Advanced workshop mechanics
Parallel discussion

When a workshop has identified several priority or contested issues that deserve closer examination, another constraint appears. Legacy workshop mechanics let the group devote deeper discussion to just one topic at a time. Larger workshops can use breakouts to create additional conversations, but only by splitting the group and fragmenting context.

As a result, important issues remain underexamined. Whatever follows in the workshop—and any later decision that relies on its output—rests on insufficient understanding.

For decades, that was a constraint everyone had to live with. Today, you no longer have to. With XLeap workshop software, you can let several substantive discussions progress at the same time, while participants contribute where their knowledge and perspective matter most.

Deeper understanding · Stronger foundations · More robust decisions

Request a demo

Insufficient understanding sets up unpleasant surprises

Identifying an important issue is not the same as understanding it well enough. Different participants understand different aspects of the issue. They need to share what they know, add context, connect perspectives, and fill gaps so the group has a sound basis for what follows.

If an important issue remains underexplored, the group moves on without understanding it well enough. Solutions may address symptoms rather than causes. If the group does not get a timely opportunity to challenge or substantiate assumptions, it may discover too late that they were wrong.

That is bad enough in the workshop. Once plans or material decisions are built on insufficient understanding, the consequences can be severe. Overlooked constraints or dependencies become unpleasant surprises. Such surprises often lead to failure. In every case, they delay work, drive up costs, and leave exposed the people who relied on the group having examined the underlying issues in sufficient depth.

One person speaks—on one topic.

In conventional spoken discussion, only one person can speak at a time. Everyone else must wait and listen. And the clock is ticking.

When participants expect that they will not get another chance to speak anytime soon, it makes sense to make the most of the opportunity. They pack several points into one contribution, even when some do not fit exactly where the discussion is. Because there may be no later chance to clear up misunderstandings, they add extra context, qualifications, caveats, and explanations up front. The contribution gets longer; its information density falls.

Longer contributions increase waiting time. By the time someone further down the line finally gets to speak, the discussion will usually have moved on somewhat. Some prepared points are now out of place. But a chance to speak finally gained is not easily surrendered. Earlier points are revived. Agreement is restated. More airtime goes into social signaling.

This is not a lack of discipline. Engaged participants with several things to contribute have no clean way to make each point where it belongs.

It is a self-reinforcing loop. Scarce airtime causes longer, less focused contributions and increases waiting time. Longer waits push more contributions out of context. Airtime gets scarcer still.

To keep that feedback loop under control, the person running the workshop has to intervene more often: separate points, redirect them, defer them, or park them for later. Such interventions inevitably dampen engagement. That is not poor facilitation. The mechanics require it.

If the cycle is left to run, it eventually limits itself. That does not make things better: information density falls further. Participants get bored, give up, and disengage.

And for all that effort, only one topic has progressed at all. At the expense of everything else.

The obvious workaround is to split the group.

Dividing into breakout groups fragments the workshop

Split twelve participants into two groups and two discussions can run at the same time. More people get a chance to speak. Two topics can progress instead of one.

Spoken discussion does work well in small groups. So why not keep dividing the workshop until every breakout is small enough for turn-taking to work naturally?

Dividing into breakout groups undoubtedly allows more conversations with more airtime per participant. But it does so by sacrificing the shared reasoning the group needs for deeper understanding.

Breakouts split the perspectives. Each discussion needs enough of the relevant knowledge and perspectives to understand why an issue has priority, why judgments diverge, or what sits behind a problem. The smaller the groups become, the more likely it is that someone holding an important part of the picture is sitting in another breakout.

Anyone taking part in one breakout discussion can contribute only to that discussion, even when their knowledge and perspective would matter elsewhere. The more the workshop divides participants and topics, the more likely it is that expertise and insights are missing elsewhere.

Moving between breakouts does not solve the problem. First, participants cannot know when and where their perspective will be needed. Then, a participant arriving in another breakout has missed the reasoning that brought that breakout to where it is. The group may need to recap; the newly arrived participant may repeat points already made. Switching groups comes at a high price. Yet it does not remove the bottleneck; it only shifts it: the participant is now tied up in another discussion and is likely to be needed elsewhere.

Facilitation cannot be split. You too can only be in one breakout group at a time. In the others, you cannot see when a discussion stalls, drifts, gets bogged down, or needs help moving forward.

And someone usually fills the gap. It may be the most senior person in the group. It may be the most confident or simply the most vocal. Before long, the breakout has its own informal facilitator—and the hierarchy or dominance patterns the workshop was meant to manage creep back in.

Reporting back loses the reasoning. Each breakout group needs time to prepare what it will report. That time comes out of its discussion time. The reports are then delivered one after another. That takes time too. Two breakout groups require two reports; three require three. The more discussions run in parallel, the more workshop time is subsequently needed to bring their results back together.

Breakout groups can still make sense despite these drawbacks when they function as independent working groups tasked with producing specific outputs. The question then is whether those groups need to work simultaneously in the workshop. If working groups meet at different times, participants can contribute to more than one group where needed.

The problem arises when several breakout groups are meant to develop deeper understanding of multiple topics that the whole group then builds on in subsequent tasks. Then the information loss between the breakout groups and the plenary becomes the core problem. Conclusions can be summarized. But much of the reasoning, trade-offs, objections, and connections that led to them inevitably stays behind. The plenary cannot develop the deeper understanding it needs for the subsequent work of the workshop in this way.

The more detailed the report-back, the more time is lost again. The more concise it is, the less shared understanding develops. If the plenary then has to discuss the reports to follow the underlying reasoning, the idea of saving time by splitting the group defeats itself completely.

Discuss multiple topics without splitting the group

In an XLeap Discussion, participants contribute in writing—simultaneously and usually anonymously. This lets the group go deeper on multiple topics in parallel without splitting up.

The Host sets up multiple priority or contested topics in the Discussion workspace. Participants decide which topics to contribute to and when. They are not confined to one discussion. Instead, they move between the topics most relevant to them and keep an eye on the others.

Item counters show how many contributions each topic has received and how many remain unread. This lets participants see where debate is lively and makes it easier to keep an eye on the other discussions.

Participants can join when a discussion reaches a point where their knowledge or perspective matters.

When they do, they are not entering cold. They can see how the discussion developed up to that point, look up specific prior arguments in the thread, and respond to earlier points without interrupting any ongoing line of argument.

Simultaneous contribution creates time

A 20-minute discussion with 12 participants represents 240 participant-minutes—four participant-hours. When people speak one after another, those four hours are tied up in just one group conversation. When all participants can contribute simultaneously as needed, they move freely between reading, thinking, and contributing. That puts many times more participant time to productive use in substantive exchange.

Of course, those 240 participant-minutes are not four hours of typing. A substantive discussion takes time even with XLeap. Participants read, think, test arguments against what they know, and let them sink in before contributing a considered response or advancing a new line of argument. The discussion becomes more productive and gains depth.

The gain is more than just time. You can use it to go much deeper on a single topic. But it also makes it possible to discuss multiple topics in parallel in sufficient depth.

Anonymous contribution enables candor and progress

When you enable participants to contribute anonymously, they can say what they actually think. Disagreement does not become personal. They also find it easier to let stronger arguments change their minds.

Anonymity gives the discussion substance. To get to the bottom of something non-obvious, participants must challenge assumptions, ask for evidence, expose weaknesses, correct claims, and voice differing judgments freely. They need to be able to say what they actually think. That candor is essential if the exchange is to be substantive—or even relevant.

The obstacle: Every argument passes judgment on what came before. Speaking candidly means personal exposure. The perceived cost can be high.

That is true even in groups and organizations proud of an open, supportive culture. There, the concern may be protecting belonging, relationships, or standing rather than avoiding ridicule or retaliation. What is actually at stake is ultimately beside the point. What matters is the deeply subjective sense of exposing oneself through what one says. In general, the larger the group, the more cautious participants become. That caution rarely comes from consciously weighing the possible consequences of a contribution.

In a spoken—and therefore necessarily non-anonymous—discussion, participants can only limit that perceived risk by filtering what they say. They instinctively withhold, soften, dress up, qualify—or stay silent.

Well, at least we talked about it.

When contributions are anonymous, personal attribution disappears. Participants immediately get that they no longer need to protect themselves through self-censorship.

That is critical to going deeper. If participants withhold the uncomfortable part, leave a weak argument unchallenged, or let a false assumption stand, the discussion does not merely stay shallow. It can mislead the workshop and anyone who builds on its results.

Substantive differences do not become personal. If no one knows who made a contribution, criticism stays focused on the substance rather than on who is disagreeing with whom. Participants can argue hard on the substance without turning the exchange into a contest between identifiable people, roles, or hierarchies—or making it harder to get along after the workshop.

Learning and progress. Participants do not take a personal position with every argument. They can let go of an earlier idea, revise their judgment, or accept a stronger argument and build on it without feeling that they are backing down in front of the group.

When participants can contribute candidly on substance without having to wait, discussions can accomplish extraordinary things.

Interlocking mechanisms

XLeap’s six workshop mechanisms reinforce one another.

When participants can contribute simultaneously, you can broaden participation to include everyone whose knowledge and judgment you need. Anonymity lets them say openly what they know and think without exposing themselves personally. Their contributions can be judged on substance rather than on who made them.

With rating methods and criteria suited to the task, the group determines what matters most. XLeap automatically measures where judgments align and where significant differences exist.

The group can examine several important or contested topics in depth at the same time without splitting up. In these discussions, participants can contribute simultaneously and, when useful, anonymously.