In South Africa, we have a curious culture around minibus taxis, the country’s primary mode of transport (which usually carry 15-25 people). Most minibuses have three roles: the Driver, the Gaatjie (a slang word pronounced gah-chee), and the passengers. The Driver is responsible for getting from A to B as fast as possible, with as few incidents as possible (the definition of an incident being left to interpretation). The Gaatjie is responsible for getting passengers onto the taxi and making sure they know where they are going, when to get off, and how much to pay. The Gaatjie takes care of all variables unrelated to driving along the journey (this may involve dealing with unruly passengers or pacifying heated arguments). They may from time to time check in on the direction and nudge the Driver to stop based on what a passenger tells them. Ultimately, their focus is on managing the process.

Metaphors for facilitation seldom fit perfectly, but we mostly like this one because it speaks to how the role of a facilitator is to hold a space together, while the group moves toward an outcome. The facilitator is not necessarily driving, but they are also not sitting down and participating. Like the Gaatjie, the facilitator is focusing on the space, guiding interactions and ultimately enabling a group to go somewhere together. At times, this might mean that they need to cut short an argument or make a certain “rule of the space” explicit. Their actions are all directed toward making it easier for the group to be together.

Rather than controlling the content, a facilitator focuses on creating a container that enables healthy collaboration and input from the people in the room. Good facilitators care deeply about the quality of ideas and thinking. Guided by a deep faith in the group’s ability, a facilitator creates and maintains the conditions that set the group up for success.

When thinking about how to facilitate a meeting, we think of the meeting itself in three phases, seen in figure 1. Quality meetings are usually achieved when a facilitator pays attention to each phase:

1. Before the meeting starts: It might be surprising to consider that facilitation actually begins before the meeting starts. This can involve meeting with stakeholders to understand expectations and objectives of the session, planning the meeting design, sending out relevant pre-reading material, and sharing an agenda ahead of time. Our general advice for people new to this way of approaching meetings is to spend at least as long as the meeting is preparing for it and to be comfortable spending double the time if need be. This investment of your time ensures that within the meeting the entire group’s time is well spent.

   FIGURE 1: THREE PHASES OF MEETING FACILITATION

   

2. During the session: This phase looks at how the facilitator opens the space, introduces the agenda, guides the conversations, helps the group to think together, and closes the space by clarifying and summarizing any decisions or actions.

3. After the session: This phase entails the final step of closure, which can mean sending out any notes/photos of outcomes or checking in with a participant if their needs were not met within the session.

There is so much more that could be said about facilitation, from understanding conflict patterns and conversation frameworks to the psychology of language and facilitation stances, the topic is immense. For those readers who have never encountered facilitation as a craft or thought of it as a means to improve meeting quality, we encourage you to spend some time learning about it. A foundation in facilitation will increase your impact in remote spaces.

As a facilitator in a remote setting, the essence of the role remains the same: we are responsible for creating the conditions that enable participants to contribute and collaborate. Given the invisible power that a facilitator holds, they can skew outcomes if they favor certain opinions over others. Remaining neutral and objective is an important part of creating an environment in which everyone feels comfortable in voicing their opinions. This remains the case whether a meeting is happening in person or virtually. However, in the absence of body language, dynamics between people can shift in interesting ways. The implicit power of the facilitator may appear magnified in a remote meeting, given the amplified sense of vulnerability of the space.

We understand that having dedicated facilitators is a luxury most organi zations do not have. In most companies, facilitation is an activity and not a dedicated role. Neutrality is seldom possible when you find yourself participating and facilitating and that is okay. We encourage you to be mindful of your wake as you juggle the two roles within a meeting, possibly explaining this dichotomy up front.

Amid all the uncertainty and vulnerability that a remote space introduces, it is easy to fall into the trap of overcor- recting by controlling the space. There is a difference between being prepared and holding space in the meeting versus trying to control the details and outcomes. If you are running a brainstorming or problem-solving session, you have to believe that the group chosen to be in the space has the necessary knowledge and skills to arrive at meaningful outcomes. Overcontrolling the space will only lead to constrained/skewed outcomes.

We hold true the belief that human beings have infinite potential and the best way to bring this out is to be guided by a deep faith in a group’s ability to solve, a value we observed in Antoinette Coetzee’s work. There are times when more structure is required in a session to enable the group to navigate the space. However, be very critical of this inclination to control and constantly question how much you need to do and how much the group is capable of.

Have you ever been in a meeting that is slowly going very wrong and yet you are an attendee and so you do not know how to help? Maybe certain individuals are frequently taking the conversation off track or you get the sense that the topic being discussed is being interpreted differently by everyone. We believe it is possible to shift a meeting in a positive direction without being directly responsible for the facilitation thereof. A good friend of ours, Cara Turner, introduced us to a term we now use to describe this kind of facilitation: “guerilla facilitation.” Guerilla facilitation is particularly important in remote meetings when the number of factors complicating the space are much higher than in co-located meetings.

If you begin to notice certain patterns, reflecting these back to the group can create helpful inflection points that nudge the meeting back on track. For example, “I notice Louise is trying to speak but there’s no sound coming through; is it just me?” Allowing the group to pause gives everyone an opportunity to refocus and become more intentional about the conversation being had.

Guerilla facilitation requires observation, curiosity, and an authentic way of asking questions that provides the group with options that were previously not available to them. By noticing and reflecting the patterns you are seeing in the conversation, you can shift the conversation. Alternatively, you can contribute in a way that you think is needed in the meeting. You can bring awareness to the time if the meeting is going off track. You can voice a confusion you’re experiencing that you suspect others are too and in so doing, normalize this open, honest way of speaking. If you take what you have learned about facilitation, you have a lens to understand the dynamics you are observing and use this information to create conditions for collaboration in the moment.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that facilitation can look very different depending on the context. One way of understanding what will be required of a facilitator is to think about:

1. The size of the group (Is it a small group that is relatively familiar with each other or will there be 300 people dialing on to this call across different locations?)

2. The kind of collaboration and engagement required (Is this purely a presentation of information, and so little engagement is required, or is the purpose of the session to generate ideas together?)

As shown in the graph in figure 2, different facilitator actions will be required in different spaces. For example, presenting content often requires very little facilitation, although we still believe that awareness of facilitation will improve the quality of these meetings. The principles and techniques we discuss will be applicable to a variety of contexts and we leave it to you to choose which are appropriate for the spaces you find yourself in.

Given the challenges of remote environments and the increased likelihood of people perceiving threat in these spaces, remote facilitation has some nuance. While the core mission remains the same, the application and focus shifts depending on the context. We looked at a framework for facilitation and how someone responsible for facilitating a meeting might approach the session: doing the necessary prework, maintaining an inclusive collaborative environment during the session, and performing any follow-up work that continues when the session ends.

The remaining chapters focus on six principles that enable a facilitator/leader/team member not only to meet the challenges of remote meetings, but to turn them into opportunities. We would like to emphasize that our focus is on remote facilitation and that it is advisable that anyone attempting to apply advanced facilitation techniques invest in understanding the foundations of facilitation.

Take some time to consider one or two of the questions below in relation to a meeting you are responsible for:

• How have I prepared for this session?

• Does everyone know what is expected of them in the meeting?

• How have I made it easy for participants to contribute to the meeting space?

• What time is it for the different attendees?

• How can I gauge the energy if people choose not to have their video on?

• How do I intend to close the space once the meeting is over?