, we discussed and voted on published agendas that included the town and school budgets and many other articles. Debate, facilitated by a town moderator, was common, people made amendments and voted on them, and the meetings (one for the town and one for the school) could last most of the day.

Photograph of people filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting. Photograph by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer
People filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting. Photograph by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer

In my experience, though people in the room had different points of view, town meetings worked as well as they did because our town moderator respected everyone present and, for the most part, town residents respected each other. We remembered that the folks around us were our neighbors. They were people who, if we needed help, would be there for us despite our disagreements about politics and other issues. Sometimes votes wouldn’t go how we liked, yet we shrugged and moved on.

We could listen and make (sometimes) painful decisions because our moderator modeled respect and we respected each other despite our differences.

Facilitation and respect

Effective facilitation requires respect. An image of two women facilitating a group of participants standing in a well-lit meeting room.

So, how can we cultivate respect in facilitation?

As a facilitator, I sometimes struggle to keep my opinions of the sayer and what’s said and the sayer to myself. It can be hard to shut up and listen when facilitating, and I’m occasionally tempted to offer unsolicited advice.

However, I’ve learned that listening is a gift you can’t fully give when you don’t respect the person you’re listening to. Effective facilitation is inherently rooted in showing respect to each individual involved. A facilitator needs to respect diverse perspectives and honor the contributions of each participant. This involves active listening—truly tuning in to what others are saying without judgment or interruption.

Respectful facilitation also involves fostering inclusivity and fairness. It means ensuring everyone has an equal opportunity to speak and participate, regardless of status or background.

In essence, effective facilitation is a delicate dance between structure and empathy, where respect serves as a guiding principle. When participants feel respected, they are more likely to engage authentically, share ideas openly, and collaborate productively.

A perspective from meditation practice

Meditation practice can teach us how to cultivate mindful respect. Recently, one of my meditation teachers, Helen Narayan Liebenson, has been speaking about respect from a Buddhist perspective.

One concept she shared is “loosening judgment”. We continually interpret our sensed experience. When this involves listening to others, we may judge them or what they say. Some form of judgment is, perhaps, inescapable, but when we notice it we can practice loosening judgment: moving away from judgment and towards direct experience of another.

She also described performing an “inner bow“. This is a way of honoring either another or oneself, a conscious intention derived from an external act of respect: the act of bowing to another.

Ultimately, such language only points to the action to convey. Listening, loosening judgment, or performing an inner bow are ways to treat others with respect. All of these actions are intertwined and reinforce each other in the process.

Postscript

Marlboro abandoned traditional town meetings at the start of the COVID pandemic in 2020. My town has not readopted them, though many Vermont towns still practice this form of local government. We’ve switched to voting on articles via Australian ballot so there are no more large spring gatherings, debates, or amendments. I appreciate that our new form of government allows all eligible residents to vote, rather than only those who attend an in-person meeting. But I miss meeting with townsfolk and discussing our town’s direction and future together.

No matter our differences, I hope we continue to respect our neighbors, in the same way effective facilitators respect those with whom we work.

Photograph attribution: People filling the Marlboro (Vermont) Town House for the 2012 Town Meeting by Zachary P. Stephens/Reformer.

How to facilitate a community discussion using fishbowl

What’s the best way to facilitate a community discussion? Recently, I had to answer that question at short notice. My task: design and facilitate a two-hour community discussion in response to a bombshell announcement made by the largest employer in my tiny rural hometown of Marlboro, Vermont.

[Update: Want to know how to do this online? See this post!]

The community was in shock. Consequently, I felt it was important to use a discussion format that:

  • Supported respectful dialog from a variety of constituencies;
  • Created an environment that was as safe as possible for people to share;
  • Minimized the likelihood that people would monopolize the meeting;
  • Allowed both short statements and controlled impromptu conversations; and
  • Was efficient.

I ended up designing (and moderating the first half of) a fishbowl format. To be more precise, I used what I’d call “half a fishbowl sandwich“: an opening pair share plus a standard fishbowl. (All three of these techniques are covered in detail in my latest book Event Crowdsourcing: Creating Meetings People Actually Want and Need.)

The pair share

I ran a one-minute-per-partner pair share with this question. “What do you think about the proposed Marlboro College plan to close down the school and transfer the endowment and campus to Emerson?

The fishbowl format

Now, watch this three-minute meeting video clip in which I explain how fishbowl works.

Here’s the fishbowl rules poster used at the meeting.

A photograph of a poster displaying Fishbowl Rules If you want to speak: —You must be sitting in one of the four chairs. —Don’t wait to be invited; simply walk up and sit in an empty chair. When you’ve finished speaking: —Leave your chair and return to the audience. (You can always come back!) If you want to speak and the chairs are full: —Let the occupants have a say, and walk up. —Someone sitting must then return to the audience.
We listed two topics for the community discussion, and allocated roughly half the available time to each, with a short break between them. I facilitated the first topic, and a community member with mediation experience took over for the second topic so I could join the discussion as a participant.

Results

About 75 people attended the meeting (watch the video below to see them!) which ran for 2¼ hours.

Most community meetings in my town are done in “New England Town Meeting” style, where a moderator picks people from those with raised hands to speak. This approach:

  • May miss people who have something important to say.
  • Allows individuals to monopolize meeting time by speaking for a long time.
  • Doesn’t support the development of coherent conversations between a small number of people.

Our opening pair share allowed everyone to think and express their initial thoughts and feelings at the beginning of the meeting. This modeled the potential for contributing right at the start. It made it more likely that an individual would realize they had something they wanted to share.

The fishbowl, by allowing anyone to take a chair at any time, encouraged spontaneous and responsive sharing. (Check out the video linked below to see how well it worked.)

In conclusion, the feedback I received about the meeting process was uniformly positive. Both those physically present and those who watched the video agreed that the format allowed townsfolk to reflect and share their thoughts and feelings in a respectful and flexible way.

Find out more

If you’d like to watch more of the video, go here. This linked page includes an annotated timeline of the meeting.

Being Present in the Age of the Mind Outside the Brain

being present: An image of looking up into the leafy branches of trees. Photo attribution: James Reis, from his exhibit Closer and Closer

Being present is tough! The other day, Celia and I were walking in Boston’s beautiful Arnold Arboretum when she asked me who’d responded to an email I’d sent. When I pulled out my phone to answer her question, she said she felt she was walking with a third person, a stranger.

Where are our minds?

Once, our minds were in our brains. Before tools, painting, language, and writing were invented, people had no way to represent knowledge outside their heads.
What if Celia had asked her question on a walk ten years ago? I would have either been able to remember the answer — or not.

Today, parts of our minds are outside our brains.
being present: An illustration in shades of blue of the silhouette of a person's head, with a melange of letters contained in a bubble behind them. Photo attribution: pixabay.comMore often or not, answers are available from devices in our pockets. Today we rely on machines for connection with information and others. Machines allow us to research what we want to know or explore.

We also have the routine ability to capture pertinent information in an appropriate secure store outside our brain — an in-basket, notepad, voice recorder, electronic device, etc. This frees us from the need to memorize data so we can work on other things. When we need information, we access it from the external data store, not our brain.

Ridding ourselves of the necessity for our brains to remember everything

Such access allows me to worry less about remembering information I may need. Like my upcoming appointments, background on a client before an initial call, or exploring places to visit on an upcoming trip. This is a core credo of David Allen’s Getting Things Done: “Your mind is for having ideas, not holding them.”

This freedom makes me more productive. It gives me a way to capture fleeting creative ideas that, in the past, I would have forgotten before they could be explored. I especially appreciate these technological benefits as I grow older and my memory is not what it once was.

The downside

Celia’s response, however, illustrates a downside to extending our minds beyond our brains. When we perform a move to secure storage or retrieval from it, the associated technology invariably intrudes into the relationship of being with other people present.

Celia says, “When I walk alone with you, I don’t want to feel I’m also with your 200 closest friends.”

I get it.

When I’m paying attention to my device, I am not present with her.

Some people seem OK with ignoring their partners or friends at the expense of their devices. I still marvel when I see a couple sitting together for dinner at a nice restaurant, both immersed in their phones for the whole meal. I wonder about their relationship, not that it’s ultimately any of my business.

Also, we don’t need machines to connect us when we’re alone. I recently returned from a five-day silent retreat in New Mexico where we did not interact with our fellow participants apart from the start and end and were miles away from cellular and Wi-Fi signals so our devices were off the grid. It was wonderful, and I learned a lot. [Here’s my post about a similar retreat held two years earlier.]

Luckily, compromise is possible between these two extremes while together with familiars: exclusion via total immersion in the digital world and shunning all machine connection while you’re with them.

A compromise

What I think works is explicit respectful negotiation when you want to move from direct presence to accessing devices. I could have said to Celia: “I don’t remember.” [Then I could pause to let her respond: she might have said, “Oh, don’t worry about it,” or “Can you look it up?”] … If she doesn’t respond I can ask: “Would you like me to look up the answer now, or can it wait?”

Sometimes I remember to negotiate to switch my presence in this way. It’s respectful and allows the other person(s) to choose what they want.

I know Celia appreciates it because it places our relationship first.

And that’s important to us.

Getting the best of both worlds

Being present with people you’re with is always important. Taking advantage of our modern abilities to expand our minds outside our brains can enrich our lives together. Negotiating the switch between these two forms of being allows us to get the best of both worlds.

Photo attribution: James Reis, from his exhibit Closer and Closer, and pixabay.com