Mutual Invitation

Developed by Episcopalian priest Eric Law, Mutual Invitation is a technique designed to promote egalitarian group talk that works best in smaller groups in which people already know something about each other's skills, knowledge, and experience.

Purposes

• To create an opportunity for everyone in a group to contribute to a discussion
• To put the control of group process in the group's hands
• To ground the discussion in what most concerns and interests group members

How It Works

• Facilitators begin by giving their views on a topic or question.
• The facilitator then chooses the next person to share whatever she or he wishes to. This person is allowed plenty of time to think about what to say and should not feel compelled to spring into speech.
• After the second speaker has finished, he or she then chooses who is to speak next.
• When someone is invited to speak, that person can pass, but he or she still chooses the next speaker.
• The process continues until everyone has had the chance to speak.
• Those who passed earlier in the discussion are invited to say whatever they wish to about the topic.
• The process then moves into open discussion.

Where and When It Works Well

1. In congregations. Originally developed for congregational use, this exercise is widely used in Bible study or congregational decision making.
2. In long-standing groups. Because people know each other well, they are well placed to decide whom to call on next based on their expertise and experience.
3. With groups that have developed an exclusionary pecking order. This ensures that everyone participates, with a person's potential to enrich the conversation determining decisions about who will speak next, not positional authority.

What Users Appreciate

1. Democratic process. The emphasis is on everybody getting the same chance to contribute.
2. Exercising control. Members are in total control of the order of contributions and the direction of the discussion.
3. Being recognized. Receiving a direct request to speak is often extremely affirming, particularly when the reasons for that choice are provided (for example, “I'd like to hear from John now because of his experience with marginalized groups”).

What to Watch Out For

1. Running out of time. Unless the facilitator keeps track of time, some members will speak for too long. Eric Law suggests letting people know in advance roughly how long they should speak.
2. Feeling unappreciated. Sometimes those who are chosen to speak toward the end of the process feel as if they're back in the school or neighborhood playground being the last to be called on to join pick-up teams.
3. Performance anxiety. Hearing well-constructed contributions as you're waiting for your turn to be called can build tension.
4. The stress of being called on to speak next. When the invitation to speak finally comes, it can feel as if you're being jumped on, particularly if you don't feel you have anything relevant to say.
5. Being unable to contribute something pertinent in the moment. As people hear the conversation progress, there are many times they want to join in but are not allowed because they have not been chosen to speak.
6. Unfamiliarity. If group members know little about each other they have no real information to inform decisions about who should be chosen next.

Questions Suited to This Technique

This works best in smaller-sized groups (eight to twelve) in which everyone brings relevant experience to the topic at hand. Examples might be as follows:

• “How do we want to accomplish this task?”
• “What should our response be to this situation?”
• “How can we improve how our community arrives at decisions?”
• “What have we missed in our reaction to this problem over the past year?”
• “What do we do about this criticism leveled at our organization?”