Category: online facilitation

A Focus on Online Facilitation During International Facilitation Week

peterblockquestionTim Bonneman blogged yesterday about the International Association of Facilitators “International Facilitation Week.” He pondered…

I wonder if anyone is planning any events related specifically to online facilitation.

I started to comment on Tim’s blog, but realized the length of my response suggested I blog here and link back, so here goes…

Hiya Tim,

I think this is an excellent idea and, alas, for me, the timing sucks. I have put a red line on my to do list promising myself not to bite of anything else. (I’m doing an action research project on how to usefully evaluate the socio-technical stuff associated with organizations’ “collaboration platforms!!” And yes, i bit off WAY more than I should have! See this previous post)

But I think your idea is really good and that there is a network of people out there that would benefit from a week of distributed connection, learning and reflection.

Online facilitation practice has  diversified since I jumped in in 1996. Some of those sub areas have matured. For example, the practices around “online community management/facilitation” have had great stewardship by folks such as the Online Community Roundtable (Shout out to Rachel Happe and friends) and others, and there have been really interesting developments in the facilitation of learning online (see Tony Carr’s work and kudos for pulling together some seminal work around facilitation of learning at University of Cape Town in South Africa). There new generation of online community people who are (re)discovering practices us old timers used back in the early online facilitation days, and adapting and expanding them in new ways and for new contexts.

The proliferation of tools, particularly tools that enable connection outside of bounded groups (such as Twitter, Facebook, and previously the emergent networks that were formed BETWEEN blogs and commentors) has led us to an era that is not just about online group facilitation, but online network stimulation and facilitation. June Holley’s work in network weaving (which to me is still a lot about bounded groups but working in unbounded spaces) is an example.

These tools have also greatly expanded the possibilities of dispersed collaboration, but  I have to say, this seems like an area where a few have succeeded (some wildly) and many have been left with grand dreams that turned to empty promises. I think this is because we are talking about facilitating both between people and between organizations and their politics, policies and structures. So we have a blend of facilitation and organizational development, if you will.

So the field is rich for reflection and ripe for dreaming.

Nancy

Updated Conference Call & Meeting Tips

My last post about this topic was dated 2009. In preparing for a workshop this week, it seemed like a good time to update the resource. have any suggestions or additions? Please share them in the comments.

Flickr Creative Commons photo from Leo Reynolds http://www.flickr.com/photos/lwr/438478596/sizes/s/

Why use a call?

The medium of voice conversations is pretty flexible. Many of us have mastered the one to one call. You can read hundreds of articles about when to use and not to use voice calls, but the bottom line is you can do many many things and many people have few alternatives. The real question is how hard it is to do any particular type of interaction WELL on a call.

Group voices  calls  can be used  in general for:

  • meetings (best with smaller groups unless it is to broadcast information)
  • project management teams
  • learning events
  • guest speaker presentations
  • orientation or closure for online activity/event
  • networking
  • presentations/pitches

Teleconferences support processes of:

  • decision making (convergence) – this can be a challenging process if the decisions are difficult/complex
  • problem solving/conflict resolution – same issue as decision making
  • fun/play
  • relationship building/orientation
  • brainstorming
  • teamwork
  • knowledge sharing
  • information delivery

Planning

Agenda

  • Have an agenda that includes goals, participant expectations and timing if appropriate. (2013 update — I’ve grown to realize that not all meetings need agendas, but they need at least an intention. For complex, emergent issues, an agenda may not serve as well as a really good starting question.)
    • Don’t CRAM the agenda! It takes more time and people have more fragile attention spans.
    • Ask participants to review the agenda prior to the call. (Or the background materials, intentions, etc.!)
  • An hour on a teleconference generally cannot accomplish quite as much as an hour F2F. Plan accordingly. (Update: take this into consideration with the next point! )
  • If you expect active participation from all participants, consider the impact of volume of comments on time available when determining the number of agenda items. On a 10 person call with the expectation that everyone comments on each agenda item, and their comments range from 1-3 minutes, that means you can accommodate 1-2 agenda items in an hour.
  • Decide on roles. The meeting chair does not have to be the same person who is looking after the call facilitation duties. (Update: I have grown very fond of having a shared chat tool for collective note taking and have added a sub section below. I use http://www.meetingwords.com a lot. )
    • Specific roles are more important as the size of the group increases
    • Facilitator or master of ceremonies – support meeting process
    • Having a “greeter” who arrives 5 or more minutes early to welcome people as they arrive on the phone line helps them orient socially
    • Having a “tech person” who can help people (say, by means of a chat room or instant messenger (IM) if they have difficulties)
    • Designated presenters or speakers who are experts in the topic
    • Having a note-taker (say in a chat-room, that also supports the “tech person”)
  • If part of the group is in a F2F with a long (i.e. full day) agenda, consider scheduling shorter phone segments for critical business. It is hard to stay on the phone for a full day! 😉

Technical Set Up

  • Consider if telephone is the best communication tool for your task or purpose. Alternatives include webmeeting tools, or pairing a phone call with another visual tool such as a chat room (Skype, IM, etc) or shared Whiteboard (ie. Vyew)
  • Send all participants the dial in number and pass-codes (if any) needed. 
    • When I send these in advance, I find it useful to resend an hour before the meeting so people don’t have to go digging through old emails. If you use a calendar request, include on the invitation.)
  • Be clear to participants if you are offering a toll free number or if they are responsible for long distance costs. With international groups, make sure your number includes the international country code.
  • Providing a “jumping off” point –where people can look up the details if they’re lost or if the technology fails. (email, URL, etc.)
  • Integrate a phone call with other media and modes of communication (online, face-to-face, presentation media and print resources). E.G. Collect topics from asynchronous discussions (email lists or web boards)
  • Consider using more than one channel. This means audio with a visual. Often this helps focus more attention and understanding. For example, integrate visuals by sending images in advance or using a web meeting tool. Use an online white board to generate shared images and notes during the call.
  • Consider arrangements for hearing impaired participants (TTY, simultaneous transcription in a chat room, etc.).
  • Have a back up plan for potential technology failure.
  • If the call leader controls the start/stop of the call and may have to leave early, have a second person with leader privileges so the call does not get cut off. Be careful of teleconferencing and we bmeeting tools that only allow one person to have the controls. This is risky.
  • Plan to record the call so you can post audio recordings or notes so that they support asynchronous interaction or give people who couldn’t make it to the call a sense of belonging. If you plan to record the call, recording, playback and transcription tools/services include:
    • http://www.audioacrobat.com
    • http://free.conferencecall.com
    • http://www.highspeedconferencing.com
    • http://www.skype.com with external plug ins (tools you have to add in)
    • http://www.learningalliances.net/CoP_Resources/Recording-phone-meetings.htm
  • Cheap and useful telephone services and tools
    • http://www.freeconferencecall.com
    • http://www.highdefconferencing.com/ (combines regular phone calls and Skype calls)
    • http://www.skype.com
    • http://www.gizmoproject.com/
    • http://www.nocostconference.com/
    • http://www.vyew.com/content/ Simple tool to share screens, etc.

Scheduling and Preparation

  • Consider participant availability just as you would for any other meeting.
  • Consider time zones when scheduling. See the WCAG 2.0 Compliant time converter option, thetimenow.com (Edit, 9/21/16 – thetimenow.com has asked us to remove all links so you just see the name, not the link.  NW) or  http://www.timeanddate.com for timezones and http://www.doodle.ch for scheduling tools.)
  • Communicate local time or how to calculate local time when sending meeting announcement.
  • Distribute supporting documents/files well before the call start.
  • Inform participants if they have to have a file or website open on their computer desktop.
  • Have an attendance list with name, email and phone number in case you need to contact an individual before, during or after the call.

Starting the Call

  • The facilitator should log on early and be the first online (5-15 minutes).
  • If you are going to record the  call, put a big post it note in front of you to remember to turn on the recording. Can you tell I’ve forgotten this a few times? I now also ask someone else to remind me.
    • Tell people if you are recording the call and ask for/deal with any objections. Tell WHERE the recording will be available and who will have access.
  • Greet and know who is online (roll call, use “the clock” described below, etc.).
  • If appropriate, ask early arrivals to greet subsequent arrivals as a team-building activity.
  • Establish protocol of announcing name when taking a turn speaking.
  • Review and, if needed, adjust agenda.
  • Find out if there are any individual time constraints (“I have to leave early”) and adjust accordingly. This is particularly important if you need the input or participation of the person leaving early to achieve the goals of the call.

General Call Etiquette

  • Call from a quiet location.
  • Avoid cell phones. If you use a cell phone, put on mute when not talking.
  • Avoid speakerphones or if using speakerphones, use the mute button.
  • Use quality headsets to avoid “tinny” sound.
  • Avoid low quality cordless phones as they sometimes create a buzzing background sound.
  • Don’t use the hold button if your phone system has built in background music or announcements.
  • Avoid paper rustling.
  • Caution with multitasking – some is unavoidable, but remind people about attention and occasionally call on silent folks to keep their attention. Listen for keyboard sounds (those doing email!).
  • Announce if leaving/returning.
  • On long calls, offer bio breaks and “quick stretches” – remember we are more than just ears! Consider kind treatment of bodies!
  • Speak clearly. Slow down if you are a “fast talker.”
  • Be aware of the impact of accents and slow down accordingly.
  • Be enthusiastic and use a tone appropriate to the group. The first impression is important.
  • Vary voice tone – avoid monotone presentation.
  • Articulate body language (“I’m making waving motions with my hands.”)

Attention & Engagement

  • Use guest speakers or multiple speakers to avoid “boredom” with one voice/presenter
  • If appropriate, use games and interactive activities. See “Just Three Words” below.
  • Track who is talking so you can call on those who have not had a chance/chosen to speak up.
  • Use people’s names to get their attention.
  • If the group gets off the agenda, refocus but take note of the side issue for later attention.
  • Break up long stretches of one speaker.
  • When appropriate, go “around to circle” for inclusive participation.
  • Listen for folks who may be more comfortable talking (avoid dominance) or very quiet.
  • Consider “break out sessions” where pairs get off off the main call, call each other, interact and call back on to the phone bridge.
  • For decision-making processes, restate or repeat key issues as they are honed down to a decision point.
  • If your participants can be online at the same time they are on the phone, consider web-based collaboration tools to create shared electronic notes, flip charts, etc. Sometimes allowing “side chats” or “chat breakouts” can increase participant engagement.
  • Generally, the larger the group, the more directive your facilitation needs to be to keep a small number of people from dominating the call.
  • During the call, stop and ask for feedback.
  • If you don’t want to ask each person to respond to a general query (“do you understand the new procedure?”), ask questions such that silence means assent. There is a drawback to this technique in that sometimes silences does not truly mean assent and understanding can be lost.
  • Share leadership duties to help less engaged people become more involved in the call. Ask individuals to “lead” sections of the agenda.
  • Assign people different roles – note taker, timekeeper, “keeper” of unanswered questions, etc.

Interactive Techniques

  • Brainstorming – ask participants to note down others’ contributions to a brainstorm. After the brainstorming period is done, ask people to comment on the words people chose to express their ideas. Help the group look for convergence and divergence around the creative process.
  • Horrors and Exceptional Situations – For skills training. People often are happy to share horror stories around a skill or issue that can help groups discern what NOT to do. But often they miss the examples of what works. Ask groups to break out (see telephone break out tips) and identify 2-3 HORROR and EXCEPTIONAL SUCCESS stories. Reconvene and note the behaviors that lead to both the positive and negative outcomes. Review and debrief at conclusions. Include what was learned in the call notes.
  • Telephone Break Out Techniques – Pair up participants in advance and share a phone list. During the call, assign a pairs task, have the pairs get off the main call and work for 10 minutes and return to the main number at a stated time to report out/debrief the activity.
  • “Just Three Words” – Phone comments can drag on, especially for large groups. This game originated as an online text technique but works well to surface a sense of the group and get fast feedback. The technique is to do a round of comments from everyone on the call with the constraint that they can only use three words in their response. For example, at the end of the call you might say “what three words describe your experience of today’s call?” The notes from these exercises can then be later reviewed and observed for similarities, differences and patterns.
  • “The Clock” – “The clock” can be used on conference calls to help people get and keep a sense of place and participation in a disembodied conference call. It can be used with structured online chats as well. Ask every one to draw a circle on a piece of paper and mark the hours like a clock. Then, each person is assigned a spot on the “clock” as they join the group. So the first person is 1 o’clock, the second 2, etc. If there are more than twelve, start adding 1:30, 2:30 etc. Use this initially to create a speaking sequence for intros, and then use it to ensure everyone speaks. Participants can make notations by names and use it as a visual tool to match names/voices/input. If you are doing multiple rounds of “speaking” vary the “starting position” on the clock.
  • Location Maps – For widely distributed groups that meet regularly; create a map with pictures of the participants near their location on the map. Distribute to the group or publish on a web page.
  • “Side” Conversations – If someone wants to comment directly to a previous speaker, they can use that person’s name to focus their attention. “Sarah, I am not sure I agree with that approach….”

Shared Note Taking

As noted above, I’ve grown fond of shared note taking, so I’ve expanded this a bit:

  • Meetingwords.com: Synchronous online  meetings for large groups create a context where it is easy to “tune out” and multitask. My approach to this is to set up a shared note taking site and engage people there to take notes, do “breakout” work from smaller groups and generally offer another modality for engagement and interaction. We used Meetingwords.com and Google docs for this, later sharing cleaned up notes from these tools. I like that Meeting words has the shared note taking (wiki) on the left, and a chat on the right. It is based on Etherpad, which was eventually folded into Google docs. So we were using “cousin” technologies!
  • Skype: If your meeting is relatively small and you are using Skype, take notes right into the chat room.

Telephone Break Out Techniques

  • Pair up participants in advance and share a phone list. During the call, assign a pairs task, have the pairs get off the main call and work for 10 minutes and return to the main number at a stated time to report out/debrief the activity.
  • If using web meeting tools that have breakout rooms, practice with the technology in advance. It can be a bit tricky.

Evaluation/Feedback

  • Use some form of feedback or evaluation tool to help improve subsequent calls. A simple “after action review” (what did we intend to do, what did we do, what would we do differently) can be done at the conclusion of a call, or could be done with forms or email post-call.
  • “Just Three Words” – ask each person for three words that describe their experience on the call. Just. Three. Words. Seriously.

Closure

  • Take minutes and use for follow up. Distribute as soon as possible after the meeting and highlight follow up steps and responsibilities. I like to send the notes out within a half hour.
  • Recap meeting or next steps as appropriate.
  • Offer opportunity for final/closing comments.
  • End the call promptly, particularly with phone bridges with timed access.

More Conference Call Resources:

Thanks for input from Nathaniel Borenstein, John Smith, and Michael Owens.

Group Patterns & Processes Online

groupworksThere is something in the air! All the interesting facilitation and process stuff emerging like Groupworks Deck and Liberating Structures are prompting people involved with them from a face to face perspective to begin considering them in online and distributed contexts. At the Liberating Structures workshop in Seattle last week, a Open Space breakout group resolved to explore more and we’ve started a Google Group (leave a comment or email me to join). Now Tim Bonnemann is getting a group activated around the Groupworks Deck pattern language. Here is his offer!

Group Patterns: How Do They Apply to Virtual Environments?.

 I’ve mentioned the Group Works project before, a multi-year effort to explore and document the “deeper core of what brings a group conversation alive”…

One of my main interests in this area from the very beginning has been the question if and to what extent these kinds of underlying principles, building blocks or patterns might apply to online or virtual environments.

Some patterns should translate fairly easily, for example:

  • Closing: The formal ritual that concludes the collective time and space by completing the cycle of a group process. Include everyone, acknowledge the end of the time together and mark the transition point, ushering in a shift to what follows.

  • Mirroring: Empathically reflect back the essence of what someone has said so the speaker feels heard, genuinely acknowledged and appreciated. Honouring people’s gifts can heal individuals and relationships, unblock stuck places, and get energy flowing again.

  • Yes, and: Build on what someone just said to offer encouragement and carry it further. Affirm their ideas, then extend them to a deeper understanding or add a new twist. Create momentum by saying “Yes, and . . .”

Others, maybe not so easily:

  • Circle: A Circle is a safe, solid, yet permeable space with an inside, an outside, and a focus that moves from person to person. A welcoming form where everyone can see each other and all voices are heard, it creates a field that invites sharing and story.

  • Holding Space: Be fully present, aware of what’s happening in the whole gathering right now–physically, energetically, emotionally, and intellectually. Open and hold the psychological and spiritual space to provide a steady centre and container. Calmly maintain trust, safety, and focus.

  • Silence:  The rests between notes make the music. Take a quiet moment to tune into yourself or the group. Invite Silence to slow the process, make space for questions, transition, or simply deepen.

Over the next few months, I’d like to spend some time exploring. If you share the same interest and would like to get involved, please let me know, and we’ll take it from there.

A lot of fun thinking and learning… are you ready to join in?

Useful Books on Online Community Building – Update

In 2010 I did a short post on useful books on building online community. While Useful Books on Online Community Building was pretty lame, there is now a great Google Doc maintained by the folks who participate in the Community Manager Twitter Chat that is really great. Check it out here (and add to it!).

CMGRChatReadingList

 

Some Old But Still Useful Reflections on Lurking

LurkingLurking, or the practice of entering into online spaces to read, but not to post or “visibly participate” has been a perennial topic wherever and whenever online interaction comes up. I was combing through some old resources in preparation for a series of brown bag gatherings I’m leading in the next few months, and came across this gem of a summary from the Online Facilitation group (now mostly dormant) that I’ve hosted since 1999! I am recopying the notes here as a more visible, accessible archive. This is Chris Lang’s compilation of a discussion that took place on the Online Facilitation Listserv July 25-August 8, 2003.  He wrote: “Please excuse my editorial license—the postings can be found in their completeness in the archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation/messages” Alas, some of the links are now dead. I’ve tried to find substitutes where possible. See also References on Lurking from 2010 on this blog!

The subject of the discussion was originally how to deal with “lurkers”, but a variety of other terms for it were suggested: “wall flower”, “non poster”, “legitimate peripheral participation”. For easy indexing, I have divided stuff into 54 pieces in 7 categories:

  • 4 Other Resources
  • 5 Considerations on Naming the Phenomenon
  • 6 Arguments That Facilitators Should Try to Increase Posting
  • 20 Ways to Increase Posting
  • 10 Arguments That Facilitators Should Not Try to Increase Posting
  • 4 Ways to Figure Out How Many are Reading But Not Posting
  • 5 System Changes to Physically Allow Greater Participation

4 Other Resources

  1. Understanding lurkers http://www.centrinity.se/Conferences/Nerladdning/000231AE-80000001/00A03C2A-001E85B5.9/ This is a one page document, identifies three main types of lurkers and gives specific strategies (alas, link is dead – nw)
  2. Involving Lurkers in Online Discussions http://www.teachingonthenet.org/articles/involvingLurkers.htm Comments from lurkers, in the context of courses that include an online discussion component. Here, the questions are mostly about whether to penalize lurkers and whether to make contributions to the discussions a strict requirement.
  3. Shedding light on Lurkers in Online Discussions http://www.ifsm.umbc.edu/~preece/paper/16%20Shedding%20Light.final.pdf A little old (1999), based on a study. Again, understanding why people are not posting is key to selecting the appropriate strategies to make them post more. (This link is working for me… a cached file) (more from Preece and Nonnecke on lurking here, here and here. There is a nice article from Kate Crawford: Listening, not Lurking. NW)
  4. Let’s get more positive about the term ‘lurker‘, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/onlinefacilitation/files/LurkerProjectCoPWorkshopSPring03a.doc (A copy can also be found here for those who are not members of the Onfac list http://www.groups-that-work.com/GTWedit/GTW/lurkerprojectcopworkshopspring03rev.pdf) MacDonald, J.., Atkin W., Daugherity F., Fox, H., MacGillivray, A., Reeves-Lipscomb, D., Uthailertaroon, P. (2003) CPsquare Foundations of Communities of Practice Workshop : The Value of Lurking, Resistance to Lurking, Why Lurkers Lurk, The Importance of CoP Context, Methods for Helping CoPs and CoP Members Flourish, Measuring and Defining LPP: Questions and Ideas

5 Considerations on Naming the Phenomenon

  1.  “Lurker” is a negative word isn’t it? We’ve given it negative connotations for some reason. But some people don’t like being called “wallflowers” either. But if in this context we just accept the word “lurker” as meaning someone who is part of a virtual group but doesn’t participate, are you ok with it?
  2. But to use the term ‘lurking’ with its disparaging connotations in the same breath as ‘appropriate environment’ is at least rather oxymoronic. I know it’s been done to death, but it’s a matter of ‘call me a lurker, and I’ll hide even deeper.
  3. I personally find the term “lurker” extremely offensive, objectifying and insulting. I can not believe that an “educated” list such as this can not be more sensitive to the “labels” they use. I believe it would be kinder to use the term “non poster” or come up with a kinder gentler term that gives the non poster credit for his passive participation. –Kathleen Johnson
  4. There are negative connotations for just about every noun, verb and adjective. I don’t believe that lurker carries the pejorative weight of degree, of say, a racial epithet and even there are degrees of escalating severity and consequences. I can certainly see evidence to the contrary that use of a racial epithet is not likely to lead to less participation, IRL there are those who would become confrontational and ask for redress.
  5. “Learning viewed as situated activity has as its central defining characteristic a process that we call legitimate peripheral participation. By this we mean to draw attention to the point that learners inevitably participate in communities of practitioners and that the mastery of knowledge and skill requires newcomers to move toward full participation in the sociocultural practices of a community. ‘Legitimate peripheral participation’ provides a way to speak about the relations between newcomers and old-timers, and about activities, identities, artifacts, and communities of knowledge and practice. It concerns the process by which newcomers become part of a community of practice. A person’s intentions to learn are engaged and the meaning of learning is configured through the process of becoming a full participant in a sociocultural practice. This social process includes, indeed it subsumes, the learning of knowledgeable skills.” from p. 29, J. Lave, E. Wenger. Situated Learning : Legitimate Peripheral Participation, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1990. The way ‘Legitimate peripheral participation’ has begun to be used…(Nancy’s take on it!) … that being on the periphery is OK and that there is an always changing pattern of how we choose to participate and learn in a group. If the topic is near and dear to me, I move towards a more active role, closer to the center. If it is of less interest or I feel I don’t have something substantive to contribute, I remain more of an observer on the periphery. My self-placement from the periphery to the core may have to do with newcomer/old-timer status, or it may have to do with interest, expertise, available attention.

6 Arguments That Facilitators Should Try to Increase Posting

  1.  …in my opinion, if you join a community, you have an obligation to “give back” for all the jewels you’ve taken away. Once again I qualify that statement with the caveat that no one is expected to reply to every topic. But when you feel you have something to offer–go for it.
  2. Full participation (two-way interaction) is critical when:
    • – making a (shared) decision that will affect the group
    • – gathering feedback from an intentionally-diverse stakeholder group
    • – attempting an innovation through collaboration
    • – the member is officially representing a minority interest group (by number or specific point-of-view, or interest area)
    • – the member represents an assumed responsibility (2 definitions: either updating the status of a task, or representing a point-of-view about which many others make assumptions.)
  3. “A community thrives on “giving back” behavior and widespread participation in community building efforts.”
  4. “The law of reciprocity applies to lurking, learning, and linking to more lurking and learning. One can be a recipient for only so long. Fairness dictates that one needs to give back something of comparable value. The giving back does not have to occur in the original forum.”
  5. We are all peripheral participants at some time or another, so I think we should also be active participants at some point or another. It’s ok to be a Peripheral Participant, but it’s also good to give back to the community.
  6. My question is how to understand in any group the role of legitimate peripheral participation and how to make the POSSIBILITY of moving from the periphery to the core available without unnaturally FORCING it because legitimate peripheral participation may be the right thing at the time for any individual. In a list like this, I feel invitation alone (a thought provoking post, a request to self introduce) is sufficient and that if someone wants to stay on the periphery, that is totally cool. IN a virtual team where each members contribution is critical to goal achievement, legitimate peripheral participation becomes something I’d pay more attention to and actively work to bring the full team closer to the “center.” –Nancy

20 Ways to Increase Posting

  1. In a face-to-face meeting, the facilitator will ask the group from time-to-time if there are any comments from people who haven’t spoken yet. The same technique works just fine online, too, with some graceful welcoming language. — Arnie Anderson
  2. Use introductions. It is important, however, that the community then express an interest in them right away.
  3. Imagine if subject headers not only listed the abbreviation for the email group, the kind of post, and the name for the thread, but also the number of the post on that thread. For example, “Subject: [of] 1 TIP – Non-Posters” could indicate that this is the first post in the “Non-Posters” thread of the onlinefacilitation group, and this is a TIP thread. If I knew it was the first post, then I wouldn’t be afraid that I missed previous posts.
  4. Have group members partner-up and get to know each other. It can be easier to participate in a group when you know you’ve got a friend there. It can be important to have a peer, rather than a professor, to go to.
  5. In the community I run, I find that a telephone call can be enough to turn a non-poster into a talker. Sometimes the “voice to voice” connection makes the community seem more real to a non-poster, enhancing her investment in the group.
  6. Set up a discussion about “Why aren’t people participating in this group?” This establishes that you care, and makes it explicit that it is not wrong for non-posters to post. But be careful–if you make this threatening, it could drive people away!
  7. Sometimes stop and ask the whole group what they have learned or gained. This gives people a second chance to jump in.
  8. On several of the Listservs of which I am a member, I used to conduct lurker amnesty day. Calling attention to the lurker behavior and providing an avenue for them to de-lurk is often enough to bring them out. The ploy is not without controversy with some folks who object to the connotations associated with “lurker”. It will often bring up a discussion on group values around participation in the discussion. Still, lurker amnesty day has always been effective–meaning people do come forth and post for the first time. (But Artur warns: Talking about “lurkers” is not usually “good facilitation” because after that some lurkers will participate more – but many others, lurkers and not, will quit.)
  9. Make sure there are shared expectations about what/how people interact in the group, and who is supposed to be posting. Sometimes as organizers and facilitators it seems obvious, but when I’ve checked my assumption about people’s understanding, I’ve often been very surprised at how “unobvious” it is.
  10. One thing that can keep me from posting is that I haven’t read all of the previous postings, and I’m afraid to post something that has already been addressed. Threads help, but this wiki is even better because it sorts the threads–just like brainstorming around a flip chart 🙂
  11.  Read without TOO much judgment
  12. There are quite a few groups where I am lurking 99% of the time and suddenly someone will post something that will trigger me to post a response. If you can find that something for these women, they might start with one post and be encouraged to continue (especially if they get a warm welcome and supportive feedback from the group and the moderator). — Barbara Fillip
  13.  Express interest in them. Ask someone by name if there’s something they want to talk about. – Ann
  14. In the work I do online, we explicitly use anonymous discussions for some issues. This is not so much a trust issue as 1) a way to flatten the playing field and 2) an encouragement to participate. If the emphasis of the exercise is on gathering group data, rather than who said what, AND if there is an expectation that the group wants as wide-as-possible input from different kinds of stakeholders, then we find there is a great deal of participation.
  15. I sent a two-question survey to all the participants. The first question (check all that apply) asked them why they were not participating, and the second asked the participants to suggest something I could do to make the experience more useful to them. – Barbara
  16. I contacted a couple of participants based on what I already knew of their area of expertise and ongoing involvement in projects that we needed to discuss this week. –Barbara
  17. One of the suggestions is to find a way to reduce the number of postings. This may sound counterintuitive but sometimes if there are too many messages or messages are too long, a good number of participants will find it difficult to keep up with the flow of the conversation and then it’s difficult for them to jump in. As Rolf put it “I pick up new ideas and insights, but the volume of messages is just too high to really feel like ‘replying’ here.”
  18.  Nancy’s light touch facilitation allows a wide variety of ways of participation (as do we the members).
  19. I think that projects aiming at increasing participation are more likely to succeed if they target people who are already active participants in other communication forums, online or off, rather than attempting to increase the posting volume of those who have shown a preference for little or no posts.
  20. Don’t let people hide in corners. As Noreen put it: “once you get a spot in the corner it is four times as hard to walk up to someone and make conversation.”

10 Arguments That Facilitators Should Not to Try to Increase Posting

1. Artur wrote: IMHO there are no lurkers!

No one is “hiding” to prepare to “assault” our knowledge or to profit from those who share. In public lists the “public” that subscribe may have many reasons for staying in the list and not contributing. Some are readers but many just don’t have the time for even reading, except very infrequently. And they have the legitimate right to be in that situation as long as they want – except when that is clearly stated in the “definition” of the forum. And they also have the right to begin participating when they feel the need for that or to quit the list at any moment.

Many of us have participated in “Professional Congresses” before the Internet time – and after. What was (is) the percentage of participants
that would present a paper? 1%? 2%? And what was the percentage of people that would put a question or discuss something during discussion time? 3%? 5%? 10%? (and what percentage would offer to serve at the Directions of Professional Associations?)

And would we call the other 90% “lurkers”? Of course not. First because they “showed up” for the meeting. Second because they were the professional body that made possible for the presenters to present something. Third because in some cases they had paid for the Congress – they were the “costumers”! And, of course, if they were present in the sessions, they would hear, they would learn, they would discuss with each other during the coffee breaks (normally the most interesting parts of any Congress) or in private conversations. And after the Congress, they would apply their knowledge and eventually some of them would later present their own papers.

Of course, no one would worry to “facilitate” the participation of the “non-speaking participants” or criticize them as indeed they were the “customers” of the event. And after all, the “logic” of Congresses would be impossible if all the people would participate – there would not be enough time for presentations – or the Congress would need one year – which was obviously too much as someone would need to work after all…

And no one would even question why were the “participants” not presenting papers or putting questions. That was their “right”. What could be questioned was the motivation of the presenters (especially when they would make bad presentations) or the motivation of the people that asked questions (especially when they were silly or trivial ones). Yes, THIS needs an explanation: why do presenters present? For the sake of sharing knowledge? For the sake of prestige? For having their two minutes of exposure? But I never heard a presenter in a Congress saying – I hate those “lurkers” that come here to profit from the knowledge I am creating – if they were creating any knowledge at all, which was not always the case.

2. The member who contributes sometimes but has good insight may be more valuable than someone who has a lot of chatter.

3. Frank “mused”: Seems that if there’s no one giving, there’s no one receiving. So don’t we each have a responsibility (I know, a big word) to be givers of whatever we can if we also long to receive? Else, the well runs dry feeding many from a few. Does that make many of us “parasites” or “users”? Or worst yet, “abusers”?

Seems to me that community is all about “we”, not just “me”. And if I “show up” however I can whenever I can in a way that can be received by others, then I’m a real part of the community. Hmm, and maybe just being a reader brings enough energy to exchange with those who have words (authors) that long to be read.

Why did the authors “show up” in the way that they did? What real need is being filled here for them? Is it truly possible that someone who volunteers to be “in community” has nothing to give? Doubt it. Can we have a yin without a yang? Is there a palpable experience of “silent giving back” in an online community? What would the other end (the reciprocal) of that silent giving back look like? And how do we consciously move from being a “group” to being a “community”?

4. “Are they talking about me? Am I a lurker?” I guess the answer to both questions is yes. And I am not ashamed or apologetic about it. I will speak when I have what I think is a valid question or when I have something valuable to contribute to the conversation. Up until this point I have had neither. While I find the topics of general interest so far, they have not really answered any critical needs or triggered any startling insights that I needed to share. As facilitators, we all know that participation is a wonderful thing and we want to be inclusive, but trying to trigger participation just for participations sake is not desirable in every situation. And my gut tells me that in an online environment, just responding to emails, with nothing to offer, only for the sake of being participative, or being part of the community, just doesn’t feel appropriate. If every person contributed to every email query, just to participate, I would find it aggravating. — Charles A. Tweedly

5. My approach with this list reflects a value that I hold about giving. We may not always directly reciprocate one-for-one, but it is important to give. So I may read something on a list and never offer anything, but what I learned there I may share (and give credit to) someplace else. So that the reciprocity is more general to the world, and not just the list group. But I don’t have any expectations that if you read here, you must contribute. And I respect other folks who run other groups who have such expectations. I don’t personally hold them as universal. – Nancy White

6. For me, many lists I’m on are for me like “tv channels” with a more or less “Big Brother” style of programs on: you can have a look at various “communities” and see how they develop, how people interact, who’s in and who’s out, and so on. I sometimes “tune in” and listen/read more carefully on one of the channels, but most of the time, I just zap around, to keep an overview of the various discourses and discussions. — Rolf

7. …the non posting member is probably absorbing the “material” and distributing the acquired material “off list”. Not all members are up to speed of the “lecturers” and are in “learning” mode. Do members have to advise you of their standing on the pyramid of learning? Whether they are at the top or the bottom, does it matter to you? Is there a test given to determine their ability to absorb and distribute? And if the non poster is at the top of the pyramid, what difference does it make if they are just observing and cataloging data? Do they need your permission? Why is that?

The non poster, quite frankly is one of the most valuable members of the team. They do not fill the board with needless posts so they can be seen and heard. They do not write trivial data just so they can get “attention” or “make themselves feel important”. But what they do do is sit back and observe, sifting the information quietly, and in their own way, passing on the information off list. –Kathleen

8. Where I feel I have more of a responsibility to post, culturally this is not always comfortable. –Claire

9. People also have different values. Some feel obliged to respond, to give “something” back. Some do not. Some feel obliged to only give back some *significant value*, if and when they have such to give (it may be never). This is also not a bad thing, if it is recognized that others values may not match your own.

10. Sometimes the active participants get frustrated if they are contributing and they are expecting feedback from other participants and they are not getting it. I would separate the attitude of the active participants from that of the facilitator. I do get very frustrated with lurkers but I try not to let them know that I’m frustrated with them. That might get in the way of encouraging them to participate. It might be more effective to stress to them the potential benefits of participating rather than stress the negative side of lurking. I suppose that’s just the same as looking at a glass half-empty or half-full. The attitude might make the difference. –Barbara Fillip, Knowledge for Development, LLC

Yes, but if lurkers get feedback such as this from other list members, when all else has failed (I try never to use negative if win-win will work), perhaps they’ll start thinking about it.

4 Ways to Figure Out How Many are Reading But Not Posting

1. Some software especially courseware does this- eg Blackboard you can see how many times a particular post has been ‘read’- but that doesn’t count how many times you might read it yourself or whether or not any meaning has been made- nevertheless it is a great comfort for beginners in online courses who are scared that no-one is reading their posts, but then they begin to wonder why no-one responds..so on it goes….
2. Why not place a humorous survey question in posts to the list, perhaps once a month, that are different in request each time, something like the radio announcements that are still aired on occasion (note: these aren’t humorous!): “This is a test of the national emergency radio broadcast system. In the event of a national emergency, this station will cease regular broadcasting and provide….blah, blah, blah. This is only a test.” But in this case, request that people provide a one-word answer to a somewhat silly or serious question back to the list.

3. Statistical extrapolation–use personal email to poll a random sample about whether they read the post. Once you have done this for a few posts, just assume that you get the same readership on similar posts. It would be really nice if some group would conduct studies like this and publish them–perhaps a facilitator newsgroup might be willing? 🙂

4. Instead of putting content in the email, put it on a special site and put a counter on the site.

5 System Changes to Physically Allow Greater Participation

  1. The slashdot (www.slashdot.org) model is interesting. Random members are assigned as “raters” for a limited time. Each Rater may rate posts they read on a scale from -1 to 5, and label them “Interesting”, “Insightful”, “Funny”, “Redundant”, “Abusive”, and so forth. Posts initially start with a value determined by the ratings of the poster’s previous posts. Readers may filter posts by rating… If you only want to read the gems, set your filter to 5. If you want to read everything, warts and all, set your filter to -1.
  2. http://www.weblab.org/home.html (Archived site)  “Small Group Dialogue”: Divide the group into many overlapping small groups.
  3. http://www.americaspeaks.org/library/21st_century_town_meetings.pdf “21st Century Town Meeting “: Live groups gather in tables of 10-12 with a trained facilitator and sends comments electronically to a “theme team” that recognizes common themes across the tables and posts them on a large electronic view screen. Then someone addresses all of the tables and instructs them to vote (electronically) on the issues put up by the theme team. This achieved a 100% satisfaction rate at a 5000 person meeting to set priorities on the World Trade Center rebuild.
  4. http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/index.jsp (Archived site)“Rotisserie”: Everyone posts an answer to a question and a computer program automatically assigns each person to respond to another person’s answer (and bugs them by email until they do) then assigns people to respond to responses (and so forth).
  5. www.openspaceworld.org Open Space Technology (or Methodology, as I prefer) for meetings offers a completely new way to handle meetings with a much bigger percentage of people participating actively. –Artur