Rethinking large workshops
Some thoughts on running large workshops and the ideal number of participants for collaboration
Updated November 25, 2023; Published September 12, 2020
Great facilitators run giant workshops
As you facilitate more collaborative working sessions, your ability to manage larger and larger groups of participants nurtures a necessary bit of swagger. The larger the group, the better your facilitation powers.
I’ve led workshops of 40-50 people on many occasions, both in person and remote. Each time, workshop design follows a similar pattern:
facilitate a few activities or presentations to the whole room
facilitate a few activities where participants work individually
break into smaller groups of about six people for other activities
Six seems the best number of participants to work in a group. A LUMA instructor described six as the number of people who can stand around a whiteboard and work on a single thing. However, six isn’t the best number because of a whiteboard. Six represents the ideal number for a group to talk and work together. It’s easier to interrupt, easier to identify and pull in quiet participants, easier to dissent. Groups of six generate the best participation–in-person and remote–perform better, and are easier to manage the people, activities, and the clock.
Giant workshops are a lie
One thing more apparent in the all-remote world, in large workshops, the real collaboration, exploration, and problem-solving happens at the group level, not at the room level. At the room level, you present instead of collaborate.
Workshops begin with some presentation. Maybe a room-level activity as a warm up and to introduce tools. (In person, you cover how to write sticky notes. Remote, you introduce the tool.)
Then you break into groups.
Then groups come back and share the outcomes of their work.
For larger problem spaces, I have groups work on parallel tracks. With five groups, we create five personas. We split the journey into five parts, and each group sketches flows or prototypes for different interactions. In this sense, big workshops bring a bunch of small workshops together to share findings with their peers.
At this level, room-level activities accomplish one of two objectives:
They can share the full landscape of the system or issue you want to explore. Group outcomes will more likely align with each another.
Full room activities allow large groups to align around a single, shared vision, and that can drive better outcomes within the organization after the workshop.
Optimize giant workshops for collaboration and presentation
In keeping with Priya Parker’s mantra in The Art of Gathering, we should be intentional about how we design gatherings. How might we design workshops that enhance group collaboration and room presentation?
For remote workshops, do tool onboarding as a 25-minute meeting prior to the workshop.
For presentations, use presentations. I’ve spent several months running presentations in Mural. Mural isn’t as good for presentations as PowerPoint. Choose the better tool for the job.
Help groups share back. Provide a template for their presentation. I’ve seen plenty of presenters meander around a canvas. Provide an outline for how to present their canvas, so they give more effective presentations.
Optimize room activities to communicate the landscape or to generate alignment. Likely, landscape definition occurs early in the workshop, and alignment happens toward the end as the workshop makes decisions about final outcomes.
Anyway…
If you know someone this post would interest, share the link by email.
Check workshop resources and learn more about planning winning workshops
Beyond thinking on your feet, Jedi mind tricks, and facilitation feats, the most important part of running a workshop is planning a workshop.
Proven advice and tools that help teams build better products and services. Learn how from Collaborative Product Design.
