For those interested in the recent Syndicate conference in NYC, Renee Blodgett, marketer extrordinaire, has written it up on her blog.
When Renee says she wants to "bring passion to technlogy, business and life," it's not false advertising. I attended her party and recommend Renee's events to anyone looking to learn something, meet fascinating people across fields, and have a great time.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
PDF Conference: A Thought on the Politics of/in Communciations
This week, I attended the Personal Democracy Forum (PDF) conference at the CUNY graduate center in midtown.
Last year, the shining light was Doc Searls. For those who are unfamiliar with celebrity technorati, Doc is passionate enough to make ideas contagious, even to the those immune to any sort of new interest. Doc is brilliant, quicksilver thinker, avoids jargon, and communicates effectively with multimedia. Add the actual content of the talks -- insights on connections between interpretation and technology -- and there are few I'd rather be in a room with than Doc.
The Continuing War Between the States: The Reds Hands Down Over Blue
PDF's conference focuses on the ways in which campaigns and individuals work online to promote a political agenda. The politics can be local, national, or international -- progressive or conservative.
At this year's PDF conference, the small number of conservatives who attended was highly notable. But the progressives? Not so much. Eliot Spitzer lit up the room. Everyone else who was concise, focused, compelling, and articulate worked for Republican campaigns. Elizabeth Edwards was well-spoken, appealing, very smart, and genuine, but she didn't have same edge as Spitzer and the aforesaid Red State representatives.
Especially on panels, the conservatives took the room by storm. It's this edge -- a combination of focus, engagement, and brains -- that makes a speaker thrilling rather than simply worth hearing.
Beyond Politics: How to Engage A Listener
Effective public speaking is too large a topic to address completely in one post. However, the rules of thumb follow the same theory as effective classroom teaching -- or what is called effective "Thought Leadership" (a term that still resonates with Orwellian overtones for me, despite eight years in corporate America).
--Articulate a clear point of view -- or points of view -- and be guided by insight rather than information per se.
--Generate passion about the topic for yourself, and it will spread to your audience.
--Listen. Listen to what is being said as well as what you say and the dynamic created by the conversation. Focus on connecting. Don't dismiss anything easily.
Natural stage presence helps, but it's not enough. Charisma can also be constructed by following these steps.
Why Do So Many Find This So Difficult?
I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm interested in feedback here. Any ideas?
Last year, the shining light was Doc Searls. For those who are unfamiliar with celebrity technorati, Doc is passionate enough to make ideas contagious, even to the those immune to any sort of new interest. Doc is brilliant, quicksilver thinker, avoids jargon, and communicates effectively with multimedia. Add the actual content of the talks -- insights on connections between interpretation and technology -- and there are few I'd rather be in a room with than Doc.
The Continuing War Between the States: The Reds Hands Down Over Blue
PDF's conference focuses on the ways in which campaigns and individuals work online to promote a political agenda. The politics can be local, national, or international -- progressive or conservative.
At this year's PDF conference, the small number of conservatives who attended was highly notable. But the progressives? Not so much. Eliot Spitzer lit up the room. Everyone else who was concise, focused, compelling, and articulate worked for Republican campaigns. Elizabeth Edwards was well-spoken, appealing, very smart, and genuine, but she didn't have same edge as Spitzer and the aforesaid Red State representatives.
Especially on panels, the conservatives took the room by storm. It's this edge -- a combination of focus, engagement, and brains -- that makes a speaker thrilling rather than simply worth hearing.
Beyond Politics: How to Engage A Listener
Effective public speaking is too large a topic to address completely in one post. However, the rules of thumb follow the same theory as effective classroom teaching -- or what is called effective "Thought Leadership" (a term that still resonates with Orwellian overtones for me, despite eight years in corporate America).
--Articulate a clear point of view -- or points of view -- and be guided by insight rather than information per se.
--Generate passion about the topic for yourself, and it will spread to your audience.
--Listen. Listen to what is being said as well as what you say and the dynamic created by the conversation. Focus on connecting. Don't dismiss anything easily.
Natural stage presence helps, but it's not enough. Charisma can also be constructed by following these steps.
Why Do So Many Find This So Difficult?
I have my own thoughts on this, but I'm interested in feedback here. Any ideas?
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Other Bloggers on GEL: Take a Look
There's so much more to say about the GELconference, but I'm out of time. Next week, on to how technology is changing politics from the Personal Democracy Forum.
So -- for other information and perspectives, please see postings by such as Khoi Vinh, NYT.com design bureau chief (and a second on Day 1 Events), Sarah Endling, Steve Sherlock, Kareem Mayan (a slideshow), Christopher Herot, Steve Hoffman, Lisa Sulgit
So -- for other information and perspectives, please see postings by such as Khoi Vinh, NYT.com design bureau chief (and a second on Day 1 Events), Sarah Endling, Steve Sherlock, Kareem Mayan (a slideshow), Christopher Herot, Steve Hoffman, Lisa Sulgit
Talking Back at Advertisers: The Bubble Project
Continuing from the last post, although the actual theme was "Hidden Potential," the issue of community was equally present in everyone's talk.
Ji Lee's Bubble Project provides an excellent example.
How It Started
Lee began as an art director at an international advertising agency. He left because of a growing frustration with priorities among executives that made new ideas almost impossible to implement.
Lee was working on Cheerios campaign for which he and a copyrighter needed a tag line that both pointed to the cereal's trademark yellow box while lauding the value of new flavors, each packaged in a different color.
The tagline: Only the holes taste the same.
At first, everyone loved it. Then an argument over the difference between "taste" and flavor" ensued, and the campaign was canned.
Lee moved on to greener pastures.
Corporate Monologue to Public Dialogue
Lee wanted to find a way to disrupt what he calls the corporate monologue that prevents customers from actively engaging with advertising. Rather than passive recipients of messages, Lee wanted to enable consumers to be active participants in a conversation.
From the Grime, Bubbles Emerge
Lee spent $3,000 printing out the kind of bubbles in which cartoon characters speak. He then began posting them on ads throughout New York City. A few times, he was fined by the police (Lee suggested not to try this in the subway), but he was not deterred.
Lee left the bubbles blank, and passers-by began to interact with ads (meant only for broadcast in one direction) and create engaged commentary (by writing in the bubbles advertisers never meant to include).
Lee then went back to photograph the transformations. He found that interaction fell into a few categories, some of which overlapped: social commentary, sex and drugs, art and philosophy, politics and religion, and media and fashion.
And So?
If corporate advertising creates products based on a fantasy of passive recipients, there is now excellent evidence that their markets do not buy their lines as written. It's not just technology and the Web that makes this true. Clearly, frustrated consumers, bombarded and patronized with broadcasts, grab even the lowest tech options to show they're not buying corporate monologues.
Sometimes even two or three comments could be found in a single bubble. Community can grow anywhere, asynchronously if necessary.
Businesses Beware
If GEL produced one message for business leaders, it is that they reexamine their assumptions about their customers. Rather than asking them to listen to you, give your customers the floor and see what they have to say. You might learn something.
Ji Lee's Bubble Project provides an excellent example.
How It Started
Lee began as an art director at an international advertising agency. He left because of a growing frustration with priorities among executives that made new ideas almost impossible to implement.
Lee was working on Cheerios campaign for which he and a copyrighter needed a tag line that both pointed to the cereal's trademark yellow box while lauding the value of new flavors, each packaged in a different color.
The tagline: Only the holes taste the same.
At first, everyone loved it. Then an argument over the difference between "taste" and flavor" ensued, and the campaign was canned.
Lee moved on to greener pastures.
Corporate Monologue to Public Dialogue
Lee wanted to find a way to disrupt what he calls the corporate monologue that prevents customers from actively engaging with advertising. Rather than passive recipients of messages, Lee wanted to enable consumers to be active participants in a conversation.
From the Grime, Bubbles Emerge
Lee spent $3,000 printing out the kind of bubbles in which cartoon characters speak. He then began posting them on ads throughout New York City. A few times, he was fined by the police (Lee suggested not to try this in the subway), but he was not deterred.
Lee left the bubbles blank, and passers-by began to interact with ads (meant only for broadcast in one direction) and create engaged commentary (by writing in the bubbles advertisers never meant to include).
Lee then went back to photograph the transformations. He found that interaction fell into a few categories, some of which overlapped: social commentary, sex and drugs, art and philosophy, politics and religion, and media and fashion.
And So?
If corporate advertising creates products based on a fantasy of passive recipients, there is now excellent evidence that their markets do not buy their lines as written. It's not just technology and the Web that makes this true. Clearly, frustrated consumers, bombarded and patronized with broadcasts, grab even the lowest tech options to show they're not buying corporate monologues.
Sometimes even two or three comments could be found in a single bubble. Community can grow anywhere, asynchronously if necessary.
Businesses Beware
If GEL produced one message for business leaders, it is that they reexamine their assumptions about their customers. Rather than asking them to listen to you, give your customers the floor and see what they have to say. You might learn something.
Mapping Knowledge: Poetry in Aid of Science and Business
Before moving on to the main body of this missive, my good friend, Dean Landsman, kindly pointed out that the GEL posts have not been up to what he calls my usual standard of writing. He said so out of concern, and so please allow me to apologize here for any awkward sentence construction -- these are all first drafts with quick spell checks. I regret any lack of grace. I'm posting as quickly as I can get the words down.
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
The History of Maps: Both a Means and Result of Discovery
Katy Börner, another inspirational speaker at GEL, explained her passion for finding patterns within and among large data sets and mapping the results.
Sound dry? In fact, the highly interpretive nature of the work -- how to create connections among siloed ideas to create an intuitive and yet accurate picture of existing knowledge -- demonstrates the importance of art in scientific innovation.
Börner began by discussing the history of science maps in relation to their geographical equivalents. Each map represents a vision of information and priorities based -- sometimes quite shamelessly -- on a particular mapmaker's perspective.
Mapping Science
Within the field of science, Börner includes the fields of math, physics, biology, chemistry, social sciences, and so on. Each domain of discovery (in this case, science) is distinct from the others often in language/jargon, resources, personnel, education, economic market, academic discipline, and often geography.
The questions Börner asks: how can we make use of what we know collectively so that we don't have to repeatedly reinvent the wheel? What would a map of knowledge look like that illustrated density (both overlap of ideas and outliers), detail (which can be got from search engines), and a big picture? What sort of metaphors would be appropriate?
Once You Build It?
Börner's work has application for every knowledge domain. Since the late eighteenth-century, Western thought has been increasingly relegated to distinct disciplines whose value, to a large extent, is predicated on its difference from other fields. Education follows a with increasingly specialized disciplines of interpretation to prepare practioners for their increasingly narrowing fields.
As Börner mentioned, as technology develops, it's increasingly difficult to keep up with the discovery and dissemination of knowledge. Furthermore, the ability of one field to publish more quickly than others creates a political imbalance among those in the business of research and discovery.
Learning: By Way of Example
With so much noise, and so few interpreters among fields, knowledge and learning processes are repeatedly redefined by practioners of psychology, biology, higher education, by secondary education, primary education, corporate training, new age systems, self-help industries, and so on.
In fact, the overlaps are often more salient than the differences, although the salaries for each field don't reflect it. Often, for example, corporate trainers spend a great deal of energy reminding adults that communication skills differ among individuals according to background, expectations, gender, culture, etc. How much more do they earn than Kindergarten teachers who spend much of their time on the same theme?
As I mentioned early on, this blog was born from my own frustration over the way in which education is handled. Three years of research demonstrates that across fields, most professionals agree on the components of effective thinking. However, practioners and researchers of learning, creativity, and education rarely acknowledge each other's accomplishments in a way that encourages further exploration of similarities. The economics and politics of celebrity discourage anything else.
What if overlaps among fields became a priority, and we mapped everything that is currently known about the way the mind processes information? What if everyone across age groups and fields worked from that map?
What if all fields were mapped across topics and discoveries?
More on GEL in the next post.
More on Börner's Work
Learn more about Börner's work at her website and get in touch if you have ideas about appropriate metaphors with which to map scientific knowledge. She also asked me to add that she and her colleagues sell maps and a video. All money goes towards the design and manufacture of (puzzle) maps of science to be donated to schools around the globe.
And now back to our regularly scheduled program.
The History of Maps: Both a Means and Result of Discovery
Katy Börner, another inspirational speaker at GEL, explained her passion for finding patterns within and among large data sets and mapping the results.
Sound dry? In fact, the highly interpretive nature of the work -- how to create connections among siloed ideas to create an intuitive and yet accurate picture of existing knowledge -- demonstrates the importance of art in scientific innovation.
Börner began by discussing the history of science maps in relation to their geographical equivalents. Each map represents a vision of information and priorities based -- sometimes quite shamelessly -- on a particular mapmaker's perspective.
Mapping Science
Within the field of science, Börner includes the fields of math, physics, biology, chemistry, social sciences, and so on. Each domain of discovery (in this case, science) is distinct from the others often in language/jargon, resources, personnel, education, economic market, academic discipline, and often geography.
The questions Börner asks: how can we make use of what we know collectively so that we don't have to repeatedly reinvent the wheel? What would a map of knowledge look like that illustrated density (both overlap of ideas and outliers), detail (which can be got from search engines), and a big picture? What sort of metaphors would be appropriate?
Once You Build It?
Börner's work has application for every knowledge domain. Since the late eighteenth-century, Western thought has been increasingly relegated to distinct disciplines whose value, to a large extent, is predicated on its difference from other fields. Education follows a with increasingly specialized disciplines of interpretation to prepare practioners for their increasingly narrowing fields.
As Börner mentioned, as technology develops, it's increasingly difficult to keep up with the discovery and dissemination of knowledge. Furthermore, the ability of one field to publish more quickly than others creates a political imbalance among those in the business of research and discovery.
Learning: By Way of Example
With so much noise, and so few interpreters among fields, knowledge and learning processes are repeatedly redefined by practioners of psychology, biology, higher education, by secondary education, primary education, corporate training, new age systems, self-help industries, and so on.
In fact, the overlaps are often more salient than the differences, although the salaries for each field don't reflect it. Often, for example, corporate trainers spend a great deal of energy reminding adults that communication skills differ among individuals according to background, expectations, gender, culture, etc. How much more do they earn than Kindergarten teachers who spend much of their time on the same theme?
As I mentioned early on, this blog was born from my own frustration over the way in which education is handled. Three years of research demonstrates that across fields, most professionals agree on the components of effective thinking. However, practioners and researchers of learning, creativity, and education rarely acknowledge each other's accomplishments in a way that encourages further exploration of similarities. The economics and politics of celebrity discourage anything else.
What if overlaps among fields became a priority, and we mapped everything that is currently known about the way the mind processes information? What if everyone across age groups and fields worked from that map?
What if all fields were mapped across topics and discoveries?
More on GEL in the next post.
More on Börner's Work
Learn more about Börner's work at her website and get in touch if you have ideas about appropriate metaphors with which to map scientific knowledge. She also asked me to add that she and her colleagues sell maps and a video. All money goes towards the design and manufacture of (puzzle) maps of science to be donated to schools around the globe.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Discerning Trends: Attention Must Be Paid
To continue from the last post on the remarkable innovators present at GEL this year, here are my notes on Linda Stone's presentation. Much of this post comprises Stone's own words, even when not in quotes. I just can't write fast enough to keep up.
Attention Must Be Paid
Linda Stone follows trends. She looks at cycles of the human spirit, how we develop, and how these and other factors relate to our attention. Stone calls the point at which desire meets a new product the "sweet spot" because the gap between where we are and where we want to be defines what we become.
Stone's interest is the point at which human desire meets technology and how we use our attention there. She says we're at the end of a trend she calls "continuous partial attention" and are in the process of creating another trend in reaction against it.
Continuous Partial Attention: Different from Multi-Tasking
Multi-tasking, a tendency Stone dates as a trend from 1965-1985, became a trend whose goal was productivity. On the other hand, continuous partial attention, which began around 1985, is motivated by an obsession with being part of the network. The goal of multi-tasking is productivity; the heart of continuous partial attention is the desire not to miss anything.
Our Attention to Experience and the Resulting Quality
Stone says we've spent 20 years attempting to stretch human bandwidth to match that of technology. We've kept one item at the top-of-mind while scanning everything else we can reach. The constant communication and continuous partial attention has resulted in a sense of constant crisis. She says, "We're so accessible that we're inaccessible. We have so much power through technology that we feel powerless."
Stone said that the life of innovation, just like the life of anything else, requires different seasons to be sustainable and successful. Innovation relies on attention -- on consideration -- and Stone classifies it as an activity for the winter of a cycle. It's necessary to be inactive and to ruminate.
A New Trend: It's Here, Get Used to It
Stone says that after twenty years of welcoming and producing a bombardment of information and indiscriminate connections, we now want protecting and meaningful relationship. She says that our habits of attention are going from scanning to discernment, from thinking "what have we got to gain" to "what have we got to lose." We now want a filter and messages of meaning, belonging, and trust.
Stone gave an to illustrate the point: embracing every opportunity produces an Enron, while discerning among opportunities produces Apple's iPod.
And So . . .
What should you look for when choosing experiences for your customers, employees, and yourself? There will be an increasing call to enhance quality of life and ways of using our attention that are useful and comfortable.
Stone calls this the shift from knowledge workers to wisdom providers, and it's already begun.
Attention Must Be Paid
Linda Stone follows trends. She looks at cycles of the human spirit, how we develop, and how these and other factors relate to our attention. Stone calls the point at which desire meets a new product the "sweet spot" because the gap between where we are and where we want to be defines what we become.
Stone's interest is the point at which human desire meets technology and how we use our attention there. She says we're at the end of a trend she calls "continuous partial attention" and are in the process of creating another trend in reaction against it.
Continuous Partial Attention: Different from Multi-Tasking
Multi-tasking, a tendency Stone dates as a trend from 1965-1985, became a trend whose goal was productivity. On the other hand, continuous partial attention, which began around 1985, is motivated by an obsession with being part of the network. The goal of multi-tasking is productivity; the heart of continuous partial attention is the desire not to miss anything.
Our Attention to Experience and the Resulting Quality
Stone says we've spent 20 years attempting to stretch human bandwidth to match that of technology. We've kept one item at the top-of-mind while scanning everything else we can reach. The constant communication and continuous partial attention has resulted in a sense of constant crisis. She says, "We're so accessible that we're inaccessible. We have so much power through technology that we feel powerless."
Stone said that the life of innovation, just like the life of anything else, requires different seasons to be sustainable and successful. Innovation relies on attention -- on consideration -- and Stone classifies it as an activity for the winter of a cycle. It's necessary to be inactive and to ruminate.
A New Trend: It's Here, Get Used to It
Stone says that after twenty years of welcoming and producing a bombardment of information and indiscriminate connections, we now want protecting and meaningful relationship. She says that our habits of attention are going from scanning to discernment, from thinking "what have we got to gain" to "what have we got to lose." We now want a filter and messages of meaning, belonging, and trust.
Stone gave an to illustrate the point: embracing every opportunity produces an Enron, while discerning among opportunities produces Apple's iPod.
And So . . .
What should you look for when choosing experiences for your customers, employees, and yourself? There will be an increasing call to enhance quality of life and ways of using our attention that are useful and comfortable.
Stone calls this the shift from knowledge workers to wisdom providers, and it's already begun.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Pervasive Games and Innovation: Jane McGonical
Continuing from the last post at GEL, Jane McGonigal spoke inspiringly about creating very radically unlikely connections in order to see things new. I will reproduce my notes here as faithfully as I can, and much of it includes Jane's own words. I wrote as quickly as I could and for more information, go straight to the source.
Play and Insight
McGonical calls her work pervasive game design, the goal of which is to create alternative social experiences around everyday spaces. It's a little like site-specific theater, but the participants have not met and follow rules rather than a script.
Why Alternative Experiences? Why Everyday Spaces?
McGonigal is bothered by the wasted opportunity for interaction and engagement. Her goal is to connect play with real life by designing experiences around crosswalks, airports, bookstores, public payphones -- all the spaces in which automatic behavior is the norm. McGonigal uses games because they make it feel safe to behave in new ways, to escape from habit, and most important, to see new possibilities of engagement, both with the space and with others.
McGonigal builds some of these outdoor experiences in conjunction with computer games in order to extend the play and online community into the world off the monitor. The example a space into which she would breathe new life seemed both figuratively and literally impossible: for this exercise, McGonigal chose cemeteries. How could one change the public's view of playing in a graveyard?
Wonder Before Insight: Questions First
Before moving on to design the cemetery game, McGonigal asked a series of questions:
--What is the history of social use of spaces?
--What are the universal physical affordances of spaces?
--Does she have any personal alternative experiences/investment in the space?
--What are the most likely obstacles to new experience in that space?
The result was a game called Tombstone Holdem. More on its how it was developed -- and how it relates to business -- in the next post.
Play and Insight
McGonical calls her work pervasive game design, the goal of which is to create alternative social experiences around everyday spaces. It's a little like site-specific theater, but the participants have not met and follow rules rather than a script.
Why Alternative Experiences? Why Everyday Spaces?
McGonigal is bothered by the wasted opportunity for interaction and engagement. Her goal is to connect play with real life by designing experiences around crosswalks, airports, bookstores, public payphones -- all the spaces in which automatic behavior is the norm. McGonigal uses games because they make it feel safe to behave in new ways, to escape from habit, and most important, to see new possibilities of engagement, both with the space and with others.
McGonigal builds some of these outdoor experiences in conjunction with computer games in order to extend the play and online community into the world off the monitor. The example a space into which she would breathe new life seemed both figuratively and literally impossible: for this exercise, McGonigal chose cemeteries. How could one change the public's view of playing in a graveyard?
Wonder Before Insight: Questions First
Before moving on to design the cemetery game, McGonigal asked a series of questions:
--What is the history of social use of spaces?
--What are the universal physical affordances of spaces?
--Does she have any personal alternative experiences/investment in the space?
--What are the most likely obstacles to new experience in that space?
The result was a game called Tombstone Holdem. More on its how it was developed -- and how it relates to business -- in the next post.
Tombstone Holdem': Playing Among the Graves
Continuing from the last post on Jane McGonigal's pervasive game design, how does one find a way to breathe new life into graveyards? I'll give you a taste of the process here -- but I encourage you to find out more from the designer herself.
So What About Cemetaries?
Following the questions prioritized in the last post, McGonigal first looked at the history of graveyards in the US. She found that as recently as the early 20th century, cemeteries were considered places of recreation. Around New York City, communities wooed, strolled, and had picnics at Mount Auburn because it offered a large, quiet, green piece of land away from urban life. In fact, says McGonigal, cemeteries continue to fall under the authority of Parks and Recreation Departments.
As for personal history, McGonigal herself attended a Quaker school whose area for recess was a cemetery. She has fond memories of playing there as well.
The Game Becomes a Cause
McGonigal became firmer in her resolve to discover and popularize new perspectives on her subject when she realized that cemeteries are disappearing at an alarming rate. Very few people visit a grave after attending the burial, and open tracts of land, particularly near cities, have become rare and valuable. Furthermore, vandalism has increased due to the low numbers who visit. These combined factors have allowed developers to obtain permission to build on top of them.
Gambling With Perspective
The result of McGonigal's efforts is a game called Tombstone Holden'. It was designed as a real-life extension of an Old West computer game. McGonigal liked the idea of building face-to-face community around a graveyard for this group. She felt it would interrupt the inevitable desensitization of those who sit at computers all day shooting people.
Consequently the tag line is "You killed them. Now go pay your respects."
How to Play Among the Dead and Still Be Respectful?
One of the many remarkable things about McGonigal's thinking is that she considers builds each move around several perspectives that often seem to conflict. For example, she wanted to honor both manners of using the space; playing a game as well as mourning the dead. She created cards that could be printed out from the site with both the structure and rules of the game. This way, if a mourner were distressed or distracted, a player could explain the game easily using the prop rather than struggling for an on-the-spot answer. The game players could identify each other by the one flower each brought to the gathering.
The day was a huge success, in several cities, and can be reproduced anywhere there is a cemetery standing. For the rules -- or to start a game in your city -- get in touch with McGonigal and visit her site site.
Possibilities for Play by Seeing Things New
McGonigal summed up by talking about all the behaviors and events we pass every day without engaging and without thought of play. She threw down a sort of gauntlet in conclusion: Once you've played a McGongical game, you will become the kind of person who answers a ringing payphone.
Applications for Business
Because thinking is associative, imagine the applications for business strategy. If the elements of stimulus and response are limited to a familiar pool of options, it is impossible to make new connections. On the other hand, the more often we find new ways to interact with each other and the environment, the more likely we are to innovative.
To participate in a conference dedicated to these principles, check out Serious Games in Berkeley.
So What About Cemetaries?
Following the questions prioritized in the last post, McGonigal first looked at the history of graveyards in the US. She found that as recently as the early 20th century, cemeteries were considered places of recreation. Around New York City, communities wooed, strolled, and had picnics at Mount Auburn because it offered a large, quiet, green piece of land away from urban life. In fact, says McGonigal, cemeteries continue to fall under the authority of Parks and Recreation Departments.
As for personal history, McGonigal herself attended a Quaker school whose area for recess was a cemetery. She has fond memories of playing there as well.
The Game Becomes a Cause
McGonigal became firmer in her resolve to discover and popularize new perspectives on her subject when she realized that cemeteries are disappearing at an alarming rate. Very few people visit a grave after attending the burial, and open tracts of land, particularly near cities, have become rare and valuable. Furthermore, vandalism has increased due to the low numbers who visit. These combined factors have allowed developers to obtain permission to build on top of them.
Gambling With Perspective
The result of McGonigal's efforts is a game called Tombstone Holden'. It was designed as a real-life extension of an Old West computer game. McGonigal liked the idea of building face-to-face community around a graveyard for this group. She felt it would interrupt the inevitable desensitization of those who sit at computers all day shooting people.
Consequently the tag line is "You killed them. Now go pay your respects."
How to Play Among the Dead and Still Be Respectful?
One of the many remarkable things about McGonigal's thinking is that she considers builds each move around several perspectives that often seem to conflict. For example, she wanted to honor both manners of using the space; playing a game as well as mourning the dead. She created cards that could be printed out from the site with both the structure and rules of the game. This way, if a mourner were distressed or distracted, a player could explain the game easily using the prop rather than struggling for an on-the-spot answer. The game players could identify each other by the one flower each brought to the gathering.
The day was a huge success, in several cities, and can be reproduced anywhere there is a cemetery standing. For the rules -- or to start a game in your city -- get in touch with McGonigal and visit her site site.
Possibilities for Play by Seeing Things New
McGonigal summed up by talking about all the behaviors and events we pass every day without engaging and without thought of play. She threw down a sort of gauntlet in conclusion: Once you've played a McGongical game, you will become the kind of person who answers a ringing payphone.
Applications for Business
Because thinking is associative, imagine the applications for business strategy. If the elements of stimulus and response are limited to a familiar pool of options, it is impossible to make new connections. On the other hand, the more often we find new ways to interact with each other and the environment, the more likely we are to innovative.
To participate in a conference dedicated to these principles, check out Serious Games in Berkeley.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Man With No Last Name: Craig (Newmark) of Craig's List
Continuing from the last post, here's more on the speakers at last week's GEL conference.
Craig and His List(s)
For those of you who have been in areas with no electricity for a few years, Craig Newmark is the founder of Craigslist, a community communication tool available in an increasing number of cities around the country and the world.
Pick a city and find whatever you're looking for -- a place to live, a job, something to buy, somewhere to sell -- you name it, it's covered.
Craig admits that the system is low tech -- as he put it, if the rest of the world currently is deep into Web 2.0, Craigslists' sites can be found somewhere around at 0.1. This is turns out to be a feature rather than a bug -- the accessibility allows anyone who can type to participate and has helped communities grow quickly.
Craiglist's Premise
Craig believes that people are basically trustworthy and good. He also believes that people share common values -- first and foremost, it's a universal desire to treat others in the way they would like to be treated themselves. Craig points out that these are "the real core values," not those preached from political platforms.
The Strategy
From this premise, he has build sites that are user-driven rather than under his control and allowed the size of the communities to grow beyond the ability of any central monitoring system.
Instead, users monitor their own communities. If something doesn't belong on the site, users can flag them for deletion. If enough people flag the same item, it's deleted automatically.
Craig says that "somehow from being good guys," he and his colleagues have created a culture of trust.
But Does It Work?
Most people who have used Craig's List have a good story to tell. Like other people I know who've used the list, Craig said he feels great when he hears that someone lost an iPod on a train to Boston and it was returned through contact through the system. He also spoke of a volunteer in New York who screens all apartment brokers to make the list reliable -- and who loves doing it. Craig repeatedly finds that people like to use their power for good wherever they can.
Scalability: Hurricane Katrina
Craig then offered an example of what's possible on a bigger scale in the events that followed Katrina. In very little time, users repurposed the site to help victims find their friends and families. Not long after, people started offering jobs and housing for the victims, and when Craigslist employees heard about the exodus to Baton Rouge, they put up a site for the city on their own.
Radical Reassessment of Messaging: Marketing through Community
Most of what Craig said was surprisingly persuasive when it came to the good in people. It's one thing to have a belief system predicated on faith in humanity and quite another to build a successful business model around it.
The First Principle of Community (and marketing): Discover What's Needed
The question Craigslist raises for me is: how can you apply the same principles from personal needs to those of business? That will be the stuff of another post -- please get back to me if you've had thoughts on this.
Craig wrapped up by saying, "If you want to speak truth to power, you'd better make them laugh -- or they'll kill you."
Let's see what happens to Monsieur Colbert.
More on GEL in the next post.
Craig and His List(s)
For those of you who have been in areas with no electricity for a few years, Craig Newmark is the founder of Craigslist, a community communication tool available in an increasing number of cities around the country and the world.
Pick a city and find whatever you're looking for -- a place to live, a job, something to buy, somewhere to sell -- you name it, it's covered.
Craig admits that the system is low tech -- as he put it, if the rest of the world currently is deep into Web 2.0, Craigslists' sites can be found somewhere around at 0.1. This is turns out to be a feature rather than a bug -- the accessibility allows anyone who can type to participate and has helped communities grow quickly.
Craiglist's Premise
Craig believes that people are basically trustworthy and good. He also believes that people share common values -- first and foremost, it's a universal desire to treat others in the way they would like to be treated themselves. Craig points out that these are "the real core values," not those preached from political platforms.
The Strategy
From this premise, he has build sites that are user-driven rather than under his control and allowed the size of the communities to grow beyond the ability of any central monitoring system.
Instead, users monitor their own communities. If something doesn't belong on the site, users can flag them for deletion. If enough people flag the same item, it's deleted automatically.
Craig says that "somehow from being good guys," he and his colleagues have created a culture of trust.
But Does It Work?
Most people who have used Craig's List have a good story to tell. Like other people I know who've used the list, Craig said he feels great when he hears that someone lost an iPod on a train to Boston and it was returned through contact through the system. He also spoke of a volunteer in New York who screens all apartment brokers to make the list reliable -- and who loves doing it. Craig repeatedly finds that people like to use their power for good wherever they can.
Scalability: Hurricane Katrina
Craig then offered an example of what's possible on a bigger scale in the events that followed Katrina. In very little time, users repurposed the site to help victims find their friends and families. Not long after, people started offering jobs and housing for the victims, and when Craigslist employees heard about the exodus to Baton Rouge, they put up a site for the city on their own.
Radical Reassessment of Messaging: Marketing through Community
Most of what Craig said was surprisingly persuasive when it came to the good in people. It's one thing to have a belief system predicated on faith in humanity and quite another to build a successful business model around it.
The First Principle of Community (and marketing): Discover What's Needed
The question Craigslist raises for me is: how can you apply the same principles from personal needs to those of business? That will be the stuff of another post -- please get back to me if you've had thoughts on this.
Craig wrapped up by saying, "If you want to speak truth to power, you'd better make them laugh -- or they'll kill you."
Let's see what happens to Monsieur Colbert.
More on GEL in the next post.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Urban Legibility: Shining Light on New Perspectives
Continuing from the last post, the GEL conference featured an unusual combination of speakers for a business meeting.
Crossing Disciplines to See Things New
Why and how is GEL unusual? Mark Hurst, the conference's founder, breaks down the usual "us vs. them" assumptions on which gathering of business professionals are usually built. Most conferences ask the question: How can WE (businesses) get more money from THEM (individual customers or entire markets)?
What's the Alternative?
Hurst unites customer experience in a value recognizable to both business people and those on whom they make their living by inviting attendees to explore assumptions about everything -- competition, marketing, business, brand, community, investment, risk, and so on. In other words, GEL asks attendees to redefine value as a concept as well as in its particulars.
The Theme: Hidden Potential
The conference’s theme was hidden potential Hurst used the opportunity to invite speakers across disciplines and put their ideas side by side. It was an unusual opportunity to see the values of each discipline in a new perspective based on their connections to others one would not ordinarily consider.
Hidden Potential as a Theme: Shining Light on Hidden Value
Leni Shwendinger is a conceptual and visual artist who is fascinated with the legibility of cities at night. According to Shwendinger, the nighttime city loses much of its daytime accessibility and its potential is usually neglected.
Leni spoke on the hidden potential of cities and used as an example her project Glasgow involving the Kingston Bridge.
Shwendinger began by demonstrating the degree to which the bridge is "unlovely." On top of the bridge, those in cars daily suffered noise, smog, and regular traffic. Because of commuter delays, the bridge also had become an annoyance, something to be avoided if possible.
The bridge was also ugly to look at from the side. A tacky faux exterior hid a hollow space from the side view. Shwendinger approached her research -- both primary and secondary -- wondering what beauty she could bring out under these circumstances. She wanted to find some hidden value in the bridge and demonstrate the relationship to that of the city and to the individuals who live there.
Urban Blight Hides Quiet Spaces
Below the bridge, Shwendinger found inspiration in the "perspectival grandeur" of the underside's scale and shape, the river Clyde flowing powerfully beneath, and the sky that could be seen through the spaces above.
With the help of a traffic expert, architects, and others, Shwendinger designed a grid with colors that marked the level of traffic flow as it changed. She used the same grid measurements to articulate the flow of the river and the spot in which it turned. Computer equipment in nearby boxes tracked the changes, and, finally, each data set was combined with the other to create color combinations that illustrated the relationship.
In this way, colors were selected and projected onto the bridge at night.
Transformed Perspective
The art piece transformed the city's perspective on the Kingston Bridge in several ways.
First, the lights drew attention to the relationship between the bridge and the river. The noise and smell of the traffic found a quiet contrast in the naturally powerful water beneath it. Both the bridge and river are urban landmarks with similar functions. Less than a century ago, it was the river that carried goods and people up and down the country. In terms of Scottish history, the change was relatively recent, and the connection is meaningful. And it was all done visually with light.
But Wait, There's (Always) More
Perhaps most obviously, when night fell, the bridge was transformed from eyesore to stunning color. However, the palate was functional as well as beautiful. Each shade, derived the algorithms of flows from traffic and the river, offered information about traffic patterns at every point in the bridge and the Clyde's movement as well. The measurements changed every five minutes to keep them accurate and useful for those who approached.
Transforming Blight Through Light
Last, the reflection of the lights on the water connected the natural world to that of the man-made in this urban environment. The space under the bridge became transformed into a place one wanted to be instead of a place to be avoided.
We were all left to wonder: what other ideas whose value has long been dismissed could be reclaimed with a little thought and insight.
More on GEL speakers in the next post.
Crossing Disciplines to See Things New
Why and how is GEL unusual? Mark Hurst, the conference's founder, breaks down the usual "us vs. them" assumptions on which gathering of business professionals are usually built. Most conferences ask the question: How can WE (businesses) get more money from THEM (individual customers or entire markets)?
What's the Alternative?
Hurst unites customer experience in a value recognizable to both business people and those on whom they make their living by inviting attendees to explore assumptions about everything -- competition, marketing, business, brand, community, investment, risk, and so on. In other words, GEL asks attendees to redefine value as a concept as well as in its particulars.
The Theme: Hidden Potential
The conference’s theme was hidden potential Hurst used the opportunity to invite speakers across disciplines and put their ideas side by side. It was an unusual opportunity to see the values of each discipline in a new perspective based on their connections to others one would not ordinarily consider.
Hidden Potential as a Theme: Shining Light on Hidden Value
Leni Shwendinger is a conceptual and visual artist who is fascinated with the legibility of cities at night. According to Shwendinger, the nighttime city loses much of its daytime accessibility and its potential is usually neglected.
Leni spoke on the hidden potential of cities and used as an example her project Glasgow involving the Kingston Bridge.
Shwendinger began by demonstrating the degree to which the bridge is "unlovely." On top of the bridge, those in cars daily suffered noise, smog, and regular traffic. Because of commuter delays, the bridge also had become an annoyance, something to be avoided if possible.
The bridge was also ugly to look at from the side. A tacky faux exterior hid a hollow space from the side view. Shwendinger approached her research -- both primary and secondary -- wondering what beauty she could bring out under these circumstances. She wanted to find some hidden value in the bridge and demonstrate the relationship to that of the city and to the individuals who live there.
Urban Blight Hides Quiet Spaces
Below the bridge, Shwendinger found inspiration in the "perspectival grandeur" of the underside's scale and shape, the river Clyde flowing powerfully beneath, and the sky that could be seen through the spaces above.
With the help of a traffic expert, architects, and others, Shwendinger designed a grid with colors that marked the level of traffic flow as it changed. She used the same grid measurements to articulate the flow of the river and the spot in which it turned. Computer equipment in nearby boxes tracked the changes, and, finally, each data set was combined with the other to create color combinations that illustrated the relationship.
In this way, colors were selected and projected onto the bridge at night.
Transformed Perspective
The art piece transformed the city's perspective on the Kingston Bridge in several ways.
First, the lights drew attention to the relationship between the bridge and the river. The noise and smell of the traffic found a quiet contrast in the naturally powerful water beneath it. Both the bridge and river are urban landmarks with similar functions. Less than a century ago, it was the river that carried goods and people up and down the country. In terms of Scottish history, the change was relatively recent, and the connection is meaningful. And it was all done visually with light.
But Wait, There's (Always) More
Perhaps most obviously, when night fell, the bridge was transformed from eyesore to stunning color. However, the palate was functional as well as beautiful. Each shade, derived the algorithms of flows from traffic and the river, offered information about traffic patterns at every point in the bridge and the Clyde's movement as well. The measurements changed every five minutes to keep them accurate and useful for those who approached.
Transforming Blight Through Light
Last, the reflection of the lights on the water connected the natural world to that of the man-made in this urban environment. The space under the bridge became transformed into a place one wanted to be instead of a place to be avoided.
We were all left to wonder: what other ideas whose value has long been dismissed could be reclaimed with a little thought and insight.
More on GEL speakers in the next post.
Monday, May 08, 2006
The GEL Conference: Defining a "Good Experience" in Business and Elsewhere
The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances: if there is any reaction, both are transformed. -- C.G. Jung
I hadn't heard of the GEL conference until a friend, Dawn Barber, told me she was up to her neck in planning two weeks ago. Volunteering to help was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Have you ever been to a meeting where you laughed for almost the whole day? Or one where not only wasn't a single speaker dull and kept you on the edge of your seat?
This sort of experience might be old hat for some, but GEL was my first. Over the next few posts, I'll share some of the high points I managed to capture for those who couldn't attend.
First Things First: What is GEL?
GEL (Good Experience Live) is a yearly conference that prioritizes, explores, and attempts to define the nature of a good experience. The meeting was invented by a consulting company called Creative Good as part of a weeklong business meeting with selected companies. This year's theme was hidden potential.
The meeting represented people with a wider range of backgrounds and skills than I'd ever seen in one room. Just to name a few, I met dancers, programmers, visual artists, jugglers, entrepreneurs, managers from large corporations, teachers, and a lexicographer.
The only thing this crowd seemed to have in common is a passion for innovation and the willingness to jump into the unknown and swim around there for a while.
Conference Highlights
The first speaker was Doug Rushkoff, and I missed most of his talk. Fortunately, however, I was there for at least some of it.
Ruskoff's overall point seemed to be that companies need to start making decisions primarily based on customer experience. When I sat down, Rushkoff was in the process of suggesting that customers know more about products than employees or their managers.
Employees as Passionate Experts: Customers as Amateur Employees
Overall, Rushkoff suggested that a successful company is one in which the employees are passionate experts about their product. He went on to say that companies like Adobe create online environments in which customers can play around with a tool. In this way, customers become amateur employees. In other words, customers see the employees as experts, and they want the information they've got.
Rushkoff offered told another story, this time about the success of a shoe company in Seattle. The designs are so admired that customers sent in their own designs to a contest not to win but because they wanted to become a part of the company's culture. They wanted to get feedback on their own work and learn from a master they admired.
Examples of Failure
To start with models of failure to base decisions on customer experience, Rushkoff gave the example of Volkswagen bugs. Customers loved them, but the company decided to start making cars that were un-Volkswagon-like instead. What did customers do? They went out and bought minis. How did Volkswagen respond? They hired the Mini's advertising agency. Instead, they should have brought back the product everyone wanted.
Rushkoff gave an example of a slightly different kind of failure in a company that used Paris Hilton in a bathing suit to advertise its product online. The company wanted to create a buzz -- and it worked. More visitors logged on to the site than ever before.
However, despite the enormous number of attention, the company did less business in those two weeks than at any other time of the year. Sure, there are plenty of people who will log on to see Paris Hilton's breasts, Rushkoff said, but viral marketing for its own sake is not going to help sales.
And So . . .
Rushkoff persuasively argued that the hidden potential in most businesses is the possibility of creating good experiences and personal investment of both employees and customers.
More highlights from GEL speakers in future posts -- as good experiences go at conference, this one is at the top of the list, regardless of your field.
I hadn't heard of the GEL conference until a friend, Dawn Barber, told me she was up to her neck in planning two weeks ago. Volunteering to help was one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Have you ever been to a meeting where you laughed for almost the whole day? Or one where not only wasn't a single speaker dull and kept you on the edge of your seat?
This sort of experience might be old hat for some, but GEL was my first. Over the next few posts, I'll share some of the high points I managed to capture for those who couldn't attend.
First Things First: What is GEL?
GEL (Good Experience Live) is a yearly conference that prioritizes, explores, and attempts to define the nature of a good experience. The meeting was invented by a consulting company called Creative Good as part of a weeklong business meeting with selected companies. This year's theme was hidden potential.
The meeting represented people with a wider range of backgrounds and skills than I'd ever seen in one room. Just to name a few, I met dancers, programmers, visual artists, jugglers, entrepreneurs, managers from large corporations, teachers, and a lexicographer.
The only thing this crowd seemed to have in common is a passion for innovation and the willingness to jump into the unknown and swim around there for a while.
Conference Highlights
The first speaker was Doug Rushkoff, and I missed most of his talk. Fortunately, however, I was there for at least some of it.
Ruskoff's overall point seemed to be that companies need to start making decisions primarily based on customer experience. When I sat down, Rushkoff was in the process of suggesting that customers know more about products than employees or their managers.
Employees as Passionate Experts: Customers as Amateur Employees
Overall, Rushkoff suggested that a successful company is one in which the employees are passionate experts about their product. He went on to say that companies like Adobe create online environments in which customers can play around with a tool. In this way, customers become amateur employees. In other words, customers see the employees as experts, and they want the information they've got.
Rushkoff offered told another story, this time about the success of a shoe company in Seattle. The designs are so admired that customers sent in their own designs to a contest not to win but because they wanted to become a part of the company's culture. They wanted to get feedback on their own work and learn from a master they admired.
Examples of Failure
To start with models of failure to base decisions on customer experience, Rushkoff gave the example of Volkswagen bugs. Customers loved them, but the company decided to start making cars that were un-Volkswagon-like instead. What did customers do? They went out and bought minis. How did Volkswagen respond? They hired the Mini's advertising agency. Instead, they should have brought back the product everyone wanted.
Rushkoff gave an example of a slightly different kind of failure in a company that used Paris Hilton in a bathing suit to advertise its product online. The company wanted to create a buzz -- and it worked. More visitors logged on to the site than ever before.
However, despite the enormous number of attention, the company did less business in those two weeks than at any other time of the year. Sure, there are plenty of people who will log on to see Paris Hilton's breasts, Rushkoff said, but viral marketing for its own sake is not going to help sales.
And So . . .
Rushkoff persuasively argued that the hidden potential in most businesses is the possibility of creating good experiences and personal investment of both employees and customers.
More highlights from GEL speakers in future posts -- as good experiences go at conference, this one is at the top of the list, regardless of your field.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
More on Listening Online: How Technology Offers Business Insights
Continuing from the last post, I had a lesson online on how a pair of technological tools can teach you to be a better listener, and ultimately, a better thinker.
John Smith, a very smart collaborative strategist, offered to show me the value of online communication with two tools: the telephone and a chat screen (in this case, Skype).
Skeptical From the Start
My theater background demonstrated that most productions claiming mixed-media were not -- more several individual mediums working side by side with only the thinest excuse of a relationship to each other. Having never liked online synchronous communication much (IM, Chat, etc.), I was also dubious. Furthermore, John and I knew each other only through two brief email used to set up a phone meeting. There were no expectations, I'm sure, on either of our parts.
Despite long-held doubts, the conversation showed me the unique value of mixed media for communication. I was floored by the possibilities.
The Set Up
John asked me on the phone to open a chat window in Skype. He then said he'd take notes in the window and that I should, too. The plan was to save the material and refer to it after the call if we were so inclined.
The first exercise was introducing ourselves. John began jotted down phrases or words that represented concepts or experiences I felt have been important in my work, and they would appear in the window with a "whoosh" one at a time. After an intitial sefl-consciousness, I appreciated the attention he paid. From his notes, I felt heard in a way that is not clear when one is just on the phone.
I also heard what John said differently. I saw clearly what he found interesting, important, worth going back to later. I also saw what he didn't note -- and I'd test whether the reason was he didn't understand the concept, had preconceived notions about language and dismissed it, or whether it was old hat to him already. I did this by repeating what I meant in different ways and contexts and immediately saw from the relationship between what he said on the phone and screen where he was in our conversation.
Seeing Things New By Hearing Them, Too
Just to play, I took notes on John's ideas as well. We shared urls by writing them down in the window, one tangent led to another, and without notice, we were collaborating by asking each other questions about -- or giving perspective to -- preconceptions or blocks we had in our thinking process.
By the end of the call, I felt intimate with the thinking process of this total stranger. Granted, there were a lot of clues -- for example, John's vocabulary demonstrated a strong academic orientation. As an ex-academic, that told me a lot about the level of abstraction and paradigms in which he considers his work.
Because he used the word improv quite a bit with little qualification, I understood that he had used the word for a long time. When I asked if he had a theater background and he said no, I understood from his notes the assumptions he held about the practice. Because I am a theater practioner, I could flesh it out for him as he could flesh out for me the variety of ways in which online media have been used.
Conversation Becomes Collaboration
In short, we both learned from each other and created something new in our chat screen. I understood how an individual medium has unique benefits but except for people with particular proclivities, probably isn't enough to create a sense of connection. However, depending on the individual, some combination of media could enhance relationship, discussion, creative problem-solving, whatever -- even with a total stranger.
Why Cameras are Deceptive
One would think that the camera would be the strongest tool. After all there is a sense that photographic images have a transparent relationship to meaning. In other words, if you can see behavior or expressions photographically, you immediately understand what they means. Unfortunately, this is a too common case of confusing data (raw material) with analysis (the value or meaning of the data).
In addition, seeing someone's face is a habit in communication that carries assumptions from the off-line world.
The remarkable thing about new communication tools -- when used thoughtfully -- is that they force us to see and hear everything in new ways as we adjust to an unfamiliar communication process. We need to find our way -- and that destroys assumptions as we search in what we acknowledge as unknown territory.
John Smith, a very smart collaborative strategist, offered to show me the value of online communication with two tools: the telephone and a chat screen (in this case, Skype).
Skeptical From the Start
My theater background demonstrated that most productions claiming mixed-media were not -- more several individual mediums working side by side with only the thinest excuse of a relationship to each other. Having never liked online synchronous communication much (IM, Chat, etc.), I was also dubious. Furthermore, John and I knew each other only through two brief email used to set up a phone meeting. There were no expectations, I'm sure, on either of our parts.
Despite long-held doubts, the conversation showed me the unique value of mixed media for communication. I was floored by the possibilities.
The Set Up
John asked me on the phone to open a chat window in Skype. He then said he'd take notes in the window and that I should, too. The plan was to save the material and refer to it after the call if we were so inclined.
The first exercise was introducing ourselves. John began jotted down phrases or words that represented concepts or experiences I felt have been important in my work, and they would appear in the window with a "whoosh" one at a time. After an intitial sefl-consciousness, I appreciated the attention he paid. From his notes, I felt heard in a way that is not clear when one is just on the phone.
I also heard what John said differently. I saw clearly what he found interesting, important, worth going back to later. I also saw what he didn't note -- and I'd test whether the reason was he didn't understand the concept, had preconceived notions about language and dismissed it, or whether it was old hat to him already. I did this by repeating what I meant in different ways and contexts and immediately saw from the relationship between what he said on the phone and screen where he was in our conversation.
Seeing Things New By Hearing Them, Too
Just to play, I took notes on John's ideas as well. We shared urls by writing them down in the window, one tangent led to another, and without notice, we were collaborating by asking each other questions about -- or giving perspective to -- preconceptions or blocks we had in our thinking process.
By the end of the call, I felt intimate with the thinking process of this total stranger. Granted, there were a lot of clues -- for example, John's vocabulary demonstrated a strong academic orientation. As an ex-academic, that told me a lot about the level of abstraction and paradigms in which he considers his work.
Because he used the word improv quite a bit with little qualification, I understood that he had used the word for a long time. When I asked if he had a theater background and he said no, I understood from his notes the assumptions he held about the practice. Because I am a theater practioner, I could flesh it out for him as he could flesh out for me the variety of ways in which online media have been used.
Conversation Becomes Collaboration
In short, we both learned from each other and created something new in our chat screen. I understood how an individual medium has unique benefits but except for people with particular proclivities, probably isn't enough to create a sense of connection. However, depending on the individual, some combination of media could enhance relationship, discussion, creative problem-solving, whatever -- even with a total stranger.
Why Cameras are Deceptive
One would think that the camera would be the strongest tool. After all there is a sense that photographic images have a transparent relationship to meaning. In other words, if you can see behavior or expressions photographically, you immediately understand what they means. Unfortunately, this is a too common case of confusing data (raw material) with analysis (the value or meaning of the data).
In addition, seeing someone's face is a habit in communication that carries assumptions from the off-line world.
The remarkable thing about new communication tools -- when used thoughtfully -- is that they force us to see and hear everything in new ways as we adjust to an unfamiliar communication process. We need to find our way -- and that destroys assumptions as we search in what we acknowledge as unknown territory.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Learning to Listen through Technology
Learning as Conversation
So we've gone through a few disciplines that together can be used for sustainable innovation and creative thinking in business. Learning, innovation, and marketing all find their best model in conversation. Everything's connected -- so how can you maximize your ability to listen and be heard?
Speaking of Listening
Nancy White makes an excellent point: in a business world where email is the norm, where websites are a competitive necessity, where IM is used by almost everyone, why is there no training in electronic communication? After all, poor use of these tools is creating a steep rise in the number of people who lose their jobs, the budgets squandered through poor use, and the money left on the table.
Not Just For Geeks
Anyone can use online communication tools. The logistics might intimidate, but they're easier to use than they first appear.
The real challenge is conceptual, not technical: to understand the unique value proposition of each and how they can be used together or separately to achieve a paticular goal. In fact, newcomers often bring key perspectives to original business models that insiders sorely lack.
What Non-Geeks Bring to the Table
Training can mitigate technical understanding, but the rest requires old fashioned trial and error. Different communication challenges require customized approaches and the ability to listen both intellectually and emotionally.
This might sound like a woo woo technique, but HR departments spend billions teaching just this very simple tenet, albeit off-line:
Everyone is slightly different. They listen differently, interpret differently, bring their own working styles to the table.
Remembering that -- and figuring out how to connect or hear employees with different styles -- is generally accepted as a management necessity.
Working Groups: Strategies for Differences in Temperment and Skill Levels
Nancy White has a great deal of experience mitigating challenges with groups comrpised of unlike minds (and what group isn't?).
An example: those who type quickly are usually more comfortable with IM than those who don't. Slow typers often (literally) can't get a word in edgewise -- among the chatters whose fingers fly across the keyboard.
To combat this, every project -- or company -- requires a protocol. An elipses is one solution she found. Those who type slowly can put one (. . . ) after a few words to demonstrate more is coming. This does two things:
1. It signals to others that they need to listen further. It slows down the discussion so that the rest of the group can forget what THEY have to say in an effort to find out what a colleague is saying next.
2. It also allows time for the slow typer to finish a sentence.
Another Example
White found is the intimidation factor technology often presents.
Once in a training session, a trainee expressed frustration and feelings of being overwhelmed by learning the tool. Nancy suggested that he pull up a website that played harp music -- and then that everyone in the group bring up the same site.
White reports that the rhythm and quality of the interaction among the group changed completely once they were all listening to the same music. Not only did it soothe the group but it gave them something visceral in common.
From that point, White has asked each member of remote groups to present a favorite piece of music. It imbues a surprising kind of intimacy in a working group that might not otherwise meet.
More on listening and how we hear online in the next post.
So we've gone through a few disciplines that together can be used for sustainable innovation and creative thinking in business. Learning, innovation, and marketing all find their best model in conversation. Everything's connected -- so how can you maximize your ability to listen and be heard?
Speaking of Listening
Nancy White makes an excellent point: in a business world where email is the norm, where websites are a competitive necessity, where IM is used by almost everyone, why is there no training in electronic communication? After all, poor use of these tools is creating a steep rise in the number of people who lose their jobs, the budgets squandered through poor use, and the money left on the table.
Not Just For Geeks
Anyone can use online communication tools. The logistics might intimidate, but they're easier to use than they first appear.
The real challenge is conceptual, not technical: to understand the unique value proposition of each and how they can be used together or separately to achieve a paticular goal. In fact, newcomers often bring key perspectives to original business models that insiders sorely lack.
What Non-Geeks Bring to the Table
Training can mitigate technical understanding, but the rest requires old fashioned trial and error. Different communication challenges require customized approaches and the ability to listen both intellectually and emotionally.
This might sound like a woo woo technique, but HR departments spend billions teaching just this very simple tenet, albeit off-line:
Everyone is slightly different. They listen differently, interpret differently, bring their own working styles to the table.
Remembering that -- and figuring out how to connect or hear employees with different styles -- is generally accepted as a management necessity.
Working Groups: Strategies for Differences in Temperment and Skill Levels
Nancy White has a great deal of experience mitigating challenges with groups comrpised of unlike minds (and what group isn't?).
An example: those who type quickly are usually more comfortable with IM than those who don't. Slow typers often (literally) can't get a word in edgewise -- among the chatters whose fingers fly across the keyboard.
To combat this, every project -- or company -- requires a protocol. An elipses is one solution she found. Those who type slowly can put one (. . . ) after a few words to demonstrate more is coming. This does two things:
1. It signals to others that they need to listen further. It slows down the discussion so that the rest of the group can forget what THEY have to say in an effort to find out what a colleague is saying next.
2. It also allows time for the slow typer to finish a sentence.
Another Example
White found is the intimidation factor technology often presents.
Once in a training session, a trainee expressed frustration and feelings of being overwhelmed by learning the tool. Nancy suggested that he pull up a website that played harp music -- and then that everyone in the group bring up the same site.
White reports that the rhythm and quality of the interaction among the group changed completely once they were all listening to the same music. Not only did it soothe the group but it gave them something visceral in common.
From that point, White has asked each member of remote groups to present a favorite piece of music. It imbues a surprising kind of intimacy in a working group that might not otherwise meet.
More on listening and how we hear online in the next post.
Friday, April 14, 2006
The Road to Innovation is Paved with Unlikely Connections
Playing Well With Others: People and Ideas
Before directly addressing the problem of working together from the last post, it's useful to articulate clearly goals and strategy.
In three years of interviews of CEOs, VPs, educators, and people from a variety of other professions, everyone agrees that effective thinking can be defined by its results: the ability to create new connections among resources (or potential resources) to solve problems over time.
How To Approach This?
Luckily, everything is connected. The trick is finding out how. That's how innovation works.
We're hard-wired to make connections and recognize patterns automatically. If we are given half an image, our mind creates the other half. If we're given an incident, we often create a back story. By adulthood, we more often draw conclusions often in terms of the odds rather than investigation.
What if we went back to being curious? And listening very carfully? Making the process conscious -- and expanding it to see things new -- exactly comprises the creative thinking.
How We Learn
Human beings learn only by association. We understand something new by it's relationship to something with which we're already familiar. We inch or skate our way into the world from childhood like this, depending on our temperment, experience, and feedback.
Innovation is the process of connecting dots into shapes no one has seen before. Even slight deviations to what we take for granted (eg ideas, applications, processes, and outcomes) have implications for markets and business models.
So how is one thing connected to another?
--Directly (object to object, say) or indirectly (someone who owns that object and someone else who does, too)?
--By aspiration (someone who owns that object and someone who'd like to own one)?
--Conceptually (someone who owns/makes the object and someone who influences laws around object-related issues)?
--Philosophically (education unrelated to the object owner but required for other reasons by object owners and other people who believe in education generally)?
If creativity is the ability to learn continuously across context -- to find meaning and value in different arenas and respond effectively -- then part of that response is an understanding of the connections among issues within one context and another.
The more pairings you try, the more possibilities you see. The possibilities are endless, although circumstances will dictate the best result. Whimsy is useful, but the game is seriously business-minded. Most of all, make time for all the disciplines that make creativity possible.
More in the next post on remembering how to listen.
Before directly addressing the problem of working together from the last post, it's useful to articulate clearly goals and strategy.
In three years of interviews of CEOs, VPs, educators, and people from a variety of other professions, everyone agrees that effective thinking can be defined by its results: the ability to create new connections among resources (or potential resources) to solve problems over time.
How To Approach This?
Luckily, everything is connected. The trick is finding out how. That's how innovation works.
We're hard-wired to make connections and recognize patterns automatically. If we are given half an image, our mind creates the other half. If we're given an incident, we often create a back story. By adulthood, we more often draw conclusions often in terms of the odds rather than investigation.
What if we went back to being curious? And listening very carfully? Making the process conscious -- and expanding it to see things new -- exactly comprises the creative thinking.
How We Learn
Human beings learn only by association. We understand something new by it's relationship to something with which we're already familiar. We inch or skate our way into the world from childhood like this, depending on our temperment, experience, and feedback.
Innovation is the process of connecting dots into shapes no one has seen before. Even slight deviations to what we take for granted (eg ideas, applications, processes, and outcomes) have implications for markets and business models.
So how is one thing connected to another?
--Directly (object to object, say) or indirectly (someone who owns that object and someone else who does, too)?
--By aspiration (someone who owns that object and someone who'd like to own one)?
--Conceptually (someone who owns/makes the object and someone who influences laws around object-related issues)?
--Philosophically (education unrelated to the object owner but required for other reasons by object owners and other people who believe in education generally)?
If creativity is the ability to learn continuously across context -- to find meaning and value in different arenas and respond effectively -- then part of that response is an understanding of the connections among issues within one context and another.
The more pairings you try, the more possibilities you see. The possibilities are endless, although circumstances will dictate the best result. Whimsy is useful, but the game is seriously business-minded. Most of all, make time for all the disciplines that make creativity possible.
More in the next post on remembering how to listen.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Working Together: Why Is It So Hard?
I've been speaking to a high-level acquaintance about the challenges she faces in communications, both within and outside her company. This individual is tremendously creative, but she can't do her job effectively and is considering moving on.
The gist: because of internal traffic jams, she can't get the organization's unique value propostions to clients effectivley. Department leaders are talking, but they stick to their talking points and seem to have forgotten how to answer a question.
Defining the Problem
The organization's culture is inward-facing. Long-held fifedoms create a culture of land grabbing, even when people come in to create new departments. Each war lord has firmly established boundaries to the kingdom where he or she feels most safe and does not stray, even intellectually.
Cultural norms spread to communications strategies and hamstring companies from getting the word out. This, in turn, offers clients and prospects little more than established wisdom about the market. Even the experts won't part with an insight, primarily because there is a risk that he or she will be proved wrong.
Naturally, such a culture crushes innovation or chases away those with an interest in new possibilities. In a system bent on hunkering down defensively, risk is not an option. Anything original must be abandoned in the process of circling the wagons.
None of these problems are small individually, and together it's hard to find the end of the string. However, the bottom line is that determined internal focus both comes from and sustains a forgetfulness about clients' needs.
Creating Incentives for New Behavior
Before my friend can come up with an effective marketing plan, she needs to have something to communicate of value. To get this information, she needs to find away around gated talking points, over the walls of internal fifedoms, to the questions that clients really ask, and finally, through the barriers of answering those questions.
Key Questions
So how to get around culturally entrenched positions?
A good place to start is to ask:
What does everyone have in common? How can one leverage these goals to make leadership stray from their comfort zones? And what unifying principles would offer incentives for those who perceive each other as enemies to work together?
Clearly, an understanding of customer needs is the key to developing new offerings and develop markets. This requires a level of intimacy between business and client that you can't get from a focus groups or from hunkering down internally.
This is one place where it's important to remember where creativity is the ability to learn continuously across contexts. Effective thinking, creativity's synonym, is comprised of a series of disciplines that anyone can develop -- and must -- as challenges and circumstances continually change.
More on going forward in the next post.
The gist: because of internal traffic jams, she can't get the organization's unique value propostions to clients effectivley. Department leaders are talking, but they stick to their talking points and seem to have forgotten how to answer a question.
Defining the Problem
The organization's culture is inward-facing. Long-held fifedoms create a culture of land grabbing, even when people come in to create new departments. Each war lord has firmly established boundaries to the kingdom where he or she feels most safe and does not stray, even intellectually.
Cultural norms spread to communications strategies and hamstring companies from getting the word out. This, in turn, offers clients and prospects little more than established wisdom about the market. Even the experts won't part with an insight, primarily because there is a risk that he or she will be proved wrong.
Naturally, such a culture crushes innovation or chases away those with an interest in new possibilities. In a system bent on hunkering down defensively, risk is not an option. Anything original must be abandoned in the process of circling the wagons.
None of these problems are small individually, and together it's hard to find the end of the string. However, the bottom line is that determined internal focus both comes from and sustains a forgetfulness about clients' needs.
Creating Incentives for New Behavior
Before my friend can come up with an effective marketing plan, she needs to have something to communicate of value. To get this information, she needs to find away around gated talking points, over the walls of internal fifedoms, to the questions that clients really ask, and finally, through the barriers of answering those questions.
Key Questions
So how to get around culturally entrenched positions?
A good place to start is to ask:
What does everyone have in common? How can one leverage these goals to make leadership stray from their comfort zones? And what unifying principles would offer incentives for those who perceive each other as enemies to work together?
Clearly, an understanding of customer needs is the key to developing new offerings and develop markets. This requires a level of intimacy between business and client that you can't get from a focus groups or from hunkering down internally.
This is one place where it's important to remember where creativity is the ability to learn continuously across contexts. Effective thinking, creativity's synonym, is comprised of a series of disciplines that anyone can develop -- and must -- as challenges and circumstances continually change.
More on going forward in the next post.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
What It Really Means to Use Your Head
Continuing from our last post, why is using only half your brain the same as leaving money on the table?
Take Responsibility for Convictions Through Awareness
Emotional intelligence as a necessity for adults was a hot topic for a year or so. In fact even accountants have been known to argue that emotional intelligence makes one a better CPA (and in much the same vein as I do -- see the Journal of Accountancy).
Adults and Kids: Is the Height the Only Difference?
Remember what we do for small kids? First we ask them how they feel about something and then ask them to consider the implications from the feeling? By high school, the concept of feeling states is denied in favor of thinking states, as though one could exist without the other? When the hormonal issues rage enough to make even simpler questions difficult?
If culturally we believe emotional reactions are less valuable than intellectual ones, and if we believe that the latter exists without the former, in fact, feeling states become repressed.
We might go into automatic pilot. In any case, we forget that our belief systems are as much emotionally generated as intellectually and find ourselves rationalizing fear of the unknown as intellectually sound business practice. Back to David Firth's technologists.
The only way back to well reasoned decision-making is to acknowledge both what we feel and what we think -- and find the connections between them before acting when (or if) we don't know why.
And So?
Belief systems are complex. We don't come by them entirely intellectually, and it's important to know why things are important to us. Good business decisions -- in terms of technology, hiring, investing, and so on -- are dependent on an awareness of all the factors that go into each choice.
Back to Effective Thinking: Feeling States and Effective Decisions
For one thing, if sustainable curiosity is necessary for ongoing innovation, emotional awareness is essential for both. Curiosity is fed by understanding what turns us on, what drives us to find out more. It's a state fed by an inseparable combination of feelings and intellect.
In fact, awareness of one's own thought processes are essential for all the other disciplines that constitute effective thinking as well.
To discover insight, one must understand the relationship between observation and analysis.
Only by acknowledging personal investments can we see the multiplicity of possibilities. Only by seeing outside our own familiar contexts can we see things new.
And that's good for business.
Take Responsibility for Convictions Through Awareness
Emotional intelligence as a necessity for adults was a hot topic for a year or so. In fact even accountants have been known to argue that emotional intelligence makes one a better CPA (and in much the same vein as I do -- see the Journal of Accountancy).
Adults and Kids: Is the Height the Only Difference?
Remember what we do for small kids? First we ask them how they feel about something and then ask them to consider the implications from the feeling? By high school, the concept of feeling states is denied in favor of thinking states, as though one could exist without the other? When the hormonal issues rage enough to make even simpler questions difficult?
If culturally we believe emotional reactions are less valuable than intellectual ones, and if we believe that the latter exists without the former, in fact, feeling states become repressed.
We might go into automatic pilot. In any case, we forget that our belief systems are as much emotionally generated as intellectually and find ourselves rationalizing fear of the unknown as intellectually sound business practice. Back to David Firth's technologists.
The only way back to well reasoned decision-making is to acknowledge both what we feel and what we think -- and find the connections between them before acting when (or if) we don't know why.
And So?
Belief systems are complex. We don't come by them entirely intellectually, and it's important to know why things are important to us. Good business decisions -- in terms of technology, hiring, investing, and so on -- are dependent on an awareness of all the factors that go into each choice.
Back to Effective Thinking: Feeling States and Effective Decisions
For one thing, if sustainable curiosity is necessary for ongoing innovation, emotional awareness is essential for both. Curiosity is fed by understanding what turns us on, what drives us to find out more. It's a state fed by an inseparable combination of feelings and intellect.
In fact, awareness of one's own thought processes are essential for all the other disciplines that constitute effective thinking as well.
To discover insight, one must understand the relationship between observation and analysis.
Only by acknowledging personal investments can we see the multiplicity of possibilities. Only by seeing outside our own familiar contexts can we see things new.
And that's good for business.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Is Using Half One's Brain Enough?
Continuing from the last post, how can you increase your business IQ by getting to the heart of daily financial matters?
Emotional Reactions and Business Decisions
Business etiquette does not favor evidence of feeling. It's as though emotional reactions signify a lack of control -- and therefore cloud our ability to identify, consider, or present the truth. Those who seem inflamed with even a small amount of emotional energy become suspect, and their ideas are considered unreliable and biased.
What This Means for Innovation
The assumption here, of course, is that truth is singular and objectivity not only exists but can be demonstrated as such. If there happens to be more than one answer, each must have the capability to be quantified in very specific ways. Measurement is established in numerical terms, and these numbers can be translated directly into financial currency.
This way of thinking, considered THE bottom line and unquestionably objective. Sticking to one way of thinking reduces variables, and although it might offer more control over results, it also consequently reduces the possibility of new ideas.
What would happen if we remembered to be curious?
Auditing the Results of Emotional Intelligence
The insistence on disconnecting feeling from thought ultimately will not serve innovation. In fact, it's not even possible. After all, what is inspiration but the meeting point of emotional and intellectual insight?
An Example
Remember David Firth's technologists who felt that narrowing their focus would be good for innovation? The ones who circled the wagons to keep out those with problem-solving strategies different from theirs?
Clearly, this is not a decision based on clear thinking about developing new ideas. Instead, it's an emotional reaction dressed as a rational decision. The real issue here is not generating new ideas but preserving a comfort level at work.
In this case, recognizing the relationship between ideas and feelings would have benefited the project. It takes courage to broaden one's focus to answers never before considered, but it's the only way something new will happen.
It certainly won't if you don't.
Back to Basics: Learning Can Be Scary (Especially for Grown-Ups)
Integrating anything new -- creating connections between the unfamiliar and what we already know -- can be scary. With the unknown, we have no control over what we understand, any idea about how we feel, or any knowledge about what can do about it or our position in its presence.
As we've been discussing, learning is disorganizing. We have to give up tight control on the universe with which we are comfortably familiar -- and our feelings about the world and items within it -- in order to acknowledge the value of something outside it.
The next post gets to the core of how this connects to business decisions, so stay tuned.
Emotional Reactions and Business Decisions
Business etiquette does not favor evidence of feeling. It's as though emotional reactions signify a lack of control -- and therefore cloud our ability to identify, consider, or present the truth. Those who seem inflamed with even a small amount of emotional energy become suspect, and their ideas are considered unreliable and biased.
What This Means for Innovation
The assumption here, of course, is that truth is singular and objectivity not only exists but can be demonstrated as such. If there happens to be more than one answer, each must have the capability to be quantified in very specific ways. Measurement is established in numerical terms, and these numbers can be translated directly into financial currency.
This way of thinking, considered THE bottom line and unquestionably objective. Sticking to one way of thinking reduces variables, and although it might offer more control over results, it also consequently reduces the possibility of new ideas.
What would happen if we remembered to be curious?
Auditing the Results of Emotional Intelligence
The insistence on disconnecting feeling from thought ultimately will not serve innovation. In fact, it's not even possible. After all, what is inspiration but the meeting point of emotional and intellectual insight?
An Example
Remember David Firth's technologists who felt that narrowing their focus would be good for innovation? The ones who circled the wagons to keep out those with problem-solving strategies different from theirs?
Clearly, this is not a decision based on clear thinking about developing new ideas. Instead, it's an emotional reaction dressed as a rational decision. The real issue here is not generating new ideas but preserving a comfort level at work.
In this case, recognizing the relationship between ideas and feelings would have benefited the project. It takes courage to broaden one's focus to answers never before considered, but it's the only way something new will happen.
It certainly won't if you don't.
Back to Basics: Learning Can Be Scary (Especially for Grown-Ups)
Integrating anything new -- creating connections between the unfamiliar and what we already know -- can be scary. With the unknown, we have no control over what we understand, any idea about how we feel, or any knowledge about what can do about it or our position in its presence.
As we've been discussing, learning is disorganizing. We have to give up tight control on the universe with which we are comfortably familiar -- and our feelings about the world and items within it -- in order to acknowledge the value of something outside it.
The next post gets to the core of how this connects to business decisions, so stay tuned.
Monday, March 20, 2006
A Brief Look At Convictions
After skipping over the point in the last post, it seems a good time to take up the question: Where do convictions come from? And what does this have to do with business?
What Adults Know About Kids
When children are small, they usually learn what they think by being asked how they feel.
For example, you wouldn't ask a toddler for an opinion on what constitutes a satisfying meal. Instead, you'd ask if she likes tuna peanut butter, or something else. From what a toddler feels, then, an adult infers what she thinks -- in this case, what she thinks would make a good lunch.
Why Do Adults Forget? What Happens Next.
By the time kids get to high school, they are certainly capable of a kind of abstract reasoning that smaller children are not. However, to as large an extent, it's clear that their feelings still direct their behavior and choices.
Spoken to any adolescents lately?
However, at the same time that they are discovering their own points of view -- primarily through emotionally reacting to the world as well as their hormones--they are being asked to deny the force of their feelings in a way that no adult would ever ask a small child. However, it would be absurd to assert that emergence of abstract reasoning replaces emotional reactions. Culturally, however, we feel evidence of emotion makes decisions suspect.
Part of this dismissal is social and is caused by attitudes about both emotional outbursts and taking children's viewpoints seriously. The implications for adults can be dire after years of repressing what they feel in order to please.
And now we're back to the idea that there is one answer. In this case, we are not credible unless that one that comes directly from the intellect (as if that were possible). Bad for innovation once again.
We'll skip the details of this for now -- it's too big a project for one blog post although quite closely related to other topics from past discussions.
Smaller Issues: What Will a Toddler Find In School As She Grows?
By the time kids get to high school, the curriculum has replaced the question "how do you feel?" with "what do you think about" a event, person, or object. More often than not, personal essays are entirely abandoned in favor of an analytic style of communication. The feelings of an "I" are squeezed through what we isolate as "thoughts" from a supposedly objective third-person.
Why Does This Happen?
In our academic (and business) culture, third-person narrative is thought to be more sophisticated, more credible and therefore truer than speaking from a feeling state. The assumption here is that the most valuable cognition is entirely devoid of emotional impulse.
Some Historical Background
It's important to remember that emotional detachment for effective thinking is merely a trend and has not always been required for understanding and articulating truth.
In fact, if you go back to the nineteenth-century romantics (results of the preceeding sentimentalism), what it means to know is a concept that's been under discussion for more than a century. In fact, the fact that 21st Century-people come down on the side of reason does not necessarily constitute progress. It's an argument that goes back in Western culture at least as far as Plato and Aristotle. So it's worth considering alternative ways of finding the best way forward.
What This Might Mean About Us
There is a sense in our culture -- certainly in business -- that control is what we're aiming for. We value most what we measure, and we calculate in rather unimaginative ways. Of course, this goes against probably the core of good business -- risk is necessary for reward.
Our brains tell us one thing, and our emotional reactions send us running too often in the other direction.
More on what this has to do with business in the next post.
What Adults Know About Kids
When children are small, they usually learn what they think by being asked how they feel.
For example, you wouldn't ask a toddler for an opinion on what constitutes a satisfying meal. Instead, you'd ask if she likes tuna peanut butter, or something else. From what a toddler feels, then, an adult infers what she thinks -- in this case, what she thinks would make a good lunch.
Why Do Adults Forget? What Happens Next.
By the time kids get to high school, they are certainly capable of a kind of abstract reasoning that smaller children are not. However, to as large an extent, it's clear that their feelings still direct their behavior and choices.
Spoken to any adolescents lately?
However, at the same time that they are discovering their own points of view -- primarily through emotionally reacting to the world as well as their hormones--they are being asked to deny the force of their feelings in a way that no adult would ever ask a small child. However, it would be absurd to assert that emergence of abstract reasoning replaces emotional reactions. Culturally, however, we feel evidence of emotion makes decisions suspect.
Part of this dismissal is social and is caused by attitudes about both emotional outbursts and taking children's viewpoints seriously. The implications for adults can be dire after years of repressing what they feel in order to please.
And now we're back to the idea that there is one answer. In this case, we are not credible unless that one that comes directly from the intellect (as if that were possible). Bad for innovation once again.
We'll skip the details of this for now -- it's too big a project for one blog post although quite closely related to other topics from past discussions.
Smaller Issues: What Will a Toddler Find In School As She Grows?
By the time kids get to high school, the curriculum has replaced the question "how do you feel?" with "what do you think about" a event, person, or object. More often than not, personal essays are entirely abandoned in favor of an analytic style of communication. The feelings of an "I" are squeezed through what we isolate as "thoughts" from a supposedly objective third-person.
Why Does This Happen?
In our academic (and business) culture, third-person narrative is thought to be more sophisticated, more credible and therefore truer than speaking from a feeling state. The assumption here is that the most valuable cognition is entirely devoid of emotional impulse.
Some Historical Background
It's important to remember that emotional detachment for effective thinking is merely a trend and has not always been required for understanding and articulating truth.
In fact, if you go back to the nineteenth-century romantics (results of the preceeding sentimentalism), what it means to know is a concept that's been under discussion for more than a century. In fact, the fact that 21st Century-people come down on the side of reason does not necessarily constitute progress. It's an argument that goes back in Western culture at least as far as Plato and Aristotle. So it's worth considering alternative ways of finding the best way forward.
What This Might Mean About Us
There is a sense in our culture -- certainly in business -- that control is what we're aiming for. We value most what we measure, and we calculate in rather unimaginative ways. Of course, this goes against probably the core of good business -- risk is necessary for reward.
Our brains tell us one thing, and our emotional reactions send us running too often in the other direction.
More on what this has to do with business in the next post.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Continuing Case Study: Take a Good Look
Summary: For Those With No Time For Previous Posts
I held a workshop where students were asked to describe the body language of those listening to their pitches.
Instead of reporting observations about the things they saw, they drew conclusions about their meaning. After years of working in familiar work environments, participants navigated by assumption about what they saw in front of them.
Rather than considering what was possible in the moment they gave their pitch, they narrowed the options to what had happened before.
What Does This Mean for Innovation?
Taken to a logical conclusion, the implications are rather dangerous.
1. As discussed, at best assumptions about outcome will prevent new results. At worst, they lead to misunderstandings that can sink a deal.
2. Without an awareness of the reasons that one thinks as one does, how can anyone take responsibility for his or her strongest convictions? More to the point, how can one know why one acts as one does when operating in automatic pilot?
Smaller Issues First
Clearly, the latter point of the two is more complex than the first. For the sake of keeping this post brief, let's stick to the smallest sort of scenario and build outward in later discussions.
So -- how do we solve this problem of assuming we know the answer when faced with business situations that seem familiar?
The First Step: Stay Awake
Innovation depends on noticing what's happening now. If you want to expand your sphere of commercial influence, learn to identify meaning in unfamiliar situations. The first step is to identify the conventions in every new context -- and sometimes across contexts. Watch closely and listen until you have enough information.
Second Know the Differences: Training vs. Learning
To a certain extent, the results represent the difference between training and learning. After Step 1, make sure that no matter how much of the former you provide employees; make sure you're also encouraging the latter.
Don't Knock Training
On the one hand, the value of training is not to be underestimated. It offers skills to address particular, circumscribed challenges in short order.
Training usually takes place in a classroom -- outside the context in which the skills will be used. Therefore, it can be quickly completed than learning because many variables are excluded from the mix. The curriculum is isolated from any complications not connected to the skills in question. With this limited scope, training need only happen once to be effective, or over a short period. Training can then be revisited only for advanced or updated direction.
Above all, training runs employees through drills for a limited series of processes and emphasizes an answer. It saves time if you are presented repeatedly with exactly the same data in only one or two contexts.
How Learning Differs
Learning, on the other hand, is a long-term investment. The process demands that one thinks about questions in terms of their broadest as well as their shortest-term implications. Learning requires that students pay attention to the relationships among issues outside the classroom and those discussed inside.
What Else?
Learning requires conversation and feedback over time, as new variables appear, and each insight should raise more questions about other issues that are clearly connected - - or could be.
In other words, this process emphasizes strategies for independent learning, the ability to identify meaning, and with this meaning, to make new connections. The idea is to generate the habit of doing this without a teacher, across contexts, and among new variables.
More on these issues – and how they mesh with other disciplines for effective thinking -- in the next post.
I held a workshop where students were asked to describe the body language of those listening to their pitches.
Instead of reporting observations about the things they saw, they drew conclusions about their meaning. After years of working in familiar work environments, participants navigated by assumption about what they saw in front of them.
Rather than considering what was possible in the moment they gave their pitch, they narrowed the options to what had happened before.
What Does This Mean for Innovation?
Taken to a logical conclusion, the implications are rather dangerous.
1. As discussed, at best assumptions about outcome will prevent new results. At worst, they lead to misunderstandings that can sink a deal.
2. Without an awareness of the reasons that one thinks as one does, how can anyone take responsibility for his or her strongest convictions? More to the point, how can one know why one acts as one does when operating in automatic pilot?
Smaller Issues First
Clearly, the latter point of the two is more complex than the first. For the sake of keeping this post brief, let's stick to the smallest sort of scenario and build outward in later discussions.
So -- how do we solve this problem of assuming we know the answer when faced with business situations that seem familiar?
The First Step: Stay Awake
Innovation depends on noticing what's happening now. If you want to expand your sphere of commercial influence, learn to identify meaning in unfamiliar situations. The first step is to identify the conventions in every new context -- and sometimes across contexts. Watch closely and listen until you have enough information.
Second Know the Differences: Training vs. Learning
To a certain extent, the results represent the difference between training and learning. After Step 1, make sure that no matter how much of the former you provide employees; make sure you're also encouraging the latter.
Don't Knock Training
On the one hand, the value of training is not to be underestimated. It offers skills to address particular, circumscribed challenges in short order.
Training usually takes place in a classroom -- outside the context in which the skills will be used. Therefore, it can be quickly completed than learning because many variables are excluded from the mix. The curriculum is isolated from any complications not connected to the skills in question. With this limited scope, training need only happen once to be effective, or over a short period. Training can then be revisited only for advanced or updated direction.
Above all, training runs employees through drills for a limited series of processes and emphasizes an answer. It saves time if you are presented repeatedly with exactly the same data in only one or two contexts.
How Learning Differs
Learning, on the other hand, is a long-term investment. The process demands that one thinks about questions in terms of their broadest as well as their shortest-term implications. Learning requires that students pay attention to the relationships among issues outside the classroom and those discussed inside.
What Else?
Learning requires conversation and feedback over time, as new variables appear, and each insight should raise more questions about other issues that are clearly connected - - or could be.
In other words, this process emphasizes strategies for independent learning, the ability to identify meaning, and with this meaning, to make new connections. The idea is to generate the habit of doing this without a teacher, across contexts, and among new variables.
More on these issues – and how they mesh with other disciplines for effective thinking -- in the next post.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Case Study Continued: Observation vs. Analysis 3
What's Necessary for Persuasion?
Following from the last post, where do employees come from?
When Last We Saw our Heroes . . .
We left my students struggling to make presentations and lacking convincing body language.
This might seem like a small point. But if you've ever been forced to sit through very bad acting, you'll understand why without appropriate, natural gestures your client will be thinking more about how bad the performance is than about what is being said.
Clearly, in a business pitch, this would be ruinous. So what's to be done with those for whom such things don't come naturally?
Why Is It So Hard to Persuade?
Words come easily when memorized. However, the reaction they create -- and the subsequent relationship that develops -- can not really be anticipated. Never bank on a client response or you'll be cornered by surprises.
Sales Are Not As Difficult As Relationships: But One Often Relies on the Other
Relationships must be played out in the moment for genuine engagement. First and foremost, this sort of interaction requires observation before analysis.
In other words, examine who's in front of you before deciding how to approach them.
Or, in effect, before you can decide on a strategy, you have to be able to really listen to your client's needs.
If this sounds obvious, why doesn't it happen more often?
Back to the Case Study: An Experiment
After an hour of watching stock moves, I asked students to describe the body language of the class members serving as the audience. The goal was to observe the way they were sitting, the angles at which they held their heads, the expressions on their faces.
The only thing not allowed: to draw conclusions. Instead, I wanted them to articulate aloud the nuances of a listener's pose in such detail that the rest of us could repeat it.
What The Students Offered
Despite the directions, no one described what he or she saw. Over the course of an hour, each seemed determined to draw conclusions without articulating the material used for evidence.
Like my students at Brown in drama and English -- or kindergarteners I've taught as well -- the participants in this workshop on pitching couldn't tell me where their conclusions came from.
More important for a business audience, like some executives we've seen, it was as though these employees-to-be had confused data with analysis.
In other words, these students assumed that there is a transparent relationship between what they see and what it means. They skipped the analysis entirely. The conclusion was pulled from experience in past encounters which might or might not have been accurate in the first place.
Kids and Grown-Ups: Different Roots But Same Results
We forgive kindergarteners for their inability to articulate why they think what they do -- after all, they are so new at considering the world around them. It seems that those who have been around a lot longer either were not taught or forgot how they process information that eventually leads to ways of thinking.
Why Does This Happen?
The participants in my workshhop had trained themselves to read gestures by taking the meaning for granted as if they had seen them before.
At best, assumptions about outcome will make it impossible to develop new results. At worst, assumptions lead to misunderstandings that will blow a deal completely.
Case Study: One Conclusion
Because our business contexts are usually similar to each other -- most of us don't do business outside familiar territory -- we assume gestures represent the same meaning across contexts. In-depth observation is usually passed over in favor of a quick read. We presume efficiency is the same as effectiveness.
In short, we stop thinking. Instead, we behave as though the present situation is the same as those we've seen before. Under these conditions, how can one ever break into new markets or develop new products?
Next post, see more on these questions, issues, and events.
Following from the last post, where do employees come from?
When Last We Saw our Heroes . . .
We left my students struggling to make presentations and lacking convincing body language.
This might seem like a small point. But if you've ever been forced to sit through very bad acting, you'll understand why without appropriate, natural gestures your client will be thinking more about how bad the performance is than about what is being said.
Clearly, in a business pitch, this would be ruinous. So what's to be done with those for whom such things don't come naturally?
Why Is It So Hard to Persuade?
Words come easily when memorized. However, the reaction they create -- and the subsequent relationship that develops -- can not really be anticipated. Never bank on a client response or you'll be cornered by surprises.
Sales Are Not As Difficult As Relationships: But One Often Relies on the Other
Relationships must be played out in the moment for genuine engagement. First and foremost, this sort of interaction requires observation before analysis.
In other words, examine who's in front of you before deciding how to approach them.
Or, in effect, before you can decide on a strategy, you have to be able to really listen to your client's needs.
If this sounds obvious, why doesn't it happen more often?
Back to the Case Study: An Experiment
After an hour of watching stock moves, I asked students to describe the body language of the class members serving as the audience. The goal was to observe the way they were sitting, the angles at which they held their heads, the expressions on their faces.
The only thing not allowed: to draw conclusions. Instead, I wanted them to articulate aloud the nuances of a listener's pose in such detail that the rest of us could repeat it.
What The Students Offered
Despite the directions, no one described what he or she saw. Over the course of an hour, each seemed determined to draw conclusions without articulating the material used for evidence.
Like my students at Brown in drama and English -- or kindergarteners I've taught as well -- the participants in this workshop on pitching couldn't tell me where their conclusions came from.
More important for a business audience, like some executives we've seen, it was as though these employees-to-be had confused data with analysis.
In other words, these students assumed that there is a transparent relationship between what they see and what it means. They skipped the analysis entirely. The conclusion was pulled from experience in past encounters which might or might not have been accurate in the first place.
Kids and Grown-Ups: Different Roots But Same Results
We forgive kindergarteners for their inability to articulate why they think what they do -- after all, they are so new at considering the world around them. It seems that those who have been around a lot longer either were not taught or forgot how they process information that eventually leads to ways of thinking.
Why Does This Happen?
The participants in my workshhop had trained themselves to read gestures by taking the meaning for granted as if they had seen them before.
At best, assumptions about outcome will make it impossible to develop new results. At worst, assumptions lead to misunderstandings that will blow a deal completely.
Case Study: One Conclusion
Because our business contexts are usually similar to each other -- most of us don't do business outside familiar territory -- we assume gestures represent the same meaning across contexts. In-depth observation is usually passed over in favor of a quick read. We presume efficiency is the same as effectiveness.
In short, we stop thinking. Instead, we behave as though the present situation is the same as those we've seen before. Under these conditions, how can one ever break into new markets or develop new products?
Next post, see more on these questions, issues, and events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)