A deliberating group is made up of randomly selected citizens from all walks of life. Just as we would see in any community group, these ‘mini-publics’ are made up of people with diverse backgrounds, perspectives, communication styles and behaviours.

We need to expect this diversity and be ready and able to work with participants displaying a broad spectrum of behaviours. Fearing, trying to avoid or not preparing for behaviours often labelled ‘difficult’ is a sure way to cause deliberation derailment.

Let’s explore some of the most common types of behaviours we might see in a deliberative process, their impacts, and some guidelines for working with them effectively.

CHALLENGING PARTICIPANT BEHAVIOUR

While diverse perspectives and ideas are encouraged in a deliberative process, and good facilitators will support and make space for different communication and learning styles, the group does need to be able to work together effectively to respond to their task. There are some behaviours that can make this more difficult and some of these have been listed below.

It should be noted that often participants are not aware of these behaviours and aren’t intentionally trying to derail the group.

The Champion: This participant firmly believes they represent the majority and that they know what everyone else wants and needs.
The Answer-Holder: This participant feels they already know the answer to the problem, and can be frustrated that their "obvious" solution isn’t being immediately acknowledged or embraced.
The Dominator: This participant tends to take over discussions, leaving little room for others to voice their thoughts. They jump in at every opportunity, holding court and overshadowing quieter participants.
The Silent Observer: On the flip side, some participants barely speak, looking to others for all the ideas and avoiding contributing.
The Agenda-Setter: Some participants are simply not interested in the topic at hand or think the group should be focussing on other things, and can try to steer the conversation towards unrelated issues or question the group’s purpose and remit.
The Caucus Leader: This participant is quick to rally others to their side, often recruiting support from outside the deliberating group. Their actions can create factions within the process, leading to an "us vs. them" dynamic.
The Institution Attacker: This participant not only doesn’t trust the host organisation, they are actively lobbying against it, and can be so caught up in bringing the establishment down that they are missing the opportunity before them to have real influence over an issue.
The Safety Breacher: More than just disruptive, this person makes others feel unsafe in some way, sometimes through aggressive or offensive behaviour. This behaviour requires immediate steps taken to ensure all other participants, facilitators and representatives of the organisation are physically, emotionally and mentally safe.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT?

When challenging behaviours aren’t planned for or addressed adequately, the impacts ripple out far beyond the deliberating group itself. Here are some examples of the risks.

The project team: A derailed group is unlikely to complete their job in the time allocated which can mean extending the process last minute - causing all sorts of internal scrambling around approvals, logistics and budgets. The project team’s workload is likely to increase as they work to respond to the issues and work through all the other risks outlined below.

The project: Timeline extensions, budget overruns and outcomes that don’t meet the objectives of the process are all potential risks to the project. The decision being made is also less likely to be trusted or supported by the wider community or customer base if the process appears to be poorly run.

The organisation: Reputational issues are a risk that extends beyond the life of one process or project and can crop up when a mismanaged situation and unhappy participant results in public criticism of the organisation or process. If the process is presented as skewed or unfair, trust erodes, leaving the organisation open to scrutiny.

The community: Deliberative processes are intended to be representative of and achieve positive outcomes for the broader community impacted by the issue or decision. The community being represented might also play a part in funding the host organisation (e.g. via rates, taxes, membership fees etc.). The community therefore has a high stake in the process and quite a lot to lose when deliberation goes badly. Poorly run deliberative processes and unmanaged disruptive behaviours also build frustration in the community, with citizens becoming less likely to bother engaging in the future.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

Here are just a few examples of actions that can be taken that can help to mitigate the risks.

preparing for challenging behaviour

Thoughtful design: Work with experienced designers of deliberative processes that consider context and potential risks from the outset.
Skilled facilitators: Engage facilitators who have a healthy toolkit for working with a range of behaviours and are comfortable with challenging scenarios and conflict. Good facilitators scaffold the process to build an environment for meaningful participation and group collaboration and are able to adjust and flex around the group’s needs, bringing the best out of the participants. They are also skilled at working with participants around group agreements and expected standards of behaviour.
Robust recruitment: An independent, random, stratified recruitment process is crucial to ensure you’re getting a diverse range of people and new voices into the room and avoiding any one group with vested interests stacking the process. Check out our previous deliberation disaster on recruitment for lots more on this one!
Strong partnerships: Develop a solid partnership between facilitators and the organisation/project team. Clear roles, excellent communication, and trust are crucial. Regular planning meetings for quick decision-making in response to emerging risks are key, and make sure the engagement approach is codesigned with the right people in the room.

when things get challenging

Normal behaviours that can challenge us.

Facilitators should have the ability to work with almost all of the challenging behaviour types listed above in the room during the deliberative process. These are normal behaviours that experienced facilitators see every day and should be able to flex around to ensure the group’s time together is maximised.

When things are getting a little trickier.

If a behaviour is escalating or starting to cause concern (but safety of others is not at this point threatened), the facilitation team should have an agreement with the project team as to the escalation process. This agreement includes the steps that will be taken to work through the challenge with the participant/s involved. Ideally facilitators and the project team will find a way to support the participant to remain engaged in the process.

When safety is at stake.

Every deliberating group should work to an agreed standard of behaviour that everyone is aware of and clearly states where the ‘line’ is for participant behaviour. That line is crossed when the safety and wellbeing of others is impacted, and if this occurs it can require that a participant is asked to leave the process.

This is not a common occurrence, but it can happen in some deliberative processes. Should this step be needed, transparency with the other participants is required around what has occurred.

democracy is messy!

People are complex and participants in a deliberative process are everyday people. These behaviours are part of our normal reality, and they are a reality for deliberative engagement too. These processes have to be designed and delivered with this in mind, because democracy is not clean, easy and simple… it’s messy!