If you haven't read Johnny Bunko yet, then take the 20 minutes and read it. The first thing you might notice about the book is that it's done in manga format. The medium shouldn't (and for me doesn't) dominate the message, though. What sticks with me from this book is the call to action. The call for individuals to assess their approach to a career and make changes if necessary.
In his story, Dan Pink distinguishes between fundamental and instrumental manoeuvres. Overplanning and overcommitting to very distinct directions (instrumental manoeuvres) can be limiting. Making good decisions that can open up new doors (fundamental manoeuvres) are all up-side.
In an effort to make some quality fundamental decisions, at the suggestion of a mentor I went ahead and created a life plan for myself in the format of a business plan. In an exercise like this of course, the "plan" is worthless by the time you've finished typing. The purpose isn't to create an instrumental plan. The idea is to list some of your areas for growth that you can match your strengths to, and to decide on some actions that will point you in the right direction. Don't be afraid to acknowledge areas that you're not too good at. It's a great introspective and iterative process.
To get very personal, I'll share some of my directions shortly. Stay tuned.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Further Paradox
I posted the Abele article with some commentary about the Collaboration Paradox some time ago, found here. I read something from Graham Douglas recently that looks at another paradox, or contributor to the same paradox. It is from his new Integrative Thinking Module.
Douglas spoke of the Will to Power and Will to Dependence (note: this link is to dependent personality disorder, which may be an extreme of the universal affinity) as conflicting innate social programming. You can look up his works for more, but my interpretation is below.
Our wills to power, excellence and animalism drives us to be independently successful, leaders of the pack. But because we are social animals, we also have this will to dependence, and the yearning to be a part of a family, team, or tribe.
How can we balance our wills to effectively collaborate with those experiencing the same internal conflict? If one individual with a strong will to power is in a position of power - which logically, they would instinctively gravitate towards - then how is that person challenged without making them with their programming feel that they are not threatened? How can that person or leader ensure that their team is candid and challenges them, when they may tend to see that person as the alpha personality that has a monopoly on excellence or answers?
Douglas spoke of the Will to Power and Will to Dependence (note: this link is to dependent personality disorder, which may be an extreme of the universal affinity) as conflicting innate social programming. You can look up his works for more, but my interpretation is below.
Our wills to power, excellence and animalism drives us to be independently successful, leaders of the pack. But because we are social animals, we also have this will to dependence, and the yearning to be a part of a family, team, or tribe.
How can we balance our wills to effectively collaborate with those experiencing the same internal conflict? If one individual with a strong will to power is in a position of power - which logically, they would instinctively gravitate towards - then how is that person challenged without making them with their programming feel that they are not threatened? How can that person or leader ensure that their team is candid and challenges them, when they may tend to see that person as the alpha personality that has a monopoly on excellence or answers?
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Webconferencing Options
The webconference is being touted as the answer to meeting in a carbon-emissions-conscious and gasoline price terrified society. There are a million options out there. Which one is the best?
Impossible question to answer. It depends so heavily on what your requirements are. What are you hoping to achieve? How much functionality do you want, and how important is simplicity or intuitive use to you?
I’d suggest starting with Skype to see what it can do for you at little or no cost, then move on from there. I've just been turned on to Dimdim. It's free for webconferences up to 20, and upgrading from there is also reasonable. My favourite part is that that it's simple and requires no downloads of administrator or participant.
Adobe Connect is a pretty complete option, and enables multiple users to edit documents shared in a “meeting room”. Sexier still would be a ProtoSphere virtual world, where work can be conducted and documents edited, but there’s the novelty of avitars, virtual spaces, and if you like; virtual 3D constructs of physical items you would like to display or manipulate with your conferees. There’s also a lot of support for Learning Management Systems. Of course, there’s also a lot of price tag associated.
A few things to consider that you may or may not be looking for when you check out these and other options:
· Ability for participants to edit documents (not just view them)
· Ability for participants to upload or share documents (not exclusively an administrator function)
· Polling function
· Chat
· Whiteboard
· Ease of connecting – do a participant need to follow a link and enter a code, or do they need to login, register, download applications, etc
In the spirit of being an honest broker, here are a few other options that I've experienced as a user or arbitrarily found in the simplest of Google searches. They range from enterprise solutions to basic user products:
Impossible question to answer. It depends so heavily on what your requirements are. What are you hoping to achieve? How much functionality do you want, and how important is simplicity or intuitive use to you?
I’d suggest starting with Skype to see what it can do for you at little or no cost, then move on from there. I've just been turned on to Dimdim. It's free for webconferences up to 20, and upgrading from there is also reasonable. My favourite part is that that it's simple and requires no downloads of administrator or participant.
Adobe Connect is a pretty complete option, and enables multiple users to edit documents shared in a “meeting room”. Sexier still would be a ProtoSphere virtual world, where work can be conducted and documents edited, but there’s the novelty of avitars, virtual spaces, and if you like; virtual 3D constructs of physical items you would like to display or manipulate with your conferees. There’s also a lot of support for Learning Management Systems. Of course, there’s also a lot of price tag associated.
A few things to consider that you may or may not be looking for when you check out these and other options:
· Ability for participants to edit documents (not just view them)
· Ability for participants to upload or share documents (not exclusively an administrator function)
· Polling function
· Chat
· Whiteboard
· Ease of connecting – do a participant need to follow a link and enter a code, or do they need to login, register, download applications, etc
In the spirit of being an honest broker, here are a few other options that I've experienced as a user or arbitrarily found in the simplest of Google searches. They range from enterprise solutions to basic user products:
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Human Slavery (The Arts and Change)
Having been introduced to some films, I've begun to realize how terrifically (and pleasantly) ignorant I am. I was not surprised to learn that slavery exists on this planet Earth. I was astonished to learn the magnitude of the tragedy. Please follow these links to see what the film community is working to expose:
http://callandresponse.com/
http://www.madebysurvivors.com/content/holly-film-about-human-trafficking
I'm grateful for these projects that create and enhance awareness around social issues. Done well, a film or other artistic works cannot only develop awareness, but can inspire action and trigger the connection of resources. The challenges they seek to address are also being considered as the focus of many social change meetings and conferences.
My question is, how can the meeting arena better use or nurture artistry to achieve social change? Creating visual models is one thing, but how are meetings evoking emotional responses?
http://callandresponse.com/
http://www.madebysurvivors.com/content/holly-film-about-human-trafficking
I'm grateful for these projects that create and enhance awareness around social issues. Done well, a film or other artistic works cannot only develop awareness, but can inspire action and trigger the connection of resources. The challenges they seek to address are also being considered as the focus of many social change meetings and conferences.
My question is, how can the meeting arena better use or nurture artistry to achieve social change? Creating visual models is one thing, but how are meetings evoking emotional responses?
Monday, August 11, 2008
FogScreen
The future is upon us! Actually, it's not that new, I first heard about FogScreen a few years ago, but now they've got something to look at. Check this out.
FogScreen, as the name implies, is a screen made out of fog. It's like any screen that images and media would be projected upon, but the light from the projector is actually reflected from minuscule droplets of water instead of a solid surface. The effect looks like a hologram. Obviously anything remotely holographesque is by it's very nature cool in that nerdy sci-fi use of the word cool.
They position the technology as a marketing display tool or nifty element for a swanky nightclub. But screens are also big in meetings. We meeting nerds also deserve access to these novelties.
Replacing a regular screen in a meeting with one of these would be sacrificing some image quality for coolness sake. Possibly worthwhile, depending on the objectives of the meeting. Spectacle can be a good icebreaker. But apparently there is greater advantage than spectacle now. Somehow (I have to assume it's magic), the FogScreen can now be used as a touch-screen. Gathering people around something similar to a hologram and having them manipulate images or documents may be a legitimate benefit over existing options because people can view it from all angles.
FogScreen, as the name implies, is a screen made out of fog. It's like any screen that images and media would be projected upon, but the light from the projector is actually reflected from minuscule droplets of water instead of a solid surface. The effect looks like a hologram. Obviously anything remotely holographesque is by it's very nature cool in that nerdy sci-fi use of the word cool.
They position the technology as a marketing display tool or nifty element for a swanky nightclub. But screens are also big in meetings. We meeting nerds also deserve access to these novelties.
Replacing a regular screen in a meeting with one of these would be sacrificing some image quality for coolness sake. Possibly worthwhile, depending on the objectives of the meeting. Spectacle can be a good icebreaker. But apparently there is greater advantage than spectacle now. Somehow (I have to assume it's magic), the FogScreen can now be used as a touch-screen. Gathering people around something similar to a hologram and having them manipulate images or documents may be a legitimate benefit over existing options because people can view it from all angles.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Fears and Anxieties
British psychologist Ernesto Spinelli was in Toronto this week, and delivered a presentation about the psychiatric malpractice of instructing patients to overcome fears and anxieties rather than deal with them. Healthzone covers here. The long and short is that patients who rid themselves of the natural anxiety they experience in certain situations are not being true to themselves and their tendencies/motivations.
What do you think? Should a shy person make efforts to become extroverted, or deal with the fact that they are innately introverted?
There is a parallel for meetings and group engagements. Should an organization or team focus more on adapting to overcome their group dynamic/interpersonal shortcomings, or should they acknowledge the shortcomings and work around them? Either way, acknowledging is a critical step. The challenge then becomes; how do you acknowledge sub-standard area without creating a bitch session?
Last question: what's the meetings equivalent of the exhilaration before confessing love (as referenced in article)? I'd submit that challenging people to address shortcomings and tackle them creates an exhilaration, and nurtures a risk-taking culture.
What do you think? Should a shy person make efforts to become extroverted, or deal with the fact that they are innately introverted?
There is a parallel for meetings and group engagements. Should an organization or team focus more on adapting to overcome their group dynamic/interpersonal shortcomings, or should they acknowledge the shortcomings and work around them? Either way, acknowledging is a critical step. The challenge then becomes; how do you acknowledge sub-standard area without creating a bitch session?
Last question: what's the meetings equivalent of the exhilaration before confessing love (as referenced in article)? I'd submit that challenging people to address shortcomings and tackle them creates an exhilaration, and nurtures a risk-taking culture.
Friday, August 1, 2008
Sourcing the Network
A few colleagues and I have been looking at creating a social map to see the pre and post conference connections of Designing and Implementing Multidisciplinary Collaborations. The objective is to see if people were able to form new connections at the meeting, and eventually to gauge whether or not those connections resulted in collaborations.
We have gathered some very simple data, just asking people who the met that they didn't know before. But what are we to do with this data? I've downloaded a few evaluation versions of complex mapping solutions like NetMiner, but they do way more than I need them to. They are very foreign to me. So, I decided to ask the Value Networks discussion group if they were aware of any solutions an ignoramus could employ to create a visual map of the dynamic connectivity resulting from this conference.
The results were interesting. A few of the options and the kind folks who generously suggested them are below, and I suggest you check them out to see the range of functionality and usability. I haven't got enough experience to offer valid insight of any kind on these, but I hope to soon.
We have gathered some very simple data, just asking people who the met that they didn't know before. But what are we to do with this data? I've downloaded a few evaluation versions of complex mapping solutions like NetMiner, but they do way more than I need them to. They are very foreign to me. So, I decided to ask the Value Networks discussion group if they were aware of any solutions an ignoramus could employ to create a visual map of the dynamic connectivity resulting from this conference.
The results were interesting. A few of the options and the kind folks who generously suggested them are below, and I suggest you check them out to see the range of functionality and usability. I haven't got enough experience to offer valid insight of any kind on these, but I hope to soon.
- OpenBeacon and SocioPatterns courtesy of Victoria Axelrod
- Pajek courtesy of Don Steiny
- ONA Survey Tool courtesy of Cory Banks
- Atlas by IBM courtesy of David Coleman
- introNetworks courtesy of Kim Patrick Kobza
- Optimice Accelerated Networking courtesy of Laurance Lock Lee
For me, the cool options are only part of what makes these responses exciting. The other part is the value of being able to access a network like this, with such a wealth of knowledge in this area. These people and several others that responded are leaders in this field, and each took the time to offer some neutral commentary on their suggestions as well as asking some important questions that perhaps I hadn't asked myself. Simple networking tools like discussion groups are such great enablers for connecting, accessing insight, and sharing.
There is a lot of value in network mapping of meetings that most of us aren't thinking enough about yet. But I think we're not even making proper use of the basics. A discussion group as a supplement to a meeting could be great, given the appropriate critical mass of contributors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
