Imagine going on a safari. Picture a dirt road, sporadic potholes, some really muddy areas, and the possibility of animals approaching from any side . . . the vehicle you are in will really affect your experience. Now imagine three people setting out on safari: one person is in a beautifully kitted-out 4 × 4, another is in a Ferrari, and another is on a bicycle. Who do you think will have the best experience? What will the impact of the vehicle be on their experience?

When going on a safari, the vehicle is the mechanism through which passengers experience their surroundings. Similarly, in remote meetings, everyone is entering in a different context, which will result in a different experience. For people who are in the room having face-to-face conversation, it’s likely their experience will be pretty smooth. For someone attending remotely, listening through a speaker and observing a whiteboard through a camera might at times feel a lot like bumping through a game reserve on a rickety bicycle. It’s really difficult to enjoy the experience and contribute when the rest of the group is racing ahead in their fancy 4 × 4.

If someone has been invited to a meeting to solve a problem or be involved in decision making, it is important that they are able to contribute and that it is both safe and easy enough for them to do so. Who is involved in solving a probl em is equally as important as how they go about doing so. We believe a condition of an effective meeting is that the right people are involved in the discussion. Hearing all voices matters. That does not necessarily mean that all meeting attendees have the same degree of authority or influence over the outcome, but as far as possible facilitators should provide the space where all people can be heard.

There are many reasons why creating an equal opportunity to contribute is important. Consider a scenario in which two individuals dominate the conversation in a meeting:

• How likely is it that the group will defend or action the outcomes outside of the meeting if they were not allowed to participate in reaching them?

• What opportunities might have been missed by not hearing some other opinions and voices?

• What might the cost to the organization be in reaching a skewed outcome?

Both team motivation and quality thinking are at risk when some voices are silenced. The inverse is equally unhelpful: no one speaks. By considering how to design and hold a meeting in which there is an equal opportunity for participation and contribution, we believe a facilitator improves the quality of outcomes.

To consider how we, as facilitators, can make sure that every meeting attendee is able to experience the meeting in a 4 × 4 we need to start with an awareness of the kind of remote meeting we are holding. Creating equal opportunity to participate and contribute in a remote setting looks different depending on the type of meeting. Typically, there are three generic types of remote meetings (independent of the content of the meeting)a:

1. Solo remoting: A few individuals dial in remotely and the majority of the meeting attendees are co- located in one meeting room, using one screen/audio/ video to connect with the remote attendees.

2. Hybrid: A few groups of co-located people are dialing in to one call.

3. Fully remote: Each person is on the call using their own machine, audio, and video.

Each of these spaces poses a unique challenge in creating equal opportunity.

Consider the first scenario in which one person is on a screen and the remainder of the group is in the room, writing on the board and having a conversation. The individual dialing in does not have the same experience as the rest of the group. Both audio and visual quality compromise their interaction. At worst the remote person is forgotten by the group, at best they attempt to contribute while having a different experience.

One way to address the imbalances of power on a remote call is by encouraging everyone to go fully remote; each person dials in to the call on their own machine. Going fully remote in many ways levels the playing field. While there are no perfect solutions to creating equal opportunity, it is the role of the facilitator to creatively seek solutions. We prefer to have everyone dial in remotely regardless of how many people are co-located.

This approach takes a shared commitment to equalizing participation in the group and we recommend that you take this step with buy-in, commitment, and agreement from the whole group. It may help to ask for feedback from all participants on how they experienced going fully remote versus when only some are remote. We acknowledge that for some organizations this may seem like a stretch but we have experienced the value this shift brings to both engagement and meeting outcomes.

When considering how to create equal opportunity in a meeting, it is important to remain cognizant of the context and purpose of the session. As mentioned above, if someone is remote, our preference is usually for fully remote sessions. However, sometimes other factors necessitate an in-person meeting. Sometimes all but one attendee is co- located and given the nature of the problem, the value of a face-to-face conversation is greater than the need to get the same degree of contribution from the remote person. Often these scenarios pertain to very high-stakes situations. In these scenarios, we think about how to address as many of the variables that make it challenging for the remote person as possible, while simultaneously acknowledging the truth of the trade-offs: the remote person will be unable to participate to the same degree.

An approach we have used a few times for scenarios similar to the above is using an in-person substitute, which we call a “pseudo body.” We would like to emphasize that this is a relatively expensive approach and one we only employ when the meeting nature is sufficiently complex and the cost of not harnessing the remote attendee’s contribution a genuine concern to the meeting stakeholders. A “pseudo body” is a neutral, outside person who would not usually be in the meeting, nor has any stake in the outcome. Their role is 100 percent dedicated to relaying information to and from the remote person. This is done by typing context and conversations out to the person, and by walking around the room with the camera if the physical space is being used (possibly showing flip charts or other tangible artifacts). The “pseudo body” also serves as a physical reminder to the group that someone else is present. We have even seen a photo of the remote person stuck on the front of the “pseudo body,” with both humorous and somewhat profoundly mindset-shifting results.

Another option to cater to remote attendees is to nominate someone within the meeting to pay specific attention to creating equal opportunity. This might involve transcribing things that are written on posters, checking that the group pauses if someone remote is trying to speak, or assisting when remote attendees have questions. This is a lighter version of the pseudo body that still serves to increase the opportunity for those who are not physically present to contribute.

How you kick off your remote meeting can determine the success of the rest of the session. There are some basic things to keep in mind at the start of your meeting. Once participants start joining the call, you can check whether they can hear you. If you are intending to share your screen, ask if they are able to see the correct screen. Just before you start the meeting and the majority of participants are online you can do one more audio and visual check by asking if anyone is having any trouble. Ensuring that everyone can hear and see adequately is one simple way of ensuring everyone is able to contribute right from the start.

A practical limitation of a remote meeting is the unintended technical hiccups and the impact they have on everyone’s ability to contribute equally. Consider the likely scenario that someone experiences technical issues and cannot hear. How might their contribution be harnessed? For this reason, we like to have supplementary tools which serve as virtual whiteboards. If someone is struggling to hear or drops off the call, they are usually still able to type and contribute in real time and return to the conversation once their technical issues pass. This also serves to avoid biases toward verbal communication, providing an alternative means of communication for different thinkers.

You may be wondering why we advise virtual stickies (see figures 3 and 4) over video-conferencing chats or indocument line editing. While this kind of writing partially enables contribution, it is insufficient to enable high-quality collaboration. Text typed in a linear sequence (such as a chat tool) cannot easily be edited, combined with other ideas, grouped, and expanded on. These kinds of actions are vital to remote collaboration—we want to give people the option to build on and combine ideas. Thus, we prefer some kind of shape that can contain text and easily be dragged around to build on surrounding ideas and co-create a more complex view of the discussion than was previously available.

How it works (see figure 3):

• Rectangular shapes that look like physical stickies are created prior to the meeting (and copied/pasted to form a stack). Participants recognize the shapes as stickies and have an existing mental model for how to engage with them, despite their being digital

• Participants can grab a virtual sticky and have five minutes to think through the problem

• As we begin discussing what has been written, themes might emerge, and we can group ideas easily by dragging them together (see figure 4)

By allowing people time to write, you allow people time to think, which further benefits groups with different comfort levels with the language being spoken. Reading is available to assist in comprehension, lessening the pressure on verbal communication.

Where virtual sticky notes allow us the space to convey and organize information, groups also need mechanisms for enabling decision-making. One such mechanism is dot voting (see figure 5). When faced with a few options for next steps, each participant is given a few dots and asked to place them on the options they prefer (see figure 6). This helps provide visibility on where opinions of the group are trending in a light, nonthreatening way. From here the facilitator has insightful data to inform next steps: maybe there is high agreement and no further discussion is required; maybe opinions vary greatly and it is evident that more time is required to understand the issue.

How it works (see figure 5):

• Participants are given a certain number of dots each (bottom left), in this case three

• Once they have an idea of what the voting options are, they will place the three dots on or around their choices

• Once the dots have moved, we can check with the group if everyone has had a chance and then discuss what we are seeing together (see figure 6)

When thinking about how to achieve a 4 × 4 safari meeting experience, sometimes we like to give people a few minutes in the session to read any relevant content (see figure 6). People may have read this before coming into the session, but often we do not get time to in our busy days or we read it a few days ago and have a patchy recollection of it. If we can spend a few minutes bringing everyone closer in their baseline understanding, the conversation is more likely to be of a higher quality and people are likely to be able to contribute more as the information is fresh in their minds.

How it works (see figure 7):

• The facilitator has allocated five minutes pre-reading time at the beginning of the session

• The question boxes allow people to capture their thoughts and give their perspectives. This may also spark ideas for other attendees

There are subtle ways in which a facilitator can draw out participation in a remote space. By simply pre-populating everyone’s names on a slide (see figures 8 and 9), the invitation for all attendees to participate is established, and the barrier to contribute is low. This serves an additional purpose of bringing awareness to the humans behind the screens. Sometimes this is easier when videos are on, but often this is not possible and it’s all too easy to forget all the humans on a call or to default to paying attention only to those who are the most vocal. By seeing everyone’s name, the group is reminded of each person. A secondary benefit is that it can alleviate some anxiety from participants around determining who speaks next and whether everyone has contributed yet.

How it works (see figure 8):

• Everyone’s names have been pre-populated by the facilitator

• Meeting attendees are invited to find their name and color it based on how they feel

• Ease of contribution: Coloring a block feels much less threatening than saying “I fear that we won’t make it.” From here, the facilitator has some helpful data to explore with the group (see figure 9)

Just as we spoke about opening the space by checking that everyone can hear, be heard, and see, this ability to contribute needs to be sustained throughout. Often someone might be struggling to hear but for fear of disrupting the meeting they keep quiet. In so doing, the meeting loses a voice and a perspective, and the outcome’s reach might be influenced. As the facilitator, if you can observe the space and notice possible signs that people are struggling, you can use this information to pause to bring them back. Simply pausing to check that everyone can still hear or sending a message to someone who looks confused can increase contribution.

How likely is it that some attendees are experiencing your meeting on a rusty bicycle, while the rest of the group is game spotting from the vantage of a 4 × 4? The cost of such experiences is paid not only at an individual level, but at an organizational level too. In subtle ways, the facilitator is able to drastically shift the outcome of the meeting, simply by bringing awareness to how interactions in a remote space might affect the quality of outcomes. If people have been invited to solve a problem, it is important that they are both able and trusted to do so. How much time, money, and effort are wasted in meetings where only a few voices are heard? The pursuit of creating equal opportunities to participate is not optional, but vital to the success of our teams and organizations.

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

• Type of meeting: How can you get as close to everyone having the same experience as possible?

• Technical issues: How can you prepare for potential technical challenges that may occur?

• Language: What language is being spoken and who might this language choice disadvantage?

• Thinking styles: How can you cater to different thinking styles, such as those who need to speak to think versus those who need time to think?

1. Go fully remote when you can

2. A “pseudo body” as a substitute

3. Check technology in the beginning

4. Set up virtual stickies

5. Lightweight mechanisms to display opinion (e.g., dot voting)

6. Allow time for pre-reading

7. Pre-populate names

8. Pay attention to the space