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:

When Stress Strikes

Most of what we know about person-to-person communication applies when levels of stress are low. But when stress is high, as it is in emergencies, we're more likely to make mistakes. Knowing those mistakes in advance can be helpful in avoiding them.

The Questions Not Asked

Often, the path to forward progress is open and waiting, but we don't recognize it, or we convince ourselves it isn't there. Learning to see what we believe isn't there is difficult. Here are some reasons why.

Office Automation

Desktop computers, laptop computers, and tablets have automation capabilities that can transform our lives, but few of us use them. Why not? What can we do about that?

Red Flags: I

When we finally admit to ourselves that a collaborative effort is in serious trouble, we sometimes recall that we had noticed several "red flags" early enough to take action. Toxic conflict and voluntary turnover are two examples.

Six Traps in Email or Text: II

Collaboration requires communication. For many, communicating often takes place in email and text message systems. But much of the effort expended in communication is dedicated to resolving confusions that we created for ourselves. Here are four examples.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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