And the research shows...
Here's a parallel conversation that's also worth exploring. I have a few extra thoughts. https://twitter.com/korytellers/status/1286692226656088064

Context is everything. The why, how, what and when of groups convening has everything to do with how the gathering will be structured and which goals will be prioritized. The distinction between chosen and mandated participation cannot be underestimated.

Groups of people who choose to gather already share an interest on which their interactions can build. Also, the time frame and frequency of contact makes a world of difference. Are we together for several meetings in a semester or just one afternoon?

Ice breakers refer mainly to beginning, to creating an opening. They can set the stage for what will follow. It's where facilitators create early (not the 1st) impressions, for better or worse. Ice breakers may be intended to build community, but they can also miss the mark.

They *can*, they don't have to. My great desire is to see folks think carefully about all the aspects of context that make the gathering what it is. Knowing purpose, time frame, audience, frequency/intensity, resources & background are necessary for planning success.

The question for me is not: ice breakers, yes or no. Rather, How do the chosen activities respect & honor participants' energies and serve our shared purpose in coming together?
That's long-winded *and* it's where the needed conversation actually belongs.

For mandated gatherings, it matters greatly who is facilitating, what their role is in relation to participants (boss? *grimace emoji*), & why you are meeting (Long-term plan or reactive, emergency). Every opening should be as transparent as possible in these cases.

If there's clear tension or even hostility between facilitator & audience or among participants, this is not a gathering for growth outcomes; it means that small scale mediation should have happened before hand. The ice is already broken and the relationships, too.