A Cooperative Enquiry into the facilitation of online video calls
Co-enquirers and co-authors: Bella Mehta, Brian Watts, Colin Heyman, Ellie Highwood, Louise Veenhuis, Inger Bowcock, Victoria Shaw, Elizabeth Matsui, Simon Roe, Becky Venton, Ian Hiscock, Debbie Jackson-Cole
Introduction
In May 2020, during the coronavirus outbreak, and with various degrees of lockdown in operation across the world, the Association of Facilitators (AoF) hosted a 90-minute cooperative enquiry session, using web-based video conferencing tool Zoom, into our experiences of facilitating meetings using video technology.
AoF is a member organisation dedicated to the training, accreditation and supervision of members. Our offering and expertise are in group work and facilitator development in a way that integrates personal, group, organisational and social development approaches.
As a research method, cooperative enquiry fits well with our approach and style, honouring as it does co-operation, shared learning, and our intent to work with people and not on people. The explicit consideration of power, group dynamics and values is a core part of our work.

Our enquiry group
Bella, Brian and Colin, representing AoF, appreciated the enthusiasm for enquiry from a small group of our members (9 women and 4 men, primarily UK-based). Brian and Bella are co-founders of the AoF and lead the Foundations Programme; Colin is a co-facilitator on the Foundations Programme. All of the members are (or have been) accredited as facilitators with the AoF via either a self-and-peer assessment or accreditation of their prior learning, and all are experienced at working with and leading groups.
Along with Bella, Brian and Colin, our group included:
- a professional coach, working with Diversity and Inclusion, previously in an academic professorship
- a clinical and a values-based skills sales trainer working in a medical devices company
- an internal consultant and leadership development practitioner working within a high street retailer
- a higher education professional working internationally at the interface between academic research and public policy making
- an executive coach and master trainer originally from Canada, working with corporate clients in Japan for over 30 years
- a facilitator of men and boys’ group work, offering training and development in emotional well-being, body psychotherapy, Process Oriented Psychology, domestic abuse perpetrator work, radical ritual and men’s work
- a Programme Manager and Chartered Meteorologist, recently freelance, working primarily in the field of International Development in East Africa and beyond
- a recently freelance consultant, with deep experience of working within a high-street retailer to support statutory consultations, meetings between employees and senior leaders and restructuring
- a multilingual facilitator with experience of managing international conferences as well as running online language workshops and tuition for children and adults
From a geographical perspective, we note more participants in recent AoF calls from Europe and the Far East.
A copy of the email introducing the session and contracting for our work together is provided in the appendix. In brief, the three groups/lines of enquiry were,
- What are the relational concerns? i.e. personal contact, presence, rapport, etc. And how do you manage this dimension?
- What does contracting look like in this environment? What are the ethical considerations? E.g. self-care.
- What are the personal ‘stretch points’ when facilitating online? How have you adapted as a facilitator?
A summary of each group’s findings is below, followed by some additional notes and resources.
Group 1 (Presence)
- We recognised that we were at an early stage of finding our way, and were feeling that there was ‘lots missing’ in terms of presence in the online group environment compared to sharing a physical space, reading social cues* and working in and from familiar environments.
-
- We missed familiar and ‘low key’ ways of engaging with and tuning into the group – looking around, eye contact, a felt-sense, warmth.
- We discussed some Zoom tools aiming to signal one’s presence within the group and make nuanced contact, e.g.
- Hand, face or online gestures (such as an online thumbs up/wave) - these were felt to be unsubtle and needed a common group understanding and willingness to use cohesively, otherwise become another tool for misunderstanding, exclusion, or fearing/feeling of ridicule (“Zoom Fear”)
- Chat - we were unsure of how to best contract in relation to this – the effect could be anywhere on the scale from subversive/disruptive to bonding/building*.
-
-
- Our sense was that it was more possible to engage well 1:1, with small groups or with an existing and well-functioning team. A solid sense of presence or connection with new people or large groups was more difficult to achieve/trust*, and yet throughout organisations, new teams have been “thrown together”. One group member described having very good meetings with her team of 11; they already had a good and positive relationship(s), and this continued into the online environment.
- Our ability to be ‘fully present’ was not just challenged by the lack of the old physical space, but also by what was pressing in and demanding attention from the new domestic space – children, choice of background, doorbell ringing, etc.
- We noted that setting up new developmental and learning groups felt particularly difficult, as opposed to task-focused, technical training, decision-making or established team meetings. In this environment, people need to meet, bond, develop a way to contribute, learn to read each other*. As the facilitator seeking to guide this, it becomes difficult to time one’s interventions. We “needed more facilitation” and “clear roles” in an online environment. It was difficult to use a range of facilitation styles, particularly the more gentle and subtle ones, or to confront behaviour, in a way that we know supports personal development and deep enquiry into roles, identity, values and participation.
- The value of checking in and contracting was recognised, but how could we do this in large groups while keeping focused and without taking up too much time?
- We noted greater felt vulnerability and self- doubt* as the facilitator in this new environment through distance and technology. Am I monopolising? Should I step-in? How is everybody? Should I raise this issue or is it a red herring? Why are people quiet?
- We noted that silence, while having varied qualities, a subtle energy and a myriad of meanings in the physical environment, in the online environment usually felt simply like waiting and was mostly uncomfortable. One of our group described how he missed touch and “feeling the group feeling through my skin”.
- We observed how, in various experience cycles, we were beginning/emerging from under the surface: Sensation in Gestalt Cycle of Experience, Forming/Winter ground in Tuckman’s/Heron’s Group Stages model, Experience in Kolb et al, Early Contracting in Group Process
- Following our discussion of physical senses, one of our group said she preferred meetings without video as she could tune in through her ears. We decided to experiment with this. Once cameras were switched off, one group member noted that she now found it very difficult to follow the conversation. Others found the disconnection from the visual element felt more comfortable, easing pressure to ‘perform’. We were mid-experiment when our breakout room counted down our final minute before we were automatically zoomed back to the main room…
* Post-enquiry note related to presence:
Relational challenges and ‘personal edges’ raised in the context of this online meeting enquiry, such as those marked with * above are also raised in the physical group environment. These arise as explicit assessment (self/peer) of one’s performance and/or one’s self-talk, e.g. “How am I doing?”, “How am I with you?” “Am I reading your reactions accurately”, “How authentic can I be in your presence?”. “Am I on my learning edge?”
The availability of a sidebar chat feature as well as the main window felt like a new and exciting possibility for several participants – with the whole group sharing what is ‘below the surface’ while working ‘above the line’. While the chat text does not reproduce the ‘felt sense’ or the holistic experience of being physically with a group, this function adds a channel to the ‘2D’ online world where body language and shared presence are largely missing.
Group 2 (Contracting and Ethics)
-
- A key question arose concerning the use of cameras. This came from recent experiences in a commercial context where some participants choose not to turn on their video. This makes it difficult for the facilitator to be sure that the participant is really ‘attending’ the meeting/training.
- The belief/concern is that such participants may be doing ‘other work’ whilst in the meeting. This is similar to the face to face problem of laptops/phones being used in meetings, though the rules are different as devices are required when online. It can be less obvious what people are doing online – people can be staring at their cameras but with their photoalbum open on their screen (such behaviour had been reported when sitting through long meetings).
- We compared this with the productivity and attention span issues that arise when multi-tasking. I.e. many applications open on the desktop and each vying for attention.
- We considered contracting needs to be hierarchical, clear, and up-front. But wondered if it is right to ‘require’ all camera to be on. There are competing principles/values;
- Ethical consideration for those who may feel insecure in front of the camera, or indeed have things going on that they don’t want people to see (e.g. LGBT community not out at work but visibly out in the home – photos, posters etc, privacy of one’s personal space, others in the home)
- Technical considerations, e.g of bandwidth
- Stating a clear organisational requirement for cameras to be on, and for clear accountability.
- If use of camera is required and contracted, we considered how to confront non-compliant behaviour, where participants were not visible to all, despite this having been agreed.
- We note that In other contexts e.g. therapy, it would be more acceptable to not use the camera if preferred and may have certain advantages.
- Helpful principle that faciliator speaks for 4 minutes and then changes the activity to prompt in participants verbal accountability, visual accountability, and kinesthetic accountability. Here the word accountability relates strongly to contracting
- Participants to consider the impact of their online behaviour on others, e.g. eating, scratching, yawning, coffee mugs, using phone.
- As facilitator we are unable to set up the room virtually, as we would do physically. Need to remote manage e.g. breaks, drinks, level of engagement. Individual’s home environment to have same rules as a work environment e.g. water in the room but not food, no phones, etc. – let people know that they need notebook and pen etc.
- We recognised the need for contracting in advance of the meeting so that participants manage their environment for benefit to themselves and to other participants. This includes pre/post reading materials. We noted this will require a more hierarchical and prescriptive facilitation style.
- We noticed that our focus on contracting, i.e. how to guide and allow flow in the meeting, steered us toward the other two group discussions and we wondered about the common themes that would emerge overall.
- A key question arose concerning the use of cameras. This came from recent experiences in a commercial context where some participants choose not to turn on their video. This makes it difficult for the facilitator to be sure that the participant is really ‘attending’ the meeting/training.
Post-enquiry note related to Contracting: There is definitely a variety of sessions (corporate meetings or training sessions, vs workshops and more therapeutic examples) but in all cases we thought that contracting needed to start before the session and that more pre and post work might be needed in order to keep the online session as brief as possible to avoid distraction and disengagement.
We also felt that we would be pulled towards being more prescriptive and hierarchical in our way of contracting in these situations, whereas in the ‘real world’ we might be more co-operative in building contracts. Although, one of the group is currently delivering a team coaching programme and the in-group contracting was built co-operatively online just as she would have been likely to do in the physical world. It is quite a small group and so size is an important factor.
We also briefly discussed ethics of recording sessions, or indeed what is captured on the whiteboards. Whilst we would get permission to do this as part of the group contract, we note that recording doesn’t usually happen in the physical workshops that we run. So recording does have the potential to change the quality of the group interaction. Issues of privacy and of a recording being carried forward are ethical by nature and will affect psychological safety in the online environment. Page 6 of 17
Group 3 (Adapting as a Facilitator)
- Need to do more preparation - self and group to set the scene - things to read, think about, be ready to discuss
- How to bring people in - have to use verbal cues rather than visual cues - naming someone helps to bring someone in and to grasp their attention
- Keep facilitator talk time down - lots of check in 'questions and comments'
- Speak clearly - especially if non-English speakers; use fewer colloquialisms, jokes etc.
- Try to maintain eye contact - may help to put something e.g. a toy above the camera to help maintain contact
- Maximum 120 minutes - maintains focus and minimise interruptions - but maintain balance of focus on task but also having good conversations
- Questions and answers may work best in the virtual environment, but how to establish group dynamics?
- How to enable everyone to contribute, especially if coming from different cultures. Some participants may be less confident to speak up. [In the cooperative review of this document, we noted that this statement in itself could form a new focus for enquiry. We noted the potential for a rich exploration of how cultural norms, personal norms, status/seniority etc. would affect contribution via Zoom, and how this would be same/different in the physical environment.]
- Stretch issues
- Group dynamics
- Technology issues - whiteboards, breakout groups or even just people dropping in/ out
- Maintaining eye contact - can help to have more than one facilitator
- Running hybrid meetings in the future when some are virtual and others are 'in the room'
- Being online can take away some of the confidence issues - good for some people
- Might be good to ask everyone to have their video on
- Contracting
- Very different for different groups e.g. large groups how to engage (use of emoticons etc)
- Breaks so people know there's chance for them to get a drink etc. enabling them to focus more e.g. at start say there'll be a 5 minute comfort break half way through
- Hold the group as capable and intelligent and with respect
- Consider co-facilitating, especially to help bring people into the discussion
- Consider using a moderator to keep an eye out for when people want to raise a point, or to arrange breakout rooms, moderate chat etc.
- Sessions need to be shorter and more focused on one topic
- Contracting - how to ensure the group are engaged for the duration
- Speaking more clearly and in shorter bursts - precise and concise
- Those who are shy may be more willing to speak, especially when invited to comment/ contribute
- Learning how to read things just from voice is difficult
Conclusion
In our all-group debrief, we noticed that although we had deliberately embarked on divergent tracks, our areas of discussions and questions were convergent and our sub-group findings demonstrate much overlap. We largely found that online calls were a drain on energy, even if we were engaged in the content, and perhaps this was related to the extra level of learning we were engaged in compared to more familiar environments.
Our explicit enquiry was largely focused in the Planning and Meaning Dimensions (Heron) as we attempted to balance competing demands (see above) with what the new technology offers and what the group and context needs. In the Feeling dimension, anxieties and insecurities were surfaced and shared, and related both to our personal patterns and to the enormous shifts in the environment around us. We noted how we might both self-confront and learn from personal experience, e.g. The answer to the question “Should I use a background image?” might be answered in part by the question “How might another participant’s background image impact me?”.
In closing the enquiry, we (AoF) suggested that peer groups may get together to facilitate each other, practice using the technology and continue the enquiry along lines that were relevant to their contexts.
Our sense was that participants had varying relationships to the use of technology as we left the call and started the write-up. For one participant immediately after the call, Zoom meetings were described as “a second best” and “better than nothing” and the tone was to embrace these as necessary for connection, decision-making, achieving a task and learning a skill. Another participant, a few weeks later, shared observations on what the digital space brought to a group that couldn’t be offered by face-face meeting, e.g.
- Scope to switch between levels of intimacy more quickly and easily, e.g. using time away from the group, break / reading time, switching between group size without the need for multiple physical breakout rooms
- The use of chat – allows for a live exploration of inner thoughts or a new line of enquiry while conversation is ongoing. “This is a really interesting aspect as I can’t think of an equivalent in a face-to-face setting that allows instantaneous sharing with a group. I am looking forward to playing around with this.”
- The observation that some people feel more comfortable and confident online – can it therefore open up new ways of working with diverse groups? (personality types?)
- The chance to build a group dynamic with participants from disparate geographical locations, e.g. it enriched the experience for UK-based participants working with a participant located in Japan. Normally this would not have been an option for a short face-to-face session.
- Scope to connect more personally with other participants as ‘entering’ their home. And activities such as ice breakers could therefore be developed to make the most of this and facilitate group development on a more personal level.
During the review process, we observed more evidence of enthusiasm for the opportunities offered by video, rather than anxieties about its limitations (or ours) or unfavourable comparisons with the physical environment. In the weeks between the enquiry and the write-up of this article, our sense is that the confidence and comfort levels for those of this group who have facilitated online meetings has hugely increased. Some impressive and impactful sessions have been facilitated by this group in the last month, from bi-lingual on-boarding programmes to ‘Black Lives Matter/White Privilege’ enquiries.
One co-enquirer is explicitly building a service offering using video calls and concludes “some of my own doubts and questions have been resolved, my confidence has grown and I am extremely positive about how effectively we can work online”.
Our enquiries and experiences continue to evolve.