How do we make large gatherings more relational?

5 ideas: smaller sessions lead by participants, fractals, rhythm, roles and expanding the audience definition

Fabian Pfortmüller

Published in

Together Institute

7 min readJun 9, 2023

Ideas and edits by Christine Lai, Michel Bachmann, Fabian Pfortmüller. Written by Fabian Pfortmüller.

Group photo of awardees at New Theatre SWF2023 — Skoll World Forum via Flickr

Together with my colleagues Christine Lai and Michel Bachmann, I recently had the opportunity to attend the Skoll World Forum, where 1500 people convened in Oxford, UK, for three days. It was a phenomenal event. Several moments and encounters deeply moved me, like hearing the Nobel Peace Prize winner and journalist Maria Ressa share her story of risking personal safety and freedom to stand up for truth. It was also so much more than a conference: an incredibly organized show with celebrated musical acts and cultural luminaries (Fonsi! Jacob Collier! Run DMC! Al Gore! Ava DuVernay!), a beautifully designed experience with dinners in Oxford colleges, and beyond everything else: an abundance of inspiring people.

It was also pretty overwhelming and quite exhausting. The sheer size of the gathering, the amount of interesting people to meet, the wide range of great sessions to enjoy. One participant called it “an avalanche of connections”. Yup.

Large gatherings like Skoll undoubtedly play an important role. They bring an ecosystem together. They allow for people to form many weak ties in a short amount of time. In turn, they create rich soil for serendipity.

Yet in conversation with Christine and Michel we started to wonder: Is there an untapped opportunity to go beyond the weak ties? Is it possible to design large gatherings in a more relational way? How might we connect in deeper, more meaningful ways at scale?

1 - Small sessions lead by participants

An obvious starting point is event design and moving away from large sessions provided to an audience (which can be powerful opening and closing moments, but otherwise aren’t great for relationships as they provide almost no excuses to connect) and move towards small sessions lead by participants. Most large gatherings treat their audience as consumers while they often have a room full of potential co-creators with amazing talents and gifts. Skoll was already doing beautiful things here, far beyond the mainstream conference with never ending panels and keynotes. They hosted small group breakouts led by participants, dinners in Oxford colleges, and more experiential sessions like guided walks through Oxford. All of these have the potential to be built out and explored further.

2 — Fractals

Reflecting on the experience, we realized that what kept us sane through the three days was not doing it alone. In my case, several of my “tribes” were present at Skoll: my Together Institute colleagues, my Wasan friends, the Skoll Fellows (whom we were supporting), friends from the BMW Foundation Responsible Leaders Network. That made a huge difference. Having friends there was like a basecamp I could go back to. It allowed me to recharge by spending time with people I already knew well (which felt easier, more meaningful, more relational). It meant seeing a friendly face in a sea of people. It gave me a sense of stability, safety and strength. It made me realize that it takes a village to conference.

We felt very lucky to have that support system to go to throughout a large gathering. But what about people who didn’t? And what if the gathering was actually designed for us to find our own tribe, even if temporary?

We started playing with the idea of fractals (inspired by our friends at Microsolidarity): What if a gathering of 1500 people provided you with 2% strong ties (30 people) and 98% weak ties (1470 people)?

What if:

The group of 1500 is split into smaller groups of 30 people (the tribes).
The makeup of groups is optimized for diversity. And/or the groups are dedicated to specific interests. People can either choose or be assigned.
The first half-day of the gathering is spent really getting to know your group of 30 people.
The tribe of 30 people can be split into even smaller fractals of six groups of 5 people each (the pods), where people can go even deeper.
The tribes meet at the beginning for half a day, in the middle to check-in with each other and at the end to debrief for two hours. There could be simpler alternatives, too, like having a dedicated point for the group where they get coffee every morning (thanks Johnny Subash for the idea!).
This is offered as an option to participants, making clear that if they choose to engage with a tribe, this comes with a certain commitment to the group (and encouraging people to follow-through and not flake out in the flow of the event).
Likely, not everyone commits. We guesstimate that 30% would opt-in and commit, which would create about 16 groups of 30 people each.
At the end, members of the tribe or pod decide if they want to stay in touch (for example by doing quarterly 90-minute calls or staying connected through an informal WhatsApp group).
At first, the groups are hosted by a hired facilitator. Over time, this facilitation role can evolve into a role being played by veteran participants of the gathering. It gives them a meaningful role during the gathering (more on that below).

3 — Rhythm

Every gathering has a rhythm. And the Skoll one was lightning fast. I felt constantly in a hurry to get somewhere else, talk to somebody else. Too many amazing places to be, people to meet. FOMO. Could a slower speed allow people to connect more deeply with each other? I was inspired by a story that my friend Iris Weges shared from another big gathering, the B For Good Leaders Summit in Amsterdam: Many sessions started with a short meditation, which apparently changed the vibe and speed of the conversations. It made people a bit more grounded, a bit more present and willing to stay in conversations versus rushing on to the next one. Similarly, I heard from Uduak Amimo, how sessions at the BMW Foundation’s Re*Leadership Festival started with a “deep listening exercise”, setting a different tone for the conversations, shifting the focus from talking to listening (and having a keynote listener vs a keynote speaker!).

4— Roles

Large gatherings need a lot of staffing. Yet, most of these roles are purely logistical. What about inviting participants to take on roles? Roles give people a reason to show up with a specific lens, to contribute proactively. The second opportunity lies in experimenting with non-logistical roles dedicated to hosting, connecting, and weaving.

For example, imagine we asked 20 participants working in the climate sector if they would like to be “climate weavers” during the gathering. We would invite people into the role who have a natural inclination for connecting people (and there are many!). This role would give them permission to do their magic across the climate space. It would invite them to walk through the gathering with different eyes and clear intention. We imagine that many of them would start proactively connecting people. And you could do that for all industries, issues, geographies, and many other verticals.

Michel brought in another idea: the role of a “connector bee” that each member of a smaller fractal could play for each other. People listen to each other for what they each are seeking at the conference. And then they have that in mind as they meet people and actively make connections to their pod members when a suitable match emerges.

5 — Designing for the non-default

In order to design in a more relational way we might need to experiment with designing for different audience profiles. I have learned from my partner, Mansi Gupta, and her work at Unconform, that when we design for “everyone”, we actually — consciously or unconsciously — design for the default profile. And in the case of most large gatherings I have been to, the default participant is likely an extroverted, able-bodied, self-confident English speaking white male. This is whom many large gatherings are designed for. Anyone else learns to adapt. What would it mean to design a large gathering for introverts? What would it mean to create spaces for people who do not speak English as their primary language? What would a women-centric gathering look like?

Resourcing a more relational approach

A more relational approach surely would be a significant investment. Fractal groups would need light facilitation. And with 16 groups you would need 16 facilitators. Finding and briefing volunteer connectors takes staff time and bandwidth. This all adds up. But how does the ROI of enabling deeper and more meaningful connections compare to hiring another rockstar or flying in some famous keynote speaker?

Many of these roles could become part of the cultural DNA of a gathering and plant seeds for a wider community. They might become easier and easier to staff. And maybe they would become the primary reason people are attending the gathering…

How does this all land with you?

We’d love to hear your thoughts and reflections, thanks for leaving a comment.

—

Thank you

Thank you to the Skoll organizers for their care, attention and hard work and putting together an amazing event.

Interested in getting regular community building insights in your inbox?

Every few weeks we send out a short email with 3–5 of our favorite insights, blog posts and articles about building meaningful communities. If you care about bringing people together, this might be for you. Sign up here.