Threads Unravel If We Don't Build On Them

A recurring frustration with online communities is when people start new discussion threads for a question or conversation when one already exists.

Doing so takes up valuable space on the main web page of discussions, as well as in the limited "attention space" of community members.

Actively moderated communities sometimes merge duplicate threads, but this seems to be more the exception than the rule. Until web designers create sites that detect duplicate posts ("It looks like you're about to start a discussion that already exists here ...", the change needs to happen at the user level.

In other words, before starting a new conversation thread, I need to search and determine if one already exists. If I locate one and take the time to review previous comments in it, I can make a more informed contribution to an existing conversation.

While particularly relevant for online discussions, the same general principle holds true for face-to-face discussions. It can be challenging when people step into an ongoing discussion and share an opinion or raise a question that pulls the conversation back to a place from which it has already progressed.

So what to do? As participants in conversations, be they online or in person, we have an opportunity to engage responsibly.  Here are a few approaches I use:

• Search online for existing conversation threads/posts to see if my topic already exists before I start a new thread. This often requires scanning beyond the main page of discussions and/or trying multiple terms in a search field. Organizations can help by using more robust search engines and by merging duplicate discussion threads.
• When joining a group that has been operating for some time (i.e., a staff team, a volunteer committee or board), make sure I read appropriate background materials (meeting minutes, strategic plans, et al) and/or talk to existing members to build my understanding of past efforts and present context. Organizations can help with more effective new member orientations and easy access to relevant documents.
• When unsure if what I want to add to a conversation is appropriate or helpful, I often preface my remark with "I wonder if ... " Doing so can make it easier for others to point out if my point was addressed in a previous meeting or otherwise redirect the conversation. Organizations can help by capturing key conversation themes in real-time and visually noting them for all group participants to see.

Stephen Covey is well-known for his valuable advice to Seek First to Understand. Then to Be Understood.  In the world of online communities and transient in-person conversations, a slightly modified corollary is Search First to Understand (what has already been discussed). We are more likely to be understood when our contributions to a conversation demonstrate that we have done so.

P.S.  When facilitating, I often encourage groups to adopt "Build on others' contributions" as one of their shared agreements for conversation.

Better Conversations: Inviting Others to Contribute

 

The invitation was extended, and she accepted.

And when she offered her previously unspoken opinion, the entire conversation temporarily shifted.  Some echoed her sentiments, building on them from their own perspectives.  Others gently probed to learn more. In the end, the insight she shared produced a new action item for the group.

How did this happen?

It began with a simple invitation, one I extended as the facilitator, but it could have come from anyone in the discussion: "Before anyone else responds, I'd love to hear from some individuals whose voices have yet to be heard in our large group conversations."

Inviting others to contribute is a gift, one that any individual in a group can extend. Used strategically, they can ensure diverse voices and perspectives are heard and decision-making discussions are more robust. 

Here are some of the invitations I often find myself extending in my facilitation work, frequently prefaced with "I'd love to hear from anyone who ... "

• might see things a bit differently.
• hasn't spoken much yet today.
• can offer relevant historical perspective on this topic.
• has a perspective we haven't considered yet.
• can offer a specific example of this concept.
• can distill our discussions to this point.
• has some data to contribute to this discussion.
• knows how others might have handled a similar situation.

Extending invitations to others, either to individuals by name or open to all, can help bring into a discussion whatever an individual feels would help make it better.

As I have written before, effective facilitation helps make it easier for a group to do its work.  Anyone can, and everyone should, see doing so as a part of their responsibility ... regardless of their role or tenure in a group.

Like any invitation, those invited retain the right to RSVP "No, thank you." Accepted invitations, however, often bring forth new thinking and feelings that shift conversations in very beneficial ways.

In your next meeting or discussion think about what invitation (and to whom) you might extend to improve the quality of the conversation.

Loyalty: Do you understand the tie that binds?

Image source: Starbucks.com

Starbucks is changing its longstanding rewards program.

Some people are upset, even very upset. Other people don't get why.

I think the change—and the subsequent negative reaction—provide a useful reminder about loyalty and relationships.

Image source: Starbucks.com

Not familiar with the change? Here are the basics.  Previously My Starbucks Rewards card members (a free membership) earned a free food or beverage option after every 12 visits or purchases … regardless of the amount of purchase during each visit.

The new system taking effect in April requires 125 stars for the same benefit. Customers earn stars at the rate of two stars for every $1 spent during a visit. Starbucks says a visit's avg. purchase amount is $5 so only an additional visit or slightly larger purchase is required.

While people are complaining about the mechanics of the new structure, I think the underlying issue is the one worth noting.

The previous system fostered loyalty through interaction regardless of what happened in that interaction. It also offered both tangible and intangible benefits: Visit your Starbucks fairly regularly and not only do you get a concrete reward (food or drink free), but you also become a recognized guest, one more likely to receive a familiar greeting from your regular barista.  In this sense, Starbucks really can feel a bit like a Third Place.

By shifting to a monetary-based system, Starbucks has knowingly created a transaction-based exchange … even though this was an underlying premise of the previous system.  Even if we receive the same benefit for about the same number of visits, the terms of our loyalty relationship is one now based on dollars.  Starbucks will be loyal to you so long as you express your loyalty via appropriate financial thresholds. Starbucks has always wanted to make as much money off of us as it can, but that unstated truth is now front and center.

Rightly or wrongly, people feel cheated: "I've been loyal all this time and this is how you treat our relationship?

The change in metric really is a change in meaning: in how the value of our relationship is defined and the terms of the loyalty "contract."  Every organization needs to understand the agreements (explicit or implicit) it makes with those with whom it hopes to create loyalty. Does yours?

Interesting to note that the new program is simply called Starbucks Rewards versus the original name, My Starbucks Rewards. It perhaps unintentionally reflects the shift (real or perceived) in the power dynamics of our relationship with the company.

Two Questions to Make You a More Valuable Contributor

Master keys unlock every door. They are incredibly powerful.

When thinking about how to unlock the potential that rests within a group of people coming together to collaborate, I'd like to suggest two questions you can ask yourself, ones that function as personal master keys:

• What contribution can I make in this conversation to advance our collective work?
• What factors do I need to consider to successfully make that contribution?

In my experience, individuals who thoughtfully consider these questions and then act on their answers are more vital contributors to group work regardless of the group composition, its purpose, or the individual's prescribed role in it. Like a Master Key, the questions are universal in value. Let's dig a bit deeper into each one.

What contribution can I make in this conversation to advance our collective work?

Answering this question requires mentally stepping outside the group and assessing its current reality without judgment, much as a facilitator might:

• What is happening? 
• What is being said? 
• How are people interacting? 
• What is the mix of participation (both extroverted and introverted)?
• Whose voices are not being heard? 
• What perspectives are not present among the actual participants? 
• Where does agreement or disagreement exist? 
• Where is there understanding and where might confusion exist?
• What's absent from the discussions?

Answers to these questions (and others you might generate) will help you identify what the group may need to make progress. You can then consider what contribution you might make to what you've identified as being needed.  This transitions you to the second Master Key question.

What factors should I consider to successfully make my identified contribution?

Your contribution will occur within a context and culture. Think about the action you've identified in relation to the following question in order the shape the manner in which you might the contribute:

• What is the culture in which this group operates, as well as the culture of the group itself?  
• What trust and social capital have you built with groups members and which ones?  
• How alike or different is the contribution you want to make from how you normally act in this group?  How might this affect how it will be perceived or received?
• How might your default style help or inhibit you successfully making the contribution you've identified?
• How might you modify your tone, expression, language, et al in order to have people hear the value you are trying to contribute? 
• What observable behavior and understood data can you link your contribution to and how might you build on what others have shared?

At first, working with these two Master Key questions may require great focus, perhaps even jotting down your thoughts.  But as you consistently do so with both intention and attention, the less perspiration they will require over time.

Postscript

When all else fails, consider consulting a "locksmith", someone whose personal qualities and/or experience with the group might help with a stubborn lock. 

Ignoring an Important Indicator of Engagement

Are you engaged with engagement?

Engagement. It’s been all the rage the past few years as both for-profit companies and nonprofit organizations look for ways to create with their customers or members what we once called “stickiness”.  Gallup's work on employee engagement has also generated significant attention for the concept.

Much of the customer or member engagement emphasis, perhaps rightly so, has focused on activity-based metrics as the primary engagement indicator: liking posts on Facebook, checking in at a store on a location app, registering for a webinar, volunteering on a committee, et al.  Drawing on gaming principles, in some cases your activity is displayed publicly (i.e., our top blog commenters are … ) and badges and/or prizes are rewarded when certain activity thresholds are achieved.

But quantifying engagement by measuring activity alone is an incomplete (and insufficient) indicator.

To identify the missing element, consider how program designers craft outcomes in three areas for a learning experience:

• Cognitive (intellect): what we want people to know and/or think
• Psychomotor (physical activity): what we want learners to be able to do
• Affective (heart and emotion): how we want participants to feel

Comparing learning outcome language to current engagement measures, you see that we favor psychomotor and cognitive engagement indicators.  Given that those are easier to measure, that's not too surprising.

What is most missing is the affective part of engagement, whether a customer or member feels engaged with your organization, your brand, your values, and much more. Intuitively we’d assume someone spending more time on your website, giving more money (or more regularly) to your fundraising appeals, or attending more of your programs would almost directly correlate with one’s engagement level.  Certainly many companies and associations act as if it does.

But to do so ignores the fact that engagement has qualitative aspects that may not correlate with its quantitative indicators. A few examples:

•  A member could attend a lot of association events, but still feel outside the community or experience other forms of disconnect that might cause her to report a low level of engagement.  
• Another member might be the classic "mailbox member" who never attends events or buys any products, but self-reports deep engagement because he reads your magazine cover to cover.
• Or imagine the customer who infrequently buys your product but for whatever reason self-identifies as a brand loyalist deeply engaged with all that you offer. 

Personally, even though it is irrational, though I failed to visit a favorite neighborhood restaurant at all in 2015,  I feel deeply engaged because of a few limited interactions with its owner in 2014.

If we are serious about using engagement as a success indicator in our organizations, we need to embrace both its qualitative and quantitative indicators.  We need to move beyond the activity that is easy to track to the feelings that individuals may hold toward the organization and its offerings.  We need to discover the measures that customers and members themselves would use as indicators of their engagement level.   

It's just possible that for some people, the heart of engagement is tied more to engagement of the heart than either the hands or the head.

UPDATE
Joe Rominiecki, who keeps an eye on all things membership for ASAE's Associations Now, was kind enough to point folks to this post. In doing so he rightly noted I had not suggested how to measure the affective part of engagement, so let me correct that.

I would suggest experimenting with asking members a simple question: How engaged do you feel with our association?  Since we're talking about how engaged a member feels, a self-reported assessment is really the only option.  

I might then consider including either or both of the following additional questions: 

• For the engagement rating you selected, please describe your experience(s) with the association that most influenced your choice.
• How does your current engagement level match with your overall desired engagement level?

I'll leave it to the survey/assessment pros to determine the response scales to offer, as well as how to do some cross-tab analysis with members' self-reported feelings of engagement with the more quantitative activity measures the association may be using.  The qualitative responses to the second would require some thematic analysis to see if there are any overall membership engagement trends that should be further explored. And the response to the third question might help guide future targeted communications and marketing for individual members based on their responses.

Writing Doesn't Mean Publishing

"You haven't written in more than three months."

This was a close colleague's opening line in a recent conversation.

But it is not quite true.

I have not published a blog post in three months.
I have written almost every day.

There is a big difference.

People's attention is increasingly valuable.  So many publishers are in the business of attracting eyeballs and getting clicks, churning out a never-ending stream of often unsatisfying content.

Why would I want to contribute to that?

I write almost every day. I publish only when I think that writing is worth reading.  This usually means sitting with drafts for some time, reworking them for clarity, and ruthlessly editing out unnecessary verbiage.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't work out loud or share less than perfect thoughts. Even when I publish something it remains a draft of sorts as readers' reactions often cause me to rework the piece.

But attention remains a precious commodity, one not to be wasted. So a fair amount of my writing never makes the cut to share. Quite honestly, I wish more people would do the same.

Adding Interaction Concern #2: Losing Control Of the Clock

Presenters should be concerned about clock management when adding interaction to a session or talk.  You can rehearse, time, edit, and somewhat control the pace of your speaking segments. This is not possible when you invite participants to engage with each other.

Or is it?

The timing of interactive elements is definitely manageable albeit less tightly than your speaking segments. You only lose control of the clock when you don't plan (1) an initial approach for managing it, and (2) alternative tactics to adopt based on what happens in real-time.

Providing structure enables the desired learning from an interactive segment (see my previous post) and it helps manage time for interactive segments.  And as you use interactive formats repeatedly, you hone in on the length and structure that groups of different dispositions require to have the intended learning experience.

So how does this work in action?  Let's look at two examples where I have previously lost control of the clock: (1) introductions, and (2) small group reporting out. I'm not alone here, right?

Introductions: Getting to Know You

You've decided that introductions are needed to break the ice. Let's imagine you're asking individuals to share their name, title, organization and tenure, and one unique or interesting thing about themselves ... in 60 seconds.  If you simply offer that instruction and then let someone begin, invariably the first person will exceed your allotted time and others who follow will do the same. Your session just started and you're already behind the clock.

Here's an approach providing more structure to help manage the time:

• Explain you want to do quick introductions so people can get a sense of who else is present, but you don't want to spend the entire session doing so.  Tell participants you need their help to make this happen.
• Describe (I would use a slide to engage people visually as well) the way you want people to introduce themselves, taking only 60 seconds to do so.
• Give people 2-3 minutes to identify and note their unique characteristic.  This honors introverted learners as well as increases the odds that everyone will listen to others' intros.
• Point out that we often don't talk in 60-second increments (heads will nod). Then either (1) model the way and do your own intro, asking someone else to time you; or (2) ask for a volunteer who thinks he can do a nice introduction in 50-60 seconds and you time.

Two key elements make this process work: (1) participants are engaged in managing the time; and (2) an appropriate intro is modeled for them to emulate.

Why do I suggest 50-60 seconds as the starting example? Because otherwise people rush through their intro as fast as they can and it defeats the purpose of the entire process. If you want to provide further structure, have a 60-second hourglass available that participants can opt to flip as they begin their introductions, enabling them to monitor themselves.

Capturing the Wisdom of Others: Small Group Reporting Out

Things can really go amiss here if you don't plan optional approaches and provide upfront structure.  The key question to initially answer is: does every group need to be heard from, and if so, to what degree? Your response provides the constraints for calibrating the time you'll use and the format that it will allow or comparably, the format you decide to use and the time it will require.

In general, I find workshop participants can listen to 3-5 groups reporting and/or about 15 minutes of total reporting out no matter how many groups.  After that they disengage and lose interest.  So even if you have time to hear from many more groups, it may be ineffective to do so.  This changes for a group of colleagues working together on a project or to set strategy. They are likely to have a longer attention span and a more active commitment to hear from others.

Here are some possible ways I might structure and introduce 15 minutes of small group reporting out to participants in a conference session I am leading:

1. We'll do some quick reporting out after your discussions. We've got 15 minutes and 10 groups, so that will be 90 seconds/group. Note: The rapid reporting out might maintain attention spans for so many groups, but it is risky.
2. We'll have 15 minutes for some small group reporting out. I'll initially ask each group to take about 45 seconds to share its most powerful takeaway. We'll then use the remaining time for groups to share any additional insights they think other participants really need to hear until the clock runs out.
3. I'd like each group to record their top three takeaways in large legible print on a flipchart and post them when time is called.  I'll give you a two-minute warning when it is time for you to stop discussing and to capture what you want to share. You'll then have 7-8 minutes on your own ("gallery walk") to scan the output from other groups prior to about 5 minutes of large group discussion.
4. We'll have about 15 minutes to capture some of the wisdom generated in your small group discussions. With more than 30 groups in the room there is no way we can do that verbally.  I'm asking you to Tweet your discussion takeaways in real-time using this special hashtag.  When we reconvene, you'll first quickly scroll through these Tweets with your small group colleagues prior some facilitated large group discussion.
5. When we reconvene I want to gather 4-6 great takeaways from different groups, but won't be calling on each one to report out. So if you have an insight to share, I'll look to you to volunteer.
6. Do #4 except use a Google doc.

And I always invite groups to efficiently report out that they simply "ditto" what another group has already said instead of repeating and chewing up more time: In our discussions we came to the same conclusions as group #3.  Finally, when inviting groups to report another takeaway during a second round, it helps with time management if you do so by saying: "Who has a new insight we haven't already heard that you would like to share?"

Alternatives to traditional reporting out

Instead of having individuals report out to the large group, you could use the Ambassador approach I've previously written about, sending a small group representative to another table to share takeaways more intimately. This can be repeated with rotation and sharing with a second table, time permitting.  Or instead of having the initial small group conversation generate takeaways to share, you could use my Prospector approach. Here participants first mix freely with others, collecting ideas in response to a topic or question you provide.  Subsequent small group conversation passes on the best of individuals' prospecting finds.

These are just a few of the possibilities you could consider, weighing (1) the learning goals for the overall session, (2) the potential value of the content small groups are generating, (3) participants' need to hear from others, and (4) the time available for doing so. Ideally, you structure any interactive elements to give yourself the flexibility to recalibrate the format based on real-time clock management.  This means that you identify possible options as you design your session and prepare the necessary slides and other materials to give you flexibility to modify formats on the fly. Example: if groups are deeply engaged in their discussions, I might allow a bit more time for them to continue and then opt for a faster reporting method.

The clock is your friend, but only if you build a relationship with it. Plan on how you will effectively manage time in order to address the content of your session with the interaction you want to create.

I've added interaction to a 10-minute TEDx talk for 600 people seated in an auditorium and used multiple engagement formats in a 60-minute session for a couple of hundred people seated at more than 30 rounds in a convention center ballroom. It isn't always easy, but it most definitely can always be done.


Previously in this series:   
Adding Interaction Concern #1: Losing Control of the Content
"You've Got to Make Your Presentation Interactive"

Adding Interaction Concern #1: Losing Control of the Content

Perhaps the most pervasive concern I hear presenters raise when contemplating interaction is that they will lose control of the session.

Newsflash: you ain't never had it. At any given moment, people are talking about unrelated topics, scanning the program book for the next session, buying something on their smartphone, or sneaking out early to get to lunch.  But we feel like we are in control because we are the only ones providing content and we do so on our own terms. It's a false sense of security.

When adding interaction, you do transfer some control to participants because you now rely on them to generate and share relevant information with each other.  The presenter's job is to do everything possible to make sure this happens smoothly and that the interactive element surfaces meaningful content and conversation participants can apply to their own needs. Let's look at how this sometimes unfolds. 

Have you experienced a presenter introducing a small group exercise and everyone at your table just looks at each other, unsure of what exactly you are supposed to do? This is not good. It is the presenter's job to provide sufficient structure to prevent this from happening.  And different learners require varying degrees of structure and detail in the instructions in order to full engage with the interactive element. Here's a bit of what I have learned in the process of doing this myself.

An exercise I use in some sessions is to have participants think about the lenses through which they see the world and the implications of those lenses. I created it for a workshop with a group of highly creative, big picture thinkers.  The slide on the left contains the instructions I offered, and it (along with me briefly talking about how we each need different glasses or contact lens prescriptions to see 20/20) allowed most people to fully engage with the activity as I intended. The discussion was lively and the content surfaced led to meaningful insights being shared.

When I next used this exercise it was with a group of more analytical, detail-oriented thinkers.  I used the same instruction slide, but this time was met with blank and confused stares.  Participants didn’t track as well with my lenses metaphor, nor did they have a sufficient idea of what content I was asking them to generate. I had to verbally provide a lot more detail just to get the exercise started.

After this experience I created the slide on the right, improving on the original in three ways: (1) expanding the initial question posed with more examples to illustrate what I am asking, (2) visually revealing another common analogy—the photo filter—to further illustrate my intent; and (3) offering examples of my own possible responses.  This is now my default slide to introduce the exercise.  While some participants still nod with understanding when only the initial question is posed, I now see everyone else "get it" when I provide more information, including my own possible responses to the exercise.

Since then I have made one other significant modification. With the first two groups, I simply posed the question and asked them to turn to a partner and start sharing. While this worked for most people, it put a huge pressure on each participant to generate this content on demand, essentially doing it as they shared it with each other.  As a result, I really marginalized more introverted learners. 

I now ask participants to first note up to 10 responses to the question on their own, enabling introverts to reflect and do this work internally. I then invite them to stand and partner with one other person sharing some of their lenses and the possible implications they might have. This approach, one I've written about in greater detail here, is much more inclusive and has consistently produced a higher quality exercise that almost all participants seem to value. Asking participants to stand and select a partner instead of simply turning to someone near them picks up the energy in the group a bit and gives individuals some control over their conversation companion.

What I just described is part of the core work we do when adding interactive elements to a session: determining how to structure the conversation and introduce it so that participants can easily engage and generate the content you wish them to share. To do so: (1) consider how participants might normally process information or receive instructions, (2) examine the nature of what you are asking them to do and how they might view the exercise, and (3) generate the most inclusive framework to support people in having the intended conversation.  This often means that we create structure for an exercise that differs from what we might need if we were participating in it. In other words, we have to look at adding interaction through the participants' lenses and perspectives, not just our own.

Lecturing or talking at participants indeed allows us a greater degree of control over the content. But it keeps individuals passive and doesn't allow them to share their own ideas and insights with each other, something that many participants and conference planners increasingly value.  The opportunity for us when designing a presentation is to calibrate an appropriate mix of the expertise we can contribute and the knowledge that participants possess. 

When introducing interactive elements to engage participants' perspectives, presenters must provide sufficient structure so that the learners can conduct the conversation we invite them to have (either with themselves or each other) and that valuable content and insight will surface during the interaction.

During a lecture or presentation segment, we only learn what content resonates with learners when we actually present it to them. The same is true for introducing interactive elements into a program: only through experimenting will you glean what works with what learners and how to best structure the interaction for success.

Next in this series I address the other control presenters rightfully fear losing: control of the clock.

Previously in the series: "You Need to Make Your Presentation Interactive."

"You Need to Make Your Presentation Interactive"

Conference planners exhort presenters to include

more interactive elements in their sessions. 

Many remain wary of doing so.

If you have a learning and instructional design background you can forget how intimidating adding interactive segments can be to individuals more accustomed to primarily lecture or presentation segments.  For starters, they probably don't think in terms of segments.

Having coached a fair number of these wary subject matter experts, I’m sharing advice I offer them (and that I take heed of for my own presentations) in a three-part series this month.   

Much has been written about the adult learner and learning in general. It would be foolhardy of me to try and prove in a blog post that interaction is valuable when books and dissertations address the topic. Trust me. Ample research affirms the value of engaging adult learners in sharing their own expertise and experiences, and that more active engagement with content leads to greater retention and application of material. 

But for some people almost any mention of interaction immediately recalls icebreakers or other exercises that they associate with being touchy-feely. This association is something presenters need to consider when selecting interactive elements and inviting participants to engage with each other, the subject of a future post. 

So what do I mean by interaction and engagement? For my purposes, I will use those terms fairly interchangeably.  In doing so, I mean any time that a presentation (keynote, workshop, et al) shifts from participants passively listening to a speaker (soapbox) and becoming more actively engaged (sandbox) with themselves, with each other, and with the presenter.  

The biggest misperception I want to correct is that interaction equals extroversion.  This is why some eyes roll when presenters announce their session is interactive: people fear having to share things with strangers and engage in activities in which they may feel socially awkward.  Because we have such a bias that participation = speaking, speakers often default to extroverted formats that do indeed marginalize more introverted learners. For a quick introduction into honoring these more quiet and reflective individuals see Susan Cain's book Quiet or her TED talk.

Instead of equating participating with speaking and always engaging people in extroverted ways, think of interaction as any learning format that enables participants to connect with and explore the presenter's perspective, their own experiences and ideas (and those of other participants), and the potential connections among them. Applying this mindset means a reflection worksheet that participants complete individually (introverted process) is interactive … as is any conversation they might have with others about the responses they just noted (extroverted process).

This is why adding interactive elements is so important: it deepens participants' exploration and engagement with the content. It engages them in making sense of the presenters' insights and measuring them against the experiences of others.  It involves them in answering the "so what? now what?" questions that lead to application and change. And because participants have diverse preferences about how they like to learn, we want to engage them in varying ways as well.

In the next post, I'll examine the concern some presenters have about losing control of the content if they add interaction.

15 Questions to Liven Up Conference Learning

-->
Conferences can help participants make connections and realize greater value from the learning experiences offered by inviting them to reflect and distill periodically during the event.  below are 15 questions that presenters, sessions moderators, or emcees could draw from to do so during one of your future conferences.

1. What one thing, as a result of what you just heard, might make the most difference in your organization if it was successfully implemented?
2. What’s your elevator speech, a headline, or a possible Tweet you could share that would highlight your core learning from this session?
3. What ideas, practice, or thinking has provoked the strongest negative reaction from you so far? Why is that?  What learning might be waiting for you if you explore your strong reaction a bit more?
4. Thinking about what was just shared in this session, what’s a small step forward you could easily take, one that would get you in action about a bigger idea or goal you want to pursue?
5. How will you contribute/are you contributing to others’ learning during sessions? What more might you be able to do?
6. Great sessions often inspire questions you need to explore further with others. What’s a question that the conference (or this session) has inspired for you so far?
7. What is a common theme emerging from the sessions you’ve attended and the conversations you’re having? What might it mean for your efforts?
8. What’s the most provocative perspective or idea you’ve heard so far at the conference? What do you make of it?
9. How are others’ experiences you’ve heard similar/dissimilar to your own and those in/of your associations? What might that mean?
10. What, if anything, might you be doing that is getting in the way of your own learning? How can you manage this so that it doesn’t happen?
11. What’s the conversation you most came here to have with others?
12. Just like a car needs major maintenance at certainly mileage thresholds, periodically so do are associations need some major work.  Based on what you’re learning at the conference, what major maintenance might your association most need to address?
13. How are you capturing not only what you are learning, but who you most need to share it with during the conference or after it concludes?
14. Leaders leave legacies.  Based on what you are learning, what might you now want to add to your legacy as a leader for your association?
15. What do you still need to learn from the conference and how are you going to ensure you do so in the time remaining?

What are other questions you find helpful to facilitate learning during a conference?