Using an Audience Response System (ARS) in a meeting can augment and shape discussion, and be a powerful tool. It can also be easy trivialized, and a waste of time. Many of the individuals I design meetings with are familiar with and have used ARS, but only a small portion of those have seen value in it.
The most notable reasons I see for integrating ARS into a group engagement are to leverage the anonymity and surface what a group is really thinking, so the meeting focus shifts from the bullshit that leadership wants to shove down everyone's throat to the real issues that the group has illuminated as what needs to be addressed. In terms of learning and development, it's also handy to gauge understanding from time to time. Again, you're illuminating areas where the group is confident and need dwell no longer, or where they need to spend a little more time and need more depth than what was planned in the agenda. Both of these purposes require a fluid meeting format, that not many are comfortable with.
Used well, ARS's don't just get feedback on how the meeting was. They shape the very course of the meeting. This is an uneasy notion for the rigid manager that wants to script proceeding, outcomes, and know exactly what to expect from a meeting. There's also a lot of resistance from anyone who fears embarrassment or, god forbid, disalignment from polling. This is difficult to understand. Why would candor be a threat? The group has an opinion. You can choose to ignore that as you try to establish a new universal outlook, or you can acknowledge it and explore what may need to be altered to improve or build upon that state.
Comments on how you feel about ARS are strongly encouraged. This is one of those topics you can expect me to post a lot about in the coming weeks. I'll drill down on why a negative view of ARS may exist, and share some strategies for effective ARS implementation.
The most notable reasons I see for integrating ARS into a group engagement are to leverage the anonymity and surface what a group is really thinking, so the meeting focus shifts from the bullshit that leadership wants to shove down everyone's throat to the real issues that the group has illuminated as what needs to be addressed. In terms of learning and development, it's also handy to gauge understanding from time to time. Again, you're illuminating areas where the group is confident and need dwell no longer, or where they need to spend a little more time and need more depth than what was planned in the agenda. Both of these purposes require a fluid meeting format, that not many are comfortable with.
Used well, ARS's don't just get feedback on how the meeting was. They shape the very course of the meeting. This is an uneasy notion for the rigid manager that wants to script proceeding, outcomes, and know exactly what to expect from a meeting. There's also a lot of resistance from anyone who fears embarrassment or, god forbid, disalignment from polling. This is difficult to understand. Why would candor be a threat? The group has an opinion. You can choose to ignore that as you try to establish a new universal outlook, or you can acknowledge it and explore what may need to be altered to improve or build upon that state.
Comments on how you feel about ARS are strongly encouraged. This is one of those topics you can expect me to post a lot about in the coming weeks. I'll drill down on why a negative view of ARS may exist, and share some strategies for effective ARS implementation.
No comments:
Post a Comment