Human (sociometric) mapping: A powerful tool for group facilitation
Human - or sociometric - mapping is a technique in group processes that invites participants to physically position themselves on imaginary spectrums, circles or clusters in relation to certain statements and questions. Read on to find out why we at collaboratio helvetica are using it so often, and how it can backfire.
Human mapping in a nutshell
Why use human mapping
The following objectives can be pursued through human mapping:
Break the ice: Participants move around, and get to interact with the collective.
Make the group visible to itself: Participants receive a lot of information about each other, and thus about the group as a whole, in a very short time.
Identify commonalities and differences: Shared and different identities, truths, opinions, and experiences surface.
Invite vulnerability: The choice of questions can invite a lot of vulnerability, which usually creates a more connected field.
Check-in/feel the temperature of the room: At any point during a process a human mapping can reveal how participants feel at that given moment.
What you need for a human mapping
Human mapping is very simple in the sense that no material is required, but you need enough space that all participants can either stand on an imaginary line, or in a circle, or ideally both.
Types of questions/statements
The questions/statements can include:
Facts (“How far did you travel to get there?”)
Identity (“I consider myself …”)
Behaviour (“I consume …”)
Opinions (“I believe that …”)
Experience (“I feel … in this room”)
Spectrums, circles or clusters
Spectrums and circles map the group on closed/binary questions/statements, with two clear poles (Yes or no, high degree vs low degree etc.). The spectrum method uses an imaginary line for this, in the circle method, the initial (outer) circle symbolises one pole, and the centre of the circle another.
The cluster method goes beyond the binary, and invites participants to group themselves according to certain commonalities, for example, the type of organization they represent. The outcome is then usually more than 2 clusters. An additional element that can be added here is an imaginary map (for example Switzerland), where participants can position themselves related to where their workplace is on this map.
Add-on option 1: Inviting individual voices
For every mapping, individual voices can be invited to share. Depending on the intention of the check, different questions can be asked, such as:
Why did you position yourself where you are?
How does it feel to be where you are right now?
Add-on option 2: Invite participants to ask questions
This option allows participants to step into creation, and come up with questions/statements themselves.
Time
A human mapping can be done in as little as 2-3min if only one question is asked. Because the participants are standing throughout the entire exercise, we recommend not going beyond 20-30min, depending on the group.
Why we’re using it a lot
In our experience, human mapping can be highly effective in making a room visible to the entire group. This in turn usually creates safety among participants, which is essential for our work.
Furthermore, it not only invites participants to think and feel into the question/statement itself, but also into their relationship to groups and group dynamics. Many of us tend to assimilate to the bigger group to belong and avoid situations where we stand alone. This behaviour is understandable, but not conducive to presenting the results we are aiming for.
Another big advantage of human mapping is its adaptability. Questions/statements can be changed/switched around by the facilitators at any moment, and based on their reading on what the room needs. As explained above, the step into the unknown can be done easily if the baton is handed over to participants.
What worked especially well for us
Here are a few specific ways of human mapping that worked especially well for us:
Going gently from shallow to deep: We usually start with ‘easy’ questions (usually fact-based) that do not require a lot of vulnerability of the participants, to ease them in. From there, we go slowly and gently deeper and bring in the questions that require more vulnerability.
Selected individual check-in questions: This method allowed us often to bring in a different quality in the room, usually by asking someone “How does it feel to be standing where you are right now?”
Mid-process check-ins: Around mid-way through a process, we like to use human mappings to make the room visible with regards to the process. One of our favourite statements to map is “I feel that my voice is being heard in this room”. The mapping related to this question conveys really important information to the facilitators, as well as to the participants, and can raise the level of collective awareness.
Inviting “the elephants” into the room: We had really good experiences with consciously following perceived tensions, for example through a follow-up question.
How it can backfire
Human mappings have the potential to make differences among participants visible and explicit, and if not held well, this can have the opposite effect by making a room less safe for participants.
Furthermore, participants are somewhat put on the spot, i.e. there is considerable pressure to participate and position themselves somewhere. If a participant carries deep trauma with them, this could be difficult. It’s therefore important that the facilitators get a good read of the group, especially before diving into the deeper questions.
