Positive Deviance

I had the opportunity to meet with Keith McCandless this week. Keith is a master facilitator and practices a wide variety of approaches and methodologies, most of which he would call "liberating structures". One such structure is positive deviance.


Positive deviance is when a person or group of people learns from another person or group of people in the same conditions how to measurably improve their results towards a given challenge. There are some great examples of positive deviance leading to huge improvements in healthcare safety initiatives with lives lost as a measure, or improved nourishment within test villages in malnourished nations with child weight as a measure.

I had to ask Keith what the difference between positive deviance and best practices is. The difference, as I gather, is that best practices don't work. Best practices are commonly shared across organizations, across roles, and across other differences. Ignoring these differences is ignoring reality. Positive deviance focuses on people, communities or organizations with the same circumstances, and the exceptional model does not have resources or circumstances unavailable to the other parties.

I hope to elaborate as we continue to work with Keith in the coming months. In the meantime, are there any great positive deviance stories out there?

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.

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.

Concurrent Sessions and Crowdsourcing Process

I've been facilitating sessions that comprise 1/3 of an agenda. So the entire population would be in my session at one point, as well as all of the others, but I only ever see 1/3 of the group at a time. We're working towards the same objective in every session, so inevitably we're identifying opportunities to improve on the sessions as we go, based on observation and specific feedback.

Two things here, really.

1. Design of meeting format
2. Adjustment of meeting process

1. Dividing a group into 3 sub groups that interchange is a great idea. This way there's higher participation in each session. There are of course additional space requirements, but it's well worth the investment. Instead of one didactic plenary, you get 3 interactive workshops.

2. I'm a big believer in providing the group with options. Having a plan on how to move forward in a meeting is great, but asking the participants how they think they should move forward given the current progress can sometimes yield superior ideas. Crowdsourcing the very process is a great way to bring mindshare to process, and engage people in considering meeting design as a competency. The process today is being refined through each session as well, so that the final one is a product of meeting design conducted pre-meeting, and real-time adjustments with the benefit of the Wisdom of Crowds.

...

I guess the question is, how can the Wisdom of Crowds be better leveraged in the pre-meeting phase?

VIVA Las Vegas

It's always interesting to see what is going on out there in cutting edge (read: heavily funded) conferences. Those serving highly specialized healthcare verticals are consistently impressive, if not by format standards than at least by measure of magnitude and frills. Participants are typically proven PhD+'s, and very expert in the field. This means that everyone present has a lot to contribute, and the best meetings give them the opportunity to do just that.

A vascular intervention not-for-profit called VIVA has an annual educational shindig in Vegas that spans disciplines and sounds as well designed as any conference that has playing cards on the splash page... see here.

Just by looking at the website, one can't help but notice a few very compelling meeting components that would figure to improve on the desired outcomes of "fostering collaboration across specialities", and "advancing the field of vascular medicine through multidisciplinary educational efforts". Here are a few:

1. Laptop Learning - Participants will all have pc's and will be networked together. They will be able to participate in polls, register questions for speakers, provide feedback and follow content through this system. I'm not sure what the platform is, but there are systems such as CoVision that do similar impressive things. Great for interaction and wisdom of the crowds conditions.
2. Live Cases - As made popular in the '70's by Boston Scientific and others, live demonstration courses enable participants to view a surgical procedure. I'm told that the really powerful courses of this kind also find participants providing real-time feedback, questions, and instructions to the operating physicians. That's a daring and interactive way to draw on the collective intelligence of the audience!
3. International Faculty - This will help to gather diverse perspectives from very different practices and cultures.

As with many of the most prominent conferences, this one is in Las Vegas. The tagline "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" seems like a counter concept to a program where the intent is for people to retain information. I've never been to Vegas for a meeting, but I have to assume they've got the science of meetings down somewhat. I can't help but speculate that the many distractions of sin city have some negative effect on outcomes though. I suppose that this is a necessary trade-off to have a location that can accommodate so many and will actually be a part of the draw.

UnSure of the UnConference

BarCamps, UnConferences and the like are all the rage these days. There is an undeniable appeal to the authenticity and freedom of the format. I would challenge some of the fundamental claims people make about them though.

UnConferences are allegedly unbiased in their invitations. So you get a blogger or otherwise networked person posting a public invitation to join a group at some pub or another, and discuss a given topic. The bias here is obvious. The people that will be exposed to and respond to such an invitation are the people that are already followers of the blog, or already within the network of the unofficial host. If diversity is one of the core principles of achieving a wise crowd, then wouldn't this limited inclusiveness create the equivalent of a shallow conferencing gene pool? Not that a person becomes a zealot or disciple by merit of reading another's blog, but there is some influence inherent, and an indication of shared interests at least.

Depending on the purpose of the meeting, I think an unconference can be totally appropriate. Especially if it's as a catalyst for relationships. If a definite plan needs to be created, then perhaps not. What are the most appropriate purposes for an UnConference in your opinion or experience? When is it not a suitable format?

Mechanism Design

This year's Nobel Prize went to a few guys that developed the economic theory of mechanism design. The principle deals with the challenge of "asymmetric information", which is what happens when the different parties in a situation have different information and levels of understanding. For instance, if I am selling you diamonds, you would be willing to pay more than the reasonable profit margins I as the dealer am willing to selling them for because you think diamonds are rare. I know they are not. Information asymmetry. Outcome that is not optimal for both parties. The Economist has a good story about the theory here.

I don't want to get into the mathematics, which coincidentally, I don't understand anyway. My interest lies in the translation to the economy that is the meeting room. It is very common that there are experts in a meeting that make for asymmetric information in a meeting. Many people feel that they are therefore entitled to the majority of the speaking time, and the greatest influence over decisions. Mechanism design, with it's intent to create the most effective outcome for all parties, may be a better alternative.

Trying to distribute information as much as possible is one approach to alleviating the asymmetry. Most important in this approach is absolute honesty. If an individual with a monopoly on knowledge in a certain area wishes to lead a meeting in a certain direction, then they may be less inclined to be totally transparent and disseminate all of their knowledge. Escpecially if their unique knowledge is something they are ashamed of.

How might a meeting designer or moderator incentivize people to park their own interests for the benefit of an optimal "mechanism designed" outcome?

Survey Says...

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.