By MARTY LEVINE

It takes a little structure to keep the conversation flowing freely and usefully, says Laura Ainsley, manager of leadership development in the Office of Human Resources.

Ainsley said that lesson first became clear to her when she worked in the education department at Fallingwater for nine years.

Fallingwater, of course, is the unique home built by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1936 in the Laurel Highlands for department store owner Edgar Kaufmann, which incorporates a small stream and waterfall. Ainsley told the new workshop she is teaching for the Faculty and Staff Development Program, “The Architecture of Engagement: Tools for Facilitating Compelling Group Discussions,” that the Kaufmann family once hosted employee picnics in cabins in that area, but had commissioned the new place so they could hold more intimate conversations — and were surprised at the resulting structure.

Its design and materials eliminated the need for interior walls, opening the space for better conversations, Ainsley said. The same can be done by adding structure to conversations themselves, especially when you are trying to get a project underway and build consensus in an office. With even a bit of structure put in place, “you are creating a space that people may not even know they need or want,” she noted.

“A structure doesn’t have to feel heavy,” she said. “These techniques can be used formally or informally.”

The structures she demonstrated in class are designed “to make you feel like you have some sort of control over compelling conversations, but it is not control entirely,” she said.

At first, the idea of adding a structure to conversation “may seem contradictory,” Ainsley allowed. But the best structures are designed “to set the tone, to keep the room feeling safe.”

The first suggested structure was simple — creating small groups and asking several individuals within them to show a personal item they carried or wore, explaining its significance. This would function as “an energizer at the beginning of the meeting,” she explained. “Trust in groups is built on the concept of disclosure — sharing a small thing about yourself — that helps you feel seen” and also lets people feel they know you. “I encourage people to have something light at the beginning that involves some degree of disclosure. It’s those little windows we open up that help encourage engagement.”

She joked that this structure echoed that old “Saturday Night Live” character performed by Mike Myers — Linda Richman — who ran the fictitious television show “Coffee Talk” and paused at least once each episode to say: “Talk amongst yourselves. I’ll give you a topic.” The Richman character’s topics were often ridiculous, but in real life such moments help small groups and meetings “cultivate trust, brainstorm ideas, invite dialogue, grow relationships, build energy” and “get work done.”

“Minimally structuring the way we interact” has the effect of “liberating content or subject matter,” she pointed out. “The human brain thrives within structure.”

That can be seen particularly in our love of games — and game structures can be adapted for office meetings too, Ainsley said. “They are already recognizable structures. People get it.”

One class participant compared conversation-prompting games to improv comedy: It’s important that each improv sketch starts with a concept tossed out by an audience member or moderator. And improv most commonly thrives when performers use the “yes and” idea — accepting another performer’s assertion and building on it. The same can work by substituting “employee” for “performer.”

“It’s better if they are not complex,” she says of each game-like structure, so that “the rules are not constriction” but are the sorts of challenges that allow us to enjoy sports and other games — making the goal, or getting your game piece safely home past the obstacles.

“When we face constraints, our brain works harder to find solutions within the given parameters,” Ainsley pointed out. “This puts us in a problem-solving mode, where limitations bring us to the present moment to confront the issue at hand more creatively and resourcefully.

“As a facilitator, your job is not to have the answer; your job is to facilitate the answer,” she said. “Let the room do the talking for you. People want to know that they have been heard.”

Overall, she said, as the architect of this structure you should keep in mind:

• Psychological safety is known to create environments that lead to more success — people need to feel safe to make mistakes without fear.

• Set the stage and maintain the tone — no idea is too large, small or “crazy.”

• Everyone’s input is valuable and welcomed.

• Quickly quash any negativity — be strong with this, as people will shut down if they don’t feel safe to express themselves.

• If ideas don’t fit the topic, capture and validate them in a space visible to everyone, such as on a whiteboard.

• Provide alternatives for participation when possible — some may prefer to think longer, share more later.

• Keep reading the room.

And keep in mind the idea of AWE: Ask “And what else?”

Faced with doubters or those who want the meeting to decide on a course of action immediately, you should counter: “No, we want to hear from everybody. We are not at the stage where we are deciding anything. That comes later. You’re inviting people to step out of where they may be thinking” and “really think about that bigger picture.

“You can settle down the passionate tone: ‘Let’s all come back to the next meeting with two key ideas about this.’ You want to create the psychological space for people to have success” in the conversation.

“Set the tone early and model it,” she added. “Be ready to fill in what the group forgot. Name what is agreed on — say it out loud. Reframe proactively to a simple question that shifts everybody to the same side. Near the close, invite people — what are some things we want to do next — rather than tell them.”

Another useful principle to remember is to “lend your EAR: Empathy, Attention, Respect. Avoid arguing the facts at the moment.” Although some variety of structure is useful, “some may take experimenting with,” she cautioned. “Try some of these at home.”

She ended the workshop by demonstrating another small-group structure. Each group was asked to choose one individual who would briefly present a current work challenge. The others in the group had just a few minutes to offer suggestions or solutions that the first person could only absorb, without responding. Then the group took another few moments to ask “guiding questions” of the individual whose issue was the focus, in an attempt to further solve the problem. Each small group also had a designated facilitator who kept time and kept the group focused on each step of the process.

At the end, those who presented their current work challenge provided feedback to the group: What helped? What clarified the issue anew?

Class participants reported that even this small structure, applied in a very short session, produced more useful ideas than the usual conversation.

Concluded Ainsley: “I encourage you all to experiment with these things.”

Marty Levine is a staff writer for the University Times. Reach him at martyl@pitt.edu or 412-758-4859.

Have a story idea or news to share? Share it with the University Times.

Follow the University Times on Facebook.