How To Moderate OnLine Meetings
It is a curious word “moderate”. It means “make or become less extreme, intense, rigorous, or violent”. The chances of being responsible for a meeting which became violent or extreme in business, would be a fairly exotic occurrence. If opinions were charged and opposing, the situation could become intense and the vigorous exchange of opinions might become rigorous. How often do we see any of these things in Japan? This is a country of conservative counterbalance between personal and collective interests. Disturbing the “wa”, the group harmony, is an anathema in this society and so attacking other speakers in public is not going to surface anytime soon. I have been here thirty five years and have only experienced it once.
So the moderator’s role in Japan is a walk in the park compared to more bolshie societies. Having said that though, if you are active in foreign community groups like chambers of commerce, national societies, etc., you can always relive the good old days back in your own country, where people will push the boundaries of polite society and you are the one supposedly in control of the situation.
I will deal with dealing with difficult people a little later, so let’s turn our attention to the more garden variety aspects of the role. It should be clear to you, that you are not the star of the show here. Sounds trite, but how often have you seen the moderator want to hog the limelight, to show off how intelligent and massively well informed they are? The traffic cop metaphor is a good one. Your job is to direct the traffic flow of conversation.
There is a balance required between the speakers. The seriously self awareness challenged and thrusting must be contained and the more decorous members of the panel need to be allowed to get their words in edge wise. They usually don’t have a dog in the fight, so you need to draw them out of their quizzical state and encourage their contributions.
Online this can be a bit challenging, because of consistent issues with audio delays and technical incompetence on the part of panellists. In the in person meeting room, the moderator can more easily interject themselves mid-flow during the panellist’s comments and shut them down, to open up to the views of another panellist. Online, we both wind up speaking over the top of each other, because of the slight delay in the audio being broadcast. The end result is no one can hear clearly what is going on from anyone. Our body language signals are also eclipsed, because we have become a tiny talking head, in a tiny box, in a remote part of the screen territory.
Live or online, the moderator cannot just brazenly front up to the session and start bossing people around. Each panellist has an academic and work history, which informs us of their possible range of expertise and experience on the subject. We need to talk to them beforehand, to ascertain when we can best call on them for comment. Asking a panellist for comment on a subject they don’t have much experience or knowledge of, casts a gloom over the proceedings, as the interlocutor has now publicly embarrassed the panellist and themselves. A more professional moderator would direct the questions to the person most expert in that area and the proceedings would flow seamlessly.
The moderator is also duty bound to dig in a bit deeper with panellist comments, to yield a richer vein of insight. Experts will sometimes make statements which are obvious to other experts and need no further elucidation, but to the rest of us, they sound elusive. We need to challenge the panellist, in a supportive way, to explain in more depth what they have said. Drawing in other comments from the panel is also needed, to get the right balance of views and airtime. Keeping silent mental score on how much speaking time each person has received and then adjusting the balance is the mark of a skilled moderator. All of this is a bit easier in the on line world, because the moderator is usually invisible to the audience, as the tech focuses on whoever has active audio.
It makes a lot of sense to have the audience cameras off and everyone muted throughout, except perhaps for question time. The same visual and vocal isolation should apply to the panellists. As the moderator, we have briefed them that when they are called upon by us to comment, they need to come on camera and unmute themselves. How often have you seen one of the other panellists suddenly lurch unprepared on screen, because they left their audio on and made a scuffling noise in the background, triggering the tech to focus on them? Or a specific panellist is asked to speak and away they go, but they have forgotten to unmute themselves, adding a certain tragic, comedic aspect to the affair.
Refereeing heated exchanges between fired up panellists is always brimming with danger. Without too much effort, you can be dragged into the affray, as the attacker goes after you as well. This is when you pull out the “professionals reference” get out of jail card, when one or more of the panellists goes ballistic. You appeal to all the panellists that “we are all professionals here, so let’s have a robust yet fair debate, devoid of any malice”. You have now framed anyone who continues to be obnoxious as a loser. At this point you cleverly circumnavigate the brawlers and get comments from the remaining non-combatants on the panel. This allows everyone to calm down a bit and the focus is no longer on you as the moderator.
Moderating panels looks easy, but when you reflect on your own observations, you realise few do it well. When it is our turn, let’s make sure we bolster our personal professional brand.
