We often assume that when people resist a new architectural direction, the answer is to explain better — clearer diagrams, more detailed documents, another walkthrough of the rationale. Diana Montalion spent twenty years perfecting this instinct. Then she realized she was Sisyphus: pushing the same rock up the same hills, and getting flattened every time it rolled back down.

The shift came at Kripalu, a retreat center where Diana had gone to rest from the exhaustion of constant explanation. The environment was overwhelmingly female — the opposite of the tech spaces where she'd spent her career, often as the only woman in the room. Learning happened there through movement and experience, not endless discussion. When her phone pinged with a question from the DDD Europe organizer — "You said this could be a workshop. What would you do?" — the answer suddenly felt obvious: design an experience, not an explanation.

What followed was a workshop that used the iceberg model to help participants understand how systems generate outcomes — using, as their subject, the fact that 91.88% of software developers are male. Nobody debated gender politics. Instead, working in groups, they modelled how a system produces that result, then designed a different system. Diana has run it four or five times now and learns something new every time. Back in her current role, she's applying the same logic to architectural change: rather than explaining until people understand, she tries things with them — and finds that people who were deeply resistant often pick up the ball and run with it once they've had the experience.

This conversation explores what it actually takes to move from explanation to experience — including how to work inside genuine uncertainty, how to interrupt cognitive patterns without steering people to your predetermined answer, and why facilitative leadership is, in Diana's words, genuinely harder than just telling people what to do.

Key Discussion Points

1. [00:01] The Sisyphus Pattern: Diana names her core habit — when facing resistance, explain more — and the exhaustion that finally forced her to question it
2. [03:00] The Kripalu Moment: A retreat centre, a predominantly female room, and a way of learning through experience rather than discussion that stops Diana cold
3. [04:00] The DDD Europe Workshop: How a well-timed ping from the conference organiser became the prompt to design an iceberg model workshop unlike anything she'd done before
4. [06:00] Modelling the Patriarchy: How asking teams to model a system that produces 91.88% male developers — not to debate gender, but to practise systems thinking — unlocks participation in a way no lecture ever could
5. [08:00] Architectural Miracles: In her current role, Diana catches herself falling back into "explain more" — and experiments with just trying things instead, with surprising results
6. [12:00] There Is Only Uncertainty: Diana's perspective on complexity, consent, and why promising important insight rather than solved problems is the honest deliverable
7. [22:00] Flying with the Flock: The delicate balance between listening, facilitating, and nudging — knowing when to interrupt a cognitive pattern without simply steering people to your own answer
8. [28:00] A Science and an Art: How facilitation is both deep listening and an energetic interruption of pattern — and why the hardest part is the work itself, once the friction is gone

Guest: Diana Montalion Hosts: Andrea Magnorsky, Kenny Schwegler

Part of the Stories on Facilitating Software Architecture and Design series from Virtual DDD.

We often assume that bad architectural decisions come from bad architects. But what if there are no architects at all—just a team of software developers trying to do their best, with no one in the room who knows how to facilitate a decision of that magnitude?

That's the situation Gien Verschatse found herself in early in her career. The team had just been pulled off a Phoenix project—a fresh-start initiative killed after six months—and reassigned to maintain a legacy system built on technologies that were outdated even then. Eager to modernise, Gien organised an EventStorming session to map the technical debt from an emotional angle: what frustrates you most? What makes your job difficult? The session was, in her words, an absolute disaster—she couldn't get people to step away from how the system currently worked. Meanwhile, a developer with a dominant personality pushed hard for an event sourcing implementation. It was cutting-edge technology, exciting, new. And that was enough. "The person who was the loudest in the meeting got their way. There was no plan. There was no sitting down and thinking this through. It was just 'this is the latest and greatest and we're going to do that.'"

The event sourcing system got built entirely alongside the existing codebase. The emotional wall of technical debt stayed untouched. QA didn't know how to test the new system. IT didn't know how to deploy it. People started leaving. Gien eventually left too—after a massive burnout, feeling like she'd failed. It took fifteen years and a career as a consultant to see it clearly: the problem wasn't the technology. It was that nobody in that room knew how to make architectural decisions together, and nobody was there to facilitate the ones that needed to be made.

This conversation explores what happens when dominant personalities fill the vacuum left by absent facilitation, why value-based heuristics are a more effective lever than emotional appeals, and what Gien—now co-author of a book on decision-making—would do differently today.

Key Discussion Points

1. [00:01] The Phoenix That Died: Gien's team is pulled off a promising fresh-start project and reassigned to a legacy system with outdated technology
2. [03:00] The EventStorming That Failed: An attempt to map technical debt emotionally collapses—the team can't imagine beyond how the system currently works
3. [04:00] The Loudest Voice Wins: A dominant developer pushes event sourcing through with no plan, no consequence-mapping, and no one with the skills to push back
4. [05:00] The Architecture That Solved Nothing: The new system is built alongside the old one; QA can't test it, IT can't deploy it, the technical debt remains untouched
5. [06:00] The Exodus and the Burnout: People leave one by one; Gien leaves after burnout, carrying a sense of personal failure that took years to reframe
6. [09:00] Quit Sooner: Gien's hard-won advice—it's okay to leave bad environments, and finding one is not a personal failure
7. [20:00] Digging Into the Preference: How Gien now uncovers the value-based heuristics driving strong positions—fear of skill obsolescence, career anxiety—without triggering defensive reactions
8. [22:00] Talking About Emotions Without Talking About Emotions: After 20 years in a male-dominated industry, Gien's approach to surfacing emotional drivers through values-based framing

Guest: Gien Verschatse, Evelyn van Kelle Hosts: Kenny Schwegler, Andrea Magnorsky

We often assume the hardest part of facilitation is designing the exercises. But what happens when hierarchy doesn't just shape the conversation — it physically stops it?

That's the story Evelyn van Kelle brought to this episode. She was a few weeks into working with a company going through major changes — uncertainty everywhere, fingers being pointed, decisions being avoided. She and a colleague proposed an EventStorming session. Leadership called it "a wasted day." Participants showed up hesitant, conversations stayed high-level, and there were no disagreements — a red flag for any facilitator. People were asking permission just to move a sticky note. Then there was the CTO. He wouldn't participate, but he'd walk in periodically, arms crossed, sometimes dropping a sarcastic comment. Each time, the entire group froze. But the grand finale came during a sense-making exercise: for the first time all day, someone was sharing something vulnerable. The CTO walked in, listened, and after a few seconds of silence — slow clapped. The room went silent. Everyone looked to the facilitators. Evelyn and her co-facilitator were overwhelmed.

What followed — and what Evelyn learned from it — is a masterclass in what facilitators do when their own physical reactions are peaking, when safety collapses in real time, and when dominant behaviour reveals how fragile the conditions for collaboration really were. This conversation explores the line between being neutral and acting neutral, why understanding destructive behaviour matters more than condemning it, and what Evelyn would do differently if she could go back.

Key Discussion Points

1. [00:01] Physical Reactions as Data: Evelyn explains why intense physical responses during facilitation are a signal to act, not to freeze
2. [00:03] "A Wasted Day": How leadership's resistance to the session set the conditions for failure before it even began
3. [00:05] Working Too Hard: The facilitator heuristic — when you're working harder than the group, something structural is blocking participation
4. [00:06] The CTO's Rounds: Arms crossed, sarcastic comments, no questions — and how the whole group froze every time he walked in
5. [00:08] The Slow Clap: The moment a vulnerable breakthrough was met with the CTO's slow clap, and how it peaked the facilitators' own physical reactions
6. [00:11] Understanding, Not Excusing: Evelyn's one-on-one with the CTO — learning that his behaviour earned him compliments from peers
7. [00:14] The Session That Shouldn't Have Happened: Why making collaborative modeling "business as usual" might have worked better than a big official event
8. [00:18] Acting Neutral vs. Being Neutral: Why facilitators can't truly be neutral, but must avoid setting the emotional tone for the group

Guest: Evelyn van Kelle, Gien Verschatse Hosts: Andrea Magnorsky, Kenny Schwegler