In this episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast, host Douglas Ferguson speaks with facilitation experts Tammy Shubat and Robin Cory, both Voltage Control certification alumni. Tammy shares her journey from leadership to facilitation, focusing on relationship-building and creating safe spaces for bold participation. Robin discusses her facilitation approach, inspired by Tammy, and emphasizes thoughtful session design to foster engagement and creativity. Together, they explore the challenges and opportunities in the nonprofit sector, highlighting the importance of collaboration, purposeful gatherings, and centering relationships to drive meaningful change within mission-driven organizations.

Show Highlights

[00:01:33] First Sparks of Facilitation
[00:06:42] Tools, Techniques, and Intuition
[00:10:30] “Wreck and Rebuild” and Improv Activities
[00:13:54] Designing for Bold Thinking
[00:21:14] Honoring People and Setting the Stage
[00:25:44] Warming Up for Bold Participation
[00:28:38] Head vs. Heart: Actions and Connections
[00:34:09] Future Challenges: Collaboration and Collective Impact

Links | Resources

Tammy on Linkedin

Robin on Linkedin

About the Guest

Tammy has worked in health promotion and education for more than 22 years, and specifically for the last 17 years with Ophea, advancing health and well-being in Ontario schools. Currently in the Director of Partnerships and Public Affairs role, Tammy aligns provincial and national partners, business development opportunities, and strategic objectives for Ophea, and for the sector at large. With a practice in grounded in social justice and anti-oppressive approaches in education, Tammy is a proud member of the 2SLGBTQ community, an advocate, and a mum.

Robin Cory is a strategist, facilitator, and coach dedicated to turning bold ideas into meaningful action. With over 20 years of experience, Robin has worked alongside non-profits, foundations, and collaboratives across Canada to sharpen their strategies and deepen their impact.  

About Voltage Control

Voltage Control is a facilitation academy that develops leaders through certifications, workshops, and organizational coaching focused on facilitation mastery, innovation, and play. Today’s leaders are confronted with unprecedented uncertainty and complex change. Navigating this uncertainty requires a systemic facilitative approach to gain clarity and chart pathways forward. We prepare today’s leaders for now and what’s next.

Subscribe to Podcast

Engage Control The Room

Voltage Control on the Web
Contact Voltage Control

Transcript

Douglas:

Hi, I’m Douglas Ferguson. Welcome to the Facilitation Lab podcast where I speak with Voltage Control certification alumni and other facilitation experts about the remarkable impact they’re making. We embrace a method agnostic approach so you can enjoy a wide range of topics and perspectives as we examine all the nuances of enabling meaningful group experiences. This series is dedicated to helping you navigate the realities of facilitating collaboration, ensuring every session you lead becomes truly transformative. Thanks so much for listening. If you’d like to join us for a live session sometime, you can join our Facilitation lab community. It’s an ideal space to apply what you learn in the podcast in real time with peers.

Sign up today at voltagecontrol.com/facilitation-lab and if you’d like to learn more about our 12-week facilitation certification program, you can read about it at voltagecontrol.com. Today I’m with Tammy Shubat and Robin Cory. Tammy is at Ophea where she facilitates and enables partnerships and public affairs for the organization and for the education sector more broadly to advance the health and well-being of kids in schools across the province of Ontario. Robin leads a strategy and facilitation practice that helps mission-driven organizations at pivotal moments gain strategic clarity, make powerful decisions, and take bold action. Welcome to the show.

Robin:

It’s such a treat to be here. Thanks, Douglas.

Tammy:

So happy to be here with you both.

Douglas:

Yeah, it’s a treat for me too because I usually don’t have two people on at the same time. So I get two alumni in the room with me today. I’m so excited to dive in with both of you, to hear both your stories and it’s an intertwined story because you work so closely together. You do a lot together, so it’ll be inspiring to hear how you collaborate. So let’s start at the beginning. Could you each share the moment of facilitation that first caught your attention?

Robin:

My mother was really a born facilitator. As a child, I got to witness her in lots of community settings, whether it was advocating for a new school in our neighborhood or leading community meetings or door-to-door fundraising. So I really saw her in action and left me really inspired. And as I went through school, high school in particular, I gravitated towards roles where I got to lead groups and influence people and work in teams and it really gave me a buzz. And I’ve since then continued through university and through jobs to be leaning into that passion.

Tammy:

I love that, Robin. I feel like I would’ve probably in my earlier life self-identified as a leader, but maybe not as a facilitator. And I think probably my spark was probably seeing you facilitate for the first time when you came to Ophea about 10 years ago to sort lead that initial strategy exercise. I remember just being so taken by your approaches and how you engaged people and how far you sort of pushed the questions that you were sort of asking us. And so I would say you were my spark to the practice of facilitation as something that I wanted to maybe embed in my own practice in some way.

Robin:

And our kind of journey together has been such a fun one. And it’s so interesting to hear you reflect on that because really today we operate as peers and spend so much time co-facilitating that it’s hard to even imagine that you are inspired by me, because I’m so very inspired by you in many, many ways.

Douglas:

Tammy, in your alumni story, you mentioned previously identifying more as a leader versus a facilitator. Oftentimes, I’ve seen that come down to how language and vocabulary influence how we self-identify. When you reflect back to those days of just having that lens of leadership, how much of what you were already doing was rooted in some of these beliefs and philosophies that we now hold dearly in facilitation?

Tammy:

It’s a great question, Douglas, and I wish I could be kinder to myself because I’ll be honest and say I think my, I really loved in my earlier days, having the room and having the space and I always thought I had something so great to say. And I remember even thinking to myself, “I can’t wait for this person to stop talking so I can say what I have to say because it’s so much better than what that person has to say.” So I think it’s actually taken a fair bit of growth in my own learning trajectory to see my role differently, which is perhaps less as the contributor or the most powerful voice in the room, but rather as the person who has the ability to perhaps tease out a variety of perspectives that can enrich the conversation in a more full way. So I would say my early days were not exemplary. They were perhaps great ground for learning though. And I’m sure a few people put me in my place, which is wonderful and has gotten me to maybe where I am now.

Robin:

Admittedly, I can relate to that feeling certainly. And I also think, Tammy, when I think about you in a room, what I think is actually such a powerful part of the way that you facilitate is that you hold the space and you invite people’s contribution in such a sort of warm and welcoming and inclusive way, but at the same time, you actually aren’t afraid to assert a point of view. And I think sometimes in facilitation it’s this dance between really creating space for others but also offering perspectives and questions and ideas that are going to move the conversation forward. And I feel like you do that selectively and intentionally and it really does indeed, I think move the conversation forward.

Tammy:

Thank you for that. And I love that point in the sense that I think the idea of a neutral facilitator is false. None of us are. And actually in fact, even if we’re pretending to really just facilitate the voices in the room, we’ve designed the facilitation, you obviously have a desired outcome. So I think I appreciate that and I think I appreciate that perspective around the dance that that is. And so how do you strike that sort of balance in the spaces that you create versus where you may be contributing more pointedly?

Douglas:

That makes me curious, do you have tools and techniques that you rely on or is it intuition that enables that? What’s helping you determine when to step back or when to step forward? When is my opinion valuable to the group? When is it disruptive?

Tammy:

I love that question. So there’s a lot of intuition in how I would operate for sure, but I think I’m always watching for cues and I think for those, for what you’ve just articulated, I tend to prefer in-person facilitation because it allows me to read the room in a really different way than in a virtual facilitation. So in an in-person facilitation, I’m always watching body language, where people are sitting, where they’re looking, if they’re having sidebar conversations, those are all cues to me around somebody in this room has something to say or there’s this underlying feeling of dis-ease.

And so how might I pose a question that allows folks to bubble up what it is might be going on under the surface? I think I struggle a bit more with that with virtual facilitation because I think people use so many tools differently, like the mute function or they’ll go off-screen or I think the strategies for engagement I haven’t fully maybe figured out, but I’m trying to. But yeah, but there’s a fair bit of intuition there in terms of when I might inject my perspective. I don’t know, Robin, how you feel that.

Robin:

Yeah, something I’ve seen you do and I think I try to do as well is potentially frame up a hypothesis. “So based on everything that I’m hearing, it feels like where you are leaning is this.” Or, “Based on everything I understand and know about your organization and your context or your team, it strikes me that Y would be a really healthy and effective path forward.” Let’s say. And then it at least creates that opening for them to say, “Actually, no.” So it’s a hypothesis they can react to or get the feeling of, “Absolutely, yes.” And then that sometimes helps to just move the conversation to the next level. We actually don’t have anything that we need to discuss anymore, we’re actually aligned and clear.

Tammy:

I love when you do that session-effective approach.

Douglas:

Do you recall a time when that happened recently?

Robin:

It’s funny, as Tammy was talking, I was thinking about a session I had yesterday, and actually I don’t think it was the best version of this, but it was an attempt to do this and I think it yielded the results I wanted, but I sometimes think the risk is, so what happened yesterday in this conversation I was leading was that I felt like there was a point of alignment where I was trying to distinguish between in my work what an organization might think of as their ultimate impact, which is kind of that big lofty goal they’re driving towards, but they’re not likely to be able to hold themselves accountable for it, and hunger and homelessness, that kind of thing. Versus the intended impact, so what are the things that they can directly contribute to and hold themselves accountable to or for?

And in this moment yesterday I kind of declared, like I said, “I think we can all agree that your organization is not likely to drive or be able to hold yourself accountable to this particular ultimate impact, so let’s talk about what you can hold yourself accountable to.” And they pushed back actually and said, “That’s actually not our operating assumption. We do believe that we can contribute meaningfully to that ultimate goal as big and lofty as it might be.” And that was really helpful for me to hear. It wasn’t a point at which I was going to agree or disagree with that, but it actually really was an important thing for me to know about how that organization relates to that particular goal.

Douglas:

That reminds me of a powerful technique, posing the wrong answer or a prototype for folks to respond to. Oftentimes, if I have a thought, I like to couch it in, “This is probably wrong, but what do you think about it?” Because it makes it safe for them to tear it apart or let them go, “Actually, yeah, that does make sense.”

Tammy:

Totally.

Robin:

Yeah, yeah. Or, “This is here for you to wreck and rebuild.” My partner, Margot loves to say that and I adopt that as well. And that really gives people freedom. Usually they’re like, “No, no, no, we don’t need to fully wreck and rebuild.” But then you can kind of dial back and say, “But we could tweak or change these few things.” And giving people permission to do that I think does create an opening.

Douglas:

Wow, that wrecking and rebuilding is making me think about. Fortunately, an activity that was used as a closer for a recent facilitation lab facilitated by Lori Wilson, also known as fortunately, unfortunately. Unfortunately We is an improv game where participants take turns creating the story together, alternating between positive and negative developments. The first person starts by describing a fortunate event, beginning with the word fortunately, we, the next person follows up with something unfortunately, kind of tearing down the previous thing, starting with unfortunately, then it goes back to fortunately and so on. It’s quick, playful, and challenges everyone to think creatively and stay present.

Robin:

Yeah.

Tammy:

That’s cool.

Robin:

That’s a good one. I really like that. It reminds me a little bit of the pre-mortem where you start with all the things that could go wrong at the beginning of a process as opposed to waiting for the post-mortem at the end of a process. And I think it reveals similar things of how do we preempt or potentially avoid certain things from happening? How do we lay the track or put the conditions in place for this to really be successful?

Tammy:

I think, and even just in both of those examples, sorry, it opens up space for, it is precisely what you folks said around giving people permission to participate in that way where we’re not going to tiptoe around the issues. We will give ourselves permission to actually boldly engage with what we’re going to talk about today or participate and be able to take that risk. So I love that.

Douglas:

Let’s further explore this idea of taking bold risks. What are some of your other favorite ways of doing that?

Tammy:

We talked a little bit about this morning, Robin. It makes me think about maybe just style. I think maybe we set the stage differently, but I think sometimes for me it’s about relationship building with people in the room first to allow for that. So if I’m, for example, facilitating in a space that might have folks with different levels of power within an organization, or the board is there with the staff, and so we’re trying to create something collaborative off the top where they’re able to work together.

So in a recent facilitation that Robin and I did together, we did something arts-based at the beginning. That seemed like a little bit fluffy, but for a lot of the more junior staff who were in the room, they really valued that as a beginning point. It allowed them to become more comfortable in the space and to open up on something that was, I’m going to say maybe lower risk in the moment, but allowed them to take more risks later on during the day. So I think that’s one of the ways. I think Robin, you do a really good job often, perhaps maybe less so with an activity, but more around what are the conditions for participation today. But go ahead.

Robin:

Yeah, no, I agree. I think doing that early work to set the table so that people feel like it is a space where you can be bold and sometimes the boldness comes out of the messiness and the friction, and so how do you make sure that there’s freedom to imagine and to dream. And we used, actually it was in terms of the cascade in that particular session’s design, Tammy did a beautiful job actually in the morning with this particular exercise. It was called Pionki, and it was this really cool thing that they built that looked like a spider. It kind of looked like a mobile if you picture hanging from a crib. And it’s, I think you said a Polish word, and it’s all about harmony and good fortune and interconnecting this with people. And so everybody kind of built their strand of this Pionki as a group and then they had to assemble it. So it actually hung together and worked.

And I thought that was really powerful, because it did let people see where they were coming from and they actually had to discuss something related to the strategy and related to something that they were connected to around Ophea’s work and Ophea’s strategy. As the day followed, we spent some time talking about the context and some of the conditions that might be standing in the way of some of the kinds of outcomes that Ophea is driving toward. And then we actually ended the day, so back to your question, Douglas, about bold, how do you set the stage for people to think boldly? We actually used the deflection point exercise that I learned as a part of the Voltage Control program that allowed people to first start talking about with Ophea’s plans as they’ve been laid, what would be the status quo outcomes? What do they think they could achieve if they continued on the path that they’re on?

Then we talked about what does the bold path look like? So what if you were to times 10 your impact? What if you were to take audacious and transformative steps towards even greater impact? What would that look like? And then we talked about the rockets and the anchors. So what are those things, the rockets that are going to kind of propel you towards the bold path and what are the anchors that have the risk of pulling you down to status quo? And we’re really at the early stages of a strategic planning process with Ophea. So I thought it gave us some really good fodder for what boldness could look like and help us kind of calibrate where people’s thinking are right now. And in some cases we’re going to need to push them further, and in some cases we’re going to be able to, I think, lean into some of the things that people surfaced. Is that fair, Tammy?

Tammy:

Totally. And I think I want give you your flowers for how thoughtfully you designed that particular activity because I think that could be a quick sort of somewhat mechanical activity. But I think Robin put a lot of thought into the design and the questions that would support people in really identifying what truly were some of those bolder opportunities and what actually might hold people back. And I think and really played it, we played it out a fair bit before actually moving into the facilitation. Like, how might people answer this question and how will this sort of play out in the broader facilitation? And I think we were able to sort of stick with that activity for quite a long time and I feel like it really unlocked some of the bigger opportunities and maybe some of the bigger barriers that we’ll face in trying to get there. So it was really powerful.

Douglas:

Robin, hearing her talk about how you just didn’t throw the structure at them has reminded me of your alumni story and how you shared your intention of transitioning from relying on structure to navigating complex dynamics with more ease. I’m hearing that you thought about the people, the questions, and the prompts you need to get the desired reaction. It seems like you’re actually leaning into those dynamics a little more rather than just throwing the structure out there.

Robin:

Yeah, yeah. And that’s part of, I think one of the things that is so helpful about having a co-facilitator, even though Tammy in this case was the client and sort of hired me to do this work, we’ve done so much co-facilitation in the past I think, and Tammy brings that skillset that usually when I’m doing things with her organization, we are co-facilitating it. And so I think that sometimes if I don’t have a Tammy, I do have to kind of just go in on faith and trust that the exercise is going to work well. But what’s nice is the thought partnership of being able to sort of, as Tammy said, sort of test what could this look like with your crowd? How do we think people might answer this? What are some of the things that might come up that I wouldn’t expect? And going into rooms, I do like to have that preview wherever possible of what could happen and how I might be able to get ahead of that.

Tammy:

I think that’s one of your greatest strengths as a facilitator, Robin. I think it’s what you bring to the facilitation process. As someone who’s worked with you for a really long time, I would say there are a lot of folks who have tools and who can just throw a tool out there and facilitate. But I think the thought that Robin puts into the design in advance really is one of her greatest strengths as a facilitator. Because I think I’ve worked with many facilitators who will just sort of throw tools or throw canned exercises into a room based on what they think might be a standard process or a standard outcome that groups are trying to achieve.

But I think the way in which Robin tries to understand context and how a particular question might land with a group of people really brings that extra added value, because when she plays that out and then we actually bring it to the space and it does land in a particular way, it can be really transformational for a group of people versus just what folks might just mechanically go through an exercise. It’s a tremendous value that she brings to that process for sure. I often joke with my colleagues, it’s never easy to work with Robin. It feels like… No, I mean that in a loving way. I’m not looking for easy. It’s like she pushes you and pushes you and asks that next question and, “What if we think about it this way? And what if we think about it that way?” And twists the whole thing up to then move us through what will be a better experience? It’s absolutely worth it, but it’s not easy and that’s a good thing.

Robin:

I still remember when we were planning for last week’s session, we were at a cafe, actually, Douglas, when we were planning it, and Tammy looked at me and she said, “I’m done.”

Douglas:

Tapping out.

Robin:

“I think we got it. I think we got it.”

Douglas:

That’s so good.

Robin:

I do kind of really get into it. Yeah, but I tend to work with partners and clients that are kind of up for it and Tammy most certainly is.

Douglas:

Great point, Tammy. You’re throwing accolades at Robin for bringing this attention and care to what might surface in the room. It’s also important to acknowledge the fact that you value it and you’re embracing and encouraging it and you’re able to articulate insights on the team. There’s a lot of leaders that facilitators might go to and ask the same questions, try to get the same stuff, and either they don’t value it or they don’t have the right observational tendencies or abilities to be able to reflect the important stuff back. And it’s a real gift to have to collaborate with partners like this that can help point out some of the things so that we don’t have to just guess or totally just tune our radar into the moment without any prior knowledge.

Robin:

Yeah, totally. I want to give an example actually, because I think hopefully for listeners, some of the facilitation examples are instructive, but in this particular session just because it was so recent, it’s top of mind. When we talk about the way we set the stage for being able to have people feel connected, in addition to doing that exercise, the art exercise, the other thing that Tammy actually built into the session was that there were two staff members that were hitting their 15 year anniversaries with the organization. And it was a strategy conversation, it was a board staff retreat, but she felt like it was a good moment to actually honor these two staff members.

And so I’ve been to lots of anniversary celebrations of people that hit milestones in workplaces, and this was very unique. What they had actually done was they had, for each of the people had put up on the wall, what’s their catchphrase? What was their core values? What were their favorite places? What were their favorite foods? What were their favorite expressions? And that was all up there as Tammy and other people were kind of saying, acknowledging things right down to if this person were a mascot for the organization, what animal would they be? And what about the fox or what about the raccoon represents them? And admittedly, I was listening, I’m like, “This is long.”

And Tammy knows that I’m all about, “We got 10 minutes. We got 10 minutes.” But I sort of obviously pulled myself back and I thought, “My God, how beautiful is this moment? And how honored do these people feel? And how rare is it to really deeply acknowledge people who have contributed so many years and so much to an organization and have them be seen and appreciated in front of all the people they probably care most about?” This was the board of the organization, this was the full staff of the organization. So really hats off to you, Tammy, because those are the things that I know we didn’t even talk about it in the debrief, but that I think really made for the kind of environment that then enabled us to get to where we got to.

Tammy:

Thank you. I appreciate that so much. I think, and we’ve talked a little bit about this, one of my biggest drivers, or maybe one of my core values is how people feel. How people feel, and also to have people feel something as a result of something that we go through together. And I think whenever there’s a moment, and even if it’s a longer moment, to embed that, I actually think it goes a long way in the rest of the day. So I’m happy to spend the time there. But yeah, thank you. I’ll find your mascot animal, Robin, next time I’ll identify your mascot animal for you.

Robin:

I was hoping, I was hoping.

Tammy:

It’s coming.

Douglas:

Tammy, in your alumni story, you mentioned letting go of control and learning to be present. I’m curious, how’s that journey going and how did it impact how you showed up at this recent session?

Tammy:

That’s a great question. I think I will say that’s a lifelong journey for someone like me, Douglas.

Douglas:

Of course.

Tammy:

I’m an A type personality who enjoys a tremendous amount of control, and I think that’s why I like being front of room, because I’m not at the mercy of how other people are going to run a show. I feel like Robin’s probably the only person I trusted to run a room with. But I think in recent years I’ve had a lot of positive experiences in, I would say more collaborative approaches that leave a little bit to chance because I think there’s always a way to sort of steer it from the sides rather than the center, if that makes sense. So I think in this particular example of this day and that arts-based activity, I didn’t realize how worried I was about how that was going to go or not go.

I spent a stupid amount of time getting materials ready, thinking about how people were going to thread their stories together, thinking about all these little elements for what was really just an introductory activity. I probably spent more time there than I should have, but I think it was because I was leaving so much up to chance in that moment, in that particular activity in the room. And it could have flopped, they could have not been able to pull it off. They could have not wanted to engage, but it didn’t. And I think there’s perhaps a whole bunch of reasons for that. And also we just have a good bunch of people who are willing to take a risk. But to some degree, maybe some of those conversations and the staff accolades and stuff at the beginning maybe set the tone for a space of low enough risk that it was a space of care that we were in.

Robin:

Yeah.

Douglas:

You talked earlier about using art and getting people comfortable and preparing them to be bold. That got me to thinking about how singers will warm up their voices. If they just start to show up and then just start seeing immediately, they might damage their voice or they might just not be ready or capable of doing the things they might demand of their vocal cords. And it’s these transformations and change that takes time and care. And so asking people to be bold and innovative or just behave in ways that aren’t asked to day in, day out is hard without a transformation or a transition.

Robin:

Yeah, it’s funny, I was thinking of a quote that I actually wrote down that Eric, I think it was Eric who said during the Voltage Control training, and he drew it from psychological safety, it sounds like sort of pedagogy. And the quote was, “You need to decrease social friction to increase intellectual friction.” And I think there’s something there about the way in which Tammy’s oriented to forming connections that, and we’ve joked before about Tammy maybe being more the heart and me being more the head. Although I don’t think, I think there’s a strong overlap in our Venn diagrams on that. But I do really try to channel that in designing sessions so that you’re really having people feel connected socially and connected to each other so that we can have sometimes really tough conversations intellectually. And I don’t know if that directly answers your question, but that’s what was sort of sparked for me when you were asking it.

Tammy:

And if I were to maybe amplify that, I would say I think we’re, even if I think about facilitating five or six years ago or in a pre-pandemic context, I think that the world is a bit of a different place now, and I think this desire or need for connectivity is greater maybe than it was before. I think people are increasingly disconnected. People work in their remote work environments, they’re largely connecting online. Sometimes we’re bringing them together in a room and we expect this muscle that they used to have to be ready to go, and it’s not actually.

And so I actually do think it is worthwhile taking a little bit more time in the upfront to set the conditions for everyone to be able to be present and be in the room and contribute in the way that we’re hoping that they will. And I think they crave it, but I don’t think they know how quite, I think. And I notice that there are some generational differences in that as well, there are identity-based differences in how people are able to show up. But I do think now more than ever, there’s a need for us as facilitators to sort of zoom in on that maybe as part of our practice.

Robin:

Yeah. And we didn’t actually say the heart and the head. We talked about people feeling a focus on you, sort of focusing more on connections and me focusing more on actions and decisions. And I think that there is, just apropos to what you just said about the lack of people being physically together, is that I’m finding there’s a lot more work you got to do to get people to the point of making decisions and taking action because they’re not, to your point, doing that, engaging with each other in the same ways with the same regularity and sometimes not about tougher things. So because you’re a box on a screen, you’re just not going to put the energy often into disagreeing.

It’s like, I’ll just be okay with that, or I’ll go off-screen and deal with it elsewhere. Versus when you’re in spaces live, there’s just more friction that happens, like healthy friction and you work that muscle of working through it. So I think as facilitators, it puts more of an onus on investing the time and energy in doing some of that. And I have to hold back my desire to quickly get to decisions and actions and do more of that, making sure the ground is fertile for that.

Tammy:

If I were to give a nod to one, I’m going to say approach that really helped me during the cert was the e-learning course on a narrative futures design. And so I think that’s an approach that has served me as a facilitator, I think, in thinking about this moment and the disconnection that folks are experiencing. And it really opens up the space to dream in a way that perhaps other approaches haven’t. And so I’ve really enjoyed utilizing that, especially if we’re doing sort of forward-thinking work and as opposed to designing to solve a problem. Let’s imagine the desired state, not with all of the obstacles or barriers sort of discourse that we would typically use when we facilitate. So I think that is one particular approach that supports dreaming and connection and these sort of approaches that I think really serve having people show up in a space in a particular way.

Robin:

And Tammy, you said, I remember after because that was one of the electives in our Voltage Control course, and I remember afterwards you were saying that you’ve been finding it particularly effective with young people.

Tammy:

Yeah, yeah, because I think if we think about generational impacts of the pandemic or even just sort of where we’re at in the world, I think there’s certain generations of young people that you speak to that maybe don’t dream or that possibility of dreaming has sort of gone away. The perception of the future is not so great, but if you ask them to, they’re very capable, but I think no one’s asking them to. They’re always caught in these conversations about these really dire social issues or these moments that we’re in as opposed to how might we dream or imagine the world that we want to be in and contributing to.

Robin:

Yeah, and one of the things I know that has resonated both with Tammy and me that came out of our Voltage Control conversations and training is this idea of the spaces we create being these temporary worlds, I think is how you all talk about it. And so to that point about dreaming, we have the privilege as facilitators to be able to create this world, this space where people can do things that they don’t do outside of the room. And if we do it well, that creates an opening for people to connect in different ways, to think together in different ways, to potentially lead to different kinds of results than they can have. And the practice of operating in this temporary space potentially in new ways, maybe more creative, maybe more silly, maybe more vulnerable ways can then carry over if we do it well into other environments.

And I think that what I’m finding in this moment, particularly working in the nonprofit sector where the virtual work has remained, I think more so than in corporate settings where people are going back to work more days of the week, I’m finding that the moments where I get the opportunity to lead staff sessions or bring teams together around strategy conversations are some of the rarest in-person moments they have. They’re just precious moments. And so I feel like there’s a privilege, but there’s also responsibility in making sure with these rare moments where people are together in the same room, that we’re not just checking the box around, have we come up with the right strategic priorities? But we’re really maximizing that time to, usually organizations have lots of different goals that they’re packing in to what they want to achieve in a single day or a single retreat.

Tammy:

What I tend to try to do with that one, Robin, just around this idea of this temporary world that we’ve created is if I’ve intentionally sort of done that at the beginning, I always try to end with what of this world would you like to take forward with you in your day to day? Because I think although these moments are rare, I would like for that way of being or existing or engaging to be less rare for folks. So what is it of what we created in that moment that they would like to embed in their practice or in their regular meetings or in their day-to-day? Because I think that is the culture shifting stuff that an individual touch point can sort of have in the future.

Robin:

What a great prompt. I love that.

Douglas:

Let’s point our attention toward the future and hear about the challenges and opportunities you’re most energized to take on.

Robin:

I think that the challenge that I am probably, as Tammy knows, spending the most time thinking about, is really about how to more intentionally, maybe more creatively, maybe more effectively be able to bring multiple stakeholders, organizations, groups together that can align around shared goals and need to really chart a course towards achieving them. And I think in this moment there, we kind of had a heyday of collective impact a decade ago where I think people really were drawing from and leaning on that pedagogy. And I feel like there’s still collaborative work, there’s still collective work, but I feel like there isn’t as much as is needed to address the complex issues that we face.

And I’m really clear we’re not going to solve some of the big intractable things that we’re, or seemingly intractable things that we’re faced with on any dimension, homelessness, climate, food insecurity, all the things that organizations I work with deal with one organizational strategy at a time. It’s just not going to happen. And so the interplay between different players is what gets me really excited. And how do you create those spaces for innovative thinking and dialogue and alignment around them? So I’m looking for opportunities to do more of that and organizations that want to sort of be together in a sandbox to try on some different ways of working together.

Tammy:

And I think if I were to piggyback off of that, Robin, because we’ve chatted about this a fair bit, and I think we’ve tried through some of our facilitations to do some of that broader sector work, but it’s hard. It’s difficult in this current climate and context. I don’t know if this is true in the US, but in Canada, charities and nonprofits are really struggling. There’s a number of smaller ones that are shutting their doors. There’s a real, I would say, survivability mindset as opposed to a more collaborative mindset or a mindset of abundance where we might all sort of benefit from working more together.

So I think as someone who works within an organization who is pleased to collaborate, it’s been really difficult to even convince funders to put money into a pot for a number of organizations to work together. So I think that continues to maybe be the challenge of the future, but it is certainly the only way to solve the problems that we’re seeking to solve. So I think continuing to, in the absence of really direct pathways to achieving that, what are some of the creative ways that we can pull that off is I think a bit where we’re at in a future state, but it’s definitely, it is a driver. There is no one individual charity or organization that will change the world on the issue that they’re trying to change the world on. It’s not possible.

Robin:

Yeah, and you see this up close with the kind of system level work you do as an organization. So it’s kind of in your DNA to work this way.

Douglas:

Amazing. You’re doing important work, and I’m glad you’re focused on it. I hope you catch the next wave of collaboration and collective work.

Tammy:

Yeah, totally.

Robin:

Yeah. Thanks, Douglas.

Tammy:

Yeah, I hope so.

Douglas:

As we come to a close, I’d like to invite you to leave our listeners with a final thought.

Tammy:

My final thought for listeners would be to reflect on the importance and the value of relationships in the work that we do. And so at the end of the day, we are all in relationships with each other. Some of them are good, some of them are strained, and we’re seeking to enhance those. And without centering our practice on those relationships, I think we will inevitably leave people behind.

Robin:

That resonates for sure. I am a huge Priya Parker fan. The Art of Gathering I know was one of the books we read as a part of this, and my, I guess final thought would be around, for anyone out there that’s gathering people or facilitating conversations or leading meetings, there’s a really simple truth at the heart of her book, which is that you need to start with purpose. And while it seems obvious, so many meetings happen without actually crystallizing why we are coming together. And so starting your with that question of why and what will be different and working backward from that outcome, so you were designing with that why in mind is something I go back to often from her work.

Tammy:

You definitely walk that talk, Robin, because-

Robin:

Thank you.

Tammy:

You definitely asked me that question probably three times in the last three weeks.

Robin:

Thank you for the validation.

Douglas:

Well, it was my pleasure having you on today. It was so great chatting. Hope to see you again soon.

Tammy:

Likewise. Thank you for your time, Douglas and Robin. It’s always a delight to share ideas with you, so thank you.

Robin:

Yeah, same, Tammy. And thanks Douglas, and thanks for the gift that keeps giving of this program.

Douglas:

Thanks for joining me for another episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast. If you enjoy the episode, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe to receive updates when new episodes are released. We love listener tales and invite you to share your facilitation stories. Send them to us on LinkedIn or via email. If you want to know more, head over to our blog or I post weekly articles and resources about facilitation, team dynamics, and collaboration. voltagecontrol.com.

The post How Can Facilitators Foster Bold Participation and Collaboration in Nonprofit Organizations? appeared first on Voltage Control.

This historic accomplishment was made possible thanks to dedicated facilitation from Voltage Control. Our certified facilitators traveled around the globe and dialed into hybrid events in order to ensure that the voices and feedback of thousands of participants were heard through a well-coordinated and successful collaboration.

Both our facilitation team and contributors from the Cardano community agree: the Cardano Constitution project was like nothing before. Its success offers far-reaching implications for not just the blockchain industry but also for facilitation, tech, finance, and organizations in both the public and private sectors.

A comprehensive overview of the process behind the Cardano Constitution can be read in our exclusive case study, available for download here.

In this article, we break down the essential takeaways for the future of blockchain and its overlap with facilitation practices.

Blockchain Technology in 2025

Blockchain is a distributed, decentralized, and immutable public ledger that enables secure transactions across a peer-to-peer network. Put simply, it is a secure database to record transactions and manage assets that can be transparently accessed by network participants. Each transaction on the network is recorded as a “block” of data.

Blockchain technology originated in 2008, born from the infrastructure behind Bitcoin, but, today, blockchain applications go far beyond cryptocurrency. Blockchain use cases include:

• Supply chain management
• Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
• Healthcare records
• Internet of Things (IoT)
• Smart contracts
• Non-fungible Tokens (NFTs)
• Digital identity

Facilitators, thought leaders, and business professionals across industries can benefit from understanding and embracing blockchain and its features, including interconnectivity, Decentralized Finance (DeFi), and cryptography.

Danielle Stanko from Cardano discussed the value of this process as it extends beyond Web3, saying, “To me, not only are we really leading the way in the blockchain industry, but it’s a model worth looking at for any industry with difficult problems to solve… It’s really taking advantage of the diversity of thought, the diversity of experience across the world that people have had… empowering them, giving them a system that is more engaging to be part of and just better for people.”

Key Pillars of the Cardano Constitution Project

The Cardano Constitutional Convention took place from December 4 to December 6, 2024, in Nairobi, Kenya, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, with additional remote attendees from around the globe. The event was the culmination of two years, including five months of Community Workshops and Global Synthesis Workshops involving thousands of participants.

The process behind the Cardano Constitution gave a clear snapshot into the world of blockchain, displaying what it offers to other industries and how facilitation can be optimized for Web3. Let’s explore the key pillars of this process.

Global Collaboration

The Cardano network is accessible by any internet user, no matter where they live. The future of blockchain is clearly multinational, and the politics of blockchain continue to develop in real-time as the industry grows and adapts.

Each participant brought their own cultural backgrounds, personal experiences, languages, and values to their workshops. Facilitators had to balance these personal considerations with the goals of the project, and Cardano hosts had to keep in mind the regulations and expectations of the participants’ different countries.

Cardano Co-founder Charles Hoskinson identified how participants built strong connections with one another, explaining, “They’ve made lifelong friends and those delegates that went to the Constitutional Convention, they’re still talking to each other.”

The Cardano Constitutional Convention and preceding Community Workshops affirmed that successful global collaboration was possible. The Cardano Constitution was ratified by delegates at the Constitutional Convention with 95% approval, and then later voted for on-chain with 85% approval.

Iterative Approach

An iterative approach to governance means governance is introduced incrementally, with regular, designated opportunities for feedback and continuous improvement. This method is especially effective for organizations moving towards decentralization, as it allows for sufficient time for feedback and review from wide swaths of participants.

During Community Workshops, this iterative approach meant workshops participants were assigned a few focused questions regarding the Constitution text to review rather than attempting to evaluate the entire document. Over the course of five months, the workshops eventually compiled feedback for the entire governance draft.

Cardano Co-founder Charles Hoskinson highlighted how the approach to this project supports long-term success, saying, “The bigger achievement is an iterative process where year by year people continue to come together, it gets larger and more meaningful, and then you treat it like an open source work project.”

In the future, Cardano will continue to leverage an iterative approach to further develop governance and other network transformations. The ecosystem will build upon previous progress for a future of sustainable growth.

Decentralized Governance

Public blockchain is inherently decentralized, meaning it’s not owned by a single person or organization. The application and success of this decentralization can vary by network, and, for Cardano, it was important to create a governance structure that used sustainable, equitable decentralized decision-making.

Decentralization is a core pillar of Web3. Blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, and other Web3 products offer the opportunity to take power away from central authorities and instead distribute to a decentralized network. Decentralization in Web3 is trustless, meaning users do not need to place their trust in any one authority, and open to all to participate in.

Decentralized decision-making has beneficial applications well beyond Web3 and the blockchain industry, with its benefits including increased innovation, faster decision-making, improved accountability, and empowered participants.

Engagement and Participation

The process to create Cardano governance would only work if community members from around the world would actively participate in the events and decision making. Participants exceeded those expectations, approaching the process with enthusiasm and thoughtfulness.

The facilitators ensured that every voice was heard, leveraging different facilitation techniques and methodologies to make the most of the participants’ time and feedback. Facilitator Britta Wulfekammer explained, “My role was to make sure we get everyone to speak.” She balanced cultural differences and different power dynamics in order to make the process as successful as possible.

Today, Cardano governance is community-driven, prioritizing transparent decision-making that engages the community through liquid democracy. It offers a blueprint for success to other blockchain networks and decentralized organizations.

What Facilitators Need to Know

The future of Cardano offers plentiful insights into the future of blockchain technology, all of which is made possible by effective facilitation. Blockchain technology and Web3 are only going to continue to grow alongside other rapidly accelerating technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

The process behind the Cardano Constitution can be applied to countless industries and organizations, from private enterprises dabbling in blockchain to global nonprofit organizations applying the principles of decentralization. Cardano itself served as a proof of concept as it became the first network to have on-chain governance that was created collaboratively and approved through an on-chain ratification.

The facilitators from Voltage Control were alumni from our Facilitation Certification Program. They came equipped with the facilitation skills, techniques, and methodologies in order to succeed in this important project. To get a taste of our community, attend Facilitation Lab, a weekly virtual meetup of the facilitator community, and explore Community Hub, a dynamic space for networking, learning, and developing as facilitators.

To read a complete breakdown of the process behind the Cardano Constitution, download our case study.

The post Exploring the Future of Blockchain through Facilitation appeared first on Voltage Control.

Looking back now, I realize I was first introduced to facilitation before I even knew what to call it. It was 2004, and I had just started my corporate career in Sharjah, one of the Emirates in the UAE. Though my degree was in Mass Communications, I found myself working in the HR department, charged with setting up internal communications. It was a fascinating leap, and one that would unknowingly chart the course for the next two decades of my life. I was green, enthusiastic, and hungry to prove myself. But nothing could have prepared me for how deeply one particular experience would shape the way I view communication, collaboration, and ultimately, myself.

That’s when I met Mr. Hariharan—my mentor, boss, and one of the most formative figures in my career. He brought me into a project that, at the time, just seemed like a leadership training program. But something in that five-day workshop shifted the way I saw things. The facilitator, a gentleman from South Africa, held space in a way that changed the room. On Day One, the participants were difficult, set in their ways, unwilling to change. By Day Two, the energy shifted. People leaned in. They became open. They got curious. It was like magic. I didn’t understand what had happened, but I knew I had witnessed something powerful.

I didn’t know what was happening then—I was just 24—but the transformation was unmistakable. That experience planted a seed in me. I couldn’t name it at the time, but it stirred something profound. It was more than teaching. It was something relational, connective. Looking back, I think my curiosity was amplified by my cross-cultural background. I was used to listening for what wasn’t said, navigating nuances, and observing how power and connection played out differently depending on context. Years later, when I would find myself in similar rooms, I’d think back to that moment: that shift in energy, that movement toward openness. to do that too?”

In many ways, Hariharan was the first person to show me how to create meaningful conversations. He modeled what it meant to lead without controlling. To ask instead of tell. To nudge rather than push. And he did it with such humanity that it left a permanent imprint on me. Even now, I carry many of his lessons forward, both professionally and personally. His style was warm but clear, direct yet inviting. He created a space where transformation could unfold without forcing it.

There were other moments too, scattered across my career. Another one came while working in Abu Dhabi, when I witnessed—by contrast—what not to do. A director flew in to investigate a staff issue and handled it with such a lack of empathy and neutrality that it shut people down. That experience helped me understand the importance of psychological safety long before I had words for it. Ironically, another director on that same project maintained an open-door policy that I now recognize as a form of everyday facilitation—an invitation for open dialogue. That contrast taught me a lot about how facilitation shows up in leadership, in the micro-moments we often overlook.

Later, becoming a mother deepened my introspection. I took four years off to stay home with my daughter, and that pause sparked a new kind of growth. I wasn’t sure what came next, so I trained as a coach—not to become one professionally at first, but to equip myself with tools. That led me to start an online magazine, Slick Chick, where I interviewed everyday women transforming adversity into change. It wasn’t until much later that I realized those conversations were a kind of facilitation, too. I was creating space for others to reflect, to share vulnerably, and to find meaning in their stories.

Facilitating across generations—and across cultures within my own home—also helped me understand the role of identity in how we show up and share. Culture wasn’t just a backdrop; it was a key part of how we made meaning together.

It was around that time that I also began to understand facilitation as not just a skill, but a way of being. I started noticing how I hosted conversations, how I mediated conflict in my personal life, and how I designed experiences for others. It all pointed toward the same impulse: to create connection and clarity.

Finding My Way Back Through Stories

When I look back on that season of interviewing women for Slick Chick, I see now that I was cultivating the same muscles facilitators use: holding space, listening deeply, letting the narrative unfold on its own terms. I wasn’t designing workshops back then, but I was definitely designing spaces for reflection and insight. And most importantly, I was allowing people to discover their own answers, something I now know is central to great facilitation.

Around the same time, I interviewed Reshma, who would later become my peer and my prompt for joining the Voltage Control community. Her story, like many others, was about resilience—but there was something in our dialogue that stayed with me. We stayed in touch loosely over the years. Our paths kept crossing—in Nairobi, while camping, over dog walks and shared fires. And each time, there was a moment of recognition, of resonance. I was drawn not only to her work, but to the way she carried herself with groundedness and intention.

It wasn’t until August 2024, sitting around a campfire in Kenya, that I finally asked her: “Should I do this? Would facilitation certification be worth it for me?” Her answer was grounded and generous. She explained what it had unlocked for her, how it had sharpened her thinking, broadened her tools, and expanded her network. I left that conversation curious. The kind of curious that wakes you up at 3 AM in Dubai to join a discovery call. That call, hosted by Kat and Skye, sealed it. Something in the way they facilitated the session confirmed what I had suspected: this wasn’t just another training. It was a community, a mindset, a way of being. I signed up shortly after.

The memory of that call still lingers. The calm energy, the intentional design, the shared excitement in the room—it was all a preview of what was to come. And I knew, without a doubt, that I was ready to say yes.

Over the Campfire, a Commitment

Deciding to join Voltage Control wasn’t about a career pivot. I already had my own firm. I was already training and designing learning experiences. What I was looking for was something deeper: coherence, connection, a more intentional way to make the impact I knew was possible. I wanted the kind of structure that would not only introduce me to new tools but also help me situate what I already knew in a broader context.

There’s so much out there—Miro, MURAL, Jamboard—and I often felt overwhelmed trying to piece it all together. I wanted a place to go where I could ground myself in best practices, get honest feedback, and explore new ways of thinking. I didn’t realize at the time how validating it would feel to finally say, “Yes, I am a facilitator.” I had been doing it for years, but until then, I didn’t own it.

What the certification offered me wasn’t just new knowledge—it was a mirror. It reflected back all the moments in my career when I had been facilitating without realizing it. It helped me connect the dots between instinct and intention, between action and language.

Designed for Discovery

The certification experience was like being dropped into a well-designed ecosystem. Everything—from the pairings to the electives—was crafted with intentionality. I loved how we weren’t just paired once and left to it; we were encouraged to cross-connect, to reach out, to explore beyond our assigned groups. I’m naturally curious, so this was a dream for me. Maybe it’s the multicultural in me—the part that’s always been fascinated by difference, dialogue, and design—but I found the cross-pollination of ideas in the cohort deeply energizing. And the best part? Everyone else was just as curious and committed to growth.

The foundation in The Art of Gathering deeply resonated. I’ve always been someone who thinks in terms of intention, but now I have the  vocabulary to articulate it professionally. I have begun using the word “purpose” more fluently in my sessions and felt more confident introducing those kinds of conversations—even in spaces where people might’ve once rolled their eyes at the word “intention.” Now, I can frame it in a way that’s both accessible and powerful.

I also found the electives incredibly useful. I completed the Workshop Design elective and have the Narratives of Future Design on my summer to-do list. Just hearing Eric walk through those frameworks made me feel seen. There was no top-down delivery. It was modeling, guiding, inviting—just as it should be. The asynchronous structure gave me space to go deep, and I often found myself rewatching sections, taking notes, and thinking about how to apply the ideas in real-time with clients.

And the cohort—what a powerful mix. People navigating NGO policy shifts, internal change, personal transformation. One of my pairings was with a pastor, Connie, and the way she wove facilitation into her spiritual work was deeply inspiring. Those conversations made me realize facilitation isn’t a title—it’s a way of showing up. It’s about asking better questions, listening for what’s unsaid, and creating space for emergence.

A Return to Play

Since completing certification, I’ve noticed two big shifts. First, I’m having way more fun. Designing workshops, talking to clients, selecting tools—it all feels like play again. I feel a bit like a kid in a sandbox, rediscovering joy through experimentation. There’s a renewed energy in how I work. Even things that used to feel routine—like onboarding or preparing a deck—now feel like opportunities to be creative.

Second, I’m much more aware of the role I play in the room. Not in a performative sense, but in the quiet way a facilitator can hold space and shape outcomes. I’ve come to appreciate that this role carries power—not the loud kind, but the kind that makes real change possible when wielded thoughtfully. I now walk into spaces more centered, more grounded in the belief that transformation doesn’t require spectacle. It requires presence.

Feedback from clients has reflected that shift. One recently described me as “free-spirited and effective.” That meant a lot, because it affirmed that my authentic self was shining through—something I hadn’t always felt permission to bring into the room. I also notice how much more confident I feel navigating difficult conversations or moments of silence. Before, I might have rushed to fill the gap. Now, I understand the power of pause.

It’s also spilled into parenting. My daughter is homeschooled, and I now find myself weaving facilitation techniques into how I guide her learning. It’s subtle, but impactful. It’s making me a better mom. We reflect more. We ask questions instead of jumping to answers. She’s even started using the word “process” when talking about how she learns, which makes me smile.

Building the Table

As someone shaped by many cultures, I know that diverse rooms create deeper conversations. I want to help build spaces where that kind of global, nuanced dialogue becomes the norm, not the exception.

The future I’m envisioning is full of collaboration. I want to continue building a pool of facilitators who can design and lead workshops with integrity and purpose. Not just in leadership or communication, but in areas like sustainability, personal growth, and social change. My dream is to host a series of gatherings where people from across disciplines can come together, learn from each other, and co-create new ways forward.

It doesn’t have to be huge. It can start with a single workshop that helps someone replace “feedback” with “feedforward.” That’s a change. That’s a win. If someone leaves the room feeling more confident, more clear, more connected—that’s impact. And those ripples matter.

I’m also committed to spreading these tools to younger generations. If my daughter can learn to hold space, to ask better questions, to lead with empathy—that’s legacy. I want her to know that power isn’t about being the loudest voice in the room. It’s about creating a room where everyone feels heard.

If you’re considering certification, here’s my advice: come with the right intention. Because if you do, this work will feel like a superpower. It has magic in it—if you let it. It won’t just change how you work. It will change how you live. It will give you new lenses, new language, and new tools—but more than that, it will give you a deeper sense of purpose.

It did for me. And it still does, every single day.

The post Holding Space, Finding Self appeared first on Voltage Control.

The month has that familiar “wall of heat” feeling—the kind of transition that sneaks up on you and suddenly everything shifts. Temperatures start to wobble, school calendars snap back, projects wake from their nap, and we all feel the sharpened‑pencil energy of fresh notebooks and new intentions. Even if you’re not headed back to school, this is a collective threshold. It’s not just a change in weather; it’s a new cadence in teams, families, and organizations.

For collaborative leaders and facilitators, thresholds are invitations. They’re a chance to pause, make meaning, and choose what comes next—on purpose. This month, we’re leaning into Transitions as our theme and spotlighting Purpose‑to‑Practice (P2P) from Liberating Structures as our featured activity. Think of P2P as a way to move from inspiration to implementation—an arc that starts with why and ends with what we’ll actually do (and how we’ll know we did it).

Below, you’ll find seven sections to help you harvest summer’s clarity, mark this threshold with intention, and translate purpose into aligned action. Each section blends mindset, facilitation moves, and practical tools you can use with your team—or solo—right away.

Transitions Are a Mindset, Not a Moment

We love to circle dates on calendars and declare, “Today is the change.” But most transitions don’t flip like a light switch. They’re more like a sunrise—slow, layered, and a little different for everyone on the horizon. Treating transition as a mindset, not a moment, helps leaders stay grounded when the pace around them accelerates.

That mindset begins with readiness. Rather than waiting for “official” milestones, we can build the muscle of scanning, sensing, and choosing. What’s shifting in your market, your team, your own energy? What’s knocking that you haven’t invited in yet? Readiness doesn’t mean constant vigilance; it means having a way to notice and name what’s emerging so you can respond deliberately.

It also helps to distinguish change from transition. Change is what happens to us—budgets move, tools update, org charts redraw. Transition is the inner reorientation that lets us enter a new era with clarity. You can live through a lot of change and still be in the same era. A true transition—identity, strategy, direction—asks for intention, ritual, and practice.

Finally, remember that predictable cycles (back‑to‑school, fiscal year, Q4 push) are a gift. When everything else feels stormy, these patterns are life rafts. You can design around them—using them as natural places to reflect, reset, and recommit—so that the less predictable waves don’t throw you as far.

Begin (Again) With Purpose

Purpose is the first of our facilitation competencies for a reason. It anchors everything that follows: your principles, who’s involved, the structure you’ll use, and the practices you’ll commit to. In seasons of transition, purpose is both compass and ballast.

Start by articulating purpose in plain language. What outcomes matter now, and why? How will progress help real people? Keep it simple enough that your team can repeat it without notes. Then ask, “If this purpose is true, what becomes non‑negotiable in how we work?” Those non‑negotiables become your principles—filters for decisions big and small.

Purpose also helps you avoid the classic trap of jumping straight to solution mode. When you begin with purpose, you can evaluate ideas against something stable. That prevents the “whiplash of the week” as priorities tug you around. And it gives your team permission to say, “Helpful idea—how does it serve our purpose?”

One more tip: don’t treat purpose as a plaque on the wall. Treat it as a practice—a daily opportunity to align time, attention, and energy. Ask at the end of meetings, “What today actually moved our purpose forward?” Make the answer visible.

Activity Spotlight: Purpose‑to‑Practice (P2P)

What it is. P2P is a five‑part arc—Purpose → Principles → Participants → Structure → Practices—that helps groups move from why to what‑we’ll‑do‑next, together. It’s wonderfully flexible: run it as a named activity with timeboxes, or use it as a design “stencil” to quietly guide planning.

Why it works now. Transitions create both momentum and ambiguity. P2P harnesses the momentum while channeling it into choices your team can own. It slows the rush to “do all the things” and instead builds from a shared why, then chooses the few practices that matter most.

How to run it (60–75 minutes).

• Purpose (8–10 min): Individuals write a one‑sentence why for this next cycle. Share and synthesize to one crisp statement.
  
• Principles (10–12 min): In pairs, generate non‑negotiable guides for how we’ll pursue that purpose. Merge into 5–7 principles.
  
• Participants (8–10 min): Map who must be involved (owners, contributors, advisors, decision‑makers) and who’s been missing. Invite inclusion.
  
• Structure (12–15 min): Decide how we’ll distribute control: decisions, cadences, artifacts, channels, and constraints that help the work happen.
  
• Practices (15–20 min): Commit to the three smallest, observable practices we’ll start now. Assign owners and first checkpoints.
  

Prompts you can copy/paste this month:

• What did summer teach you that you want to apply this fall?
• What’s one practice you’ll carry into this next cycle?
• What will you stop doing as you transition into what’s next?
• How will you practice your purpose this month—specifically and visibly?
  

Run P2P with your whole team to kick off the quarter—or adapt it for a solo reset. Either way, end with calendar blocks and check‑ins (more on that below) so practice becomes real, not aspirational.

Punctuating the Threshold

Rituals aren’t fluff; they’re cognitive handrails. They mark before/after and help people make meaning as they step across a threshold. When transitions stack up, ritual stabilizes the story: We paused. We honored. We chose what to carry forward.

Try a “close the season” moment before you sprint into the next one. Ask the team: “What do we want to remember from this last cycle?” “What do we leave behind?” Keep it light and human—photos, small wins, even a funny “never again” wall. The point is to end gracefully, not just stop.

Then, introduce one new team ritual to mark the start: a fresh notebook, a new channel naming convention, a 10‑minute weekly “principles in action” round. Small rituals create clean edges and shared language. Six months from now, you want the team to say, “Oh right, that’s when we started doing X”—because that story helps them see momentum.

Finally, make reflection part of the ritual, not an optional extra. Pair weekly reflection with your team’s stand‑up (“What did we move that served our purpose?”) or with your 1:1s (“Which principle felt most alive for you this week?”). Play with pace: sometimes slowing down is the fastest way to real progress.

Small Shifts That Compound

Coming out of a break, we often overestimate what can change by Monday and underestimate what can change by the end of the month. The trick is to choose atomic practices—tiny, repeatable moves that compound.

As a leader or facilitator, translate the big transition into micro‑behaviors your team can own. If your purpose emphasizes customer closeness, one micro‑practice might be “five customer notes reviewed before we prioritize.” If your purpose emphasizes inclusion, a practice might be “rotate meeting facilitation weekly and publish the queue.”

Celebrate progress on the small stuff. Momentum is emotional as much as operational. When the team sees itself keeping promises, confidence climbs and larger shifts become possible. Build in visible acknowledgement—end‑of‑week shout‑outs, a kanban lane called “kept commitments,” or a tiny trophy that passes to whoever best embodied a principle.

To help people pick the right small shifts, use these prompts:

• Carry: What energized me in the last cycle that I want more of?
• Drop: What returned from vacation with me that I don’t want to carry?
• Nudge: What’s the smallest behavior that would make the biggest difference if we did it daily/weekly?
• Name: What will we call this shift so we can talk about it?
  

Designing for Agency & Flow

Teams often stumble on the “Structure” step of P2P because it sounds abstract. Here’s the simple definition: Structure is how we deliberately distribute control so the right work happens with the right people at the right time.

Start by naming the decisions that must be made in this cycle and clarifying who has what kind of say (recommend, approve, veto, inform). Decide where those decisions live—async docs, weekly reviews, sprint reviews—and what artifacts make them visible (decision logs, working agreements, dashboards). This reduces the “invisible maze” that slows teams down.

Then, check your cadences. Are you meeting too often about the wrong things and too rarely about the right ones? Structure isn’t more meetings; it’s better rhythms. For instance, a monthly “principles check” can prevent three months of drift. A bi‑weekly “stakeholder circle” can surface concerns before they calcify into resistance.

Finally, consider access and inclusion as structural issues, not just cultural aspirations. Who is routinely left out of early conversations? Who sees outputs only at the end? Adjusting visibility and involvement is one of the most powerful levers you have. Structure can give people real agency, which, in turn, fuels ownership of the practices you’ve chosen.

Your Purpose Compass

Peter Drucker famously coached leaders by looking at where their time actually went. We love the spirit of that move because calendars don’t lie. They are your purpose, expressed in hours.

Try a quick Calendar Remix aligned to your P2P output:

1. Aspirational view (10 min): If our purpose is the north star, what should the ideal week/month look like—time blocks, review cadences, deep‑work windows, stakeholder touchpoints? Sketch it.
   
2. Current reality (10 min): Look back at the last 2–4 weeks. What % of time aligned to purpose? What’s the ratio of “purpose‑moving” to “noise”? Get to actual numbers.
   
3. Bridging moves (10–15 min): Choose three calendar edits that get you closer to the aspirational week. Protect them like product features—name them, ship them, and don’t regress.
   

For teams, run this as a workshop. Share anonymized ratios, agree on a handful of “purpose blocks” everyone defends (e.g., weekly customer time, principle review, decision check), and schedule your first check‑in now. In 30 days, compare ratios again. Progress looks like the calendar converging on the purpose you declared.

Remember: this is about practice, not performance. You’re training a muscle. The goal is not a perfect calendar; it’s a purposeful one that steadily reflects what matters.

Turn Renewal Into Momentum

If summer was the pause button, this threshold is your play button. Don’t just return—re‑imagine. Use P2P to reconnect to purpose, translate it into a few small practices, and then shape the structures and calendars that help those practices endure. Expect to tinker. Expect to learn. Expect, most of all, to choose—again and again—what you’ll carry forward and what you’ll leave behind.

To make it easy, here’s our simple 5R Transition Check you can run with your team this week:

• Return: Name the moment you’re in. What’s ending? What’s beginning?
• Reflect: What did we learn? What do we want to remember?
• Ritualize: How will we mark this threshold (close and open)?
• Reorient: Reaffirm purpose and principles. Who needs to be involved? What structures support us?
  Recommit: Choose three micro‑practices. Put them on the calendar. Set the first check‑in.
  

Activity highlight: We’ll be running Purpose‑to‑Practice in this week’s Facilitation Lab. Come practice it with peers, gather feedback, and leave with your first three micro‑practices already on your calendar. If you prefer a quieter start, jump into the Community Hub to swap prompts, examples, and templates with alumni and current students.

Join the Hub to share your “carry/leave behind” lists and see how others are structuring the fall reset.

Here’s to entering this next era with intention. Let’s make the transition together—and make it stick.

The post The Season of Transitions appeared first on Voltage Control.

In December 2024, the final steps of this process took place as a three-day Constitutional Convention was held simultaneously in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Nairobi, Kenya. Once the delegates there voted to approve the constitution, with an overwhelming 95% voting “yes,” the document was passed on for on-chain ratification by the community’s members around the world.

No cryptocurrency provider or blockchain platform had ever before taken on decentralization at this scale and with such a commitment to collaboration and consensus. Cardano’s work can be considered a blueprint for collaboration on an international and even global scale, with key ramifications for the fields of decentralization, blockchain, and facilitation.

The Cardano community partnered with Voltage Control to facilitate and design this process. Our facilitators traveled to countries near and far, conducting sessions in multiple languages, and sometimes dialing in with remote facilitation and hybrid participation.

In this article, we break down the basics of Cardano’s decentralized governance and what went into the facilitation process for the Cardano Constitution.

Decentralization, Explained

Decentralization is defined as an organizational structure based on the distribution or redistribution of power away from a central authority. Decentralization can be implemented in countless spheres, including in organizations, businesses, governments, technologies, and software, with new strategies and applications of this form of governance continually emerging.

Decentralized governance refers specifically to the shift away from centralized decision-making and administration toward a distributed structure of activities and power. For Cardano, their new constitution would outline the structure of their decentralized organization and how it is governed.

Decentralization is a particularly important trend in Web 3.0 and its sister concept, Web3. As the third generation of the World Wide Web, Web 3.0 is a developing iteration of the internet that features increased connectivity through a smarter internet, offering a more transparent and open online experience. Web3 is centered around blockchain technology and how it can redistribute control of data and identities online. 

For facilitators, it’s important to understand the opportunities for decentralization that are introduced by Web3 and Web 3.0. As the latest version of the internet develops and grows, the people behind it will have to collaborate in greater numbers and on bigger projects—which requires great facilitation.

The innovations of Web3 will reach well beyond technological industries, as will the practices of decentralization used by blockchain platforms. By becoming familiar with these trends, facilitators can stay on the leading-edge.

Decentralized Facilitation Process

Since its founding, Cardano has prioritized the core principles of Web3, including transparency, autonomy, and equity. Its constitution would become a pioneering document for cryptocurrency and blockchain networks that are pursuing decentralization, as the document was created through a collaborative, egalitarian process.

To do this, the Cardano community had to somehow bring together thousands of participants from around the world to work collaboratively. The delegated participants would have to come to a consensus on the final document before turning it over to the broader community for ratification.

The Voltage Control team was a part of this process from the introduction of CIP-1694, which introduced the constitution creation process to the chain. From there, Voltage Control Certified Facilitators assisted in the design of the process and facilitated dozens of events, including Community Workshops in 50 different countries, remote and hybrid Delegate Synthesis Workshops, and the three-day Cardano Constitutional Convention.

Community Workshops

A total of sixty-three Community Workshops were held in fifty countries around the world during three busy months. These day-long events were an opportunity for Cardano community members to gather and discuss the text of the Constitution. 

Facilitators worked with hosts from Cardano member organization Intersect to organize these workshops, which were typically held in person, with some hybrid and remote events as needed. Voltage Control tapped into our global network of Certified Facilitators and alumni to pair facilitators with workshops, including sending facilitators who spoke the participants native languages when available. 

At the Community Workshops, participants worked through four to five specific questions about the text of the Constitution. Time was limited at these events, so these questions gave each group designated topics to focus on and work through. The Civics Committee managed the distribution of questions, which could be kept flexible as time went on and it became apparent which topics would need more attention.

The participants would also elect a delegate to represent their Community Workshop at the upcoming Cardano Constitutional Convention.

In order to prepare for the Constitutional Convention, facilitators and hosts worked together to hold remote Global Synthesis Workshops, which brought together elected delegates to review data and feedback from the Community Workshops. These Synthesis Workshops occurred alongside the Community Workshops that were happening around the globe, which allowed hosts to adjust the agendas as needed.

The facilitation team focused on staying adaptable to the needs of each event and each group. Facilitator Caterina Rodriguez, who facilitated South American community workshops in Spanish, spoke about this, saying, “There were groups that wanted to move to the process methodically. There were groups that wanted to take no breaks. Then there were groups that were like, we want a full-blown debate. So it was about being adaptable to what was emerging in the space.”

Cardano Constitutional Convention

The climatic event for this process occurred over three days, from December 4 to December 6, 2024, as the Cardano Constitutional Convention. The gathering was held simultaneously in Nairobi, Kenya, and Buenos Aires, Argentina, with additional remote participants attending from around the world. Participants were connected in real-time via Zoom, Mentimeter, and other digital tools.

In total, 450 attendees, including 63 delegates, represented 51 different countries for this collaboration. This historic event marked the end of two years of planning and five months of intensive work on the network’s decentralized governance constitution.

Led by facilitators and community  hosts, attendees reviewed and refined the text of the Cardano Constitution through discussions and collaborative workshops taking place over the first two days, with edits to the document being made in real time. On the final day, delegates signed off on the historic document with a 95% approval vote.

The Cardano Constitutional Convention also served as an important gathering for the blockchain ecosystem, with community members able to build connections with each other through in-person and hybrid channels. Informational sessions, including speakers and panels, invited participants to learn more about the blockchain ecosystem, encouraging continued engagement even after the event.

By building community knowledge and personal relationships, the event hosts ensured the continued successful decentralization of Cardano’s governance. Attendees gained a better understanding of key topics and grew their personal networks.

Making Blockchain History

On February 19, 2025, Cardano Co-Founder Charles Hoskinson announced that the Constitution had been ratified on-chain with an 85% approval rate, well above the 75% approval rate needed to be enacted. Cardano became the first truly decentralized blockchain with a community-run governance model.

This groundbreaking moment is just the beginning for Cardano. Through Voltage Control’s facilitation process, the Cardano community became enthusiastically engaged with the governance process. This engagement will continue into the future, which is essential for the success of the blockchain platform.

Cardano Civics Committee Secretary Danielle Stanko commented, “We have so many people now in the ecosystem who care about governance, who know about the Constitution and have read it, and that’s a really great foundation to start from.”

For the broader Web3 and blockchain community, the Cardano Constitution serves as a pivotal proof of concept. Through strategic facilitation, the Cardano community was able to come together and communally write, revise, and approve a governing document for their blockchain network. Thousands of participants from around the globe engaged with the process, partaking in an effectively decentralized process.

Facilitation for Blockchain and Cryptocurrency

For the facilitation team from Voltage Control, the process required maximum deployment of facilitation skills and methodologies. The global collaboration brought together thousands of participants from different backgrounds, who spoke different languages and held varying opinions on the future of Cardano governance.

All facilitators had obtained their Facilitation Certification from Voltage Control. The Facilitation Certification program is aligned with International Association of Facilitators (IAF) competencies, and it builds the foundational facilitation skills needed to successfully transform meetings, drive change, and inspire innovation.

Our certified facilitators helped the Cardano community overcome countless moments of disagreement and paralysis, assuring a supportive, productive use of time for every workshop and event. Together, Cardano and Voltage Control proved that a large, global network of people can achieve wide consensus through well-executed facilitation.

To work with Voltage Control on your project, contact our team today. To learn more about the facilitation of Cardano’s constitution, read our complete case study here.

The post Facilitating Cardano’s Decentralized Governance appeared first on Voltage Control.

I guess you could say my path to facilitation was far from obvious. My journey began in the world of industrial design—physical products, beautiful materials, craftsmanship. I studied at Central Saint Martins in London, one of the most prestigious design schools in Europe. Back then, I was designing high-end objects like lighters and fountain pens. One of my first breakout projects was for ST Dupont, a French company known for their opulent lighters. I designed a piece called Diva—a lighter that offered a flame in the palm of your hand as a gesture of elegance and openness. It was theatrical. Poetic. And it got me noticed by the Comite Colbert, an association that includes heritage houses like Hermes.

Saint Martins opened many doors. It’s a place that lives at the intersection of art, fashion, and design—and it builds those bridges actively. I was surrounded by people who would go on to define what design meant in our generation. Alumni from the college include people like Alexander McQueen and other cultural pioneers. But even within that buzz, I always felt slightly out of sync with the end users of the products I was making. I didn’t smoke. I didn’t collect luxury pens. The objects I created were beautiful, yes—but they didn’t speak to my own values.

That lack of connection eventually pulled me away from luxury goods and toward something more utilitarian: product innovation. I joined Untapped Innovation as an associate, an inspiring consultancy born out of the Procter & Gamble tradition, working on fast-moving consumer goods. It was a different world—less about ego, more about process. And for the first time, I saw design being used not just to beautify, but to solve real problems.

At Untapped, I was supporting clients on the kinds of innovation cycles that couldn’t afford to fail slowly. These were products that needed to hit market targets fast. I saw design being embedded into R&D cultures—teams using storytelling frameworks like The Hero’s Journey to envision and test ideas. This was a different flavor of creativity, one that was deeply tied to facilitation. That realization pulled me into a new kind of inquiry. What if the magic wasn’t in the object, but in how we created space for people to explore and invent together? Though I didn’t call it that at the time, what I saw was design in service of unlocking thinking and a new journey had begun.

It deepened when I joined Makerversity, a creative incubator in London. I started overhearing conversations about design sprints, and that led me to Jake Knapp’s book. Suddenly, I had language for explaining human-centered design  that until then had felt intuitive but hard to articulate. I was working with hardware startups at the time, running sprints that let them move from insight to testable prototype in a week. It felt like magic.

Makerversity was something special—a post-university creative ecosystem, full of fellow Central Saint Martins, Royal College of Art and Goldsmiths grads. We were all building and learning together. One day I heard someone on the phone quoting sprint fees and thought, “Wait, you can get paid to do that?” It clicked. I started facilitating sprints for physical products, and it felt like everything I had learned as a designer could now serve people more directly.

But then came a pivot. I joined Innovate UK Business Connect (formerly Knowledge Transfer Network) a public innovation agency in the UK. I was brought in  to help set up their first in-house innovation studio. Then the pandemic hit. Workshops, conferences, and events—everything that was supposed to be our bread and butter—came to a halt. Our team had to adapt, fast. We started running sessions on how to design and facilitate virtual workshops. At first, it was a bit rogue. We didn’t even call it design thinking. But it worked. We created peer-to-peer learning ecosystems using tools like Mural and quietly built a network of change agents inside the organization.

We were helping civil servants become better collaborators, even if they didn’t know it yet. We avoided buzzwords. We just said, “Want help making your next virtual session better?” It was facilitation in disguise. Over time, the executive team started to notice. They gave us their blessing—and eventually their support. We began to tell “agents of change” stories, celebrating internal facilitators who were designing better experiences for their colleagues.

I didn’t realize it right away, but I was facilitating. And I was good at it. Eventually, I left London with my partner, sold the floating home we’d been living on, and began a new chapter in the rural south of Italy. We visited 20 potential towns, sleeping in a converted SUV, before finding a place that felt right. We now live off-grid among shepherds and olive trees. It’s beautiful. But I missed that connection with my community of practice.

That’s when I found Voltage Control. I remember tuning into a Practice Playground and thinking, “These people care.” It was a different vibe—not competitive, not performative, just deeply committed. That energy pulled me in. I started volunteering to run the Facilitation Lab Europe sessions. And I knew I had found my tribe.

Rehearsing Confidence, Rebuilding Purpose

After about six months of running the lab, I started to feel like I was the bottleneck. I didn’t always feel entitled to lead sessions for facilitators who were far more seasoned than me. I wanted to learn from them, yes—but I also wanted to give something back. And I realized that to do that, I needed more confidence and structure.

That’s when the idea of certification took root. Not because I needed another credential, but because I wanted to treat myself to a period of focused development—a time to rediscover my purpose, like I had done back in design school. I had pivoted from industrial design to change work, and this felt like the missing bridge.

I think of it like returning to studio time. A protected space to try things, reflect, and deepen my craft. Except this time, the material wasn’t foam core or acrylic. It was people. Conversations. Collaboration. That’s what I was learning to shape.

Voltage Control had already earned my trust. I’d been around the community long enough to know it wasn’t just talk. You could feel the integrity. And with a bit of help from the team, I enrolled.

A Community That Practices What It Preaches

The certification wasn’t full of checklists and corporate templates. It was something else entirely. What struck me most was the peer learning. Somehow, this program self-selects for growth-minded humans. Many of us came from corporate roles, but no one was there to tick a box. We were all there to grow.

I especially connected with Kate Wing, a cohort mate from California who works in ocean conservation. We came from opposite worlds, but our energy was aligned. We were both treating this as a gift to ourselves. Her passion and wisdom helped me trust my own voice.

The program also helped me access something I now call my equanimity hack. I discovered a simple mental shift that brings me back to balance in moments of stress: “I’m here to serve you.” That small mantra changed the way I carry myself . I use it constantly.

Turning Points and Use Cases

Another unexpected gift was the portfolio work. As a designer, I was no stranger to portfolios, but this was different. It helped me clarify the use cases for my facilitation practice: strategic alignment for leadership transitions, strategy enablement for large organizations, and cross-industry innovation for resilient supply chains.

I realized my superpower is helping organizations access their own resilience. That insight had been sitting under the surface, and the portfolio process helped me name it.

I restructured my entire website around this. I now organize my offerings not just by service, but by scenario. New CEO onboarding? I’ve done that. Multi-team strategy enablement? Got a toolkit for it. Industry transformation where traditional players need to collaborate across silos? Let’s talk. It’s been grounding.

Working from the Inside Out

One of the most rewarding experiences I’ve had since certification has been with a company I supported through a leadership transition. The outgoing CEO trusted me enough to introduce me to the incoming leader. That referral carried so much weight. It said: this person can help you. He helped me. That’s gold.

My role? Helping them bring 400 people along a new direction of travel. Facilitating not just strategy, but alignment. Making sure change isn’t something that slows them down, but something that propels them forward. They don’t have a C-suite designer, but they’ve trusted me to help them become more adaptive. That feels like meaningful work.

What Comes Next Is Already Happening

I’m currently collaborating with a research group at Princeton University, helping with alignment and teamwork as they prepare to launch a new book and website. It’s bringing me closer to the world of education in a hands-on way—and I’m finding it genuinely engaging.

During a recent business trip in London, a contact from my past reached out—someone who’s just taken a senior role at a prestigious university. He asked if I do lecturing. I said I offer experiential learning. That conversation sparked something new: the idea of taking on a formal role in education alongside my consulting work.

Education feels like a natural extension of what I’m already doing. Helping people organise their thinking, collaborate better, and communicate with clarity—that’s facilitation. But it’s also teaching. As I step further into that space, it feels like the pieces are aligning. It’s still early, but it feels right.

Give It Time, It Gives Back

If you’re considering certification, my advice is simple: Make time for it. Don’t let the effort scare you. It’s an investment in yourself, and it pays dividends. You get back more than you put in—but only if you commit fully . Really bring your whole self to it . Because the community will meet you there.

And when it does, it might just change how you see yourself—not as someone who leads change, but as someone who makes it possible for others to step in, shape it, and carry it forward.

The post From Luxury Design to Design for Change appeared first on Voltage Control.

In this episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast, host Douglas Ferguson engages with Charles Hoskinson, CEO of Input I Output and Co-Founder of Cardano. They delve into themes of facilitation, collaboration, and governance, particularly focusing on Charles’s work in developing a decentralized governance model for Cardano. Charles shares insights from facilitating workshops across 50 countries to draft Cardano’s constitution, emphasizing the importance of communication, trust, and consensus-building. The conversation also explores the impact of historical governance models and modern organizational design on decentralized systems, offering valuable lessons for fostering innovation and collaboration in diverse groups.

Show Highlights

[00:01:56] Talking Stick Artifact
[00:03:13] Decentralized Governance Insights
[00:06:03] Challenges of Governance Creation
[00:8:44] Building Consensus Across Cultures
[00:13:28] The Role of Trust in Transactions
[00:19:32] Failure and Leadership
[00:33:06] Objectivity and Trust
[00:35:00] Working Groups and Community Input
[00:39:35] Future of Decentralized Governance

Links | Resources

Charles on X

Case Study: Facilitating the World’s First Blockchain Ecosystem Constitution

Cardano on the web

About the Guest

Charles Hoskinson is a Colorado-based technology entrepreneur and mathematician. He attended Metropolitan State University of Denver and the University of Colorado Boulder to study analytic number theory before moving into cryptography through industry exposure. His professional experience includes founding three cryptocurrency-related start-ups – Invictus Innovations, Ethereum and IOHK – and he has held a variety of posts in both the public and private sectors. He was the founding chairman of the Bitcoin Foundation’s education committee and established the Cryptocurrency Research Group in 2013 .His current projects focus on educating people about cryptocurrency, being an evangelist for decentralization and making cryptographic tools easier to use for the mainstream. This includes leading the research, design and development of Cardano, a third-generation cryptocurrency that launched in September 2017.

About Voltage Control

Voltage Control is a facilitation academy that develops leaders through certifications, workshops, and organizational coaching focused on facilitation mastery, innovation, and play. Today’s leaders are confronted with unprecedented uncertainty and complex change. Navigating this uncertainty requires a systemic facilitative approach to gain clarity and chart pathways forward. We prepare today’s leaders for now and what’s next.

Subscribe to Podcast

Engage Control The Room

Voltage Control on the Web
Contact Voltage Control

Transcript

Douglas:

Hi, I’m Douglas Ferguson. Welcome to the Facilitation Lab podcast where I speak with Voltage Control certification alumni and other facilitation experts about the remarkable impact they’re making. We embrace a method agnostic approach so you can enjoy a wide range of topics and perspectives as we examine all the nuances of enabling meaningful group experiences. This series is dedicated to helping you navigate the realities of facilitating collaboration, ensuring every session you lead becomes truly transformative. Thanks so much for listening. If you’d like to join us for a live session sometime, you can join our Facilitation Lab community. It’s an ideal space to apply what you learn in the podcast in real time with peers. Sign up today at voltagecontrol.com/facilitation-lab and if you’d like to learn more about our twelve-week facilitation certification program, you can read about it at voltagecontrol.com. Today, I’m with Charles Hoskinson, founder of Cardano, co-founder of Ethereum and CEO of Input Output. He’s also a bison rancher, runs a healthcare clinic in Wyoming, serving over 11,000 patients, owns a construction company and takes a keen interest in synthetic biology. Welcome to the show, Charles.

Charles:

It’s great to be here. Doug, how you been?

Douglas:

I’ve been great. I’ve been really looking forward to this conversation because I’m really kind of wowed by the project around the Constitution, and as I was reflecting on this, it brought up some memories for me along the way. Specifically it was, I remember my first visit to the IO offices and you were leading a really engaging tour and at some point you showed us this Native American artifact. I’ve viewed it as a primitive technology for improved conversations. And I’m just curious if you could start off maybe by sharing a little bit about that artifact and what it means to you and how it connects to your philosophy on communication.

Charles:

Yeah, so I got that right here. This is a talking stick, it was used by the Sioux amongst other Great Plains Indians, and basically how it works is whoever has a stick gets to talk and if you talk out of band, they hit you in the head with a stick. That’s why it’s got a bone on it, but I always love having it in the office. I’ve only had to use the talking stick once. I have a lot of artifacts and what’s really cool is that when you come in the office, we have everything from hyperdimensional spaces here that are kind of compressed in a cube to Samurai armor over there. We have the talking stick and a lot of paintings, a lot of sculptures and all of these things. I pick them up because they connect to something that I’m interested in. I have an ant hive in the office where they poured molten aluminum into an ant hive and then they dug it out and cleaned it off.

And it shows you power of complex systems where simple rules apply again and again can actually result in these amazing structures. But the Native American art is some of my favorite. I collect Kachina dolls and I have a lot of various things throughout North America. When you look at governance of the Iroquois or the Cherokee Nation, especially the Iroquois, they had this decentralization about how they made decisions and consensus building behind how they made decisions and almost like a participatory democracy. And it was just really extraordinary that you could think, wow, these guys had to find a way to get along and they had to find a way to communicate even though they would only meet maybe a few times a year, and there was a lot of challenges and difficulties there and no modern technology, yet they were still able to build a stable government.

So there was a lot of lessons there about how do you build a decentralized government? How do you build a government of equals? You don’t have a king or a president, more like a council of elders. And that was something that stuck with me when I learned about it as a teenager and throughout the years I kind of learned all the upgrades and updates to these types of things. And the Maori people over in New Zealand, for example, have a very sophisticated system, they also have a very sophisticated reputation system that’s concept of mana, which is like the amount of credit that you have in society in many different senses. So having traveled through Africa extensively, I also picked up a lot of tribal traditions there. And there’s a lot of really cool interesting things in Asia, especially Central Asia. You spend some time in Mongolia and you see how they made decisions and they pull these things together.

It’s really sophisticated for the technology that they had. So I always wanted to put that into a system and build it. And with Cardano is a great example is Cardano has no executive function. Most governments, they have a judicial branch, a legislative branch, and an executive branch. And you have one group of people make the laws, one group of people that execute everything and one group of people interpret it whether everybody else is being honest. Well, with Cardano, we have a pseudo judicial function, it’s the Constitutional Committee and we have very strong legislative function, but there is no president, there is no executive branch, there are no bureaucracies or things. You have members-based organizations, these other things, but they’re voluntary and they have no monopoly over power and they can be fired at any time and these types of things.

So it’s an interesting experiment because if you don’t have a strong executive function, then everything has to come from the bottom up instead of the top down in the way that the system operates, which is not really what people tend to think when they think of effective governance or they think of a strong government or a government that’s highly efficient. But yet there are many examples like Switzerland for example, with its Confederacy structure or other countries where this has worked. And there’s organizational design examples where that works. Like Holacracy is probably the most prominent example of that, and Sociocracy is another where that could work.

So we were highly inspired by a lot of these different concepts and we worked through them and we tried to put something together and the single hardest part is bootstrap, which is why you guys came in because we had this issue of how do you build consensus and consent when you have no incumbent decision system. In America, we have this concept of a vote and we have a concept of a voter, and it’s pretty clear how to do that. So when you want to elect a president or elect a senator or a congressman or a governor, you know how to do that. Well, what if you don’t have a concept of a voter and you don’t have a well-established consent system or a Constitution, how do you get to America from nothing? And that was kind of where we were at.

So we thought workshops were a super cool idea and we needed facilitators, and that’s how I met you guys. And we had workshops all across the world, 50 countries, 65 workshops just for the Constitution and a lot of other workshops for CIP 1694. And the first one was here in the office. And I remember that day very clearly, because everybody’s very skeptical. They’re like, “You’re just not going to pull this off. It’s going to descend it to chaos and everybody’s going to vote against it and it’ll get bike shedded.” And it was a tremendous exercise and building of consensus.

Douglas:

Why do you think there was so much skepticism?

Charles:

Well, because it depends on your philosophical beliefs about humanity. And unfortunately, when you have a strong executive function and you live in a very cynical society, and we are in the age of cynicism, when my grandfather was growing up, my grandfather lived in a very optimistic time in America. And so when John F. Kennedy said, “We will go to the moon.” Everybody believed him because like, “Oh yeah, the government always does it. They’ll figure it out.” Because this is the government that when FDR said, “Hey, I need you to go build the world’s largest office building in a swamp and you have six months to do it.” Leslie Groves said, “You got it, sir.” And he went and built the Pentagon. So there was this can-do spirit of, “We don’t really know how to do it, but we’re just going to figure it out and it’s going to get done.”

And people had a great degree of confidence in the government’s ability to deliver. And then over time, this postmodernism kind of leaked its way into society and now there’s a skepticism that no matter what, it’s never going to be as good as you think it is. It’s probably not going to happen. Even if it does happen, there’s something wrong with it. So a great example is that when William Shatner went to space, this was like a Rorschach’s test for generations. So the older people who grew up watching him on Star Trek, they were like, “That’s the coolest thing in the world. That’s so amazing. Wow, Captain Kirk finally made it to space.” They felt some pride because it’s like a hero that they grew up with. And he finally got to go to space and do that thing. And then the younger generation said, “Oh, global warming this, and it’s a waste of that. And why did you send a 90-year-old fat guy to space and just a marketing stunt and…”

It’s the exact same set of facts, exact same set of people and two radically different interpretations of that event. So when you look at the Cardano governance to work, what you’re really saying under the hood is, “Okay, well, here’s what’s going to happen, people who have never met each other from all over the world, different languages, cultures, different perspectives, different socioeconomic classes are going to come together and those people who have never met each other from all those differences are going to find a way to set those differences aside and collaborate without compensation on a common product, somehow agree and then produce something that other people get to use, perhaps not them.” And most people when they hear that, they’re like, “Yeah, I don’t think so. We’d have peace in the Middle East if you could pull something off like that.”

But it turned out we had the right thread and it was one of the most challenging things I ever did in my lifetime to kind of come up with some methodologies to bring those types of people together and act as a peacemaker and deal with fights and also just educate people on missing skills of collaboration. It’s very easy to work with people who have been trained to collaborate, even if they’re competitors, even if they’re philosophically opposed to you. There’s ways you communicate, there’s ways that you, there’s a respect behind the communication. So it’s like you think ahead, what do they need to know to do their job? There’s an understanding of how to negotiate and how to disagree without being disagreeable. There’s a lot of moving pieces to people that are well-trained in negotiation and communication and collaboration skills. If people aren’t trained that way, then what ends up happening is the minute that they feel like it’s not going their way, they immediately take all their toys, go home, go to Twitter, complain about it and try to burn everything down and get upset about that.

But if they’re trained in that way, then they use the process and together you kind of eventually get to where you need to be. So a big part of the process was just education and teaching people collaborative skills and teaching people iterative skills and teaching people the art of negotiation and growing people up and managing expectations and saying, “Look, just the very fact we came together and wrote a Constitution, even if it’s not a perfect Constitution, is a monumental achievement because people from 50 countries had to come together and get something done.” And that’s a consensus of those people. And if that process is reused, we can write a significantly better one because everybody has confidence that we can do that, because we know we could come together and get these things done. So the very first one is really a minimum viable product and it’s a trust building product, but once you have that, you have this great foundation to stand on and you can grow from there.

And once people got that in their head that this is a long goal, it’s a long game and it’s not about winning every round of the game, but rather it’s about participating and playing the game and learning and growing from the game, then they got substantially more collaborative. The learned helplessness went away and the cynicism disappeared almost overnight, and then people got excited to roll up their sleeves and get to work and get it done. And boy, it was challenging to get it done, because it’s just so many meetings and so many communications. There was, wee tallied it up, over 5,000 man hours of just deliberation on the Constitution.

Douglas:

There’s also the phenomenon when people build things together, it connects them, it draws them closer, it becomes their artifact. They’ve had some say in some participation in it, so they own it.

Charles:

Yeah. And that’s the most fun of it is that once people get over that hostility and they start working together, then they actually come up with interesting things and they enjoy working together so you don’t have to twist their arms and force them. They’ve made lifelong friends and those delegates that went to the Constitutional Convention, they’re still talking to each other. They’re still friends with each other, they still have those relationships, and a lot of these people are like, “Hey, I grew up in Norway. I never thought I would be best friends with a guy in Senegal or somebody in Cameroon or somebody in Argentina.” It’s not a common thing, and yet now it’s there and you’re on a first name basis. It was really like the United Nations, when you walked in and saw those flags. It was a truly remarkable thing.

Douglas:

It was amazing to see so many groups come together. Pretty impressive really to think about hitting on 50 countries and bringing that much voice to so many people.

Charles:

And you can’t rest on your laurels. The most important part of it is just saying, “Hey, how do we structure this in a way so that we can continue the collaboration?” So if it was just the end all be all, and once we sign the Constitution, we’re done, we all move on, that’s a great achievement. The bigger achievement is an iterative process where year by year people continue to come together, it gets larger and more meaningful, and then you treat it like an open source work project. And what’s really cool is that in a very short period of time, like three to five years, you can probably have the best Constitution ever written because people just keep working on it, they’ll keep thinking about it, they’ll keep beta testing it and adding new capabilities to it, and you can build a lot of sophistication. One of the things that I think modern society has lost is the value of trust.

And I’ll give it an example. I talk about this often. So let’s say you’re doing a real estate transaction and you and your neighbor trust each other. Okay, you have a ranch, they have a ranch, 100 acres, whatever, and you go over there, you talk to them, you have dinner with them, say, “Hey, I want to sell you these 100 acres. I need the cash.” And you’re like, “Yeah, okay, yeah, I’ll buy that. That’s fine.” So you handshake on it and you start putting all the paperwork together and it turns out there’s some issue with it. So how do you solve that issue? Trust the guy. So you go over and say, “Hey, I have this issue, blah, blah, blah.” He say, “Oh yeah, don’t worry about it. I’ll fix that for you.” Okay, you shake hands, you’re done. Buy the land.

Okay, so then let’s say you hate your neighbor. You absolutely detest this person. You have no relationship. Same piece of land, same transaction. So the facts and circumstances are identical, but when you go to buy the land and first thing that happens, you get a lawyer, because you don’t trust him, he gets a lawyer, because he doesn’t trust you, you negotiated out this contract, takes a lot of legal work. Then halfway through you run into that same issue. Then all of a sudden you’re in litigation and you’re suing each other. It takes two, three years to resolve a litigation. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, depends on the nature of the litigation. And then at the end of the day, you close the deal, you get the land, the outcome is the same. The difference is I had beer and steak with him, shook his hand and we got it sorted and I spent $100,000 or whatever you bought the acres for.

And the other one, I hate his guts. I spent two to three years to close the transaction and millions of dollars. And the only difference, the only delta between those two realities is trust. That’s it. So when you build systems that over time produce trust, what ends up happening with that is you create a momentum where you can do remarkable work quickly and get things done quickly. And you’ll notice that the ratio of organizational design to trust, the historical ratio of this, where high trust things tend to have low bureaucracy and low trust things tend to have high bureaucracy, because you don’t need the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy’s purpose is to de-risk. And if you trust everybody, then you know that even if some mistake happens, that person’s got your back and he or she’s going to go and take care of you and figure that out. So you don’t need layers and layers and layers of accountability and audit and oversight and this department and this manager and this manager and that.

So look at NASA in the ’60s versus NASA today. So NASA in the ’60s, there was a political mandate, move fast and break things. So even when astronauts died, like when that terrible Apollo disaster happened and the astronauts burnt to death in the capsule, there was an understanding that NASA was going to get this done, and so they just let them be NASA and they moved forward. Then after Challenger in Columbia, it badly damaged the reputation of NASA and it changed the culture so that we can never have a failure, which meant they had redundancy after redundancy, redundancy after redundancy, and that culture was so restrictive, it’d take 20 years to do anything and it’d always be $5 billion. Then SpaceX comes along and you have a culture where people are like, “We trust the leader. He’s going to take us to Mars. Everybody’s aligned with the mission and if we break some things along the way, it’s encouraged.”

So when the rockets blew up, the Falcon 9s and Musk was right there on the beach with these guys collecting pieces of rocket right off the beaches. And Starship is a phenomenal example of that where you see blow up all the time and they make this exponential progress on the platform, because they’re totally comfortable as a culture losing two or three Starships a year or four Starships a year, but they know that within five years that’s going to be a productized platform. You tried this with NASA, they’ve tried it for the last 20 years, they haven’t been able to match it. So culture of trust is what gets you there. When I went to the SpaceX facility in Hawthorne, they’re building a rocket every two days, a full rocket every two days. It’s just, I’ve never seen anything like it. And everybody just works as a team, they communicate extremely well. It’s very horizontal and structure, so there’s not this high vertical bureaucracy, just everybody has a domain and there’s a lot of admiration and respect there.

So I really admire organizations that figure out how to inculcate that, develop that, and I think good systems produce trust over time. People just believe it’s going to work. Chinese people trust the Chinese government. It’s a really weird thing. We Americans, we look at it, we say, “Well, China’s a dystopian hellscape because, they have social credit and these other things.” Well, when they look at the approval rating of Xi or these other people from people rank-and-file China, most of them believe in the next 10 years, China will be more progressed, more prosperous and more powerful than the last 10 years, and that will be shared adequately with the people of China because gone from nothing in the 1970s where people would starve to death on a pretty regular basis to one of the world’s greatest superpowers, and they did this decade after decade after decade.

So whatever they’re doing in that system, it’s producing trust in its citizens for that. And so trust doesn’t necessarily equate to our notion of honesty and our notion of morality or our notion of ethics. Trust just basically means that for whatever the system is intended to do, you over time start believing it’s probably going to do that and it’s going to do it well and efficiently and it’s going to do it more likely than not to my satisfaction. You might disagree with that system or disagree with the methods, but that’s the thing. And blockchain is much the same. It’s a high trust system, and the number one thing for blockchains is not market utilization and TVL or any of the things, it’s the trust in it, which is why Bitcoin is still number one. It’s the most trusted asset on the planet, even though it has seven transactions a second and it takes an hour for finality, and there’s not really strong smart contracts or any of these things. It’s the trust that makes Bitcoin so powerful.

Douglas:

Yeah, it’s interesting. I think you hit on something that is a little in my mind, differentiated from trust, which is the ability to allow failure. Leaders that when something goes wrong, freak out and treat it as a anomaly and something that’s really, really bad, you create a phenomenon where no one wants to mention that things are going poorly and then that leads to more catastrophic failures because we can’t even surface the small ones.

Charles:

Yeah.

Douglas:

And I think this gets into Amy C. Edmondson’s work around psychological safety. It’s like, are we fearful to even talk about things that are not going to plan? Because teams that can talk about these things and surface stuff and fail forward, to your point, they move a lot faster, because they’re making big, bold discoveries.

Charles:

But that’s the trust issue at its core too, because at the end of the day, you don’t trust the leadership to protect your interests. You know you’re going to make mistakes and if the response to mistakes are find someone to blame and kill them, that’s a very different environment than these leaders historically, they might yell at me for it, but at the end of the day, they’re not going to fire me or prevent or destroy my career. We understand part of the business is failure, and when you’re a leader, you have to clearly understand and articulate what your tolerance is for your product and for your endeavor to failure, you have to put those rules out there. And there are some cases where failure is not an option. The aerospace industry is a great example of that. Failure translates to what we just saw in Washington, D.C. with a Blackhawk helicopter crashing into a passenger jet. That’s somebody’s children. It’s one of the most tragic and horrible circumstances, and every single person, they feel sick to their stomach if they’re connected to it and they say, “This is the worst day of my life.”

That’s failure where it’s not an option and you can’t have a culture that says, “Well, that’ll happen every now and then, but in general, we’re getting it done.” But in other systems like agile prototyping or aerospace prototyping or other things, when you’re dealing with a group of people where they’re deeply inspired and they’re willing to encumber risk and they sign up for that, like the test pilots testing supersonic aircraft or these types of things, and they died all the time, it didn’t matter because they signed up for that and they were all in the same boat. They were explorers in a certain dimension and that culture permitted that to exist. So really you have to ask what tolerance for failure do you have and how does the organization respond to failure? I think the Navy did a phenomenal job with the submarine programs. They had the Thresher and the Scorpion, and both of those were lost because of poor design and accidents.

And so they responded by saying, “Look, we’re not going to go and punish every admiral and go and yell at the submarine companies or anything. We’re just going to create a program of excellence.” It’s called SUBSAFE. Actually, the Navy had to go and teach NASA after Challenger how to build stuff. So after Challenger happened, the Navy came in and they say, “If you’re actually going to build spacecraft, this is the program you have to follow.” And SUBSAFE is a really rigorous way of constructing submarines. Since the Navy did it, I think they’ve only lost one submarine the entire history and they had hundreds before, and that was the one. So every system has to be upfront with those expectations and then you build a culture accordingly. And then there’s, what do you do when failure occurs? Because failure does happen and do people feel like they’re going to be treated fairly or do people feel like the exercise is more about subscribing blame?

And this is the dark side of NASA. When failure happens, especially with Challenger, the game was not to admit it, but rather hide it and find ways to bury it in the guts of something. And Feynman and others had to dig it out with a presidential commission, but eventually they figured it out. But bad cultures, they tend to hide enough and make things oblique, whereas good cultures, people proactively search for the truth and they bring it on up and they don’t care about the consequences of the truth, they just want it out there, because they think it makes everybody’s life better and they have the capacity to say they’re sorry. It’s a two-way relationship. Every society has a forgiveness mechanism, a lever of forgiveness that they pull. And in some societies, it’s quite easy. In other ones it’s quite draconian and harsh. Like in China, anytime there’s a financial collapse, they’ll just go execute some of the bankers.

They have these trial, they pull them out and they’re like, “Oh, this guy, mortgage crisis, whatever.” They go execute them, makes them feel better. I guess in other societies, they don’t punish people at all. Like in ours, 2008, there was too big to fail and these guys robbed us of billions of dollars and they got to retire with hundreds of millions of dollars and there was no consequences for anything that they did. So that’s the other side of the pendulum is what a society’s response to these types of things and both a personal liability and a professional liability, and what’s the organizational response to these things? And then there in that structure, you start thinking about, well, how do you build psychological safety if it’s even possible at all? In some cases it’s not.

Douglas:

How do you view building this trust that’s so essential and the safety that’s so essential when you’re talking about distributed teams and you look at the Cardano community, all the folks that were involved in drafting the Constitution, coming from wildly different backgrounds with different interests and goals in mind, different careers. What does trust building look like there? How did that even happen?

Charles:

Well, first and foremost, you have to be willing to let people express themselves without beating them down even if they disagree with you. That’s a huge component of it. And it’s hard at times because sometimes they say things that are just materially not true, and I sometimes struggle with that or they don’t give you the benefit of the doubt when you’ve earned it. If somebody, I’ll give you an example, if every day for two years a person finds someone’s wallet and it’s got some money inside of it and they go out of their way to return it to that person with the money inside of it, and then somebody leaves their wallet in front of you and then they immediately snatch it and say, “Oh, thank God I took it, because you would steal my money.” You’d probably get a little off about that because it’s like, “Well, my track record here indicates something very, very different and you know that I have this track record and you know how I act.”

So you get pretty offended when people accuse you of things like for example, some people with the budget process say, “Well, the only reason Charles is doing this is just to loot and steal all the money from the budget.” And deep down inside they know that that’s a lie, and they know that that’s not what we’re doing. And they know that if we were going to go down that road, we had many opportunities before to structure it in a different way where we could have achieved that end and probably not had any consequences for it. But instead, we acted as good citizens and built a collaborative process and bring people together. So if you respond the wrong way and you respond negatively and harshly, unfortunately those people say it in today’s society, they have no accountability and then they immediately clutch their pearls and play the victim and they make it a David versus Goliath thing.

The very powerful person is picking on this very weak person and they go and try to create sympathy from people who aren’t intimately connected to the situation. So that is one of the issues, and you see that a lot. So many people, they get very panicky or flighty when an event happens. Like we’re having a budget issue right now where the budget process has always been broadcasted roughly the same way, and we say, “Look, the Constitution first, then the product roadmap, then the budget. And the budget’s going to be a proposal and there’s going to be competing proposals and there’ll be a reconciliation step.” So give Intersect and IO some time to put a coalition together and figure out some basic principles and a basic sizing that needs to be done. And by the way, we’re going to do that under NDA or under private groups, because we don’t want intermediate work products to be leaked because it would be an unfair representation for intermediate products to go out there because some of those things are stubs, some of those things, there’s no intention.

Other things, the price of ADA was 25 cents and it just hasn’t been updated, and people think it’s now four times more expensive. And if every single time you do an intermediate work product, it immediately goes to the internet and people freak the hell out and they get super upset and then they take sides and judge you based on that, then nobody will contribute because they don’t want to get attacked and they don’t want to be part of that toxicity. So unfortunately, somebody in that group leaked it, or at least I guess an early draft of things that wasn’t accurate. And now we have a whole bunch of people dogpiling on Twitter doing that, and it diminishes the credibility of the process and then it makes everything we do thereafter look reactive. So even if we do the right thing, “Oh, they only did the right thing, because we went to Twitter and criticized those people.” As opposed to. “They were planning on doing this all the time.”

And I’m not sure exactly how to resolve that. It is a deeply frustrating modern phenomena in politics. Two generations ago for the really serious stuff, nobody thought that the people in Washington would just be so blatantly against the American people. Let’s say there’s nuclear weapons crisis with the Soviet Union like the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example. Eisenhower and Kennedy were talking to each other every day, Republican former president, Democrat president, and 100% of Washington was aligned. And they’re like, “What can we do? How can we help? This is a national security issue. We’re all in the same boat.” Now in Washington, every national security issue, they look at it through the lens of, “How can I gain political power as a result of manipulating this event to my own interest?”

So there’s zero trust in these types of things. If you ever have a meeting with a person who’s politically opposed to you, they don’t have your back. Even common decency’s out the window now. Like Bernie Sanders for example, and Tulsi Gabbard, she gave up her career in the Democrat party. She was a rising star. She could have been president one day as a Democrat. She gave up her career by backing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton and criticizing Hillary Clinton and how she kind of strong armed the 2016 nomination against Bernie. And Bernie’s probably going to vote against Tulsi running for DNI. It just shows you how far partisan politics have gone. If I know that this person gave up their career to support me and they had integrity and fought hard for something that was important to me, I wouldn’t betray that person, stab them in the back for a job that I knew they were qualified for, but I’m only voting against them because it’s a party line thing. Where’s the good in that?

So when you see a system behave that way, you tend to just lose all trust in it and you start doing pretty extreme things. So it’s a delicate thing and it’s a hard thing and events happen and they make you a little angry at times. And then you’re very disappointed in people and their conduct, especially when they do things a certain way. And at the end of the day, if you have benefit of the doubt, then you realize that even if it’s not a perfect work product, the person’s heart is in the right place and you can work with this person. So if somebody’s heart’s in the right place and they produce something you don’t like, your first response should be just pick up the phone and call them and have a conversation with them because they could be persuaded and you’re both on the same side. You both want the same outcome.

What you do as an adult, you explain, “I think you’re trying to achieve this and this and this is that, right?” They say, “Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m trying to achieve.” Say, “Okay, well here’s the problem with what you’ve proposed, if we go down this road, we’re going to run into A, B and C. And I think if you do choose this alternative, you won’t have A, B and C, but you’ll still achieve the same end.” And then they hear it out and they say, “Oh yeah, actually that makes a lot of sense. I think we’ll go with the thing you’re doing.” Or they’ll disagree and they’ll say, “I thought about the thing you’re doing, but here’s this other thing you had no idea about that I know about and I’m going to tell it to you and that’s why I was forced to do the proposal that I had.” And people say, “Oh yeah, that does kind of make sense.”

So maybe there’s something on your side that you had considered, because you’re not God. You can’t step into somebody’s brain and trust works in both directions. Does the person talking to you respect you enough to listen to you? Does the person talking to you respect you enough to acknowledge that you’re a human being with your own independent ideas and maybe just you have more knowledge about this than they do and that’s the reason why you’re proposing the type of thing. And it goes back to that benefit of the doubt. We live in a society now where people have a hard time conceiving that certain people have access to other information. Like when Trump said COVID was made in a lab, that’s a pretty credible source.

I understand a lot of people, all politics, he’s an evil orange monster and all this stuff. Whatever you think, he is the President of the United States and maybe just the President of the United States is given information we don’t see. He was arrested for that. The whole classified information Mar-a-Lago thing. So the president gets to see stuff we don’t get to see. So if the president says something, especially something very significant like that, it’s a credible source in more cases than not, but we just let our politics get in the way or our personal distaste get in the way, and that’s another big problem. So you have to have objectivity is I guess what I’m getting at and you have to divorce the names and your reactions to the names and the people and where they come from from the conversation, and you have to objectively look at these types of things and then you have to say, “Okay, objectively does the argument and the data make sense?”

And if you are taking things on faith, you have to look at the totality of the person’s track record and say, “Historically in these contexts, have they been reliable or unreliable?” There is no secret in the world that I do not get along with Vitalik Buterin. He has very little respect for me. He thinks I’m less than a piece of dirt on the ground, and there’s a rule in the Ethereum Foundation, they are never allowed to mention Cardano. But let’s say somebody accused Vitalik Buterin embezzling money from the Ethereum Foundation, I wouldn’t believe it unless there was overwhelming evidence for it because I know from his track record, he’s had hundreds of opportunities throughout his career to steal money, to take the easy road, and he’s not motivated by money at all.

I’ve seen it myself working with him, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say, “Unless there’s overwhelming evidence for that and circumstances for that, it’s probably made up rumor and it’s probably not true.” That doesn’t mean I agree with him or I like him or we even get along, but I can objectively separate the person from the event and say, “Well, what’s my lived experience with it? And also what have I seen through his conduct over the last 10 years?”

Douglas:

I was thinking about the working groups that I observed and how there was this interesting tension around the need and the value for transparency and also this notion of getting content to a point where it was consumable. And so if we wait too long until we perfect it, then the community is getting concerned. It’s hard for them to extend the trust long enough for folks to get things to be presentable and ready. Curious what your thoughts are on this idea of like, “Well, if we want to be transparent, but we also need to get things to a shareable state.”

Charles:

Yeah.

Douglas:

Tell me about that tension there.

Charles:

It depends on the work activity that you’re behind. So if you are doing something that everybody agrees on the outcome, it is really good to share that as soon as humanly possible. Like Ouroboros Leios is a great example of that. It’s a protocol we’re implementing for Cardano, and if we’re successful with it’ll make Cardano probably 100 times faster than what it is right now. That’s awesome. Very, very happy about that. So everybody agrees about the outcome. They say, “Oh, we want it.” Where they disagree is about the process, how to get to that outcome, the resources required, the design, these types of things. So what you do is create a working group, bring as many people as you can together and then publicly broadcast the intermediate work products and then everybody grabbing a shovel and they want that to happen. When you have a process where there are winners and losers in that process, and budgets by definition and political campaigns by definition are winners and losers because if somebody got funded, it’s seldom the case that everybody got funded.

So there’s somebody who eventually gets left off and for that particular person, that’s existential and it’s the most meaningful and important thing in the world and they feel cheated and they feel like it was an unfair process and the process has to be torn down, they were a victim of that process. So when you know ahead of time that people have that type of reaction, the problem with intermediate work products is you’re debating winners and losers sets sets, and the problem is you haven’t made your conscious choice of which one of these you want to bank on, and because of that, you’re going to get the worst of all worlds where you get basically prejudged for things you didn’t even do. What if it’s as simple as Bob just put in a stub for $100 million for development and just left in one company because he hasn’t gotten the final list of it?

Then if I saw that and I was on the other side, “Oh, that one company got all the money and none of us got anything, these guys are terrible and they’re planning on stealing from all of us.” That’s why you got to keep that secret until you’re absolutely certain that you can live with the consequences of the red button, the launch button. And you say, “Okay, it is what it is. We just have to live with it.” The other circumstance is competitive and in some cases your intermediate work products can be stolen by your competitors, and when they get taken, they can be used for their own products and that’s less of an issue in an open source decentralized ecosystem. But it could be an issue if you have a fork of the chain.

Let’s say that there’s a Cardano and a Cardano Classic, or there was Ethereum Classic and there was a Bitcoin Cash, and let’s say you’re working on a new protocol that’s super awesome and you want your ecosystem be first to launch that protocol so that you can basically not lose the fight between these two competing chains that are going after each other. So in those circumstances you don’t share, even though perhaps sharing would be better if you didn’t have a native competitor. The nice part about Cardano is it’s so technologically different from the EVM ecosystem, we don’t have any of those concerns. Nobody’s trying to steal eUTxO or Plutus or Ouroboros.

We’re kind of living in our own world, and even if they want to like Haskell, it’s a weird language what’s going on? It’s not easy for them to do that, and that’s actually means that we can be far more collaborative and far more open with people. And that’s why we have 168 scientists we’ve worked with for the 230 papers we’ve published, and that’s why our code is so open and all the protocols are so open and the prototyping process is so open, there’s just no interest in espionage for that. Whereas maybe you’re a layer two on Ethereum and you’re just exactly the same as all the other layer two neighbors, you’d be a little bit more careful with that and you want to try to create some first mover advantage.

Douglas:

That’s fascinating. I want to come back to the convention and the workshops leading up to it. What impact do you think the facilitative approach made to the final outcome?

Charles:

Everybody entered in with trust, and that’s why the convention worked. It was hard because there was strong disagreements, but because they trusted each other, they were able to converge to a compromised state. If people didn’t enter in with trust, it would just be physically impossible. There’s too much to go against the tides, the cultural stuff, the language stuff, the asymmetries and experience and knowledge and power and money. There’s just too much there, but everybody entered in with trust and that’s the thing that made the difference at the end of the day.

Douglas:

When you think about the future developments around community-driven governance within Cardano or other broader blockchain spaces or contexts, where is it headed? What is the future?

Charles:

We see it. We see it with Metagov over in the Ethereum space. We see it with Tezos, we see it with Polkadot, we see it with Dash and Cardano, and all of these are examples of decentralized governance. In real time, you’re really asking three things. Does the system have three properties, integrity, efficiency and effectiveness? Integrity means you start with a founding intent and does the system preserve that founding intent? So the Constitution is the founding intent of Cardano. Then you have the efficiency, which is how quickly can the system converge to make a decision? Is it a day, a week, a month, a year? And it could be different for different types of decisions like hard forks versus protocol parameter changes or treasury withdrawals. But how quickly does that take? And effectiveness is how good are the decisions you’re making? So if you set an outcome, can you make that outcome?

So for example, we say something like, “We think this budget for 2025 will double the size of Cardano as measured by transaction volume and TVL.” Did it happen? If it did, it’s an effective system because those were the measurement criteria. That’s the outcome we wanted to achieve, we achieved it. So typically you have a governance trilemma where you only get two of the three if you’re good. Sometimes you get all three, but it’s hard. So China is a great case study in efficiency and effectiveness, but no integrity. What I mean by that is from a western perspective, integrity to me means that you don’t persecute minorities. Integrity to me means you protect human rights, integrity to me means you value freedom of commerce and expression. But when I see Jack Ma be disappeared because he disagrees with the government or camps set up in Western China because they had belonged to an ethnic minority or eminent domain used to basically just take people’s land and if they complain, shoot them, that’s not a preservation of human rights and integrity.

On the other hand, gone from a backwater to a superpower in five decades. So it’s a very effective, efficient system upon that optimizing function. Then you have places like Switzerland, which are high integrity. They have rule of law, they protect human rights. No one Swiss thinks, “God, is the government going to purge me?” In fact, they’re more about some of these rights than most western nations and they’re very effective. So effective translates to when they make a decision, it tends to have a good outcome. That’s why they’re one of the richest countries in the world. They’re horrendously inefficient. It takes a long time to make a decision in Switzerland, and Zurich is a great example. If you go to the basement of one of the buildings, they have this beautiful large wooden model of the city of Zurich, and you have to go through these stages of steps.

Whenever you want to build something in Zurich, you have to actually, they’ll add it to the wooden model and the account council will debate it and talk about it. It’ll take 20 years to get a permit to build a skyscraper or to modify something inside Zurich because they say, “Oh, we have like 800 years of legacy with this city. We don’t want to squander it because you’re going to make some pretty building, but it won’t fit in.” So everything in Switzerland operates this way. They think in terms of decades and centuries, and Japan is the same way in certain places where everything is deliberate and takes a long time to get done, but it tends to be very effective. So efficiency goes away. So you typically get two of these things and really bad systems, you don’t have any of them. You’re inefficient, you’re ineffective, and you have no integrity.

A lot of dictatorships end up this way. They start highly effective and highly efficient, and then the dictator gets old and crazy and he has sycophants all around him, and then the efficacy disappears and the efficiency disappears inside the system. We see that with Russia, with Vladimir Putin where he was thinking, “Oh, I have this badass army and they can do all these incredible things.” And they were just straight up lying to him. They were fake armies on paper and fake training on paper and equipment. So when he made a war plan to invade Ukraine on four fronts and try to take the whole country in two weeks, he’s thinking, “Oh, this will be easy because everything I was told is this way.” And it turns out it was a disastrous decision for him because, because they didn’t actually have what they said they had, and that’s why they’ve gotten mired down in this three-year meat grinder, which has killed about 800,000 Russians and 600,000 Ukrainians, 1.4 million people.

It’s a remarkable loss of life. So bad bureaucracy has those types of consequences. It kills people, it slows things down. It’s ineffective. So we’re now assessing Cardano on those three criteria. Once the Constitution’s in place, we have a litmus test for integrity and we have a point to measure and we say, “Did the government ever try to make or make a decision that violated the constitutional intent?” If it did, we lost integrity. If it didn’t, we preserved it. And then you look at things like the budget, the roadmap, and other events like protocol parameter changes, hard forks, and you say, “How long did it take?” That’s your efficiency. And then you look at the outcome of those events and say, “Is the system making good decisions and is Cardano consistently growing in these types of things?” So that’s your efficacy inside the system, and we can measure it year by year.

And what’s cool is you can measure your neighbors too. Like Ethereum for example, when they did the DAO hack, the bailout there, I would argue it broke the integrity of a blockchain. They’re supposed to be irreversible, code is law. They don’t agree. But that’s after they did, that meant that Ethereum now has the option to do that. The same with staking discrimination where they’re getting some other people who approve transactions to be OFAC compliant as validators, and so they can censor the Mempool to remove transactions that are on the OFAC list. So now there’s transaction discrimination. So I remember in the early days at Ethereum, we put up “censorship resistant” out the door, “immutable” out the door. So for me, it’s not an integrity system, but people love that ecosystem. They seem to think that way and they don’t value that. So that can be like China, I guess there’s no coincidence that Vitalik speaks Chinese.

These things are okay. They have a different viewpoint of these types of things. Where Bitcoin, that will never happen. We all know that. They’re hard hardcore people. They have one view, it’s called maximalism, and there’s only one God, it’s Satoshi, and they follow that to the core. So the most important of the three for Bitcoin is integrity. So much so they’re willing to sacrifice any notion of efficacy and efficiency. It takes three to five years to put a major upgrade into Bitcoin with Taproot being the last one in 2021, and they’re debating all these upgrades. But it takes years for those types of things to come in. It takes us months.

And the power of an on-chain government is it allows you to move trade-off windows. So what we’re banking on is we can preserve an integrity like Bitcoin has, but we can move as fast as Ethereum does in terms of upgrades and be that efficient. Then we’re also banking that the wisdom of the crowds will make the decisions we make over time more effective. So over time the budgets will get more effective and over time the product roadmap will get more inclusive and effective for what we need and we’ll see. But if it works out, it’s a great case study in governance models and it’s something to learn from.

Douglas:

So thinking about the community-driven approach to drafting and voting in the constitutional draft, what challenges do you foresee in scaling this approach as you think about bringing in more community members, more ADA holders, more voices?

Charles:

I think that the thing is designed to scale, and we know that because we’ve gone from nothing to 780 DReps. We’ve gone from nothing to 108,000 people participating in governance in some form or fashion, and we’ve done all of that without the network collapsing and actually having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s a really amazing thing. The workshop is the single most expensive artifact, and I’d like to have it as an ongoing concern, but really for a representative sample of the world, you’re talking about seven of the order of magnitude of about five to 10 million per year. And not just for governance workshops, but also product and budget workshops. So I think they have a place and purpose, especially in areas that are very disenfranchised, that just don’t have native access to the ecosystem and they don’t have the money to travel.

So that’s a model that you pull out and you use. And also when people start developing their own communication channels, like the DReps are starting to all talk to each other and they’re forming coalitions and they are in the same Discord and they have regular meetings and these types of things, that is an organic bottom-up coordination. And once it occurs, then it becomes very efficient. So if you want to percolate information through the entire ecosystem, it’s very straightforward. You just do three, four things and then boom, you’ve talked to half of Cardano. Now innovation also can help. One of the things we’re working on in terms of technology is I really want a Pub/Sub mechanism that when you go ahead and delegate your ADA or your vote to a stake pull operator or to a DRep that you also auto-subscribe in your wallet to their comms channel so those people can push messages to you.

I really think that that would be an amazing feature. And we’ll probably roll something like that over into LACE and then hopefully gradually get into the Cardano protocol. Well, minute you have that, if you’re a DRep or if you’re a stake pool operator, you now have a button to click to talk to every person who trusts you. That’s really powerful, because you don’t know those people. It’s a permissionless system. They could be in Nigeria, they could be in Vietnam and not speak English. They could be anywhere in the world when you really think about it. And when they delegate to you, they’re not giving you their name, their email, or any of these types of things. So having a comms channel where those messages can be pushed, super valuable, because then you know how to reach everybody.

But wait a minute, if everybody, like 70% of the Cardano users are delegating to SPOs, and about 20% right now are delegating to DReps, and that’s growing every day. Once we have those systems in place, just by talking to a few hundred DReps and a few thousand SPOs, you literally can talk to every person in Cardano. That’s the power of networking. So that’s awesome. So you just create a horizontal communication channel for that. And even if you want to coordinate and scale at a level of 10 million people or 100 million people, you now have an effective way to do that. So part of the game is just making sure you have the right comms channels and the right collaborative media workshops. Their primary thing isn’t information discussion. You can do that over Zoom. The primary thing is trust building, because when people actually meet each other and they spend time with each other and they get to know each other, that creates a reality where they’re like, “I now know this person. I now understand where this person is coming from.”

And everything that seemed dramatic and weird, it evaporates away and we’re all reading from the same hymn sheet now. So it’s important that you have in-person touch points on a regular basis in a decentralized thing, because there’s what we call relationship entropy. And so if you don’t meet up, the opposite thing happens over time. You start becoming more suspicious of people, you start having fights with people, and then you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. So workshops pull people together and they restore the relationships, and then people pull apart organically. So you have to do that on a recurring and regular basis, and we’re trying to figure out how to do that as an ecosystem in a cost-effective way because there’s just a lot of people and there’s a lot going on, but I think it is one of the most important things you can do to keep a decentralized ecosystem cohesive.

Douglas:

Incredible. Well, Charles, we’re coming up on the end here, so just want to say thanks for joining today and really enjoyed the conversation and look forward to seeing you again sometime soon.

Charles:

Absolutely. You’re a permanent member of this ecosystem now, whether you like it or not, because you were part of there at the beginning of governance, and we’re going to do as an ecosystem is keep learning. Minimum viable governance is so exciting because it’s a foundation, it’s not an end, and you can build on that. So now that we have great dirt work and we just put the flat work down, we got the concrete down, we can build one hell of a structure on top of that, because it was pretty thick pad that we poured. So I am real excited and real happy and thank you for everything you do. And I love talking about these topics.

And usually when I do interviews they’re like, “When is the price of ADA going up?” Or, “How do we win against Solana?” Or these things. And getting to talk about the actual collaborative models is phenomenal. And I’d highly recommend you interview Tam Haasen, the president of IO, because this is what she does. She’s super, super good at these things and she’s in love with the idea of building better collaborative models, and it’s always fun to talk about them.

Douglas:

Ooh, yeah, I’d love to. Fantastic. Well, thanks for the recommendation, and again, thanks for coming on the show.

Charles:

Thank you, Doug. Cheers.

Douglas:

Thanks for joining me for another episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe and receive updates when new episodes are released. We love listener tales and invite you to share your facilitation stories. Send them to us on LinkedIn or via email. If you want to know more, head over to our blog where I post weekly articles and resources about facilitation, team dynamics, and collaboration. voltagecontrol.com.

The post From Talking Sticks to Blockchain: Revolutionizing Governance Through Collaboration appeared first on Voltage Control.

I never set out to become a facilitator. In fact, I didn’t even know what the word meant. What I did know was that something about our workshops could be better. For years, my partner Mauricio and I had been delivering leadership trainings through our company, EXEC Consulting LLC. These were classic content-forward sessions: structured, informative, but mostly one-directional. 

We’d spent years honing a program that consistently delivered value. Mauricio had built something people returned to again and again—and for good reason. But as we continued delivering it, I started to feel a gentle pull. I wondered if we could bring more participation into the room. Moments of interaction—brief partner shares, space for reflection—seemed to energize people in ways that surprised me. It wasn’t that anything was wrong, but I sensed we were only scratching the surface of what was possible.

I remember delivering a session for the Center for Internationalization in the Piedmont region of Italy. We’d go there once or twice a year to run the same program. Over time, I began to see a pattern: whenever we included a moment of self-reflection or encouraged participants to share insights with a partner, the room came alive. It was subtle at first. A ripple of energy. More smiles. Eye contact. Curiosity. I could see how those moments—however brief—led to deeper engagement.

My own experience of running the same workshop over and over again—especially in Piedmont—became a mirror. I could see when the room was leaning in and when it was leaning back. I started to track the energy not just by what people said, but how they said it, how quickly they came alive in the partner shares, how they lingered afterward. Even without knowing the word, I had started to develop the instincts of a facilitator. I was tuning into what the room needed—not just what I planned to deliver.

The First Containers

That realization pulled me into a new kind of inquiry. What if the magic wasn’t in the content, but in how we created space for it? What if the work was less about giving answers and more about surfacing what was already there? I didn’t yet know the word for what I was feeling, but the search had begun.

And maybe more than anything, I was noticing my own excitement. These participatory moments didn’t just energize the room—they energized me. After dozens of repetitions, it was those interactions that made the sessions feel fresh. The unknown of what someone might share, the little sparks of vulnerability and humor—they reminded me that learning could feel alive. That was the beginning of something shifting in me, even if I didn’t yet know where it was going.

Looking back, I think facilitation first found me long before I had language for it. At Girl Scout camp, in the way we sang songs and followed rituals that created a sense of belonging. Later, at yoga retreats where a teacher guided us into self-awareness with care. Even in college, studying U.S. history through the lens of civil rights at Reed College, I was already asking the kinds of questions that facilitation now helps me hold: Who has a voice? What structures create trust? How do we build spaces for honest dialogue?

So when I look back now, those threads were always there. But it was in 2018 or 2019—watching the impact of small participatory shifts in our trainings—that the pattern began to crystallize. I knew I needed to find more of whatever that was.

Following the Curiosity

My path into facilitation wasn’t dramatic; it was more like a breadcrumb trail. I started Googling. Looking for ways to make workshops more participatory. Somewhere along the way, I stumbled into a Voltage Control Facilitation Lab meetup. I figured I’d lurk in the background, camera off. Instead, I got paired in a breakout room and asked a deep, personal question right away. I was surprised. And energized. There was no back row here.

I quickly discovered that facilitation was a field, a practice, even a craft. And there were names I hadn’t heard before—like Priya Parker, whose book “The Art of Gathering” blew open something in me. Mauricio had mentioned her after hearing her on a podcast, and reading her work became a turning point. I realized that meaningful gatherings were more than logistics; they were opportunities for transformation.

Around the same time, the world was erupting in protest over George Floyd’s murder. I joined more Voltage Control sessions and was struck by how space was held to process racial injustice. It wasn’t performative. It was real. And it made me realize that facilitation could be a civic tool as much as a professional one.

I also started to realize how much of facilitation was about how we gather—not just what we do when we’re there. That resonated with earlier parts of my life: Girl Scout camp, where rituals helped us feel like a team. Slumber parties, where connection happened in the small hours. And especially my first yoga retreat, where a guide gently invited us to reflect, breathe, notice. All of these memories felt like breadcrumbs leading back to the power of intentional space-making.

The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. I started reaching out to others in the community for virtual coffee chats. Everyone said yes. They shared their experiences generously, and I found myself growing through these one-on-one connections. It became clear that this wasn’t just a new skill. It was a new way of being.

A Clear Yes

When the opportunity came to join the certification program, it felt obvious. I had already gained so much from the free resources and community that saying yes to going deeper was easy. Of course I reflected on the time and financial commitment, but in the end, I knew it would give me the structure and grounding I needed.

I didn’t talk to anyone about it. I just signed up. It felt like an investment in a part of me that was just beginning to find its voice. I had this image of who I might become if I said yes to that voice. I knew it would be work. I had plenty of internal doubts—would I really follow through? Did I belong in this room? But deeper than the fear was the curiosity. That tug that had pulled me into my first breakout room now pulled me into something more lasting. I said yes.

I was hungry to learn. I knew I needed more than tools—I needed formation. I wanted to go from absorbing content to confidently facilitating the space where learning happens. Certification was my next right step.

Finding My Voice Again

One of the most meaningful parts of the certification experience was the coaching I received from Erik. He saw me. I don’t say that lightly. His message was simple, but it landed deeply: Don’t conform. Your uniqueness is your strength. That gave me permission to lean into the authentic version of facilitation that only I could offer.

That message stuck with me, especially because I’d noticed a pattern in myself. I often started things with originality and excitement—law school, college, even this facilitation journey—but somewhere along the way I’d begin to conform, to fit myself into the mold of what I thought “professional” looked like. With Erik’s support, I gave myself permission not to do that this time. To stay weird. To stay me.

The portfolio was another major moment. It forced me to reflect on where facilitation was already showing up in my life—from a racial justice book club I launched, to a fitness class I led, to the flow channel exercise I added to our workshops in Italy. Writing the portfolio helped me claim the title of facilitator, even if my work didn’t look like anyone else’s. That was powerful.

Naming my brand as 3D Wellness—emotional, physical, and social well-being—came out of that process. It was something I’d never have thought to do without the push to articulate my philosophy. That naming wasn’t just a marketing exercise—it was a moment of personal clarity. It said: This is what I care about. This is what I want to build. And I’ve been using that framework ever since, in everything from movement workshops to community dinners.

Owning My Practice

Since certification, I’ve been stretching. I brought new games and interactive elements to our Piedmont trainings. I facilitated a Dance & Discover event with cultural learning and community connection. I co-led a strategic gathering for a coalition of Texas nonprofits—an emotionally intense experience that tested and affirmed my capacity to hold space for vulnerability and trust-building.

That nonprofit gathering in Austin stands out. It was deeply emotional. We had to pivot mid-session to address a lack of trust in the room that hadn’t been disclosed beforehand. I used a listening circle format and invited participants to share openly, uninterrupted. Then, inspired by an exercise from the Voltage Control summit, I asked them to stand shoulder-to-shoulder, silently look each other in the eyes, and internally say either “I trust this person” or “I want to trust this person.” It was raw. Beautiful. People cried. The room shifted. That’s when I understood just how powerful this work can be.

I’m also proud of what I’ve helped build through Dance & Discover. Even though I’ve only run a few events, they’ve become expressions of who I am as a facilitator. We dance. We reflect. We learn a little about the culture the dance emerged from. We connect. It’s joy, movement, and meaning all in one. And watching people stick around afterward—reluctant to leave—that’s when I know we created something real.

Most recently, I facilitated a half-day workshop on trust for a high-tech team in Orlando. It was a pivotal moment. I used Triz (“reverse thinking”) to help them identify trust-breaking behaviors, a trust equation to demystify the concept, and peer coaching to close with connection and empathy. Watching them choose to be anonymously evaluated by their peers was a powerful testament to how much we had built together in just a few hours.

A New Chapter Emerging

This work is expanding. Slowly, but beautifully. Mauricio now sees the value facilitation brings to our clients. After witnessing the Orlando session, he’s ready to integrate more of this approach into our offerings at EXEC. That alignment means the door is open to do more of what I love, inside the business we’ve built together.

We’re keeping a cadence—not because of demand or dollars, but because we want to. It’s low stakes, high purpose. And I’m seeing the impact it has not only on participants but on me. Each gathering adds another layer of confidence. Another opportunity to try something new. To be bold. To co-create something meaningful. And every time we do it, I feel more aligned with the kind of facilitator—and human—I want to be.

Being of Service

Looking ahead, I see myself fully stepping into leadership—in corporate rooms and intimate circles alike. I want to facilitate for teams that are ready to become more self-aware and take shared responsibility for the cultures they’re co-creating. When one-on-one coaching can’t address the whole picture, facilitation is the missing piece. It surfaces group dynamics, builds empathy, and unlocks new pathways forward.

That’s the opportunity I see for organizations: to use facilitation not just to solve problems, but to evolve their culture. In Orlando, I coached five people individually before the team workshop. I saw how facilitation could bring those isolated insights into a collective awakening. One-on-one coaching had given them language. Group facilitation gave them shared understanding. That’s the magic of pairing the two. Self-awareness, self-responsibility, and empathy—they all emerged naturally through the process.

I would tell anyone considering the certification this: if you want to be part of a learning community where you are seen, supported, and called forth into your potential, Voltage Control is the place. This isn’t just a training program. It’s the first step into a much larger journey. One where you get to become more of who you really are—and help others do the same.

The facilitation journey isn’t always linear. It requires trust—trust in yourself, in the process, in the people in the room. Voltage Control helped me build that trust. Not just by giving me tools, but by showing me what it feels like to be part of a brave, generous, and visionary community. That’s what makes the difference.

The post Trusting the Path appeared first on Voltage Control.

“It’s so much more beneficial when everyone gives up ownership of ideas and creates something that belongs to the whole group.”- Emilia Åström

In this episode of the Facilitation Lab podcast, host Douglas Ferguson interviews Emilia Åström, facilitator at Howspace and co-creator of “Perspectives.” Emilia shares her journey from competitive advertising to collaborative facilitation, inspired by her experience at Hyper Island. They discuss the transformative power of facilitation in fostering inclusive, innovative group dynamics and how structured methods like design thinking enhance leadership and learning. Emilia also highlights the impact of digital tools and AI in large-scale facilitation and emphasizes facilitation as a mindset that enriches both professional and personal growth.

Show Highlights

Links | Resources

About the Guest

Emilia Åström is Head of Community at Howspace, where she facilitates peer learning communities for leaders in learning and transformation. With over a decade of experience, she was part of the early days at Mural, helping define best practices for remote collaboration. She co-authored MethodKit for Remote Workshops and created the toolkit Perspectivas for inclusive advertising with Publicitarias. Emilia began her career in digital strategy and has since used design thinking and facilitation to guide advertising agencies and teams through complex digital transformations.

About Voltage Control

Voltage Control is a facilitation academy that develops leaders through certifications, workshops, and organizational coaching focused on facilitation mastery, innovation, and play. Today’s leaders are confronted with unprecedented uncertainty and complex change. Navigating this uncertainty requires a systemic facilitative approach to gain clarity and chart pathways forward. We prepare today’s leaders for now and what’s next.

Subscribe to Podcast

Engage Control The Room

Voltage Control on the Web
Contact Voltage Control

Transcript

Douglas Ferguson:

Hi, I’m Douglas Ferguson. Welcome to the Facilitation Lab Podcast, where I speak with Voltage Control certification alumni and other facilitation experts about the remarkable impact they’re making. We embrace a method-agnostic approach so you can enjoy a wide range of topics and perspectives as we examine all the nuances of enabling meaningful group experiences.

This series is dedicated to helping you navigate the realities of facilitating collaboration, ensuring every session you lead becomes truly transformative. Thanks so much for listening. If you’d like to join us for a live session sometime, you can join our Facilitation Lab community. It’s an ideal space to apply what you learn in the podcast in real time with peers.

Sign up today at voltagecontrol.com/facilitation-lab, and if you’d like to learn more about our 12-week facilitation certification program, you can read about it at voltagecontrol.com. Today I’m with Emilia Astrom at Howspace, where she facilitates peer learning communities for leaders in learning and transformation.

She’s the co-creator of Perspectives, a card deck for inclusive advertising developed with Publicitarias.org, and co-author of MethodKit for remote workshops and hybrid teams. Welcome to the show, Emilia.

Emilia Astrom:

Thank you, Douglas. Really great to be here. I’ve been longing to talk to you again and have this conversation, so.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, looking forward to it. It’s been a while. We were just remarking and it’s like pretty much a year, which is remarkable.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah, time goes by quickly when you’re busy and have fun.

Douglas Ferguson:

Indeed, indeed. So I want to go back a little bit to the origin story here of how you got started. I know for you, Hyper Island was pretty pivotal in your early journey.

So let’s look at that first moment at Hyper Island. What was it like for you, the one where you realized facilitation could be more than a technique, but a calling?

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. I had been working in advertising previously, so I came from an environment where it was quite common that you would compete against other creatives with your ideas, and then the best idea would be picked up. So when I started Hyper Island after that, and I had the first experience in a facilitated design thinking workshop, I was just really amazed with how a whole group were able to in such short time, come up with such great ideas together.

And before that, I hadn’t really known that human-centric design or facilitation existed and that there was a job you could actually do. So when I met the facilitators who came there when I first started Hyper Island, my idea or intention was to continue to work as a digital strategist or a creative. But I quickly found that it was much more interesting and I was much more fascinated with how can you make others come up with better ideas more quickly?

So that’s how it started, just that feeling of really belonging in a group, feeling that flow or coming up with great ideas together, and I just wanted more. So I continued to explore and study that, and look at what the facilitators who came to Hyper Island to teach courses and workshops would do. And then at the beginning, I would just imitate them and try to do the same, but then I started to explore and create more things on my own as well. So that’s how it started.

Douglas Ferguson:

A couple of things I was thinking about there was the point you made about the competitive environment in the ad agency.

And then the flip side, you’re talking about pulling out the great ideas from others or creating conditions where people come up with the great ideas.

How would you categorize those things, like how are they different, this competitive atmosphere versus this atmosphere where we’re drawing ideas out?

Emilia Astrom:

I guess in some way, the competitive atmosphere can be beneficial too. It can inspire you to be improving and to learning new things. But at the same time, I think that through a more collaborative experience or way of working, you’re much more able to join those ideas together and get the best of everyone.

So that we can come up with something that’s bigger, that’s considering more different perspectives and coming up with better, more strong ideas together. So you also get to better ideas quicker than you would do maybe through developing them individually, separately.

Because you can take all those different good parts from the different ideas and put them together much more quicker.

Douglas Ferguson:

What were some examples of early moments when you started to realize this power of shifting to a more collaborative and a more maybe inclusive approach?

Emilia Astrom:

I think it was really during Hyper Island, we had one week that was focusing just on idea development, and we had some really excellent guest facilitators who came to the school to facilitate those sessions. And those people later, I stayed in touch with them because I was curious to learn more. And there wasn’t that many people in my group either who were curious about facilitation, so I stayed in touch with them and continued to learn more afterwards.

But it was just in those workshops, the way that they were guiding the group through different steps and activities, and I realized how the structure could actually also help you build more creative and come up with better ideas. That moment in that workshop was really changing the perspectives for me. And I also think that I had, as [inaudible 00:06:19] advertising, I had always felt like I struggled a bit with coming up with good ideas.

I didn’t feel like I was maybe that creative or had that good ideas. But with those tools that you get through human-centric design and design thinking, I really felt like I got tools that helped me come up with better ideas. And I was really excited to share that with others as well, to let others have that experience that I had in that workshop in that moment.

Douglas Ferguson:

This kind of feeling that you had, it seems like you were compelled to share with others.

Is that something that’s been pervasive throughout your career or your life, this idea of spreading the news to others and assisting?

Emilia Astrom:

I think so. Actually, I remember a story that my mom used to tell me several times about when in kindergarten, she would observe how I would come up with games and stories, and come up with worlds that the other children would then join in and participate in. And I would come up with like give people roles.

I would come up with missions and we would all go out in the forest and do something together or build something, and so I think that’s something that I’ve probably always been pulled towards. And in school, that could sometimes be a little bit of a challenge, being too inspired and wanting to share your ideas with the group and try to steer the work of the groups as well.

And I think that through facilitation, they also got some tools that helped me make the most of that inspiration and curiosity and the desire to create things. Create worlds and play with others, but in a more constructive and more focused way that could also create better results for everyone. That’s a very interesting question. I never really thought about it that way.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah. It’s interesting you were talking about this innate curiosity thing, behavior or trait that you have, and how these facilitation tools are allowing you to maybe funnel that or harness it in a way that’s really productive.

And I’m curious, were there some early tools or some early processes where the light bulb went off to say, “Oh, this feels real natural”?

Emilia Astrom:

When I facilitated or when I participated in a facilitated experience?

Douglas Ferguson:

I’m curious about either. And to your point, sometimes participating in stuff, you could go, “Oh my gosh, this is going to be a game changer. I have to incorporate this.” But certainly when you’re practicing yourself, it’s a totally different experience.

So I’d just be curious, what jumps out to you as maybe a poignant moment around connecting back to that innate interest and curiosity to create these worlds? And was there a particular structure or experience that really stood out that helped you bridge that gap?

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. I think the first design thinking workshop I was part of that I mentioned, where we very clearly separated the conversation we had, or the moment where we explored the challenges or the needs of the people we would be designing for. And then have a more structured idea generation session where we also used the structure.

And this is something that Hyper Island later also included in the Hyper Island toolkit page, where you can find it yourself if you want to try later. But there’s an exercise called Mash-Up where you come up with different, you start by mapping different needs, different digital technologies, different maybe channels and platforms.

And then you connect them together to come up with new combinations and new ideas and you create new things together. So I think that was a really powerful thing for me, that also by using sticky notes, you take things apart but then you can put them together.

So I think that was a really powerful way as well that I learned through how also the visual aspect of facilitation can work in a really powerful way.

Douglas Ferguson:

So was that the first time you experienced someone sequencing a meeting or a session into its constituent parts so it flowed?

So you were focused on one piece and then moving to the next, versus what we tend to default to, which is like, “Oh, let’s just figure it all out”?

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah, definitely. In advertising, which I was used to before, you usually use a brief format where you do state what the problems and challenges, and needs and opportunities and insights are that you can use to develop your ideas. But after the brief has been created, everyone goes in their own direction, and then you have more of that sometimes you call it a technique like the blue sky.

You just go out in the world and wait for the perfect idea to hit you. Maybe you look at some references, some inspiration, maybe you look at some trends to try to get some ideas, but it’s not a very structured process and that can be a really great way to come up with ideas as well. So I definitely think that both, just a natural, creative process where you dream up new ideas over a longer period of time can have its place.

But sometimes you don’t have the luxury of time to come up with solutions quickly. And sometimes you also need to ensure that you follow a structured process, so that you make sure to do your proper research, that you test things to make sure that they really solve the problem that you’re setting out to solve. So I think that was also something that I was really just amazed with initially.

And thinking back at it now, those are things like today, I take those things for granted, it’s such an ingrained way of how I work. But initially, this was something that was really, really powerful, and this was over 15 years ago now, time goes by quickly. But thinking back at what it was like that first time when I realized this, it was really powerful.

It felt like a whole new world opening up, a whole new level of solving problems and collaborating with others.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, I would argue it’s a whole new level of leadership.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah, that as well. And I think today finally, facilitation is starting to become more part of the discussion more often of what skills we believe that leaders need.

And I absolutely think and today, fortunately when looking around me, when looking at the people I work with, facilitation is starting to become something that most leaders know about and start to apply a little bit.

I think we could do it even more than better, but I’m really happy to say that the awareness of facilitation and the benefits of it are starting to spread more and more.

Douglas Ferguson:

It is very encouraging to see this trend of folks recognizing facilitation and honoring it more. Too often, we see folks talking about leadership as presentation skills or executive presence or this and that.

But as you mentioned earlier, this ability to draw things out of others, to not be the one that has to have all the answers, but to help everyone on the team have great answers. I would argue that’s probably the best leadership skill you could have.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. And when I was young and my intention was to continue working in advertising and become a creative or strategist, I think one thing that drove me back then was probably a bit more like, “How could I have better ideas? How can I contribute a bit more through my ideas?”

But through discovering facilitation, really that was a big change as well, just realizing how it’s so much more beneficial when everyone give up that ownership of ideas, and let them do something that belongs to the whole group.

And how that can really, yeah, also support leaders in thinking about, “How can we support the group to have better ideas together?” So that was really interesting as well.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, it also is an interesting lens into how different cultures and different teams and different industries approach problems. Because when you’re focusing on facilitation skills, it typically exposes you to lots of different groups.

Whether that’s through your community of facilitators or just through the nature of the variety of work that you’re doing, and you’re no exception to that. You facilitated across continents and industries and formats. So I’m curious, what do you see as the through line in all those experiences?

Emilia Astrom:

I think that’s something that I started to realize more and more just recently. When I started out with facilitation, it was more of helping teams coming up with better ideas, but then now when I reflect back on it. Because recently, the last years, I’ve been finding myself more and more intentionally using facilitation as a way to help teams change the way they work and learn together in order to be able to change as well.

And I think looking back at the way I used facilitation when starting out, that was actually also about facilitating change. Because at that point, and this was back in 2010, then there were a lot of changes happening with new digital channels and tools coming in. And organizations were trying to find new ways of adapting to these new digital tools, and adapting to these new ways of working that this meant for them.

And human-centric design in facilitation was a tool that I found that I could use to help teams analyze what were the needs and what were the challenges of these new circumstances, and the new digital environment that we suddenly found ourselves in? So I think maybe those two parts, human-centric design as a way to facilitate change and learning, because change and learning are also very closely related.

It’s very hard to change if you’re not learning something new. And learning often means that something is changing as well, the way I changed by learning about facilitation kind of.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, it’s certainly difficult to change when you’re in a fixed mindset.

And learning forces you into more of a growth mindset or a curious space, because you’re already framing and opening yourself up to learning new stuff.

So your brain is changing, you’re less change-adverse, I guess, is the way I like to think about it.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. And I think facilitation also makes you less more adaptive to change, because many facilitation techniques and facilitation practices, it’s embedded in the methods and the tools that we use.

The reflection and the looking back at what we did and thinking about how we can improve, so that’s something that really supports that mindset of change in growth as well, I think.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah. When done well, it certainly does reinforce just by the nature of doing it, it keeps us in that growth mindset.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah, no, absolutely. And as a facilitator, it’s always important to learn and grow and learn new things. I think throughout my career, I haven’t been planning too much or thought too much about the future what I would like to do. I feel like I’ve been more of a receptor just listening to my surroundings and seeing what my surroundings need.

And maybe that’s also in a way something that comes through facilitating, because you become a more attentive listener. You’re listening to your environment to feel what the people in the room needs, while still focusing on where you need to go in a way, what is it that you are trying to achieve, what the group is trying to achieve?

So you move between the both, listening and learning to grow, and that’s also something that’s embedded in many of the facilitation methods and tool that we’re using thinking about, “What’s the desired future state that we want to go towards?” And even when designing workshops, we often start with the end goal state.

So I think that’s something that also becomes very present in the way we think and work and learn through the facilitation mindset. So that’s another benefit that I think you’re getting from being more aware of facilitation, just being more mindful about how you listen, how you learn, how you grow.

But also thinking about the future and the desired state, and how we can design our will to get there. How we can facilitate us getting there. Sorry, that became very abstract, I realize now, that I’m thinking about growth and learning.

Douglas Ferguson:

The thing that’s emerging for me is this idea of when you internalize facilitation, when it becomes a deep part of your practice, it’s not just something you show up and do for work, or it’s not just something that you sprinkle in to meetings and experiences you have with folks. It has a shift on how you view the world, how you navigate the world.

Because you’ve internalized it at a deep level, so you’re a better listener, whether that’s in personal relationships with family and loved ones, or whether it’s like you’re buying a car, you’re noticing these details. Or maybe it impacts how you negotiate anything and how you move through, and also to your point, how open you might be to possibilities.

And so I would say it tunes your radar in a way that, I think, is valuable in a broader scope than just in work life.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah, totally. I’ve noticed in the last years especially how I subconsciously or unintentionally or sometimes with intention too, start to facilitate or be more present and more mindful about how I go about every day and life events. And I also observe a lot in my environment all the time what different experiences are like, what it feels like, what I can learn from it.

So I get a lot of ideas for my facilitation just from interacting with, as you mentioned, products or services or holidays, and these everyday ceremonies and rituals that you go through like Christmas, and I don’t know, midsummer and things like that. I also think that international perspective helps in a way with that. Having lived in different cultures and different countries, you become an outside observer as well.

And after moving back to Sweden recently, I’m also observing more from the outside in a way, even though this is my culture and where I’m from. And that’s also something that’s really helpful for the facilitation mindset as well. Changing environment, which is something you do automatically by facilitating in different environments as well, which is something that helps us be more aware and observing too.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, it’s a lot easier to observe if you leave and come back.

Emilia Astrom:

Exactly. And that’s also, talking about growth and facilitation, I think that’s also been something that’s been really helpful for me as I’ve been growing through my career and moving from different industries, and different contexts, and obviously using the experience I had from before. But then also applying, looking for new things that I need to learn and apply it to this new context.

Because even if I started out in advertising, I quite quickly started moving on working with large enterprises in general, supporting them with adopting new ways of working, more human-centric, design-centered and more facilitation. And that was also interesting, I think, when I started my career, I started out with facilitation during the big wave of design thinking when that was really trending.

And that was something that everyone wanted to do and work with, but then I think today it’s a little different. That’s something that more organizations already have embedded in their organizations today, so there may be not as many organizations that are asking me today to come and help them to adopt the more human-centric way of working.

Today, I feel like it’s more about coming up with collaborative ways of learning together, coming up with collaborative ways of facilitating change and transformation. Making those processes more co-creative, more involving by using or also leveraging the collaboration, and improving it to use it as a tool to change the culture. And by that, being able to really anchor and succeed with change.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, it can have a really big impact. And speaking of impact, your work with Publicitarias and Tech Elevator highlights your commitment to inclusion and impact.

And I’m curious how that’s going now and what’s new, is emerging around that work for you?

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. And that’s another area where I feel like I really, and that was also unexpected in a way, that’s something I could never have imagined would be something I would do during my career. But that’s another space where I really felt and saw the positive impact that facilitation can have, using facilitation as a tool to create positive change in different areas and industries.

So for example, with Publicitarias, which is a foundation founded in Argentina that works for more inclusive communication and advertising. With them, the main project I did, was together with their community and together with experts, facilitate a human-centric design process through which we co-created a tool that individuals and teams at advertising agencies.

But then the tool was actually used across brands and marketing departments, universities, schools, and many other places. But using facilitation both to gather the whole community to co-create this tool together, that would be something that the community members themselves could use to become change agents in their own terms and in their own environments.

And the tool is basically it’s a deck of cards, which is an idea that I had gotten from MethodKit and Ola Moller, which is also one of the facilitators I met through Hyper Island. So that was another actually way that Hyper Island had a really big impact on and inspired me in many ways.

But it was really encouraging and inspiring to see how this tool that we created together using design thinking and facilitated methods, then became a tool that enabled almost anyone. Or I would say anyone to facilitate a structured idea generation and evaluation process with their team in a safe way, that would be playful.

And allow other teams to have valuable and transforming conversations that would help change the way they work and the way they looked at advertising. And that’s also connected to, we touched on that earlier before, the power of just visual tools in facilitation.

So through these visual tools, it would also be easier for teams, by coming with those visual tools, you would help build credibility for the conversation. You would feel that it had more importance, but also help create that shared vocabulary that you need to really produce the change and new behaviors and ways of working.

Because through the cards, you could then have a more structured approach to how you would evaluate your ideas. It would help remind you of new ways of looking at things so that you could come up with ideas in a different way. And this is something that through also packaging this facilitation tool in a way like this, we were able to train thousands of people through our workshops.

We also printed and sold the cards. So there are hundreds of advertising agencies, universities and freelancers out there who also have these tools and can use them with their teams that they’re working with. So what started with a relatively small community became something that grew.

And we actually also heard some success stories about agencies that used these tools, and were able to radically change the way they looked at how they would communicate about different products. So that was really, really strong to see how a simple facilitation technique can have such a big impact.

Douglas Ferguson:

And how has Howspace challenged or expanded your understanding of digital or asynchronous facilitation?

Emilia Astrom:

I think, yeah, that was really interesting. So just to set the perspective, so before I started working with Howspace, where I’ve been working for a year now. I was working for almost nine years together with Mural, which is a digital whiteboard that you can use for human-centric design and facilitation as well.

But I think when you collaborate with human-centric design methods in a visual whiteboard, that’s something that it’s easier to do with smaller groups. But as soon as you want to scale, that can easily be a little bit more messy, and I’m talking big scale, like hundreds or thousands of people.

So what’s been really interesting with Howspace, has been to explore how facilitation can work in a digital way with larger groups of people or even entire organizations. At Howspace, we’re working with customers who are using Howspace to facilitate transformation with organizations where the invite may be 4,000, 5,000 people to participate.

And that has been really powerful to see that you can have the conversation at that skill and still make sense and meaning of it. And that also comes back to that shared vocabulary, that shared experience and collective knowledge that you need to be able to really anchor the change, and have people change the behavior, change the conversation so that the change becomes visible and in the everyday.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah, that sounds exciting. When folks are able to realize this vision they have for where they want to go and bring along that many people, it’s really quite profound.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. And I remember when I started out working with facilitation, and during the first years, I don’t think I did that much digital facilitation, to be honest. Most of it was in person and at that point, I wasn’t even imagining that you could do these things with thousands of people at the same time. And that’s also something that wouldn’t have been possible at that point either maybe, because we didn’t have AI tools yet that could help make sense of those amounts of information.

And that’s also been very interesting starting to work with Howspace to explore just how artificial intelligence, especially GenAI, can be used to help make sense of information so that you can really get something out of those big groups’ conversations. Not just seeing all those individual messages and go beyond just word clouds. But actually being able to make sense of it, get some key insights, but also turn that into options that people can make decisions on in real time.

So that has been really eye-opening for me. And I think most people I’ve been talking to in the last year who use generative AI or AI in facilitation, the use cases I’m still hearing the most are maybe you use artificial intelligence to plan your session in advance. Maybe you use it to support your transcripts of the video calls. Maybe afterwards, after the session, you take all the insights and you synthesize them and summarize them with the help of AI.

But with Howspace, it’s been really interesting to explore how you can also use AI in real time, in the moment of the session to get insights and to advance the process with the group. So that’s been really interesting to explore and something that I’m looking forward to do more of in the future as well.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yeah. We actually held a workshop at South by Southwest on this very topic, how most people look at AI as a utilitarian tool, that it’s a one-to-one. Like I as an individual, I’m going, to your point, use it for my planning, use it for some retrospective.

And it’s very much a, “It’s going to do a task for me and I’m going to get a thing out of it.” But bringing in the AI as a collaborative partner has some really interesting, I would say, outcomes. And it’s not about adopting some tool right now, I think it’s about adopting a mindset of like, “Hey, let’s use this in different moments, in different times, in different ways.”

And eventually, the tools are going to show up that are intended to be used in that way, and then it won’t feel so foreign. Because I think that we’re going to see more and more of the stuff just embedded almost like AI teammates and coworkers.

Emilia Astrom:

Yeah. And that’s something that people talk about quite a lot. I think still in the future, we’re probably still going to want to have real human facilitators to have that human touch, and who can really read the room and understand the feelings.

But I also think it’s really valuable to use artificial intelligence as a co-facilitator or another team member in the room, who can help come up with better ideas, help synthesize and things like that in real time.

So that’s really interesting to explore as well, how we can collaborate with it, and how we can embed it more and more into the facilitation until the point where we almost don’t notice it. It’s so natural and such part of the process.

Douglas Ferguson:

Yes, I love that. And then I’m just curious if you have any reflections? We talked about facilitation being a really important leadership skill.

And I’d love to hear if you have any advice on, or just for any of our listeners that might be interested in how they might harness the power of facilitation, or even how organizations might better harness it?

Emilia Astrom:

I think there are many different ways. I think something that I’m working with quite a lot right now, is on one hand, the role of facilitation in transformation. And I think that’s an interest that are starting to emerge more in the last years, as with the challenges of the world and the economy, the pressure, of course, on people leading transformation to be able to show impact potential results is becoming increasing all the time.

And then I think facilitation has really showed up as one of those tools that you can use as a leader who’s leading change, to ensure that you’re getting the results that you’re hoping for. And doing so by as we talked about initially, my first insights about facilitation and human-centric design. It allows you to have more perspectives present earlier, which ensures that you maybe make less mistakes later on.

It also ensures that you’re testing and getting feedback ongoing. So hopefully, that would ensure to set you up for success and avoid making some mistakes, and getting more value out of the change that you’re trying to produce earlier. And the other area where I’m working quite a lot right now is how I can use facilitation to facilitate social learning and knowledge sharing.

And that’s also in a way connected to the change. Because I think organizations are starting to become more aware of just the need for before implementing a big change, make sure that people have the skills and the tools they need to be able to adopt those new ways of working. I think still in the news, in Sweden at least, you can quite often read about organizations or public institutions are implementing new systems or new ways of working.

But without having that training initially, and then the adoption doesn’t look as you had hoped, and there’s a lot of costs as a result of that. So having that learning facilitated as part of that, is also very powerful. And what’s also very interesting, especially now with new technologies like AI

What I also heard quite a lot recently is how central learning teams often have a hard time to keeping up producing learning materials and content in the same speed that the employees are adopting new technologies and ways of working, and especially in the case of AI. So being able to facilitate these knowledge-sharing possibilities and facilitating this social learning also becomes a way to keep up to speed with new change.

And in that way, being able to support the change and transformation that needs to take place, but I also think that it’s a way for us to have more fun and to connect more at work, and that’s something we wanted especially now. After the pandemic and many years working at home, and now we’re also being asked to come back to the office.

And if we can use facilitation to make those things more meaningful and get more out of it, I think that’s something that’s very beneficial as well. So not just for the profit and the value, but also for our well-being and our joy at work.

Douglas Ferguson:

Love that. Well, as we come to a close, could you leave our listeners with a final thought?

Emilia Astrom:

Yes, of course. And I think that’s very much connected to what we’ve been talking about most recently. After especially I think starting to work with Howspace and get insight into how organizations really change, because that’s something that we’ve been supporting quite a lot.

But also looking back at what I’ve been doing in my career, helping facilitate digital transformation, but also helping facilitate cultural change through Publicitarias. I think what I really learned is just or what I’ve seen is just the power of involving people early in the change and inviting them to co-create it.

And just how change becomes more effective and sustainable when people feel ownership of the change. We invite more voices, we invite the voices of those who are impacted, not just those who are in charge of the change, which is very important. But if we want to do so, we need to know how to facilitate it and many organizations are a little hesitant to do those things still.

But I think that the answer to that and how you can feel more comfortable in inviting people into the change and co-creating it is through facilitation.

Douglas Ferguson:

Excellent. Well, it was a pleasure chatting with you today, and look forward to chatting again sometime soon.

Emilia Astrom:

Yes, thank you. Great questions. I feel like it became very introspective, a little bit abstract at some points. But I hope that this will also awaken some more curiosity and interests from people about what more can you get out from facilitation? And how can it support your personal growth, but how can it also open up new career paths?

And I strongly believe as well that through the needs, technology is changing faster all the time, and we’re going to have to change more all the time and learn more all the time. And I think facilitation is one of those skills that’s going to still be needed many years from now to help facilitate those things, and help us overcome all the challenges that we’re facing as a world.

Douglas Ferguson:

Let’s hope so. Thanks for joining me for another episode of the Facilitation Lab Podcast. If you enjoyed the episode, please leave us a review and be sure to subscribe and receive updates when new episodes are released.

We love listener tales and invite you to share your facilitation stories. Send them to us on LinkedIn or via email. If you want to know more, head over to our blog where I post weekly articles and resources about facilitation, team dynamics and collaboration at voltagecontrol.com.

The post From Competition to Collaboration in Idea Generation appeared first on Voltage Control.

I didn’t know it at the time, but my facilitation journey began in high school, in Hawaii, on a campus that actively championed student voice. I was a senior at Parker School, a creative, independent school nestled on the Big Island, and the year I was there, they brought in an outside organization to establish a peer counseling program. You had to apply or interview, and it was one of those things my friends dragged me into. “Come on, it’ll be fun,” they said. I had no idea that retreat would shape the rest of my life.

They trained us with an immersive, three-day self-reflection experience, and then flipped the script: we were tasked with recreating the retreat for younger students from our school and our rival across town. The activities were all rooted in trust, vulnerability, and breaking down social barriers. I was originally drawn to the idea of being the retreat DJ—that sounded like fun. But the adults leading the program had other plans. They asked me to take on a lead facilitator role. I didn’t realize it then, but that was the first time someone saw in me what I hadn’t yet seen in myself.

At the time, I was balancing sports like outrigger canoeing and soccer, while diving deep into performing arts—dance, theater, gymnastics. (Yes, I played Nurse Ratched in “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and still have the cheeky T-shirt to prove it.) It was a chaotic, rich high school experience, and that retreat opened a new door. We ran two-day sessions with younger students. They cried, they laughed, they shared openly. That was my first taste of how powerful a container facilitation could be. I wouldn’t learn the term “facilitation” until years later, but the seed was planted.

I went on to UCSD for undergrad, drawn by family ties and childhood summers in San Diego. I started as a theater major, switched to writing for something more versatile, and fell into educational therapy by chance—working for a mentor who blended special education and marriage/family therapy in her private practice. That job led me back to grad school at USD for my own degree in Marriage and Family Therapy, and it was there I started to notice something: students opened up more with an algebra book between us than across a counseling table. That was a lightbulb moment.

From there, I went on to help launch and scale schools with Fusion Education Group, including the first replication high school in West LA. As VP of Education, I built programming and trained staff, always anchoring in human connection and emotional safety. I loved the work. I also felt wildly underqualified at first, so I went back to school again for a Doctorate in Leadership. My learning kept bringing me  back to the value of deep listening, storytelling, and emotional intelligence. That whole time, I was building my facilitation practice without realizing it.

Realizing Facilitation Was the Thread

The discovery of facilitation as a discipline hit me years later, after I joined Change Enthusiasm Global. Cassandra Worthy, our founder, insisted that if I was going to lead and grow our facilitation team, I needed to go through Voltage Control’s Facilitation Certification. I’m so glad she did. I hadn’t realized there was this entire world—a community, even a methodology—dedicated to facilitation. I was floored.

Here I was, someone who’d spent her entire adult life in teaching, coaching, and leadership, and I had no idea that facilitation had its own language and rigor. What struck me immediately was how familiar it all felt, and yet how new. It was like discovering a well-organized vocabulary for instincts and moves I’d been making my whole life. That was both affirming and exciting.

It reminded me of my reaction when I first encountered Brené Brown’s work. Her concept of vulnerability put words to what we had been doing at Fusion all along: prioritizing relationships, seeing students as whole people, making connection the first step in learning. It was the same with Voltage Control. Suddenly, there was a framework to help me teach and support facilitators more effectively.

And it wasn’t just theory. When I looked back at those high school retreats, I could now see the trust-building, the emotional storytelling, the circle processes, the norms being co-created. I could put names to what we were doing. I realized that moment in my teens was not just formative—it was foundational.

Packaging What I Already Knew (And Didn’t Know)

I had a lot of “oh wow” moments during the certification. One of my favorites was the module on handling resistance in a group. It was so well-articulated. I’ve always believed that when someone resists, they’re usually feeling disconnected—from the group, the material, or themselves. And our instinct is often to shut them down or avoid them. The training reminded me that the real magic happens when we pull them closer instead.

The portfolio piece was also surprisingly impactful. I had heard from one of our more experienced facilitators that it hadn’t resonated with her—and I understood that perspective. But I decided to make it work for me. I used it to tell the story of my journey into CEG, reflecting on the concept of “novice” and how we often do our best work at the beginning and end of a career arc. That act of storytelling gave me clarity about where I was and where I wanted to grow.

More than anything, the certification reframed facilitation not just as a skill, but as a craft. And it gave me a language to talk about it with others, especially our facilitators who are doing powerful work but sometimes lack that cohesive narrative around it.

Designing Impact at Scale

Lately, I’ve been obsessed with one big question: How do we scale intimacy?

At Change Enthusiasm Global, we’re being asked to create experiences not just for rooms of 20 or 50 people, but for hundreds. We recently followed one of Cassandra’s keynotes with a learning session for 400 people—though I’m pretty sure it was more like 600 by the time we ran out of materials. We pulled it off. But it required an entirely different level of orchestration.

We created moments of drama. Everyone got streamers and the collective movement created a sea of energetic color. We manipulated lighting to create emotion. Our facilitators told personal stories under spotlights. People cried. People laughed. They hugged. That’s how we knew it worked.

The secret weapon? A rockstar producer. I’ve learned that producing is just as important as facilitating, especially at scale. The producer created the conditions—lighting cues, music, timing—that amplified our work. We couldn’t have done it without him. I want to carry that insight forward and ensure we keep building our facilitation practice with production in mind. That’s the next frontier for us: building emotionally resonant, large-scale experiences that still feel human and connected.

Where I’m Headed Now

This work is a confluence of everything I’ve done—from theater and therapy to education and coaching. And now, I’m looking at ways to build experiences that touch thousands while still feeling personal.

We want to take Change Enthusiasm to people at scale—ballrooms, stadiums even—and I’m working on how to preserve that feeling of a small, brave space no matter how big the room is. I’m also excited about building our Change Enthusiasm Global community and developing internal systems so our facilitators have the tools to replicate and scale the energy our brand promises.

I feel incredibly lucky. Every major opportunity in my life has come through a blend of curiosity, connection, and serendipity. But now I’m starting to see the strategy in that, too. Facilitation has always been the through line. Now it’s the framework.

I think everyone, regardless of where they are in their facilitation journey, has something to gain from the Voltage Control certification. There’s a humility in returning to the role of learner. It makes you sharper, more curious. And the community you join by doing so is invaluable.

But the real gift? Learning to let go. Learning to trust that your job isn’t to say everything, but to create the conditions where the right things can emerge. You’ll never cover every bullet point. And that’s okay. What matters is what they discover, remember, how they felt, and what they carry with them. Get good enough to let go of control and trust the process and the group. That’s the craft. And Voltage Control helps you find it.

The post My Journey with Facilitation appeared first on Voltage Control.