We’ve all attended meetings where there’s been a lot of noise, but very little to show for it at the end. The discussion is dominated by a member with one terrible idea that they’re determined to force upon everyone. The quieter colleagues who actually have something valuable to say slump in defeat and start wondering what they’re going to have for dinner. The only outcome is agreement on the date for the next exhausting meeting.
In his captivating essay collection The Medusa and the Snail, biologist Lewis Thomas offers us hope in the form of the Delphi Method. It’s named after Pythia, the official title of ancient Greek high priestess at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi who was famous for her prophecies and predictions. Like the ancient oracle, the Delphi Method offers insight into future uncertainties, but does this by consulting a panel of experts.
What is the Delphi Method?
The method was invented by employees of the Rand Corporation in the 1960s. Dissatisfied with the way committees were run, they devised a better way. Instead of scheduling endless meetings, they circulated questionnaires to the members of a group. Each person wrote and submitted their answers silently. Those answers were circulated to all members, giving them an opportunity to reconsider their original response in light of the other views. After three cycles, a consensus had usually been reached. The final answers were more nuanced and reliable than the initial responses. In some versions of the Delphi Method, participants were allowed to introduce new questions alongside their answers.
In essence, the Delphi Method assumes that group judgements are more effective than individual judgements. In traditional meetings, it’s unusual for the whole group to contribute, so judgement is reached by the most dominant members. Thomas describes the method as “a really quiet, thoughtful conversation, in which everyone gets a chance to listen” and the “recurrent sonic booms of vanity” are eliminated.
Meetings favour people who can think on the spot. Unless you’re willing to respond quickly and assertively, you’re likely to find yourself sidelined. Of course, some chairs are skilled facilitators who bring in quieter voices at exactly the right moment. I bet you’re struggling to recall many examples of those. Some of us need a few hours, days, or even weeks to think through a problem. In certain situations you need a quick answer, but many more demand a thoughtful response. The Delphi Method provides that time and space.
Using Sprint Methodologies
Although I’ve not used the Delphi Method itself, I deployed similar techniques when I facilitated a book sprint at the University of Sussex. I had just four days in which to coax a team of seven researchers through co-authoring a book - that included planning, writing, and editing. There was no time for protracted debate, so we needed to reach decisions quickly. I used my tech experience of agile methods and also learned techniques from the book Sprint. Most of the discussion was through commenting on each others’ storyboards, voting on ideas with gold stars, and card sorting. Verbal discussions were rare and strictly timed, usually lasting less than ten minutes. Although not everyone enjoyed the largely silent approach, nobody could deny the outcome: they wrote and published a full book in four days. As Lewis Thomas explains:
Debating is what committees really do, not thinking. Take away the need for winning points, leading the discussion, protecting one’s face, gaining applause, shouting down opposition, scaring opponents, all that kind of noisy activity, and a group of bright people can get down to quiet thought. It is a nice idea, and I’m glad it works.
I’m glad it works, too. But I’m perplexed as to why these techniques aren’t practised more widely. Possibly it’s because the people in senior positions prefer meetings: it makes them feel powerful and it’s a format they can easily control. Also, scheduling a meeting is easier than coordinating asynchronous discussion.
Here’s how it might work.
A Research Team Case Study
Five mid-career researchers from different institutions are applying for funding to develop a collaborative project addressing climate justice through participatory arts. The application requires a team narrative CV demonstrating their collective expertise and complementary skills.
The problem: Their first meeting to discuss the CV quickly becomes unproductive. Dr. Asha, who initiated the collaboration, dominates the conversation with strong opinions about which examples to include. Dr. James, who tends to think slowly and carefully, sits quietly, unable to process the rapid-fire discussion. Dr. Chen has several relevant examples but can’t find an opening to mention them. After two hours, they’ve made minimal progress and scheduled another meeting for the following week.
The Delphi approach: After that exhausting meeting, Dr. Maya suggests trying something different. She sends the team a shared document with three questions:
- What examples from your own work best demonstrate your unique contribution to this team’s goals?
- Looking at the funder’s priorities (community partnership, inclusive practice, climate justice), which of your examples most clearly address these?
- What makes this specific combination of team members stronger than individuals working separately?
Round 1: Over three days, each person silently adds their responses to the document. Dr. James, who needed time to reflect, identifies examples of long-term community partnerships. Dr. Chen describes innovative data visualisation methods that weren’t mentioned in the meeting. Dr. Asha realises her strongest contribution is methodology development, not the project management role she’d been relishing.
Round 2: The team reads each other’s responses, then answers the question: “Based on what you’ve read, what complementary strengths are emerging? What gaps do you notice?” This round reveals that while they have strong community engagement and creative practice expertise, they’re light on impact measurement.
Round 3: They add a follow-up question: “Should we bring in someone with evaluation expertise, or can existing members strengthen this area?” After silent deliberation, they agree that Dr. Maya’s background in participatory action research can address this gap, but she’ll need support from an external evaluator as a project partner.
Outcome: Within two weeks, they’ve reached consensus on their collective strengths, identified clear complementary expertise, and made a strategic decision about team composition. Most importantly, everyone has been given the time and space to contribute ideas. The final CV tells a coherent story about an interdisciplinary team uniquely positioned to address climate justice through collaborative practice.
Conclusion
Before you try this yourself, it’s worth considering whether it’s right for your situation.
Advantages of the Delphi Method:
- Avoids domination by louder voices.
- Better for some neurodivergent members who might need longer to deliberate.
- Everything is documented, so there’s a single source of truth.
Disadvantages of the Delphi Method:
- Slow, and therefore unsuitable where you need a quick decision.
- There will be resistance from people who enjoy meetings.
- Not everyone is comfortable with expressing their thoughts in writing.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t an either/or situation. The Delphi Method works best when combined with traditional meetings: use it for decisions where thoughtful reflection matters more than speed, and save in-person meetings for times when you genuinely need immediate discussion and energy. And make sure you provide plenty of coffee.