Some facilitation work is remembered for the tools that were used or the decisions that were made. Yet beneath every process and outcome sits something quieter: the way people speak, listen and respond to one another in the room. The tone of a question, the pace of a response, the way a facilitator reflects back what has been said and how they notice who has not yet spoken all shape the quality of participation long before the group reaches any conclusion. IAF Core Competency C1, Demonstrate Effective Participatory and Interpersonal Communication Skills, invites us to pay attention to this layer with deliberate care. It reminds us that communication is not a backdrop to facilitation. It is the medium in which the work happens.

This competency sits close to the relational core of the IAF framework. It builds on the trust and safety we cultivate in A1 and the clarity of purpose we shape in A2, then carries both into the live moment of interaction. It also underpins much of what follows. No matter how well designed a process may be, its impact depends on how the facilitator invites participation, how they use their voice, how they listen and how they offer feedback. When our communication is congruent, spacious and genuinely participatory, people bring more of their thinking and experience into the work. When it is careless or overly controlling, participation narrows and the group retreats into familiar patterns.

Facilitative communication is not simply being a good presenter or a friendly host. It is a disciplined way of being in dialogue with a group. It involves choosing methods that invite contribution rather than commentary, speaking in a way that is clear without being dominating, and listening in a way that helps people feel heard without being rescued. It includes noticing what is happening in the room and offering feedback that helps the group see itself more clearly. The competency, therefore, asks for both technique and presence. It asks us to be simultaneously participants, witnesses, and stewards of the interaction.

I recall working with a sales organisation that was preparing for a major client meeting. Seven business divisions were involved, each with its own targets and product priorities. The brief was to run an account planning session so they could present a coherent story to the client. The early part of the meeting, however, followed a familiar pattern. Each division used its time to explain why its offer deserved prominence. People spoke over one another, repeated points and tried to secure space on the eventual slide deck. On the surface, there was energy. Underneath, there was very little listening. The “plan” was becoming a list of competing pitches rather than a joined-up approach. We paused and reset the structure, drawing on principles from Nancy Kline’s Thinking Environment. We agreed on some simple working conditions: one person speaks at a time, no interruptions, everyone will have a turn, and the primary task is to understand the client before positioning our own products. We began with a round where each person answered a single question: “What do you know, or suspect, really matters to this client right now?” The only requirement was that others listened and noted connections. No debate, no challenge, no selling.

The mood shifted quickly. As people realised they would get their turn, the urgency to dominate eased. The quality of attention rose. Questions became more curious and less defensive. We followed with a second round focused on risks for the client and a third on where the organisation could genuinely help as one team. The meeting took longer than planned, but by the end the group had a shared view of the client context and a smaller set of integrated priorities. The eventual account plan contained fewer individual products and more combined offers. It was not the structure alone that made the difference. It was the way the structure changed how people listened and how they spoke to one another. Participation widened, and alignment became something people felt rather than something written on a slide.

The five strands of participatory and interpersonal communication

In practice, Demonstrate Effective Participatory and Interpersonal Communication Skills rests on five strands:

  • Applying participatory processes that invite contribution

  • Using verbal communication with clarity and care

  • Developing rapport and emotional ease with participants

  • Practising active and attentive listening

  • Observing the group and offering useful feedback

These strands are not separate techniques. They are interdependent habits that shape how people experience the process and one another.

Applying participatory processes that invite contribution

Participatory communication begins with the structures we choose. A process that is built only around plenary discussion will usually amplify existing hierarchies and habits. A process that includes small groups, paired work, silent reflection and varied modes of contribution gives more people more ways to enter the work. The facilitator’s task is to choose methods that match the purpose and the group, and to use them in ways that feel respectful rather than contrived.

Designing participatory processes is partly technical. It requires a working knowledge of methods that distribute airtime, surface different perspectives and help people move between divergence and convergence. It is also relational. A method that looks perfect in a handbook may feel artificial or risky in a particular culture. Effective facilitators sense when a process will support people to step forward and when it might provoke resistance or embarrassment. They adjust accordingly, sometimes simplifying the structure so that it feels more natural, sometimes adding just enough structure to prevent familiar voices from taking over.

Participation is also about pacing. People need time to think as well as time to speak. Processes that include moments of quiet writing, structured rounds or simple check-in questions at key transitions help create a rhythm where more people can find their way into the conversation. The facilitator uses process not as a performance but as a way of making space. The goal is not to demonstrate the latest method. It is to create an environment where contribution feels possible and worthwhile.

Using verbal communication with clarity and care

Verbal communication is the most visible part of this competency and often the most misunderstood. Many facilitators start by focusing on what they will say: the welcome, the instructions, the questions. Yet effective verbal communication is as much about how and when we speak as it is about the words themselves. Tone, pace, volume and timing all communicate. They can support participation or quietly undermine it.

Clarity comes first. Participants need to understand what is being asked of them, why it matters and how long they have. Clear, simple language helps people focus on the task rather than decoding instructions. Jargon, long explanations or rapidly changing directions create unnecessary friction. A concise invitation followed by a brief check for understanding is often enough. When people know what is expected, they can relax into the work.

Care sits alongside clarity. The words we choose signal respect, curiosity and openness, or the lack of them. Questions that begin with “why did you” can feel accusatory. Questions that begin with “what” or “how” are often easier to answer without defensiveness. Naming both what is working and what is difficult helps the group feel seen. Using language that acknowledges emotion without dramatising it, and difference without exaggerating it, supports psychological safety.

The facilitator’s voice carries disproportionate weight. Long monologues, frequent interruptions or the habit of having the last word narrow participation. Brief, focused contributions that open space for others widen it. In this sense, effective verbal communication includes knowing when not to speak. Silence, held with confidence, can be one of the most generous forms of facilitative communication.

Developing rapport and emotional ease with participants

Rapport is the felt sense that the facilitator is on the side of the group, not above it and not distant from it. It is not about being entertaining or charismatic. It is about creating enough emotional ease that people are willing to bring real questions, concerns and ideas into the room. Without rapport, even the most participatory processes feel mechanical. With it, simple methods can carry surprising depth.

Developing rapport begins before any formal activity. Small acts of contact as people arrive, genuine interest in names and roles, and a grounded, unhurried presence all contribute to a sense of welcome. People notice whether the facilitator is primarily focused on their own performance or on the people in front of them. They respond to the difference.

Rapport also develops through how we handle small moments. How we respond to a hesitant comment, how we acknowledge a challenge, how we thank someone who has taken a risk in speaking, all send signals. Humour can help when used lightly and inclusively. Overfamiliarity or sarcasm can erode trust quickly. Consistency matters. When our words, tone and actions align, people learn that what they see is what they get. That congruence is one of the strongest foundations for rapport.

There is also a boundary to rapport. Facilitators are not there to be everyone’s friend. We are there to hold a process that serves the purpose. Sometimes this involves naming tensions, redirecting conversation or inviting voices that have been marginalised. Doing so with warmth and steadiness helps the group feel that even challenging interventions come from a place of care.

Practising active and attentive listening

If participatory process is the structure and verbal communication is the surface, listening is the depth. Active listening in facilitation is more than nodding or repeating back what has been said. It is a disciplined attention to both content and pattern. It involves hearing the words, noticing what is between the words and sensing how the group is relating to them.

Attentive listening starts with presence. Facilitators who are mentally rehearsing their next instruction cannot fully hear what is happening now. Making space internally to be surprised by what people say, rather than only confirming what we expected, is an essential part of the craft. It allows us to adapt in real time rather than forcing the group through a preset script.

Techniques support this stance. Paraphrasing key points in plain language helps people feel heard and helps the group track its own thinking. Asking follow-up questions that deepen rather than divert the conversation shows that we value what is being explored. Noticing who is speaking and who is not, and wondering aloud about the pattern, honours the voices present while making room for those that are missing.

Active listening also includes listening to emotion. Irritation, anxiety, hope and fatigue all show up in tone and body language as much as in words. When the facilitator acknowledges these currents without judgment, participants often feel relief. They no longer have to carry their reactions alone. The room becomes a place where both thinking and feeling are legitimate parts of the work

Observing the group and offering useful feedback

Observation is the companion to listening. It involves stepping back enough to see the group as a system while still being in relationship with the individuals within it. Facilitators notice patterns of participation, recurring themes, sources of energy and points of avoidance. We watch how decisions are made, how disagreement is expressed and how inclusion or exclusion happens in real time.

The ability to observe is only half of this strand. The other half is the capacity to offer feedback in a way that supports the group rather than shaming it. Feedback in facilitation is rarely about individuals. It is about holding up a mirror to the collective. For example, naming that “we seem to be hearing mainly from people in one function” can invite curiosity and adjustment without blaming anyone. Observations are most useful when they are specific, brief and offered as hypotheses rather than verdicts.

Timing matters. Feedback that interrupts a moment of vulnerable sharing can feel harsh. Feedback that comes too late loses its impact. Effective facilitators weave feedback into the flow, choosing moments when the group has enough capacity to reflect. We also invite the group to check our observations. “This is what I am noticing. How does that land with you?” keeps the feedback in a joint space rather than as an external judgement.

Over time, skilful observation and feedback help groups see their own habits and possibilities more clearly. People begin to anticipate the kinds of questions the facilitator might ask and start asking them of themselves. The group becomes more self-aware and more able to self-correct. Feedback, in this sense, is part of building the group’s long-term capacity, not only supporting a single session.

Holding the strands together

Each strand strengthens the others. Participatory processes are more effective when they are introduced with clear, respectful verbal communication and supported by genuine rapport. Rapport is easier to build when people experience being listened to actively and seen accurately. Listening becomes more powerful when it is connected to thoughtful observation and feedback that help the group understand itself. Feedback is more readily received when it is offered within a participatory structure that gives everyone a stake in the process.

When these strands are held together, communication in the room becomes more than the exchange of information. It becomes a shared practice of attention. People feel that their voices matter, that their contributions are understood in context and that the facilitator is working with them rather than on them. The process gains depth without losing pace. Disagreement can surface without fragmenting the group. Quiet participants find ways to enter the conversation without being forced. Confident participants find ways to listen without feeling silenced.

When any strand is neglected, participation narrows and trust is strained. Skilled methods without clear communication create confusion. Warm rapport without structure leads to pleasant but shallow conversation. Listening without feedback allows unhelpful patterns to repeat unchecked. Feedback without rapport feels critical and risks defensiveness. The work becomes harder than it needs to be, and outcomes suffer.

Our task as facilitators is to treat communication as part of the core design, not as something that happens around it. We attend to the structures that invite participation, the way we use our voice, the warmth and boundaries of our presence, the quality of our listening and the care with which we offer feedback. In doing so, we create conditions in which people can speak honestly, hear one another fully and think together with more courage and clarity.

Absolutely. Here is the fully integrated, polished section combining the research overview, the narrative tone consistent with your other posts, and the seven listening practices at the end. It is written in British English, uses no em dashes, and is ready to drop straight into your competency piece.

Reflections on practising active and attentive listening

Active listening is often described as a gift we offer to participants. Yet recent research makes a more subtle point. High-quality listening is also a powerful tool for the facilitator. It strengthens our understanding of the group, helps us choose more fitting interventions and supports the relational conditions that make participatory work possible. In this sense, attentive listening becomes both a stance and a strategy. It is the way we tune into the group so that the group can tune into itself.

Contemporary psychology has moved listening far beyond the old idea of nodding thoughtfully and paraphrasing what is said. Over the past decade, researchers such as Avi Kluger, Guy Itzchakov and colleagues have provided a deeper evidence base for why listening matters and how it works. Their studies consistently show that high-quality listening strengthens relationships, improves trust and increases people’s sense of psychological safety. A 2023 meta analytic review combining more than six hundred effect sizes found that perceived listening is strongly associated with better relational outcomes at work. Participants who feel listened to are more willing to speak openly, explore their thinking and stay engaged in shared work. These findings reinforce what many facilitators know intuitively. When people experience genuine attention, they bring more of themselves into the conversation.

Listening also affects cognition. A series of experiments by Itzchakov and colleagues shows that when someone is listened to with care, they gain clarity about their own thinking. Their narratives become more coherent. Their sense of uncertainty reduces. Their willingness to reflect, reconsider and explore alternative perspectives increases. Although these experiments are usually conducted in dyads rather than groups, the implications for facilitation are clear. When facilitators listen actively, they help participants hear themselves more fully. This clarity often spreads. As each person expresses their thinking with more coherence, the group’s shared understanding becomes easier to build. Listening, in this sense, supports both individual insight and collective meaning-making.

Another stream of research shows that listening reduces defensiveness. When people feel judged or hurried, they tend to double down on their positions. When they feel listened to, they become more open to reconsidering their views. Across multiple studies, perceived listening has been shown to reduce stereotyping, soften rigid attitudes and increase receptivity to disconfirming information. This matters for facilitation because groups often hold competing views, implicit assumptions or historic frustrations. Listening does not erase these differences. It simply creates enough psychological ease that people can stay in the conversation long enough to explore them. Instead of protecting their positions, they are more willing to explore what sits beneath them.

Listening also increases the facilitator’s understanding of the group. It sharpens our ability to hear subtle differences in viewpoint, notice patterns across contributions and sense where the group is aligned or fragmented. This is not a mystical skill. It emerges from the cognitive effort of tracking content, tone and nuance rather than rushing to the next step in the agenda. When a facilitator listens actively, they accumulate a richer, more accurate picture of what the group is trying to make sense of. That picture shapes each subsequent question, process and intervention. It helps the facilitator remain close to the purpose while being responsive to the group’s real needs.

Perhaps most importantly, listening has a cumulative effect on trust. The 2023 meta analysis found that perceived listening is one of the strongest relational predictors in organisational life. People interpret good listening as a sign of respect. They feel seen rather than managed. Over time this strengthens the facilitator’s informal authority. Groups are more willing to follow processes, take risks and explore uncomfortable topics when they experience the facilitator as someone who truly attends to them. Listening becomes part of how facilitators earn the permission to guide, challenge and support the group.

These research findings reinforce a broader point. Attentive listening is not a soft skill. It is a deliberate practice that shapes group behaviour, supports clearer thinking and strengthens collaboration. It widens participation by giving quieter voices a way into the conversation. It calms intensity by helping people feel understood rather than dismissed. It reduces noise by allowing people to finish their own thoughts before reacting to others. All of this supports the facilitator’s work. It provides a more accurate understanding of the group, a stronger relational foundation and a clearer sense of where to intervene and where to stay silent.

In practice, this means cultivating listening habits that deepen presence rather than split attention. It means resisting the temptation to plan the next instruction while someone is still speaking. It means treating each contribution as data about the group’s experience rather than as a performance to evaluate. It means listening for nuance, for what is said and unsaid, and for how the room reacts. It also means being willing to hold silence long enough for the group to gather itself. Silence is often where the work happens.

Seven practices that help me stay attentive

  1. I slow my internal pace deliberately. Before each round of sharing or discussion, I take a breath and intentionally slow down. When my internal pace slows, my attention widens, and I hear more. It is a simple way of shifting from managing the session to being with the group.

  2. I clear my mind of other tasks before starting. Before I enter the room, I pause and write down any stray thoughts, to-dos or concerns. Getting them out of my head and onto paper frees up attention. It helps me arrive without mental clutter, so I can be fully present with the group rather than half-managing my own unfinished tasks.

  3. I treat each contribution as a clue, not a judgment. I remind myself that every comment carries information about the group’s experience. This keeps me curious rather than evaluative and prevents me from jumping to conclusions too quickly.

  4. I listen for patterns, not just points. Individuals provide content. Patterns provide insight. I pay attention to repeated phrases, shared metaphors, rising energy or sudden quietness because these often reveal what the group truly cares about.

  5. I paraphrase lightly to check my understanding. A short, clean paraphrase keeps me honest about what I have actually heard. It also reassures the speaker that their contribution has landed, which deepens trust and encourages further participation.

  6. I build silence into the rhythm. People think better when they have a moment to gather their thoughts. Brief pauses, reflective moments or silent writing exercises help the group speak with more clarity and give me more accurate information to work with.

  7. I use a simple mantra: listen… pause… think… respond. This comes from my coach training and has stayed with me. It counters the instinct to react quickly or fill space. The pause gives me time to consider what is really needed next and ensures my response is shaped by understanding rather than urgency.

Attentive listening, when practised with intention, becomes one of the quiet disciplines of facilitation. It steadies the work, strengthens the group and gives the facilitator a clearer path through complexity.

Reflections on observing the group and offering useful feedback

Some of the most important shifts in a facilitated session happen not because of a tool or a breakthrough insight, but because the group begins to see itself more clearly. Groups are often busy responding to content, solving problems or debating ideas, yet largely unaware of the patterns shaping their interaction. They may not notice who is carrying the conversation and who is silent, when energy rises or fades, or how assumptions and shortcuts quietly steer the discussion. Observing the group and offering useful feedback is about working with this invisible layer. But the most powerful version of this strand moves the spotlight away from the facilitator as the expert observer. It helps the group learn to observe itself.

This part of the competency sits at a natural intersection. It draws on the trust built through A1, the clarity of purpose from A2 and the communication discipline of C1, then invites the group to become a participant in its own development. It shifts feedback from something done to the group towards something done by the group. When groups learn to see their own behaviour, they become more capable of regulating themselves, more confident in adjusting course and more able to stay with difficult work without relying on the facilitator to interpret every moment.

There is a growing body of research on group learning, coaching, and collaborative problem-solving that supports this move. Studies on structured group reflection show that when people pause and notice what is happening in their interaction, they gain deeper understanding of both content and process. They begin to recognise previously hidden dynamics such as uneven participation, habitual interruptions, subtle withdrawal, collective avoidance or moments of genuine alignment. Research on peer and self-assessment in educational and organisational settings suggests that when groups evaluate their own process, they develop shared accountability, strengthen communication and widen trust. The settings differ, yet the principles translate well. When groups participate in observing themselves, they broaden ownership of the work and develop collective self-awareness that endures beyond the session.

The facilitator’s role in this strand is intentionally light. It is not to give a running commentary or to correct behaviour. It is to offer just enough observation to open a window for reflection, and then invite the group to look through that window together. Sometimes this takes the form of a simple, neutral comment: “I am noticing that we are hearing from the same few voices. What do the rest of you think?” At other times, it is a gentle naming of energy: “It feels like the room became quieter after that point. What is happening for you?” And occasionally it involves surfacing a tension: “There seems to be a pull between moving quickly and wanting more clarity. How should we work with that?” These interventions work not because the facilitator has the correct interpretation, but because they reconnect the group to its own experience. They create openings. They slow the pace enough for people to see what they are participating in. The aim is not precision. It is awareness.

A more participatory version of this work invites the group to offer feedback to itself directly. This can be done through small, simple structures: a short round asking “What are we noticing about how we are working together”, a quick plus-delta (“What is helping, what is making the work harder”), or a few minutes of silent writing before sharing themes. These small shifts change the dynamic. Instead of the facilitator holding the mirror, the group begins holding it for itself. This is where genuine maturity grows. People start naming patterns earlier. They notice what helps them work well. They experiment with adjustments. They develop the confidence to surface discomfort or confusion without waiting for the facilitator to do it for them.

Over time, these reflective practices build the group’s own capacity for self-observation. Groups become less dependent on external correction and more able to steer in real time. They adjust their approach midstream. They manage tension with more curiosity. They think more collectively and less competitively. Groups that can see themselves clearly move through complexity with greater coherence and less friction.

Psychological safety underpins all of this. Research in high-stakes environments shows that people engage most fully with feedback when it is respectful, grounded in shared purpose and framed descriptively rather than judgementally. Groups follow the same pattern. They are more willing to reflect when reflection feels like learning rather than evaluation, when differences are treated as information rather than threat and when the facilitator models curiosity rather than criticism.

This strand also depends on the facilitator’s presence. We need to be close enough to sense what matters, yet spacious enough to let the group do its own noticing. It requires disciplined neutrality. Observations are invitations, not verdicts. Reflections create choices, not instructions. The facilitator becomes a mirror rather than a commentator. When done well, the group sees itself more clearly without feeling managed or corrected.

I once worked with a cross-functional team in a technology firm preparing for a significant organisational shift. Early discussions were dominated by two strong voices framing the problem from opposing angles. Rather than intervening directly, we paused and asked a single question: “What are you noticing about how we are talking about this issue?” The room fell quiet. Someone said, “I think we are treating this as two separate problems and fighting for ours to be the main one.” Another added, “I can feel myself waiting to defend my view rather than listening.” The tone changed. The group moved from argument to reflection, from defending to noticing. The rest of the session unfolded with more balance, more curiosity and a clearer sense of shared purpose.

Observing and offering feedback is therefore not an external commentary. It is a practice of helping the group become aware of itself. When groups can see their own dynamics, they can shift them. When they can name what they are doing, they can choose what they do next. When they give themselves feedback, the work becomes more grounded, more honest and more sustainable.

This strand is quiet, but it is powerful. It turns the group from a collection of individuals into a learning system. It leaves them more capable than they arrived. And it deepens the facilitator’s core purpose: to help the group think well together.

Seven practices that help groups see themselves more clearly

1 – I invite noticing to begin in smaller circles. People often speak more honestly when the audience feels manageable. Whether they are already seated at tables or simply turning to one or two neighbours, smaller circles create enough safety for people to surface what they are really observing. Thoughts become clearer, quieter voices come forward, and insights feel shared rather than exposed. When those reflections feed back into the whole group, the feedback carries a collective tone rather than placing pressure on any individual.

2 – I frame observations as invitations, not judgements. When I offer something I have noticed, I keep it descriptive and open. “I am noticing that energy dipped after that last point. What is happening for you” is received very differently from “You all look disengaged.” The first invites curiosity. The second closes it down.

3 – I use neutral language that keeps the group in the centre. Instead of naming individuals, I speak in terms of patterns. “We seem to be moving quickly to solutions today” or “It feels as if we are circling the same idea” avoids blame and keeps the focus on collective behaviour. This makes it easier for the group to explore what is true without defensiveness.

4 – I create short, structured rounds for noticing. A simple prompt, answered one voice at a time, is often enough: “What is one thing you noticed about how we have been working in the last hour?” Rounds level the field, reduce interruptions and help people hear the diversity of experience in the room.

5 – I use natural break points for reflection. Just before lunch, before a short break or at the end of a block of work, I ask the group to pause and consider how they are working together. These transition moments already hold a natural exhale. Reflection fits easily into them and feels less like an interruption and more like a settling.

6 – I help the group turn reflection into small adjustments. After naming what they notice, I ask: “What one thing would help us work even better in the next block?” The group then chooses its own adjustment. These small commitments give feedback direction and help the group connect insight with action.

7 – I end the day with a dual question. One of my favourite coaching questions is: “What did we learn about the topic today, and what did we learn about how we worked together?” It helps the group distinguish between content and process and notice the interplay between them. Over time, this simple question builds a culture where reflecting on group behaviour becomes normal.

Reflections on using verbal communication with clarity and care

Facilitation is often described as the art of guiding groups through complex work, yet much of that guidance takes place in the most minor units of communication: a single question, a brief instruction or a well-placed summary. Words create the conditions for thinking. Tone shapes psychological safety. Pace influences how deeply people listen. When our verbal communication is clear, spacious and purposeful, people settle. When it is rushed, ambiguous or overly encoded with assumptions, the group works harder than it needs to.

This strand of the competency focuses on speaking in a way that supports participation rather than constraining it. It invites us to consider not only what we say but how we say it: the tempo, the cultural expectations embedded within the language, the subtle framing that shapes how people interpret what comes next. It is about clarity without bluntness, warmth without vagueness and precision without dominance. More than anything, it is about reducing noise so that the group can hear itself think.

International English: reducing friction for multilingual groups

Facilitators today often work in environments where English functions as a shared language rather than a native one. In these rooms, clarity becomes an act of inclusion. International English is not a formal standard, but a practical discipline. It involves speaking more slowly than we might naturally do, choosing concrete words over idioms, avoiding slang and sarcastic humour and reducing the cultural shortcuts that rely on shared assumptions.

This has been a very personal learning for me. I am Welsh, and I work extensively in both English and Spanish. In both languages, the natural cadence tends to be fast, relational and filled with expressions that make perfect sense locally but offer very little to an international audience. Early in my career, I realised that my natural pace and phrasing were simply too quick for multilingual groups. I had to slow down intentionally, use clearer intonation, breathe between ideas and create conscious pauses after instructions. These adjustments were not stylistic. They were part of learning to make my communication accessible to everyone in the room.

International English does not simplify the content. It simplifies the cognitive load required to participate. People who are processing in a second or third language often need a moment more to decode meaning. When facilitators honour this by offering clean, steady language, participation widens. Misunderstandings drop. Energy steadies. Groups become more confident in entering the conversation.

A few examples illustrate the difference:

Colloquial requests that can create friction

• “Right, let’s crack on and dive straight into it.”

• “Grab a mate and have a natter about what’s landing for you.”

• “Let’s park that and circle back.”

• “Just shout out whatever comes.”

• “Give me the gist.”

Clearer alternatives using International English

• “Let’s begin the next activity now.”

• “Please speak with the person next to you about your thoughts.”

• “We will return to that topic later. For now, we will move to the next step.”

• “Please speak one at a time so everyone can hear.”

• “Could you explain your idea in one or two sentences?”

These small shifts create large gains. They remove ambiguity, reduce cultural load and help everyone feel included.

Multicultural expectations: adapting to different communication norms

Clarity is not only about language. It is shaped by cultural expectations about how people speak, interrupt, disagree and offer feedback. Erin Meyer’s research is particularly helpful here. Cultures differ in whether communication tends towards directness or subtlety, whether meaning is explicit or implied, whether silence is comfortable or awkward and whether emotion is expressed openly or reservedly. These differences affect how groups participate, how they interpret instructions and how they respond to one another.

A facilitator working across cultures therefore needs to become a careful observer of how communication is landing. In some contexts, clear and direct instructions are welcomed and interpreted as efficient. In others, the same tone can feel abrupt or disrespectful. In some cultures, interruptions signal enthusiasm. In others, they signal dominance or disregard. What feels like a warm invitation in one setting can feel like pressure in another.

This does not mean that facilitators must adopt every cultural norm. It means we adapt enough to reduce friction. We speak with curiosity, not certainty. We check understanding rather than assume it. We signal safety around disagreement. We name when we are intentionally slowing down or removing idioms so that everyone understands why the communication feels different. When we work with cultural humility, the room relaxes. People sense that their ways of speaking and thinking are respected rather than judged.

Clean Language: inviting thinking without leading it

Alongside clarity and cultural sensitivity, facilitators also need a form of verbal neutrality. Clean Language, originally developed by David Grove and widely used in coaching, invites people to think more deeply without being directed towards a particular interpretation. The premise is simple: questions shape thinking. If a question contains an assumption, judgment or metaphor from the facilitator, it subtly constrains what the participant can say next. Clean Language questions minimise this contamination by staying close to the participant’s words.

In facilitation, Clean Language becomes particularly useful when groups are exploring complexity, managing tension or moving through moments of uncertainty. Instead of asking “Why did that create tension?”, which already interprets the moment, a cleaner question might be “What happened then?” or “What kind of tension was that?” or “What would you like to have happen next?” These questions provide structure without direction. They help the group stay with its own meaning rather than the facilitator’s assumptions.

Clean Language slows the pace just enough for deeper thinking to emerge. It also signals respect. It communicates that the facilitator is not trying to steer interpretation but to create space for discovery.

Seven practices that help me use verbal communication with clarity and care

1 – I begin with short, concrete instructions. Long explanations create confusion. A simple instruction, followed by a brief check for understanding, helps the group settle quickly.

2 – I consciously slow my pace in multilingual or bilingual settings. Working in English and Spanish has shown me how quickly both languages naturally flow. I slow down, enunciate clearly and create micro-pauses to support comprehension for all speakers.

3 – I choose International English when needed. I avoid idioms, slang, cultural references and compressed phrasing. These small changes reduce cognitive load and make participation easier.

4 – I consider cultural preferences for directness. Some groups respond well to explicit wording. Others prefer a softer approach. I adapt my tone to reduce friction and maintain trust.

5 – I use clean questions when the group needs more space. Neutral prompts such as “What happened next” or “What kind of X is that” help participants explore their own meaning rather than follow mine.

6 – I use light summaries to maintain shared understanding. A brief recap helps reduce drift, especially when multiple cultures or languages are represented.

7 – I allow silence to do part of the work. Silence supports reflection, gives multilingual participants time to process and helps more reflective thinkers enter the conversation with clarity.

Reflections on applying participatory processes that invite contribution

Participatory communication begins with the structures we choose. A process that relies only on open plenary discussion will usually amplify existing hierarchies and habits. The same people speak, the same dynamics repeat, and quieter voices are left on the edges. A process that includes small groups, paired work, moments of silent reflection and different ways of contributing gives more people more ways to enter the work. The facilitator’s task is to choose structures that match the purpose and the people in the room, then use them in ways that feel natural rather than forced.

In practice, this often means that less is more. It is tempting to reach for complex methods, detailed templates or visually impressive tools, especially when we want to demonstrate value. Yet the more complicated the process, the more attention it demands just to understand what to do. When participants are busy decoding instructions, they have less capacity left for the actual thinking. Simple rounds, clear pair questions, small table conversations, and short cycles of individual reflection followed by sharing are often enough. They require minimal explanation, carry low social risk and allow people to focus on what matters rather than how to use the tool.

Complexity is not wrong, but it comes with a cost. Over-designed processes can unintentionally exclude people who are less confident, less fluent in the working language or less familiar with facilitation methods. They can also feed the facilitator’s desire to “wow” the group rather than serve the group’s need for clarity. A useful question to ask ourselves is: what is the simplest structure that can hold this work. If a round will do, there may be no need for a seven-step framework. If a pair conversation will unlock honest reflection, we may not need a sophisticated canvas.

At the same time, applying participatory processes asks us to stretch beyond our comfort zone. Most facilitators carry a small set of favourite methods that feel familiar and safe. There is nothing wrong with this, but different groups and different purposes sometimes require different shapes. A team that is used to long discussion may benefit from visual mapping. A group that leans heavily on the most senior voices may need processes that begin in pairs or silent writing. Community groups may respond better to informal, story-based methods than to formal models. Expanding our repertoire allows us to meet these differences with more choice.

The stretch, however, is in service of the group, not of our reputation. Trying to impress participants with novelty can backfire when a simple structure would have been enough. The aim is not to show how many tools we know. The aim is to choose, with care, one process at a time that makes it easier for people to think together. When a method feels like a natural extension of the conversation, people lean in. When it feels like a performance, they step back.

Participatory processes are also a way of adjusting the rhythm of the day. Short reflective pauses help people gather their thoughts before speaking. Rounds slow down fast groups enough for more voices to be heard. Quick pair exchanges bring energy back when the room is fading. Small tables allow people to test their thinking before sharing in plenary. In this sense, processes are not only about who speaks. They are about how the group moves through the work.

Underneath all of this sits a simple test. Does this structure make it easier for more people to contribute with confidence and honesty? If the answer is yes, it is probably good enough. If the answer is no, no amount of complexity will rescue it. Participatory processes, chosen with this kind of care, become less about facilitation technique and more about hospitality. They are ways of welcoming people into the work so that the conversation belongs to the group, not only to the facilitator.

To support this kind of thoughtful design, it helps to have a few reliable places to explore, adapt and expand the methods we draw from. There are many places to explore participatory methods. Four that I return to often are:

Innovation Games (Web)

Innovation Games offers a set of participatory exercises designed to help groups explore priorities, reveal assumptions and co-create solutions. The methods use simple materials and light structure to draw people into active engagement, which makes them particularly useful when a group is stuck in familiar patterns of discussion. Many of the games create a visual, tangible way for participants to share perspectives without needing elaborate explanation. I find them helpful when I want to combine creativity with focus, or when a group needs a different way to see what really matters to them. The strength of Innovation Games lies in how naturally they invite contribution and how easily they can be adapted to different contexts. I personally certified in these methods nearly two decades ago and still use them today.

Gamestorming (Web)

Gamestorming began as a collection of innovation and problem-solving “games” used in creative and technology settings, but its value for facilitation is much broader. The methods are typically simple, visual and easy to adapt. Each activity is described with purpose, flow and tips, which makes it straightforward to see when it might fit. I find Gamestorming particularly useful when a group needs to generate ideas, reframe a stuck issue or see a problem from a different angle. The emphasis on playfulness, combined with clear structure, helps people move from abstraction to concrete shared understanding.

SessionLab Library (Web)

The SessionLab library is a large, searchable collection of facilitation methods, complete with estimated timings, step-by-step guidance and practical notes. What I appreciate most is how easy it is to filter by purpose, group size or type of activity. This helps keep the focus on what the group needs rather than on the tool’s novelty. Browsing the library is also a good way to stretch your repertoire without becoming overwhelmed. You can take one or two new methods, adapt them to your context and gradually expand your range of participatory processes in a grounded way.

Liberating Structures (Web)

Liberating Structures offers a set of microstructures designed to distribute participation and shift groups from passive listening into active contribution. Each structure has a simple, repeatable pattern and a clear purpose. Many facilitators find that a small handful of Liberating Structures, used well, can transform how a group engages with complex topics. I find them especially helpful when I need to ensure that everyone has a voice, that power dynamics are softened and that the conversation moves between divergence and convergence with a light touch. Their strength lies in their simplicity and the way they embody the principle that participation is a design choice, not a personality trait.

Seven practices that help me choose and embed participatory methods with care

1 – I begin with purpose, not tools: Before choosing any method, I ask what the group is really trying to achieve at this point: exploration, connection, sensemaking, alignment or decision. When the purpose is clear, the right structure often reveals itself. When the purpose is vague, methods become decoration rather than support.

2 – I choose the simplest process that can hold the work: I have learned that complexity rarely increases participation. Simple rounds, pairs, silent reflection or small tables often do more than the most elaborate frameworks. If a method requires too much explanation, the group will focus on the instructions rather than the work.

3 – I think about social risk as much as intellectual demand – Participatory processes must feel safe enough for people to enter them honestly. I pay attention to whether a group needs low-risk openings (pairs, silent thinking) or is ready for higher-trust activities. The match between emotional readiness and method is often what determines depth.

4 – I design the rhythm of the day, not just the activities: The flow between methods matters as much as the methods themselves. I mix energy and stillness, small groups and plenary, individual reflection and shared sensemaking. Smooth transitions help people stay grounded rather than feeling bounced between disconnected activities.

5 – I adapt familiar methods rather than reinventing the day: I have a handful of processes I know well, but I vary the framing, the timing or the materials to fit the group in front of me. This gives participants clarity while giving me the flexibility to respond to the room. Familiarity used with intention often beats novelty used for effect.

6 – I test the instructions against real humans, not my idealised plan: Before introducing a method, I speak the instructions aloud and edit them until they are clean, short and free of jargon. If I hesitate or get lost, participants will too. Clear instructions reduce anxiety and allow people to engage the moment the process begins.

7 – I watch closely and adjust lightly: Once a method is underway, I move around the room and listen for how it is landing. If the group is confused, I clarify. If energy is high, I extend time. If people are stuck, I add a gentle prompt. Processes are living structures, not fixed scripts. The adjustment is often tiny but transformative.

The payoff

When you communicate with clarity and care, you are doing more than giving instructions. You are shaping the conditions in which people think, speak and listen. The room becomes steadier, the pace calmer and the work more grounded. People feel safe enough to contribute honestly and confident enough to stay with complexity.

Clear, culturally aware language reduces friction and frees participants from having to decode the facilitator. Clean questions create space for deeper thinking. Neutral phrasing lowers defensiveness. Silence supports reflection. Together, these elements widen participation and strengthen the quality of dialogue.

The shift is subtle but powerful. Misunderstandings fall away. Listening improves. The group becomes more capable of regulating itself. Trust grows because communication feels respectful and accessible to everyone.

The payoff is that the conversation becomes a place where people can think well together and make decisions with confidence. Thoughtful communication turns facilitation from the management of talk into the stewardship of understanding.

 

Frequently Asked Questions about IAF Core Competency C1: Demonstrate Effective Participatory and Interpersonal Communication Skills

1. What does C1 actually cover?

C1 focuses on the interpersonal communication behaviours that make participation possible. It includes using clear and accessible verbal communication, applying participatory processes that invite contribution, developing rapport that helps people feel at ease, listening attentively and offering feedback that supports group awareness. It highlights that facilitation is not only about tools and structure. It is about the quality of interaction that happens within them.

2. What does “applying participatory processes” mean in practice?

Participatory processes are methods that shift the group from listening to one voice towards contributing as a collective. This includes rounds, small-group dialogues, pair conversations, structured decision-making tools and reflective prompts. These methods widen participation, create psychological safety and help quieter or more reflective voices enter the conversation. The key is not to use many tools, but to use the right structure for the purpose: exploration, alignment or decision.

3. How can participatory processes support diverse groups?

Structured participation reduces the influence of hierarchy, language fluency and cultural styles. When everyone knows they will have a turn, or when thinking begins in pairs rather than the plenary, people relax. Pair work supports those with lower language proficiency. Rounds prevent dominant voices from overtaking the session. Silent reflection creates equity for neurodiverse thinkers. Participatory processes are therefore not only methods. They are inclusion mechanisms.

4. How do facilitators develop rapport with participants?

Rapport is created through tone, pacing, attentiveness and genuine interest. It emerges when facilitators listen more than they speak, speak clearly without rushing and respond in ways that show understanding rather than evaluation. Rapport grows when the facilitator notices the group’s emotional cues, adapts to cultural norms, treats contributions generously and maintains a calm, predictable presence. Rapport is not friendliness. It is a sense of relational steadiness that helps people feel safe enough to contribute honestly.

5. What is the most common mistake facilitators make in verbal communication?

The most frequent mistake is speaking too quickly or too densely, especially in multilingual settings. Facilitators often compress instructions, add unnecessary detail or use idioms that confuse the group. Another common mistake is assuming participation will happen naturally without offering structure. Clarity and structure are not constraints. They are support systems that help everyone join the work.

6. Why is a more “International English” so helpful in global groups?

International English removes friction by avoiding idioms, slang, compressed metaphors and culturally specific references. It involves slowing the pace slightly, using simple sentence structures and leaving space for processing. This approach supports people working in their second or third language, reduces cognitive load and makes instructions more accessible. It is not about simplifying content. It is about making participation possible.

7. How does culture influence communication in a facilitated session?

Different cultures vary in their expectations around directness, silence, interruption and disagreement. These differences affect how instructions are heard, how contributions are made and how feedback is interpreted. Cultural awareness helps facilitators adapt tone and pacing so communication feels respectful rather than abrupt or vague. When facilitators adjust to cultural norms, the group experiences more ease and engagement.

8. How do neutral questions support clearer communication?

Neutral questions help groups think more clearly because they avoid leading, judging or narrowing the conversation. When facilitators ask questions that do not imply a right answer or a preferred direction, participants feel more able to express their real views. Neutral questions also slow the pace just enough for people to reflect before responding, which reduces defensiveness and encourages more honest contributions. In complex or emotionally charged moments, a simple, open question often creates more progress than a detailed or interpretive one because it allows the group to stay with its own meaning rather than the facilitator’s assumptions.

9. How does listening contribute to stronger participation?

Attentive listening helps facilitators time their interventions, check whether instructions have landed and sense when the energy shifts. Research shows that listening increases trust and strengthens rapport. When participants feel heard, they contribute more willingly and take more relational risk. Listening also helps facilitators adjust the pace so communication supports the group rather than overwhelms it.

10. How can facilitators ensure instructions have landed without embarrassing participants?

Gentle checking works best. Asking “What will you do first in your groups?” or “What did you hear in that instruction?” allows the facilitator to confirm understanding without testing anyone. Walking the room, physically or online, also reveals whether people look confident, stuck or uncertain. These small checks prevent confusion early and support participants who may hesitate to ask publicly.

 

Do you have tips that help you communicate clearly in diverse groups?

What participatory processes have widened contribution in your sessions?

How do you build rapport that feels steady rather than performative?

Thanks for reading!