More and more clients approach me asking for event design, explicitly. Which I am quite passionate about because I consider boring conferences and events a neglect of duty on the organizers’ side. And this comprises anything from a technical symposium to a potentially conflict-laden citizen information event.

So, a couple of weeks ago, I had the joyful experience of conceptualizing and moderating a citizens’ assembly in the small German town of Greven. The city planners want to reduce car traffic in the city center. The city council is supposed to decide on the matter in June. But mobility is a very emotional topic, so about one hundred people showed up, recognizably ready to voice their anger.

Discontent was being heard right after the mayor had greeted the crowd and when the city planner started giving an overview of what had happened so far. The atmosphere in the large city hall was thick.

We had set up a round course where people were asked to write their thoughts on a number of questions regarding mobility in the city center on sticky notes. Which is a way to gather information fast and efficiently, because everyone does it at the same time, and people see that their voices are not getting lost. This step, however, riled up the loudest (and best-known) critics even further, because they would have preferred a large audience to voice their anger, instead.

After going through the round course, the attendants were asked to position themselves in separate groups, according to their opinion on the matter: fewer cars / don’t change a thing / no preference. This was the critical step in the event design. The mayor had tried to avoid building groups at all costs, as he couldn’t imagine how this would not lead to more conflict.

We used a catch box, a microphone cushioned in a styrofoam dice, so it could be thrown from one person to another. In the subsequent open reflection in the plenary, there was one rule only: after speaking into the microphone, people had to throw it to a person who belonged to another group, so we would not have a self-reinforcing dynamic where people with strong opinions would speak one after another and build up strong resentment.

The result was beautiful indeed: Of course, the fiercest adversary claimed the microphone first and let off some steam. And sure enough, he did not throw the mic to his strongest counterpart. Instead, everyone after him was relatively calm and considerate. People did, bit by bit, engage in a real conversation. They responded to the concerns of the others, they tried to promote their cause, but at the same time tried to answer to the others’ needs. And they got clarity about their roles in the process: Nobody would be able to „win“ at the end of the evening, but we would have a good overview of what people really cared about. Which is why, before they could leave, the attendants were asked to write down, in one sentence, what they wanted the politicians to consider when they would decide in the city council. „Be courageous“, „make sure the city center is attractive, lively, and good for families“, „slow the traffic down“ - these were messages, and from car lovers also.

In event design, every single detail is an intervention and will lead to consequences - from how the chairs are positioned to how people are allowed to speak. So, what’s the takeaway?

• It’s important to create a clear framework, define (and communicate) rules of interaction, and make sure they’re being enforced. It creates trust and stability, and people know what to expect.
• Design the process so all voices are being heard. Some people are too shy to speak in front of large crowds, so they need other means to contribute.
• Don't just let them sit on their chairs. Feet in motion bring brains into motion.
• Keep it light, especially if the topic is conflictive. A microphone that can be thrown and may even fall to the ground is fun.
• And, maybe most importantly, know your interventions and the potential consequences.