How to design a facilitated workshop when stakeholders disagree

Choose a realistic purpose

Decide whether the session needs to understand different views, test options, recommend a direction or make a decision. These purposes require different authority and preparation. Avoid promising consensus when participants have incompatible priorities or no mandate to decide.

Speak with key participants beforehand to understand the issue and what information they need. Document known constraints, sensitive topics and previous attempts to resolve the disagreement. The preparation should identify what a useful next step looks like even if the group remains divided.

Make power and participation visible

The Victorian Government’s inclusive engagement guidance asks organisations to consider power imbalances and opportunities for influence [1]. In a workshop, check who can set the agenda, who has access to information and whose contributions carry formal authority.

Offer more than one way to contribute. A written reflection before group discussion may help people formulate a view; smaller conversations may surface questions that a large meeting misses. Ask about access needs in advance and allow participants to flag concerns privately. Choose arrangements appropriate to the context rather than treating a technique as a universal solution.

Structure the discussion around concrete choices

Begin with a shared account of the issue and invite corrections. Separate evidence, assumptions and preferences so the group can see where disagreement arises. If participants dispute a fact, record the information needed to resolve it. If they differ on priorities, explore the consequences of each choice.

Use an options discussion that makes trade-offs explicit. An illustrative example is a group deciding between wider access hours and additional staffed activities within a fixed resource envelope. Ask which criteria matter, what each option requires and what remains unknown. The facilitator should support a fair process without quietly taking the decision away from its owners.

Produce a record that supports action

Capture areas of agreement, unresolved differences and responsibilities for next steps. Avoid rewriting disagreement as unanimous support in the final report. Give participants a chance to check whether their positions have been described accurately, within the agreed reporting process.

Agree who will respond to recommendations and when the group will hear back. A workshop has more practical value when it connects with governance and delivery after the room is cleared. Soft Infrastructure can help design and facilitate purposeful discussions for organisations in Melbourne and beyond, shaped around the issue, participants and decisions ahead.

• State the purpose and decision authority.
• Prepare accessible information and contribution options.
• Record trade-offs and unresolved questions.
• Assign next actions and a feedback commitment.

Put this into practice

• Explore facilitation support
• Read about meaningful participation