Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: II

Telephone and videoconferences are the next best thing to being there. Unfortunately second place is pretty far back in that race. For routine meetings about routine topics, and for highly functional teams, even though distributed meetings are a bit cumbersome, their pace is tolerable.

But for highly charged discussions, or for teams caught in toxic conflict, or when the pressure rises, the limitations of distributed meetings become clear. Facilitators skilled in dealing with these limitations can work around them, but the workarounds require methods that would seem awkward in the face-to-face (F2F) context. Here are some examples.

Collision avoidance and resolution

In face-to-face meetings a "collision" is two or more people attempting to speak at once. Most facilitators manage this problem well by asserting and maintaining control of the recognition process, using the tools of personal presence. In virtual or distributed meetings, most of those tools are limited, work differently, or are unavailable.

As facilitator, explain at the outset that you'll recognize speakers in turn. In videoconferences, hand signals might suffice for speakers seeking recognition, and signals can be given at any time. In telephone conferences, once open discussion begins, the audible request is the only means available. Since such requests might interrupt the speaker, open the floor for requests for time only during a "time-request window" between speakers. Use a brief protocol for requesting the floor — something like "Rick wants time." You'll also want a protocol for withdrawing a request — something like "Rick says 'Never mind.'" Describe also a high priority interrupt protocol to be used only by those who have critical information that will shorten the discussion — something like "Rick has a point of information."

Queue management

In virtual or distributed meetings,
most of the facilitator's
customary tools are limited,
work differently,
or are unavailable

In both distributed and F2F meetings, a queue can develop in open discussion, as people request time. In F2F meetings some facilitators maintain the queue on a flip chart or whiteboard that all can see. That might also work well in videoconferences or in distributed meetings with shared writing space.

In audio-only distributed meetings, repeat the queue aloud at the end of each time-request window.

Recognition

Recognition is the process by which the facilitator designates the next speaker. In F2F meetings a nod or a smile suffices, with an optional accompanying verbal cue, such as the speaker's name.

In the distributed context, the verbal cue is required. For safety, repeat it. When two people have identical or similar names, try to remove the ambiguity — perhaps referring to their sites or roles. Avoid disambiguating by means of personal attributes — even positive attributes — because of the risk of offense to the other person of the same name. Bad example: "Next: the smart Rick."

Next in our queue: identifying who's speaking, managing complex technologies, and handling interruptions.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Is your organization a participant in one or more global teams? Are you the owner/sponsor of a global team? Are you managing a global team? Is everything going well, or at least as well as any project goes? Probably not. Many of the troubles people encounter are traceable to the obstacles global teams face when building working professional relationships from afar. Read 303 Tips for Virtual and Global Teams to learn how to make your global and distributed teams sing. Order Now!

For an examination of some issues that arise in synchronous distributed meetings, see "Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: I," Point Lookout for March 26, 2008. For suggestions for making remote facilitation easier using protocols defined for everyone in advance, see "Remote Facilitation in Synchronous Contexts: III," Point Lookout for April 9, 2008.

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

What We Don't Know About Each Other

We know a lot about our co-workers, but we don't know everything. And since we don't know what we don't know, we sometimes forget that we don't know it. And then the trouble begins.

You Can't Control What Other People Think

Ever think that the world would be a much better place if you could control what other people think? Maybe it would be. And maybe not...

Characterization Risk

To characterize is to offer a description of a person, event, or concept. Characterizations are usually judgmental, and usually serve one side of a debate. And they often make trouble.

Issues-Only Team Meetings

Time spent in regular meetings is productive to the extent that it moves the team closer to its objectives. Because uncovering and clarifying issues is more productive than distributing information or listening to status reports, issues-only team meetings focus energy where it will help most.

The McNamara Fallacy

The McNamara Fallacy is the idea that measuring properly chosen attributes of inputs and outputs provides all we need for decisions about organizational and human performance. And we can safely ignore anything that can't be measured. It doesn't work.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info