Short version of this post: I recommend not using the \u201cpopcorn\u201d system to have people in a meeting introduce themselves, because there are a variety of ways that that system can cause stress and upset to participants.<\/p>\r\n
Long version follows.<\/p>\r\n
A couple of times now, I\u2019ve been in social-justice-related video calls with a bunch of people I don\u2019t know, and the leader of the group has asked everyone to introduce themselves, and someone has suggested that we do that in \u201cpopcorn\u201d order.<\/p>\r\n
The first time this happened, I had no idea what \u201cpopcorn\u201d meant, and had to ask for it to be explained. (\u2026Or maybe someone else asked? I forget.)<\/p>\r\n
For others who may not know, the way it works is that one person introduces themselves, and then they pick someone else on the call and they say that other person\u2019s name. That picked person then introduces themselves, and then picks someone else, and so on, until (in theory) everyone has introduced themselves.<\/p>\r\n
I\u2019m guessing that the general idea behind popcorning is to get everyone involved and revved up and interacting with each other (albeit in a minimal way) and eager to work together to achieve the group\u2019s goal. I can imagine contexts in which a similar kind of process might have that effect for me. But in the contexts where I\u2019ve seen it, popcorning hasn\u2019t had that effect (at least not for me), and it has instead had several negative effects.<\/p>\r\n
My first and least important concern about the concept is that when the leaders assume that everyone knows how it works, that can be alienating to newcomers.<\/p>\r\n
After that first meeting where I had to have it explained, I no longer needed an explanation. But in the other meetings (of different groups) where I\u2019ve seen popcorning happen, it\u2019s possible that some other attendees didn\u2019t know what popcorning was, and in those meetings, nobody explained the process. (And it didn\u2019t occur to me to explain it myself, or to ask someone else to explain.)<\/p>\r\n
But I also have bigger concerns. For example:<\/p>\r\n
If there are more than about ten attendees, it\u2019s nearly impossible for a newcomer to keep track of who has gone already and who hasn\u2019t. So the people who go late in the process are likely to have to give up and say something like \u201cI don\u2019t know who\u2019s gone and who hasn\u2019t, who wants to go next?\u201d Which means that you\u2019re probably going to end up not using the popcorn process toward the end anyway.<\/p>\r\n
(I\u2019m told that some people view the keeping-track aspect as a positive thing, because it makes attendees pay attention to who\u2019s already gone during the introductions. I don\u2019t particularly like that as a goal (for me, trying to keep track of meta-information like that distracts me from listening to the introductions); but if it is a goal, then I would recommend that the leaders be explicit upfront about that, saying something like: \u201cPart of the goal of popcorning is to make you keep track of who has spoken and who hasn\u2019t, so you should pay close attention to that and maybe take notes.\u201d)<\/p>\r\n<\/li>\r\n
In theory, in this context, there\u2019s nothing wrong with getting \u201cpicked\u201d late in the sequence, or even going last, because in theory, everyone is going to get a turn sooner or later. But in practice, it can feel unpleasant or awkward to not be picked for a long time, especially if you suspect that you haven\u2019t been picked yet because of your name or because nobody knows you or because certain people don\u2019t like you. It can feel reminiscent of (for example) team-picking in gym class, where the popular and athletic kids get chosen first. In popcorning, the order is chosen by the aggregate of the participants (as opposed to being random, or being determined by some external factor), which can make it feel like a hierarchy even if it isn\u2019t exactly one.<\/p>\r\n