The Twitter Effect

The recent earthquake in California was made news first not by CNN or any other antiquated network of journalists. It was informal contributors on Twitter that informed big media. This is not really news. Twitter is just one of many social networks that have been hastening the mass distribution of uncensored news over the last few years.

What makes Twitter unique is that it is a "microblogging" service. It removes many of the bells and whistles that form the ecosystem of a facebook-style utility, and provide simple text messaging, either for person to person or broadcast. There is a limit of 140 characters per message, so microbloggers are handcuffed from waxing lyrical or carrying on.

As proved by MaRS and others, Twitter can be a useful addition to a conference. Having participants comment on presentations, share parallel conversations and start new ones over the Twitter network opens up many new possibilities for meaningful stimulus and exchanges.

"The Twitter Effect" that I refer to though, is the question of the social implications of a Twitter, or text messaging in general. What will become of our language if we are constantly pushing ourselves to match the 140 character restraint? Will we evolve to a more concise and superior mode of exchange? Or, will metaphor and rich thought as written word disappear? If this happens, is there a chance that our ability to communicate elaborately will erode?

Bullshit!

Thinking of meeting tools and defibrillators, my mind is occupied by what most would call a distraction, rather than a tool. Of course, I refer to that glorious composition; Bullshit Bingo.

I openly advocate for explatives in meetings, but BBingo runs deeper than the novelty and gratuitous cheap laughs. Monitoring how authentic our language is can be a valuable discipline.

I recently had my wrist slapped for saying "desired state". A staunch co-facilitator stopped me mid-sentence to remind me to call things what people recognize them as. "Desired state? Why don't you just call it what we should be doing?".

For practical application, I suggest customizing the BBingo field to include the jargon that you and your fellow delegates are most guilty of abusing in-meeting. Enjoy.

Intangibles - Means to an End, or an End? Part 2

Further to the last post, let's explore why achieving a financial target may not be an adequate end objective for an organization.

We'll start with the trend. The sexy triple bottom line; the three P's.

• People
• Planet
• Profit

Without at least feigning concern for all three of these in today's recruiting climate, there's a great risk of missing out on a good deal of the emerging talent out there. And we all know, feigning won't get anyone too far. The 3 P's (or whatever corporate branded interpretation) will have to be a part of the culture just for an organization to move towards a culture of success at all. Beyond that, even investors might begin seeing beyond one P shortly enough. It won't hurt that planet sustaining technologies are starting to support the profit P, either.

Beyond the fad of the 3 P's, there's something more fundamental. Let's distill the context down at this point from organizational to within a meeting. For an organization to reach a goal, there are three critical phases. Convergence, divergence, and re-convergence. Before a group can debate on an issue, create solutions, brainstorm, or anything; they need to agree on something. That something is usually a "unified" vision. If the "unified" vision is a financial target, then it can't be balanced and distributed. Not all parties would usually see the same reward from a given financial target. Some would see no piece of the action at all. But, if meeting participants or contributors within an organization or network see that they are a part of something that they can genuinely believe in... then you have the basis for convergence.

Establishing that common ground, or convergence, is another challenge altogether. I'll leave it here as: that common ground should be higher than money.

Intangibles - Means to an End, or an End? Part 1

Marcelo Horones posted a slideshow on slideshare called How to be billionaire in the hyperconnected world. It's customized to the web 2.0 business entrepreneur that wants to make billions, but is still worth scrolling through (don't be intimidated by the 75 slides. More than half are less than half a second). It's a great study in, among other things, creating conditions that enable collaboration and economy in a virtual environment.

Of interest is his take on intangibles, and their place within the value network of one of these billionaire producing applications. He positions the intangible "Share Something" and "Community" offering - or value delivered without expectation of currency in exchange, but rather awareness in exchange - as a means to an end. The end seems to invariably be audience, or hits. It all makes sense. Leverage intangibles in return for intangibles, and ultimately currency will result.

My only question is: can't we hope for more in our end result than the currency? Even if it is a business. Are our goals and end results still so limited. If a business has no greater ambition than money, what kind of people do they expect to attract? The types that can effectively produce the "altruistic" component? It is specified that "money will not make happiness" and does encourage sharing, but that end goal is so important.

I'll follow this up soon with the why that end goal is so important, and why I think we need to think bigger than money.

One thing that can't wait that I do take issue with: "The more sophisticated the technology, the better the offerings". I'd argue that simplicity is golden.

Where People Meet Process

Ahhhh, the people/process intersection. Dysfunctional meetings are often the result of dysfunctional teams, or miserable interpersonal dynamics. Then again, even great teams that have a meeting full of great conversation can fall way short of accomplishing their objectives if they don't have an idea of how to approach their challenge.


Looking at meetings I've been a part of that have, shall we say, sub-optimal outcomes; there is a mix of ideas on how to retroactively rationalize through what would have been the best way to avoid or deal with the founding problems. Usually the founding problem is a people thing. The group didn't trust one another, or there was one participant who didn't want to see the session succeed because it may create more work for them if approved (or any number of self-serving issues).


So the 2 suggestions to remedy the situation can be distilled to a working on people approach, or a working on process approach. Here's an oversimplified breakdown:

1. Take the group through interpersonal exercises, preference/style recognition training, etc.
2. Create a meeting format that transcends the dynamics problems

The pros of #1 is that you are nipping the problem in the bud; treating the disease and not the symptoms. The cons are that it's hard for groups to find time to do this, and they are often not interested in even considering if they have another meeting purpose that they need to address.

The pros of #2 are that you can engage the group in a very practical assignment, and if done properly, they can begin to collaterally repair or strengthen the dynamic by merit of having shared a powerful experience and building something valuable with their colleagues. The task at hand can actually be accomplished this way as well. The cons are that the group is not necessarily being made conscious of any interpersonal skills they are learning in practice, and the core problems may still exist following the meeting.

It seems obvious that a blend of both would be ideal. I operate in #2 almost exclusively, because of where my expertise lies. I'm all for outsourcing the #1 component, but if a group wants to get things done, they perceive that kind of strengthening a peripheral concern. Creating a meeting format that satisfies all parties enough to have people rise above biases and existing dynamics issues is no simple matter. The approach to design varies greatly from group to group, and the risk that a thoughtful format won't cut it always remains a risk. Establishing one area of consensus and convergence is very important. From there, the meeting can diverge before converging back at a mutually beneficial and acceptable outcome.

Any ideas on how to warm people up to investing in their team dynamics?

Any ideas on how to get different personalities and perspectives to come together and have effective dialogue, and ultimately produce?

Good places to start looking for ideas on either can be found in Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, by William Isaacs, The Magic of Dialogue, by Daniel Yankelovich, and of course Getting to Yes, by Fisher, Ury, and Patton.

Stifling Innovation

Innovation is one of those words that I can scarcely type in here without shame. It has got to be the most hackneyed, consultant abused term that there is. The fact remains though, that innovation is critical to an organization's success. I could go on about the role and application of innovative thinking and behaviour in effective meeting design, but let's stay a little higher this time.


The role of meetings in innovation.


First, let's define "meetings". And by define, I mean let's acknowledge that a meeting can be anything, and so we won't really define it very narrowly at all. We'll call it any situation where more than one person is contributing to a challenge/opportunity. So an obvious function of meetings in innovation is people meeting to respond to an opportunity to innovate.


Having a discussion today with some leaders of MaRS Discovery District, we were expressing frustration with large and established organization's inability to innovate. Why do they seem to be so much less agile? There are many paradigms and bureaucracies that clearly stand in the way of fresh thinking, but I also believe that declining meeting practices are a massive contributor to stifling innovation.

As processes become standardized and routine, they lose visibility. Even core competencies like innovation get delegated (at some levels), are no longer assumed by groups, and eventually evaporate into procedure. Approaches to innovation also become stagnant as groups fall in love with a particular method, or fear the risk of new approaches.

Complacency in Careers and Learning

Speaking with a corporate learning executive today, he shared with me how his industry tends to be a platform for launching careers, or even a pit-stop between education and/or careers. This creates a gap in drive and performance among the individuals he supports with learning.

How should an organization deal with these varying levels of commitment in classroom learning situations? Do you:

1. focus on the strong ones and bring them to the next level, hoping that they will lead and inspire others?
2. focus on the less interested, and raise the minimum standard if possible?
3. throw them all together and hope for the best?

I'd take #3, but focus curriculum on #2. Reason being, it's typically more productive to work on strengths (as per Daniel Pink's Johnny Bunko). If they are leaders, they will motivate those around them during the course of the program.

In a meeting, there are generally some more interested and some far more complacent than others. How can engagement be distributed more equally, and at a very high level? Accountability is a good answer, but just as difficult to figure out.

More Mind Reading

We're fast approaching a time when conversations facilitated by technology will incorporate emotion and other subliminal characteristics than what we see today. My favourite blogger (me) posted on Nielsen's application of a brainwave reading device back in March. I made the assertion that there were similar technologies on similar and different markets.

One such example is Emotiv. Emotiv also has the nifty headsets and can also read brainwaves (nifty and otherwise). The biggest difference I see at a glance is application. While the NeuroFocus version measured emotional response to products and advertising, Emotiv focuses on electronic gaming. So, if you actually fall in love with the Princess, there's a chance that one day with the help of Emotiv, she'll find out about it!

So once again, the range of applications remains relevant to collaboration. Gauging and displaying emotional response could one day offer a dimension of candor in meetings. Enhancing the reality of gaming experiences could also play into meeting based simulations, or could one day support virtual meetings with avatars that express emotion more intuitively.

Why Starving Participants is a Great Idea

I have to question the science behind this, but LiveScience posted an article recently about hunger resulting in a base chemical motivation to achieve. See here.

The article is based on a test conducted with mice, experimenting ghrelin levels; ghrelin being a hormone that our bodies excretes when we're hungry. Mice that are sensitive to ghrelin are the big heroes in the mazes and various other semi-cruel tests.

This could change everything. Every conference I go to aims to pump attendees full of food as some kind of reward. My goal at every conference I go to is to eat as much free crap as I can as well (don't judge me, I'm not alone and I'm a growing boy). If our aim should be to accomplish things in an efficient manner, is this counterproductive? I think the logic is to keep people content, which may be important to the psychology of an individual and dynamic of a group.

But if we're to approach meetings scientifically, it's time we start experimenting with food deprivation. Other unusual cruelties could follow, just in case.

Digg This

There is an news/article sharing site called Digg, that's been growing for several years. Evidently, their growth has become a challenge. The site relies on feedback from users to assign ratings to articles, so that the proverbial cream rises to the top. As more and more people contribute articles, the number of articles becomes unmanageable for users to sort through and rate.

The new approach Digg will employ to address this challenge is the introduction of a recommendation system. Recommendation systems take what they know about a user, and customize the output to that user based on what it knows. In the case of Digg, it will only recommend articles contributed or approved by other users that have a history of compatibility with you. So if you like many of the same articles as John Smith, the system will provide you a short list of articles that John Smith likes, rather than the 15,000 new articles received that day.

MIT's Technology review scooped this story, and published under the heading "Digging a Smarter Crowd". Now, I'm all for recognizing patterns of similar interests and customizing accordingly. And farbeit from me to challenge an MIT source. Still I take issue with the reference to the Wisdom of Crowds in this context. Having a rating system like eBay, Sermo, kluster, or other social based platforms is definitely harnessing collective intelligence. But we also know that part of creating a Wise Crowd is having a diverse crowd. If this engine groups like opinions, then where's the diversity?

I'd argue that Digg is a cool service that has a good way to produce customized results, but isn't producing results that are truly the product of a "Smarter Crowd". They are the product of a "Similar Crowd".

Aimless Progress?

The of the G8 Summit's feebleness in the area of committing to goals has been well publicized internationally. Most scrutinized of this most recent summit was the lack of targets with regards to emission reductions. While there was a lot of back-patting and rejoicing about the suggestions made, there were no real, er, commitments made, to adhere to any particular measure.

In meetings that bring people together to achieve a purpose, it is often observed that without concrete metrics to pursue and format for reporting on accountabilities; plans die easily. Getting these plans together and mobilized doesn't always have to happen - sometimes the conversation that explores new ideas and kindles new relationships is an adequate start. But if there's a conceded expectation that a deliverable plan will be created (seems like something G8 should consider), then it approaches being mandatory.

It can become a difficult juggling act to create a plan in a meeting that has adequate depth to inspire and guide those who will execute on it, while still taking time to assign ownership of items. One way to do this is to remind the group of timelines and clarify the importance of doing both parts effectively and efficiently, thereby setting the stage. What makes this tricky is that it often means limiting discussion that is engaging and important, but demanding of too much time.

Another recently applied experiment with this is to assign ownership of portions of a plan very randomly, and set a meeting shortly following with the owners reporting back with a rationale on the scope of the assignment, and who should champion it thereafter.

Strategic Profanity

The use of language is a core consideration in learning intitiatives, meetings, and life. We all know that the best language is simple language. Phrase things so everyone can understand what you're phrasing.

I believe in an alternative to this rule. Language can be used to pique interest, and create an appeal for a message. To even further deviate from the accepted approach; very unexpected and perhaps offensive language can also create an interest. The occasional use of an explative, for example, can wake a group up and provide that meeting defribulator. Risky, no doubt.

Thinking of some good fiction wherein the unusual dialect adds to appeal:

• Trainspotting
• A Clockwork Orange
• Anything by James Joyce - although understanding what he's doing with that language is sometimes an infuriating challenge

Without offending, how else can language be effective in altering the meeting atmosphere?

The Collaboration Paradox

Quintessential article from John Abele concerning collaboration now available, called "The Collaboration Paradox..." It examines the necessity for collaboration - no surprises there - and why it is, if we accept that collaboration is often a necessity, we can be so bad at it or resist it so much. A few reasons are that we are conditioned to excel independently, and that we don't afford collaborations enough foresight or strategy. John does a better job of explaining it than I can, so I'll leave the rest to the article.

The Kingbridge reason for being is founded on this need for improved approaches to collaborations. The Kingbridge philosophy is founded on the methods John has influenced and learned from over the years, which he references in this article.

The article is available through XConomy, an interesting study in collaboration unto itself. It's an exceptional blog with exceptional content, from a whole slew of guest authors. It's not totally opensourced or crowdsourced, as the articles are edited/policed, and the editors do contribute. A successful middle ground.

Resurrected

Greetings my understanding and forgiving readers. Pardon the unprecedented break in posts. The Canadian wilderness (and isolated little Wallaceburg) are enjoyable places (Wallaceburg maybe less so, but given the right mix of beer and rowdy friends...), but offer less than ideal connectivity. While I'm sure there are hordes of loyal readers out there who have not slept this past week, you need fret no longer.

Time away from work for me usually isn't that... away. I usually stay connected with work and active on projects. This time was different because of circumstance more than inclination, but I found some value in the clean break. I've often laughed at the "work/life balance" proposition, figuring that only people that don't find real meaning in their work would employ this scape goat. After last week though, I believe differently. The escape will make me better at my work, and will better position me to achieve the things that I want to achieve... which are beginning to extend beyond professional accomplishment.

Meetings are a great microcosm for this bigger picture. "Balance" usually means "booze" in this context, though. What other inclusive options are there for balancing workload in a meeting?