I started this blog to explore creativity and silos -- how conversations stop when language changes, how language-related expectations define status, and how such issues divide groups who could learn from each other. The idea is to explore the connections among silos, show boundaries that we think of as inpenetrable to be transparent.
If it's a commonplace to say that no idea is entirely new, then it stands to reason that the more we can learn from each other, the less frequently we have to reinvent the wheel.
What Exactly is a Class Act?
Going back to a post from a week ago, I've been considering the issue of class in America when it comes to analyzing data and theorizing about trends.
Notes from a Barbecue
On July Fourth, I raised the question of Jay Goldberg and his friend Howard Globus as we gathered at the house of David Spector (one of Wall Street's earliest Internet innovators and entrepreneurs) and Michelle Smith (ex-software developer, currently social worker-in-training).
Howard (whose last name I don't know) suggested that money and education will change your class in the right combination, but it's really civility that sets the classes apart. After all, we consider well brought-up children to be those who shake hands, send thank you notes, open doors for others (particularly boys for girls or for those in need of help), and so on. Those who lose with dignity are said to "show a lot of class." So is class determined primarily through one's code of manners?
But Then, What of Background?
In England, if you are Jews, a people of color, or anyone else that could be seen as "unEnglish" is considered outside the class system entirely. And in the US, such people would probably never be admitted to the Daughters of the American Revolution or exclusive clubs. Where does all this fall into the mix?
Another Idea
Jay Goldberg offered a compelling point to this argument. In the US, we're inventing ourselves at every minute in a way that is not possible in countries with longer histories. Class is part of this. Jay suggests that class comprises the expectations that others have of one and how one sets those up. In other words, if you can fit in through manner, dress, education, background or whatever conventions constitute that class, you become part of it.
This, of course, doesn't solve the problem of acknowledging the specifics of class in American trend projection. We're more like a group of countries than one nation, and geography needs some discussion in terms of identity as well.
And what of the Digital Divide?
Mario Gastaldi wrote to me with an interesting point. It sounds obvious, but it's worth saying: although technology can be a great leveler, it's also tremendously divisive in terms of opportunity. The Digital Divide in schools is a big issue, but we rarely discuss it in terms of business. How can it be factored into conversations about American trends by people like Linda Stone? She's brilliant, no question, but there's still more to be said.
This, of course, only begins a conversation. All further thoughts are welcome -- and appreciated.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
CTC Attendees Respond: Measuring Results
I've got quite a lot of positive feedback on the my suggestions for redesigning the Collaborative Technologies Conferences. The only name I'll mention is Ken Thompson because he has a suggestion for meausring the conference's success. Seems like a good way to end this series on CTC.
Ken said:
I think you are on to something here
"What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance.
What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance."
Imagine 2 axes of outcome from a conference
On X-axis we plot 'learning gained' (1-10)
On Y-axis we plot 'networking achieved' (1-10)
What did people get out of CTC?
Me - My Role was Team Coach/Technologist - I got (3,6)
What about you?
We could talk about the different styles of conference and getting clarity on peoples learning objectives for their roles before they attend.
CTC organizers, what think you? Any other ideas?
More from other CTC attendees at their Wiki -- I'd link directly, but you need to register.
Ken said:
I think you are on to something here
"What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance.
What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance."
Imagine 2 axes of outcome from a conference
On X-axis we plot 'learning gained' (1-10)
On Y-axis we plot 'networking achieved' (1-10)
What did people get out of CTC?
Me - My Role was Team Coach/Technologist - I got (3,6)
What about you?
We could talk about the different styles of conference and getting clarity on peoples learning objectives for their roles before they attend.
CTC organizers, what think you? Any other ideas?
More from other CTC attendees at their Wiki -- I'd link directly, but you need to register.
Friday, June 30, 2006
If You Got Game, Are You a Leader? Research by John Beck
Continuing from the last post, John Beck followed John Ware with a discussion of research on the gaming generation.
Beck says that almost anyone born after 1970 is a gamer and almost anyone born before that time doesn't understand games at all. This, said Beck, is not just a US phenomenon. His research on leadership skills finds that the common thread that distinguishes those with and those without is their proclivity for electronic games, regardless of age.
Why Gaming?
Beck argues that once recognized, it makes sense:
--Growing up "on games" creates a new way of thinking about the world.
--Games are a valid way to experience and learn about the world.
--Games change how kids respond to incentives and risk and how players absorb new concepts.
--Games provide an important outlet for creativity and foster new problem-solving methods.
--Games command kids' attention better than most other sorts of interfaces and extend their attention span. It fosters rapt attention.
Beck told the story of his 18-year-old son with Downs Syndrome who beats him every time. As an antidote to challenges raised by Linda Stone, Beck responded, "It's impossible to have continuous partial attention when playing."
Developing the Brain
Beck argued that neuropath ways in the brain stop developing late in the teens. After that, we learn differently.
Up to the age of 12 or 13, data shows that there is no gender difference in gaming. Both boys and girls play the same games for the same amount of time. After this point, socialization takes over and gender roles begin to set in. Beck didn't talk too much about this, but he mentioned that boys tend to be more involved in war games than girls.
The Data
Beck then presented conclusions drawn from answers to questions asked of a large sample of gamers. Here are some examples:
--Are gamers more competitive? Twice as many gamers say "winning is everything."
--Are gamers global in their thinking? Yes, says Beck. One big of evidence is that the most influential media in most gamers' lives was created in Japan.
--Do gamers come off as self-confident? They answered that they have a high sense of their own importance and would prefer a bonus for merit over a salary.
--Do gamers believe more in luck? Gamers feel that winning is not entirely their doing. There's a random generator in each game that makes a round easier or harder to beat. Therefore, says Beck, gamers learn algorithms and resilience and optimism -- to hit the button again and start over with hopes to do better.
One Conclusion Worth More Detail
Although gamers have a reputation of living alone in a basement, Beck concluded that this group is actually quite sociable. Most said they find people more stimulating than anything else. Furthermore, families play together. All siblings can remain in a room often while two play. The better players help the younger ones, less experienced ones because it's boring to win against someone who's no good.
Furthermore, in multi-player games, Beck claims that gamers create their own teams, recruits, management styles, and strategies for winning.
Conclusions
Beck concludes that the overwhelming body of evidence reveals that gamers would make better leaders than non-gamers.
Although I accept the value of learning anything new, particularly strategic and physical coordination skills, I am skeptical that the Beck's data can translate directly and transparently to the off-line business world.
If a gamer sits in the basement, regardless of his social skills online, can he relate well with people in person? Will she engage with better with those who don't game than current business leaders who overlook peers or employees with whom they see little in common? Does the ability to manage an army in an electronic space translate to optimizing challenges of learning styles or social issues in an office space? Finally, would negotiating terms with a warrior opponent really help negotiate deals in the world of commerce?
Time will tell -- gamers are still young, and they have yet to make their mark on business culture.
On the other hand, as Beck pointed out as a virtue, this population is excellent at adapting to new environments, to fitting in, to becoming part of the culture. If this happens in the workforce, their impact will certainly not be seen at all.
Beck says that almost anyone born after 1970 is a gamer and almost anyone born before that time doesn't understand games at all. This, said Beck, is not just a US phenomenon. His research on leadership skills finds that the common thread that distinguishes those with and those without is their proclivity for electronic games, regardless of age.
Why Gaming?
Beck argues that once recognized, it makes sense:
--Growing up "on games" creates a new way of thinking about the world.
--Games are a valid way to experience and learn about the world.
--Games change how kids respond to incentives and risk and how players absorb new concepts.
--Games provide an important outlet for creativity and foster new problem-solving methods.
--Games command kids' attention better than most other sorts of interfaces and extend their attention span. It fosters rapt attention.
Beck told the story of his 18-year-old son with Downs Syndrome who beats him every time. As an antidote to challenges raised by Linda Stone, Beck responded, "It's impossible to have continuous partial attention when playing."
Developing the Brain
Beck argued that neuropath ways in the brain stop developing late in the teens. After that, we learn differently.
Up to the age of 12 or 13, data shows that there is no gender difference in gaming. Both boys and girls play the same games for the same amount of time. After this point, socialization takes over and gender roles begin to set in. Beck didn't talk too much about this, but he mentioned that boys tend to be more involved in war games than girls.
The Data
Beck then presented conclusions drawn from answers to questions asked of a large sample of gamers. Here are some examples:
--Are gamers more competitive? Twice as many gamers say "winning is everything."
--Are gamers global in their thinking? Yes, says Beck. One big of evidence is that the most influential media in most gamers' lives was created in Japan.
--Do gamers come off as self-confident? They answered that they have a high sense of their own importance and would prefer a bonus for merit over a salary.
--Do gamers believe more in luck? Gamers feel that winning is not entirely their doing. There's a random generator in each game that makes a round easier or harder to beat. Therefore, says Beck, gamers learn algorithms and resilience and optimism -- to hit the button again and start over with hopes to do better.
One Conclusion Worth More Detail
Although gamers have a reputation of living alone in a basement, Beck concluded that this group is actually quite sociable. Most said they find people more stimulating than anything else. Furthermore, families play together. All siblings can remain in a room often while two play. The better players help the younger ones, less experienced ones because it's boring to win against someone who's no good.
Furthermore, in multi-player games, Beck claims that gamers create their own teams, recruits, management styles, and strategies for winning.
Conclusions
Beck concludes that the overwhelming body of evidence reveals that gamers would make better leaders than non-gamers.
Although I accept the value of learning anything new, particularly strategic and physical coordination skills, I am skeptical that the Beck's data can translate directly and transparently to the off-line business world.
If a gamer sits in the basement, regardless of his social skills online, can he relate well with people in person? Will she engage with better with those who don't game than current business leaders who overlook peers or employees with whom they see little in common? Does the ability to manage an army in an electronic space translate to optimizing challenges of learning styles or social issues in an office space? Finally, would negotiating terms with a warrior opponent really help negotiate deals in the world of commerce?
Time will tell -- gamers are still young, and they have yet to make their mark on business culture.
On the other hand, as Beck pointed out as a virtue, this population is excellent at adapting to new environments, to fitting in, to becoming part of the culture. If this happens in the workforce, their impact will certainly not be seen at all.
Workforce Old and Young: What's Next?
Continuing from the last post on CTC speakers, there were some provocative ideas raised at CTC even if the conclusions were completely convincing.
Implications for Collaborative Technology in the Enterprise
Stowe Boyd moderated a panel on Wednesday morning that included John Beck, author of Got Game, and Jim Ware, executive producer of the Work Design Collaborative. Ware began with an analysis of the workforce as it is and as it ages, and Beck focused on the relationship of gaming to leadership skills across age groups. There wasn't a lot of overlap, but the combination made for a lively discussion.
As always, for a full transcript of this session, see Nancy White's reporting.
Where Are We Now? John Ware's Presentation
Stowe Boyd began as moderator by saying that 30% of 12-19 year-olds have created or written blogs. This social medium that emerged only recently went from adult use to attracting kids. In a few years, says Stowe, these kids will enter the workforce. His question: when looking at blogging, along with IM and other technologies used everyday by this age group, how will these people want to work, collaborate, and connect in business? And what will they expect?
Framing the Discussion: The Older End of the Workforce
James Ware began the panel to talk about the different expectatins at the top of the workforce from those at the younger end. He pointed out that over the next number of years, there will be over a 30% growth in the number of workers between 60 and 69 and over 20% for those between 50 and 59. As knowledge an wisdom leave the workforce, says Ware, not nearly as many people are coming in to replenish the needs of businesses.
Changing Expectations: Traditional vs. Emergent Workers
Ware also explained that worker expectations have changed. Where a traditional worker felt the responsibility for her career lay with the company, the emergent worker believes the responsibility is her own. Where traditional worker believed that promotion was based primarily on tenure the emergent worker believes it should be based primarily on merit. Changing jobs used to inspire fear but now represent advancement. Where retention meant security to traditional workers, emergent workers focus on growth. Where management style was expected to be paternalistic, emergent workers expect a peer relationship. Organizational charts were admired, andnow they area ignored.
Ware added that retirement doesn't really take for many older people, either because they need the money or because they want to continue working for other reasons. In fact, many of these retirees will work part-time.
And So?
The implication is that there will be an increasing need to support retirees to work from wherever they are to continue to tap their knowledge, wisdom, and experience.
Ware concluded with these predictions:
--Be prepared for major talent shortages in the next decade
--Recognize the changing workforce values, expectations, and needs
--Learn to manage generational diversity
More on this panel and the younger side of the workforce in the next post.
Implications for Collaborative Technology in the Enterprise
Stowe Boyd moderated a panel on Wednesday morning that included John Beck, author of Got Game, and Jim Ware, executive producer of the Work Design Collaborative. Ware began with an analysis of the workforce as it is and as it ages, and Beck focused on the relationship of gaming to leadership skills across age groups. There wasn't a lot of overlap, but the combination made for a lively discussion.
As always, for a full transcript of this session, see Nancy White's reporting.
Where Are We Now? John Ware's Presentation
Stowe Boyd began as moderator by saying that 30% of 12-19 year-olds have created or written blogs. This social medium that emerged only recently went from adult use to attracting kids. In a few years, says Stowe, these kids will enter the workforce. His question: when looking at blogging, along with IM and other technologies used everyday by this age group, how will these people want to work, collaborate, and connect in business? And what will they expect?
Framing the Discussion: The Older End of the Workforce
James Ware began the panel to talk about the different expectatins at the top of the workforce from those at the younger end. He pointed out that over the next number of years, there will be over a 30% growth in the number of workers between 60 and 69 and over 20% for those between 50 and 59. As knowledge an wisdom leave the workforce, says Ware, not nearly as many people are coming in to replenish the needs of businesses.
Changing Expectations: Traditional vs. Emergent Workers
Ware also explained that worker expectations have changed. Where a traditional worker felt the responsibility for her career lay with the company, the emergent worker believes the responsibility is her own. Where traditional worker believed that promotion was based primarily on tenure the emergent worker believes it should be based primarily on merit. Changing jobs used to inspire fear but now represent advancement. Where retention meant security to traditional workers, emergent workers focus on growth. Where management style was expected to be paternalistic, emergent workers expect a peer relationship. Organizational charts were admired, andnow they area ignored.
Ware added that retirement doesn't really take for many older people, either because they need the money or because they want to continue working for other reasons. In fact, many of these retirees will work part-time.
And So?
The implication is that there will be an increasing need to support retirees to work from wherever they are to continue to tap their knowledge, wisdom, and experience.
Ware concluded with these predictions:
--Be prepared for major talent shortages in the next decade
--Recognize the changing workforce values, expectations, and needs
--Learn to manage generational diversity
More on this panel and the younger side of the workforce in the next post.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Reshaping Communication Across the Enterprise: CTC Continued
Getting the Word Out
There is so much to read from this year's CTC Conference, and so much written on Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps' work, that I'll be brief here. As always, for a full transcript of their talk, see Nancy White's thorough reporting.
The Big Idea: Cracking the Diamond
Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps spoke the second day and were concerned with the predicament: We can't solve 21st-Century problems with 19th-Century organizations. As they remind us, this perspective was first voiced not by a wandering team theorist but by the CIA -- and not too long ago, either.
Transforming Big Business From Bureaucracy Into a Network
The talk's goal was to describe strategies and tools by which to make an organization transparent. Effective collaboration is possible only when everyone's individual position is visible to the group. In other words, you need to see where everyone sits on in the company's architecture.
The speakers argue that an organization is a diamond rather the pyramid everyone assumes it to be. The average large organization is nine levels deep, although it's only the first five levels that usually receive key information from the top. Therefore, communication by way of cascade will not reach the whole organization
Because managers -- in the middle -- are not being hit.
One Solution
Lipnack and Stamps suggest communicating from one side of the diamond to the other -- rather than from the top down -- to ensure managers are reached. The focus, they say, should be on the middle of the organization and reaching it as quickly as possible. Then, each manager will do the work of communicating to his or her teams, and everyone will hear what needs to be said.
Both speakers spoke compellingly, and used technology effectively to show (rather than tell) of the challenges of organizational structure. If your organization is having trouble getting the word out, they have a lot to offer. Check out their website for papers and other resources.
More on CTC in the next post.
There is so much to read from this year's CTC Conference, and so much written on Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps' work, that I'll be brief here. As always, for a full transcript of their talk, see Nancy White's thorough reporting.
The Big Idea: Cracking the Diamond
Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps spoke the second day and were concerned with the predicament: We can't solve 21st-Century problems with 19th-Century organizations. As they remind us, this perspective was first voiced not by a wandering team theorist but by the CIA -- and not too long ago, either.
Transforming Big Business From Bureaucracy Into a Network
The talk's goal was to describe strategies and tools by which to make an organization transparent. Effective collaboration is possible only when everyone's individual position is visible to the group. In other words, you need to see where everyone sits on in the company's architecture.
The speakers argue that an organization is a diamond rather the pyramid everyone assumes it to be. The average large organization is nine levels deep, although it's only the first five levels that usually receive key information from the top. Therefore, communication by way of cascade will not reach the whole organization
Because managers -- in the middle -- are not being hit.
One Solution
Lipnack and Stamps suggest communicating from one side of the diamond to the other -- rather than from the top down -- to ensure managers are reached. The focus, they say, should be on the middle of the organization and reaching it as quickly as possible. Then, each manager will do the work of communicating to his or her teams, and everyone will hear what needs to be said.
Both speakers spoke compellingly, and used technology effectively to show (rather than tell) of the challenges of organizational structure. If your organization is having trouble getting the word out, they have a lot to offer. Check out their website for papers and other resources.
More on CTC in the next post.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
A Touch of Class: Is US Business Theory Missing Something?
Continuing from the last few posts, it seems to me that it's not just Ken Thompson at CTC who hasn't addressed political issues yet in his investigations. Ken is Irish as well, so let's leave him aside for the purposes of this discussion.
A Touch of Class
Most American theorists seem to avoid class entirely, and politics and gender at least marginally, unless there is an explicit issue to address. For example, if working with people from other countries, those who collaborate are often trained to be aware of cultural differences among people of varying nationalities. Gender and class are often included in the mix, even if not addressed as such.
In fact, implicit politics, class, and gender issues often become either separate or collective elephants in the room when it comes to discussing human relationships at work.
Exceptions: Explicit vs. Implicit Challenges
It's not always the case for gender and race for theorists or practioners -- after all, explicit mention is required since discrimination laws have been passed. But the implicit politics and both explicit and implicit issues of class are almost never mentioned.
So I wonder -- what exactly comprises class in the US?
It Seems Obvious, but Worth Mentioning
Americans don't like to think we have a class system or of human relationships as political. Our national pride is to a large exstent predicated on the notion that anyone can make or remake himself or herself and rise to any position. And money equalizes everyone because it's the real measure of success. Of course, it didn't work out so well for Jay Gatsby or Silas Lapham, but we'll leave that for another discussion.
Technology also now offers the promise of equalizing power among people of all genders and classes (particularly because it could entail a good living). Anyone know of a study that seems useful in this area? Certainly Blogher offers an example of a conference at which women create an environment in which to raise issues not addressed elsewhere. So is technology the great equalizer?
Certainly the American legal system and technlogoy are two areas that hamper freedoms much less than others in terms of class and gender explicitly. But most people without an academic axe to grind don't like to talk about either topic as implicit challenges in work life.
Any Thoughts?
I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this much with anyone, and I'm interested in feedback. I've turned off the comment option due to storms of spam, so please write through the email address on the site.
Back to CTC in the next post.
A Touch of Class
Most American theorists seem to avoid class entirely, and politics and gender at least marginally, unless there is an explicit issue to address. For example, if working with people from other countries, those who collaborate are often trained to be aware of cultural differences among people of varying nationalities. Gender and class are often included in the mix, even if not addressed as such.
In fact, implicit politics, class, and gender issues often become either separate or collective elephants in the room when it comes to discussing human relationships at work.
Exceptions: Explicit vs. Implicit Challenges
It's not always the case for gender and race for theorists or practioners -- after all, explicit mention is required since discrimination laws have been passed. But the implicit politics and both explicit and implicit issues of class are almost never mentioned.
So I wonder -- what exactly comprises class in the US?
It Seems Obvious, but Worth Mentioning
Americans don't like to think we have a class system or of human relationships as political. Our national pride is to a large exstent predicated on the notion that anyone can make or remake himself or herself and rise to any position. And money equalizes everyone because it's the real measure of success. Of course, it didn't work out so well for Jay Gatsby or Silas Lapham, but we'll leave that for another discussion.
Technology also now offers the promise of equalizing power among people of all genders and classes (particularly because it could entail a good living). Anyone know of a study that seems useful in this area? Certainly Blogher offers an example of a conference at which women create an environment in which to raise issues not addressed elsewhere. So is technology the great equalizer?
Certainly the American legal system and technlogoy are two areas that hamper freedoms much less than others in terms of class and gender explicitly. But most people without an academic axe to grind don't like to talk about either topic as implicit challenges in work life.
Any Thoughts?
I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this much with anyone, and I'm interested in feedback. I've turned off the comment option due to storms of spam, so please write through the email address on the site.
Back to CTC in the next post.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Ken Thompson: What's the Buzz?
Bees Do It
Continuing from the last post, another presentation at CTC was given with great charm and wit by blogger and consultant Ken Thompson. The topic: bioteams.
The General Idea
Ken's blog and Nancy White's reporting offer a lot of detail on Ken's very smart work. Furthermore, Ken's charm is impossible to reproduce and should be experienced in conjunction with the persuasive power of his ideas. Because I could never give the full effect, and that would be a pity, here I will be brief.
The Swarm
Ken began by admitting swarms have got a bad name, particularly because one thinks of being attacked by bees or other dangerous insects. The movie industry probably hasn't helped either.
However, he says, nature has sustained teaming for millions of years while we humans have only been working on the project over a few centuries. Ken suggests we learn to bioteam based on the ways organisms team outside human experience.
Based on behaviors of ants, geese, bees, and other non-human examples, Ken summed the main principles in an acronym:
O: Outgoing -- Talk to other team members.
R: Recruit -- even if you're not the group leader, pull in whomever is useful. Don't be tied to roles too rigidly. It's the end that's important.
G: Go! Forage and build networks.
A: Ask
N: Note
I: Investigate
C: Collaborate
What Next?
As Ken quite pointedly noted in his concluding images (a penguin falling through the ice), no model provides a useful solution if imposed direclty and completely relationship on a situation in which a problem resides. In other words, there is never an entirely transparent relationship between a model and life.
However, this said, what might be missing from Ken's otherwise persuasive arguments?
Cultural Norms
In the next round of research, it would be fascinating to see what part national culture and gender play in Ken's theories. For example, Tit for Tat or the notion that if one is betrayed, one retailiates once -- is something Nancy White suggests would sink a team in many cultures outside the US. Futhermore, within national boundaries, businesses and departments have varying cultures of their own. How should these differences be factored in?
Gender
Estelle Dodson, Collaborative Technologies Manager for NASA Astrobiology Institute, raised an excellent question: what effect does gender have on bioteaming? Ken replied that he hadn't approached that issue yet but is interested in learning more about it.
My sense is that probably unlike the better part of natural world, it is indeed gender, and not sex, that exists as a variable in the bioteaming model. Gender in humans, a series of beliefs and behaviors, is certainly influenced by one's sex. However, gender is a meeting point of many discourses -- culture, age, heritage, parenting, body type, and so on.
There are gender roles in nature, no question, but they are more consistent than in the human sphere. Educational studies have proved this repeatedly in schools, for example. So how does one articulate the boundaries of gender as a variable in a human study?
It will be fascinating to see what lies under the next stones Ken chooses to turn over.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Who Knew? Linda Stone, Stowe Boyd, and Woody Allen
For all readers old enough to have seen (and quoted) Annie Hall, you'll appreciate this.
I had a Marshall McLuhen moment a moment at CTC.
How It Started
Stowe Boyd almost famously disagrees with Linda's reading of trends. He's blogged about it both on his own and on the CTC site, and he argued with me after Linda had finished. The only problem was he was arguing on the basis of misrepresenting what she said.
I like Stowe a lot and appreciate how smart he is about so many things. With this argument, however, I had a rather large bone to pick.
What Ensued
Stowe told me he disagrees with Linda's contention that authorities are entering a trend of protection, authenticity, and trustworthiness. He added that the trend to connect will increase, not decrease.
I pointed out that Linda had said that one trend absorbs another rather than entirely replacing it. Trends are never erased. We simply react against a trend to fill the needs that weren't fulfilled by putting our attention in a new place.
I also added that Linda never mentioned authority figures and their practices. She was speaking about cultural trends and the sweet spot of opportunity for technology. In this case, Linda predicted the opportunity lies in making our quality of life richer through better filters that protect us from the noise of being a live node on the network.
Boyd argued using (mis)quotes again.
A Marshall McLuhen Moment
Luckily, Linda was standing nearby. I pulled her over and asked her if I had missed something she said about authority and trends.
To Linda's credit, she wasn't rude as McLuhen was in the movie line with Allen. But she definitely told Boyd to get his facts straight.
Don't you wish that could always happen in life?
Back to the main events at CTC in the next post.
I had a Marshall McLuhen moment a moment at CTC.
How It Started
Stowe Boyd almost famously disagrees with Linda's reading of trends. He's blogged about it both on his own and on the CTC site, and he argued with me after Linda had finished. The only problem was he was arguing on the basis of misrepresenting what she said.
I like Stowe a lot and appreciate how smart he is about so many things. With this argument, however, I had a rather large bone to pick.
What Ensued
Stowe told me he disagrees with Linda's contention that authorities are entering a trend of protection, authenticity, and trustworthiness. He added that the trend to connect will increase, not decrease.
I pointed out that Linda had said that one trend absorbs another rather than entirely replacing it. Trends are never erased. We simply react against a trend to fill the needs that weren't fulfilled by putting our attention in a new place.
I also added that Linda never mentioned authority figures and their practices. She was speaking about cultural trends and the sweet spot of opportunity for technology. In this case, Linda predicted the opportunity lies in making our quality of life richer through better filters that protect us from the noise of being a live node on the network.
Boyd argued using (mis)quotes again.
A Marshall McLuhen Moment
Luckily, Linda was standing nearby. I pulled her over and asked her if I had missed something she said about authority and trends.
To Linda's credit, she wasn't rude as McLuhen was in the movie line with Allen. But she definitely told Boyd to get his facts straight.
Don't you wish that could always happen in life?
Back to the main events at CTC in the next post.
Friday, June 23, 2006
CTC Continued: Paying Attention to Linda Stone
To continue on the topic of CTC speakers . . .
Linda Stone: Continuous Partial Attention
Linda Stone gave a compelling talk on the meeting point of social, commercial, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual trends based on where Westerners have put their attention over the last forty years. It was similar to her presentation at GEL but filled out nicely some of the points to which she didn't give a full reading in May.
A Recap and Some Further Detail
As at GEL, Stone focused on what she called the "sweet spot of opportunity" which lies at the "meeting point of human desire and technology." From 1965 to about 1985, we yearned to reach our full potential as individuals. We multi-tasked, putting our full attention nowhere, in an effort to be as productive as possible. Consequently, Stone says, we found ourselves isolated and yearning for connection.
The result was the trend Stone calls continuous partial attention -- the desire to be "a live node on the network" and to live an "anywhere, anytime always on lifestyle." In this mode, from about 1985 to the present, we scan the network for the most valuable connections and people who might show up at any time. Such living creates an artificial sense of crisis, which is exhausting, but we just didn't want to miss anything. It's as though "we expected our human bandwidth to keep up with" that of technology.
In crisis, we get an adrenaline rush -- fight or flight. Stone admits that it's a great system for fighting a tiger, but "how many email are really tigers?" How many are flies? In crisis mode, we're not in a position to tell the difference.
A New Trend Begins
For a little while, we have been creating a new trend. Exhausted from the energy required to be always tuned in and available, if only partially attentive, we are beginning to ask "What can I lose?" rather than "What can I gain?" The sweet spot, says Stone, is moving from connection to protection, trust, and authenticity.
Stone said that there is usually a seven-year bleed between trends and that we never give up entirely our old behavior. Instead, we shift focus to release and find that which was suppressed and for which we had yearned when our attention was elsewhere.
What Next for Marketing?
Stone said that people would increasingly be drawn to marketing messages that offer authenticity and protection. Simple and clean ads will be the antidote to feeling overwhelmed. Above the noise, we will be looking for signals that resonate with our values. We will go from "What have I got to gain" by being connected to "What have I got to lose?"
Is the Tide Turning?
Stone says that when she talks to young people, they ask for strategies for better quality of life. She added that one CEO asks people to disarm at the door of a meeting -- to "drop all weapons of mass communication."
Knowing whom to believe is essential. Queer Eye and many of the contests shows feature hosts who are considered experts and become trusted sources by viewers. Infomercials, she adds, have become a 2 billion dollar business. Kevin Trudeau, despite being a convicted felon, has sold untold numbers of his book 'Remedies They Don't Want You to Know About." In other words, he's become a trustworthy source, both by showing up in one's living room in the middle of the night and peddling ideas that can protect.
Then there's gaming. Stone pointed out that multi-player games feature meaningful relationships on a new level. For example, a professor wrote an article called "It Takes a Guild" when she was surprised by the beneficial effects of these games on her son's development (more on gaming in future posts).
And So?
Linda ended by saying we have gone from Information Workers to Knowledge Workers, and now we have the opportunity to become Wisdom Workers.
Imagine what would happen if we all put our attention there.
More places to find out about Stone ideas: Ross Mayfield, CTC website, and Nancy White (who offers almost an entire transcript).
More on Linda and CTC in the next posts.
Linda Stone: Continuous Partial Attention
Linda Stone gave a compelling talk on the meeting point of social, commercial, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual trends based on where Westerners have put their attention over the last forty years. It was similar to her presentation at GEL but filled out nicely some of the points to which she didn't give a full reading in May.
A Recap and Some Further Detail
As at GEL, Stone focused on what she called the "sweet spot of opportunity" which lies at the "meeting point of human desire and technology." From 1965 to about 1985, we yearned to reach our full potential as individuals. We multi-tasked, putting our full attention nowhere, in an effort to be as productive as possible. Consequently, Stone says, we found ourselves isolated and yearning for connection.
The result was the trend Stone calls continuous partial attention -- the desire to be "a live node on the network" and to live an "anywhere, anytime always on lifestyle." In this mode, from about 1985 to the present, we scan the network for the most valuable connections and people who might show up at any time. Such living creates an artificial sense of crisis, which is exhausting, but we just didn't want to miss anything. It's as though "we expected our human bandwidth to keep up with" that of technology.
In crisis, we get an adrenaline rush -- fight or flight. Stone admits that it's a great system for fighting a tiger, but "how many email are really tigers?" How many are flies? In crisis mode, we're not in a position to tell the difference.
A New Trend Begins
For a little while, we have been creating a new trend. Exhausted from the energy required to be always tuned in and available, if only partially attentive, we are beginning to ask "What can I lose?" rather than "What can I gain?" The sweet spot, says Stone, is moving from connection to protection, trust, and authenticity.
Stone said that there is usually a seven-year bleed between trends and that we never give up entirely our old behavior. Instead, we shift focus to release and find that which was suppressed and for which we had yearned when our attention was elsewhere.
What Next for Marketing?
Stone said that people would increasingly be drawn to marketing messages that offer authenticity and protection. Simple and clean ads will be the antidote to feeling overwhelmed. Above the noise, we will be looking for signals that resonate with our values. We will go from "What have I got to gain" by being connected to "What have I got to lose?"
Is the Tide Turning?
Stone says that when she talks to young people, they ask for strategies for better quality of life. She added that one CEO asks people to disarm at the door of a meeting -- to "drop all weapons of mass communication."
Knowing whom to believe is essential. Queer Eye and many of the contests shows feature hosts who are considered experts and become trusted sources by viewers. Infomercials, she adds, have become a 2 billion dollar business. Kevin Trudeau, despite being a convicted felon, has sold untold numbers of his book 'Remedies They Don't Want You to Know About." In other words, he's become a trustworthy source, both by showing up in one's living room in the middle of the night and peddling ideas that can protect.
Then there's gaming. Stone pointed out that multi-player games feature meaningful relationships on a new level. For example, a professor wrote an article called "It Takes a Guild" when she was surprised by the beneficial effects of these games on her son's development (more on gaming in future posts).
And So?
Linda ended by saying we have gone from Information Workers to Knowledge Workers, and now we have the opportunity to become Wisdom Workers.
Imagine what would happen if we all put our attention there.
More places to find out about Stone ideas: Ross Mayfield, CTC website, and Nancy White (who offers almost an entire transcript).
More on Linda and CTC in the next posts.
Transcripts of CTC Talks Available
An aside here for those of you who would like more data along with my interpretation of events at CTC.
Nancy White reported on almost every session. Worth checking out not only because the notes are great but because she such a talented online facilitator. Always worthwhile to get her point of view about collaboration, however little commentary she might add.
Improving Everyday Business Practice: Collaborative Technololgies Conference
This week, I attended the Collaborative Technologies Conference (CTC) in Boston sponsored by CMP.
The focus was emergent practices, tools, and ideas about collaborating across enterprises and elsewhere. In other words, everyone was talking about how to connect more effectively, particularly in teams and meetings.
Some Provocative Talks
Among the speakers, Linda Stone, Ken Thompson, Jessica Lipnack, and John Seely Brown were in excellent form. The strongest panel included John Beck and Jim Ware who talked about "General Shifts: Brain Drain and Youth Culture."
In Need of a Redesign?
CTC participants seemed to be talking more about redesigning the conference than they were about the content -- the split between discussions about ideas and sale of product. This left participants without experience of new possibilities. Instead of demonstrating how things worked, most speakers just talked about data and analysis. In other words, rather than allowing participants to see how principles and applications apply (and if they do), there was more about what has, hasn't, should, shouldn't, might, or could happen in more abstract.
While some of this is useful, like theater, software needs to be experienced. Proof of concept -- in the room, in the moment -- is necessary for a satisfying experience.
Ideas for Next Year
Collaboration online is an emerging field -- and the value of emergent processes was a big focus for many of the sessions. In this context, you can't talk about collaborative technology without also talking about change management both in the abstract and in the room at the moment of conversation. And again, this discussion can't be carried out to its full potential without a play among these experiences and the technologies that make them possible.
What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance.
No Matter What . . .
CTC should make play more of the focus of the conference -- not just of ideas but among ideas and technologies and the technologies themselves as well. Otherwise, the essential elements of change management necessary for any of these tools are too deeply hidden to allow them to be applied in most business environment. Furthermore, how do you know which tool to apply unless you try it in context?
More on a notable exception and on particular speakers in future posts.
If you don't want to wait for commentary, you can find the presentations right now on the CTC website.
The focus was emergent practices, tools, and ideas about collaborating across enterprises and elsewhere. In other words, everyone was talking about how to connect more effectively, particularly in teams and meetings.
Some Provocative Talks
Among the speakers, Linda Stone, Ken Thompson, Jessica Lipnack, and John Seely Brown were in excellent form. The strongest panel included John Beck and Jim Ware who talked about "General Shifts: Brain Drain and Youth Culture."
In Need of a Redesign?
CTC participants seemed to be talking more about redesigning the conference than they were about the content -- the split between discussions about ideas and sale of product. This left participants without experience of new possibilities. Instead of demonstrating how things worked, most speakers just talked about data and analysis. In other words, rather than allowing participants to see how principles and applications apply (and if they do), there was more about what has, hasn't, should, shouldn't, might, or could happen in more abstract.
While some of this is useful, like theater, software needs to be experienced. Proof of concept -- in the room, in the moment -- is necessary for a satisfying experience.
Ideas for Next Year
Collaboration online is an emerging field -- and the value of emergent processes was a big focus for many of the sessions. In this context, you can't talk about collaborative technology without also talking about change management both in the abstract and in the room at the moment of conversation. And again, this discussion can't be carried out to its full potential without a play among these experiences and the technologies that make them possible.
What if a presenter were paired up with a vendor and told to make the presenters' ideas work with the tool? What kinds of new ideas might emerge, and what could be learned by those presenting and the sessions' participants?
Or what if vendors worked with presenters or read up on their ideas, and their demonstrations in the "vendor room" were geared around the sessions?
Either way, these practices would eliminate the sense that vendors are only there to sell -- and a hard separation between technologies on display and the processes they are supposed to enhance.
No Matter What . . .
CTC should make play more of the focus of the conference -- not just of ideas but among ideas and technologies and the technologies themselves as well. Otherwise, the essential elements of change management necessary for any of these tools are too deeply hidden to allow them to be applied in most business environment. Furthermore, how do you know which tool to apply unless you try it in context?
More on a notable exception and on particular speakers in future posts.
If you don't want to wait for commentary, you can find the presentations right now on the CTC website.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Something Rotten in the State of Denmark? This Fall, Not So Much
My reporting (and that of others) on GEL have generated a lot of email. Even brief summaries of talks by Ji Lee (The Bubble Project), Katy Börner (information mapping), Jane McGonigal (perspective-changing game design), Leni Shwendinger (lighting and urban legibility) Linda Stone (consumer trends), Doug Rushkoff (customer experience), and Craign Newmark (Craigslist) seem to have created interest in the next conference.
EuroGEL in Copenhagen: Coming Up in September
For those who have just tuned in, please feel free to peruse the posts through the links provided above. And please continue to send feedback -- as demonstrated repeatedly, markets are conversations and the most effective way to develop and distribute insight.
For Example . . .
Good news for those who asked: there is an equally exciting event in September called EuroGEL -- the first one of its kind held in Europe.
There are group rates on hotels and flights, but tickets are going fast. It's also a good idea to sign up before June 13 when the price of the conference goes up.
Too bad there was no GEL in Hamlet's Denmark. Nothing like a new perspectives to cheer one up and drive positive change.
EuroGEL in Copenhagen: Coming Up in September
For those who have just tuned in, please feel free to peruse the posts through the links provided above. And please continue to send feedback -- as demonstrated repeatedly, markets are conversations and the most effective way to develop and distribute insight.
For Example . . .
Good news for those who asked: there is an equally exciting event in September called EuroGEL -- the first one of its kind held in Europe.
There are group rates on hotels and flights, but tickets are going fast. It's also a good idea to sign up before June 13 when the price of the conference goes up.
Too bad there was no GEL in Hamlet's Denmark. Nothing like a new perspectives to cheer one up and drive positive change.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Online Collaboration: (How) Does It Work?
I've been editing the curriculum for and shadowing an online collaboration course presented by Nancy White for an international organization. I wanted to see how online communication works in groups through means other than chat and without telephony.
If You Build It and They Come, Will They Talk?
In my experience, it's hard enough facilitating conversation off-line -- even in seminars with very bright, motivated people. If you can't see anyone's face or hear voices in the group, it's exponentially more difficult to create interaction.
Rule One: Take Advantage of the Medium
One problem that often occurs in online group conversations without telephony is that the facilitator tries to reproduce the conventions of offline interactions. Nancy, however, is tremendously creative and leverages the value of the tools she's using. Because everyone's proclivities for interaction are different and unpredictable, the facilitator's challenge is to remain in the moment, give specific feedback, and think on her feet.
New challenges arise with each conversation, but unlike solutions in the offline world, those that work online remain largely unexplored.
The First Week
Nancy chose Moodle as the course's tool. It's flexible, relatively easy to use, and she had wanted to see how it works.
During the first week, there were reading assignments about the basics of facilitation and writing assignments to get people comfortable and introduce themselves. Forums were introduced -- a Learner's Log for daily or more frequent reflections, project areas, the week's activities, tools, virtual tour area -- and Nancy set questions to be answered as exercises to get people started. Some of these included the differences between online interaction and offline and expectations for the course. As the course went on and the questions were reiterated, the answers grew in depth, color, and complexity.
There was a sense both of disconnection and of coming together, sometimes in different ways at the same moment. Class members drifted from the reading to participation, from one topic to another, and from answering others to contributing their own ideas. The discussion was imbued with more of an expectation of a traditional class (eg information flows downward from the teacher) than of community.
During the week, however, Nancy had added a podcast, and by Friday there was a live chat with brainstorming about how chat can compliment a tool like Moodle for an NGO. The effect of hearing Nancy's voice and the synchronous communication seemed to galvanize the group in a way different from their asynchronous replies and participation throughout the previous period.
The Second Active Week
Nancy organizes her courses so that there is one active week followed by an inactive one. The organization allows those who have other responsibilities to catch up and for the class to complete assignments.
By the second active week, the course's tone had changed considerably. However, it is not just the chat and synchronous communication that caused it.
Looking for Cues: A Desire to Connect
The dynamic was fascinating. In person, an instructor has and access to individuals' facial cues and body language. She can also use her own body language and literal presence in different ways to compel conversation with a kind of energy only possible when everyone shares the same (offline) space.
It works differently online. First, the first week's asynchronous communication created a palpable sense of the unknown, unfamiliar, and hit-or-miss sort of discussion among people who had never met -- some who were not entirely comfortable in English.
At the beginning, people felt uncomfortable with the unfamiliar challenges. Little by little, though, the darkness was almost imperceptibly penetrated by a sense of coming together. Classmates searched for patterns and clues about each other, about their relationship with Nancy, and about their own place within the group. It felt as though people were searching for clues in unfamiliar territory and found them. These connections -- both around topics and between personalities -- were confirmed and developed in the synchronous chat at the week's end.
The course's design connected people in a way entirely unfamiliar offline -- particularly because of the way in which they are forced to search for connective tissue among asynchronous posts, replies, and reading material.
It works.
By the end of the second active week the group's members seemed to feel connected to each other's ideas, had developed project plans, and were familiar enough both with the course and Moodle to welcome and orient late-comers.
How Far Does This Go?
Can it be possible to go so far as to create an Open Space meeting online? The question was discussed in our course and other data can be found on the Open Space website where software is available as well.
More conclusions and discussion after the course has finished. . . .
If You Build It and They Come, Will They Talk?
In my experience, it's hard enough facilitating conversation off-line -- even in seminars with very bright, motivated people. If you can't see anyone's face or hear voices in the group, it's exponentially more difficult to create interaction.
Rule One: Take Advantage of the Medium
One problem that often occurs in online group conversations without telephony is that the facilitator tries to reproduce the conventions of offline interactions. Nancy, however, is tremendously creative and leverages the value of the tools she's using. Because everyone's proclivities for interaction are different and unpredictable, the facilitator's challenge is to remain in the moment, give specific feedback, and think on her feet.
New challenges arise with each conversation, but unlike solutions in the offline world, those that work online remain largely unexplored.
The First Week
Nancy chose Moodle as the course's tool. It's flexible, relatively easy to use, and she had wanted to see how it works.
During the first week, there were reading assignments about the basics of facilitation and writing assignments to get people comfortable and introduce themselves. Forums were introduced -- a Learner's Log for daily or more frequent reflections, project areas, the week's activities, tools, virtual tour area -- and Nancy set questions to be answered as exercises to get people started. Some of these included the differences between online interaction and offline and expectations for the course. As the course went on and the questions were reiterated, the answers grew in depth, color, and complexity.
There was a sense both of disconnection and of coming together, sometimes in different ways at the same moment. Class members drifted from the reading to participation, from one topic to another, and from answering others to contributing their own ideas. The discussion was imbued with more of an expectation of a traditional class (eg information flows downward from the teacher) than of community.
During the week, however, Nancy had added a podcast, and by Friday there was a live chat with brainstorming about how chat can compliment a tool like Moodle for an NGO. The effect of hearing Nancy's voice and the synchronous communication seemed to galvanize the group in a way different from their asynchronous replies and participation throughout the previous period.
The Second Active Week
Nancy organizes her courses so that there is one active week followed by an inactive one. The organization allows those who have other responsibilities to catch up and for the class to complete assignments.
By the second active week, the course's tone had changed considerably. However, it is not just the chat and synchronous communication that caused it.
Looking for Cues: A Desire to Connect
The dynamic was fascinating. In person, an instructor has and access to individuals' facial cues and body language. She can also use her own body language and literal presence in different ways to compel conversation with a kind of energy only possible when everyone shares the same (offline) space.
It works differently online. First, the first week's asynchronous communication created a palpable sense of the unknown, unfamiliar, and hit-or-miss sort of discussion among people who had never met -- some who were not entirely comfortable in English.
At the beginning, people felt uncomfortable with the unfamiliar challenges. Little by little, though, the darkness was almost imperceptibly penetrated by a sense of coming together. Classmates searched for patterns and clues about each other, about their relationship with Nancy, and about their own place within the group. It felt as though people were searching for clues in unfamiliar territory and found them. These connections -- both around topics and between personalities -- were confirmed and developed in the synchronous chat at the week's end.
The course's design connected people in a way entirely unfamiliar offline -- particularly because of the way in which they are forced to search for connective tissue among asynchronous posts, replies, and reading material.
It works.
By the end of the second active week the group's members seemed to feel connected to each other's ideas, had developed project plans, and were familiar enough both with the course and Moodle to welcome and orient late-comers.
How Far Does This Go?
Can it be possible to go so far as to create an Open Space meeting online? The question was discussed in our course and other data can be found on the Open Space website where software is available as well.
More conclusions and discussion after the course has finished. . . .
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Syndicate Conference: Where to Go, Who To Know
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)