Tag Archives: behaviours

Make Meetings Count – Literally, with Meeting Ticker and Clockwork Meetings.

Posted on by
5

20130511-125211.jpg

Ask the internet and often it delivers more than you expected. Today was one of those days.

About two weeks ago I ended up in a Twitter discussion with Shirley Ayres and Paul Taylor about how much time gets wasted in meetings. It started with a post about are meetings are the symptom of bad organisation, and ended up with some ideas around calculating just how much meetings cost.

One of the things mentioned was doing the following calculation, in your head:

Number of people x Hourly pay x Hours spent meeting = Meeting Cost*

*This doesn’t include travelling to the meeting or preparation time, which probably needs to be built-in, but it’s a good starting point.

The idea is that you then compare this cost of meeting figure against the benefits that have resulted from having the meeting, simple. The benefits should be greater than the costs. However, calculating the monetary value of the benefits of a meeting is a bit more difficult to work out.

That was where I left the discussion until Shirley and Paul picked things up again this morning (I have a good reason for being absent, honest).

Say hello to Meeting Ticker and Clockwork Meetings, these are two very helpful programmes that allow you to display the costs of your meetings. To quote Nick Atkin of Halton Housing Trust, “this would shorten meetings by about 75%”. This is how they work:

Meeting Ticker was introduced by Paul this morning. This is open source software which has been developed on GitHub by Toby Tripp, Lydia Tripp, and Roy Kolak. It is worth reading the explanation of why Meeting Ticker was developed ….’expensive consultants sitting on their butts for hours on end’ was a big motivator (sound familiar?).

This is very straightforward to use; you add in the number attending, make an estimate of the hourly salaries and press start. You then watch a meter rapidly adding up the pounds and pence with “stop the bleeding” written dramatically below. It is slightly mesmerizing and would shorten meetings I’m sure.

A couple of observations:

  • Meeting Ticker is written on GitHub, open source software so anybody (with the necessary coding skills) could develop it further, for example to include a choice of salary ranges or a salary calculator.
  • It might not work using Internet Explorer. There is an advisory note saying “If this works on Internet Explorer, it is purely by accident”. Worth knowing if your organisation (there are plenty) only allows an ancient version of Internet Explorer as the web browser.

Clockwork Meetings This afternoon Ed Bullock from Halton Housing Trust came up with this free app on iTunes. It is just as easy to uses as Meeting Ticker, you add the number of attendees, hourly salary cost and press start. The big difference is the ability to set an audible ‘click’ to make a noise at set intervals. Just what you need in case you forget the fact there is ‘money on the clock’.

The discussion hasn’t ended here. There is a lot of activity ongoing to find the best on-line salary calculator that could be used in conjunction with either of these applications.

I’d suggest that you also need a large screen in the meeting room, so that everyone can see the costs rising as the meeting progresses (or drags on). Hopefully it will focus minds to think about costs and benefits.

I know we haven’t yet worked out how we measure the benefits of meetings. Maybe that’s something Shirley can encourage debate about next weekend?

So what’s the PONT?

  1. There seems to be software programme or app for just about anything you can think of, somewhere on the internet. You just need someone to look in the right place.
  2. A highly visible display of the costs of a meeting is likely to have an impact on how people behave and long the meeting takes.
  3. Slight word of caution here. Don’t let this approach fall into the wrong hands. I worry that a few people might misuse ‘meeting cost measures’ and force people into hasty decisions, when a more thoughtful consideration of the evidence is required.

Picture source: Meeting Ticker http://tobytripp.github.io/meeting-ticker/

Clockwork Meetings: https://itunes.apple.com/ye/app/clockwork-meetings/id384045562?mt=8

20130511-184645.jpg

Jargon. A tool of exclusion, efficient technical language or just the ‘cheeping of birds’?

Posted on by
12

20130426-205100.jpgMy last post about meetings led to a bit of a discussion about jargon. It’s something that’s despised by many people, but has probably been used by most of us on occasions . So I’m being particularly carefull to avoid using it in this post.

It’s worth having a think about why jargon exists and why we use it.

Basically it’s just a very specific form of language used by people to communicate and (hopefully) help others understand what they are saying.

The origins of the term jargon seems to have come from the Old French word ‘gargun’ which describes the ‘cheeping of birds’. In the 14th century it was used to describe unintelligible or confused speech. Some of the modern definitions of jargon you’ll find include:

  • confused unintelligible language;
  • technical terminology or characteristic language of a special activity or group; and
  • obscure and often pretentious language marked by the unnecessary use of too many, long, vague and uncommon words.

For me, there seems to be two distinctly different reasons for using jargon, one acceptable (with conditions) the other completely unacceptable:

Technical. In this case you have a specific highly technical area where jargon helps communicate more clearly, efficiently and effectively (within the technical community).
Posturing. Here people choose to use language that prevents others understanding what they are saying. The word ‘evasive’ is used a lot in connection with this type of jargon.

What do you do about jargon?

Posturing Jargon. In the case of posturing this is easy (in theory). Just say, “I haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. Please could you explain that without the jargon.” Obviously, this isn’t as easy to do as it sounds, but it’s worth thinking about. Remember that the use of jargon will be an (unconscious or deliberate) act to exclude you from a conversation or prevent you understanding what is being said. You may have encountered this sort of person……..

Technical Jargon. For technical jargon it’s much less clear-cut. This might be a highly specialised area and the jargon actually helps with communication. I remember as an undergraduate I used a specialised scientific dictionary as part of classes. Perfectly reasonable as most of the words didn’t need to be used in general conversation, but it helped greatly in the laboratory. To people outside of that community it was just jargon – ‘cheeping birds’. You need to be on your guard to avoid excluding people from the conversation if they don’t understand the specialised words. There are useful approaches like having a ‘jargon buster’ (explanations of the jargon) available, but the objective should surely be to minimise the jargon in the first place, or keep it where it belongs, in the specialist community.

Management Speak. The place where this gets messy is the crossover between technical and posturing. What if you have someone posturing using technical jargon terms? Dangerous territory. If I was being sceptical I could say that this is the territory of management speak. This Guardian article highlights some of the worst examples like, ‘drill down’ (look in detail) and ‘sunset’ (close down the project). I’m sure you could find plenty of jargon and management speak from your own experience, and use it in that the old favourite ‘Buzzword Bingo‘.

One final thought whilst I was thinking about this post I stumbled upon a book by Tony White called NHS Jargon Explained. Initially I thought it was a joke. It’s not, you can buy it on Amazon. I’ve no doubt it’s necessary, but I do wonder if we’ve over complicated things to the point where people have written books to explain what public services are talking about. Not just for people who work in the service but also, “campaigners, patient interest groups, researchers and journalists, and patients and their relatives may also find it useful and enlightening!” No further comment…….

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Jargon has its place in specialised technical communities where it helps communication and understanding.
  2. Once you take that language outside of the community you have to explain clearly what you mean, or risk excluding people.
  3. People using jargon to posture, evade, confuse or exclude people should not be tolerated. Ask the question, “I don’t understand, what do you mean?”

Just checking, how jargon free is this post? Anyone know of a jargon checker I could use?

Photo Source. Birds on a wire. http://johnsmyth.ie/blog/2011/11/21/the-chattering-classes/

Linked Posts: Buzzword Bingo http://whatsthepont.com/2012/11/16/best-practice-glossary-or-buzzword-bingo/

Meetings Sabotage http://whatsthepont.com/2011/10/30/meetings-sabotage-additional-field-examples/

20130426-205110.jpg

NHS Jargon Buster

Meetings are the symptom of bad organisation. Yes, but no, but maybe?

Posted on by
5

20130414-191305.jpgFor anyone who works in a large organisation this will resonate. You can back it up with comments you might have heard over the years, like; “meetings suck the life-force out of me”, “that’s two hours of my life I will never get back” and “that was a big waste tax payers / shareholders money”.

Top tip for really dull meetings: pretend you have to visit the bathroom. Go and do some useful work, then return just before the end of the meeting. Nobody will have the courage to ask why you took so long.

Back to the full quote by Peter Drucker, “meetings are the symptom of bad organisation. The fewer meetings the better”.

The point seems to be that meetings represent a failure to properly plan and organise what you are doing. As a result you end up in meetings trying to fix things that haven’t worked. Ultimately if you have to spend time in meetings, you aren’t doing the things that really matter like: making products or delivering services.

There is plenty of research and figures to back up the idea that meetings are a problem. This paper by Romano & Nunamaker analyses a huge amount of the research written about meetings and presents some depressing findings:

  • Many reviews and surveys reveal that meetings dominate workers and managers time and yet are considered to be costly, unproductive and dissatisfying.
  •  The number of meetings and their duration has been steadily increasing.
  •  Studies of managers and knowledge workers reveal that they spend between 25%-80% of their time in meetings.
  • Self estimates of meeting productivity by managers in many different functional areas range from 33% – 47%.

I said it was depressing. Just imagine you are one of those knowledge workers or managers who spend 80% of their time in meetings, of which only 47% of that time is productive. That’s over 40% of your time in work, 2 days a week, doing something that is useless (and we worry about people wasting time on social media…….).

This lack of achievement and the frustration that goes with it has to have an impact upon your level of engagement and sense of job satisfaction. This paper by Rogelberg et al in Human Resource Management (March-April 2010) makes the link between overall job satisfaction and meeting satisfaction. It goes on to suggest that meeting satisfaction could be used as part of job satisfaction measures and employee engagement.

If you fancy a more in-depth look at this topic, and potential solutions, one of the co-authors of the paper, Joseph A. Allen runs the Centre for Meeting Effectiveness Lab  at Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska. There are some useful links on the page to work that the Lab is doing.

So, we need to ban all meetings! (Not quite yet……Rambo)

This could be one response to the ‘meetings problem’. As attractive as it might seem (to some people) it might actually make things worse. Meetings are very necessary for transparent decision making, relationship building and knowledge exchange. I’ve argued before that knowledge exchange is a social process  and meetings are a good place to achieve this. What we need is better meetings.

Having better meetings depends upon better process and people’s behaviour. Before any of this you need to be confident that you need the meeting in the first place, which links back to the Peter Drucker quote, “the fewer meetings the better”.

Meeting process and behaviours are two things I plan to write some posts about soon. In the meanwhile some more meeting quotes: (there are thousands on the web)

  • “A meeting is an interaction where the unwilling, selected from the uninformed, led by the unsuitable, to discuss the unnecessary, are required to write a report about the unimportant.” Kayser
  • “An employee who needs permission to buy a box of paperclips can spend tens of thousands of dollars worth of employee time on bad meetings.”

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Meetings are very necessary for many good reasons like; transparent decision making, relationship building and knowledge exchange.
  2. The numbers and duration of meetings for managers and knowledge workers is increasing.
  3. The costs of bad meetings in lost productivity and reduced staff satisfaction are huge. We need to have better meetings, starting now.

Picture Source: http://venturevillage.eu/make-meetings-effective. Some useful tips here on how to make meetings more effective.

20130414-191327.jpgAn old favourite.

Improving Email Behaviour. End of Campaign Report and Four Recommendations

Posted on by
9

20130120-115054.jpgIt’s funny how things turn out. Six weeks ago I wouldn’t have predicted I was about to embark upon writing a series of blog posts about email behaviours. We’ll I’ve done it, had a few surprises and learnt a lot. Now it’s time to pause and reflect.

It all started with a post about how to deal with the email backlog on the 2nd January. The main message here was just delete everything; the important stuff will find its way back to you. Quite a radical suggestion, apparently, which attracted a few comments, included one which led me into the next post. The email ‘cc’ option is undermining the very fabric of society, in a dystopian 1984 manner, was also quite a radical thing to say. My logic was based upon the misuse of the email ‘cc’ option and its impact upon trust between colleagues.  A fair few people seemed to agree so I went for the treble with a mauling of the misuse of email read receipts .

Reflecting on what has been my busiest and most viewed blogging period here are a few of the things I’ve learnt:

  • People are very generous in their support. This was in terms of the re-tweets/ shares and comments on the posts;
  • People are very balanced, thoughtful and positive in their comments. One of my anxieties when I started blogging was negative comments, thankfully I experienced none;
  • People are willing to share knowledge. Where I’ve missed something or posed a question, someone will offer the answer. At the end of the posts or in the comments you will see things where someone has pointed me in the right direction;
  • Technology is great, but if misused it can cause a few unexpected problems (like cc’s and read receipts), our behaviours are key. Final learning point;
  • You can never go wrong with a cat picture in your blog post. Obviously it needs to be relevant and tasteful. Gratuitous cat pictures are no good, which is why you need a top-notch cat picture consultant.

That’s it for this stage of this stage of my campaign for better email behaviour but there are four things I would recommend you look at:

  1. The Email Charter, 10 Rules to Reverse the Email Spiral. Good behavioural advice, remember; “emails don’t send emails, people do…..”, we all need to do our bit.
  2. Should I send this email?  A fantastic Infographic on how to manage email overload. The cat picture email question is addresses here, along with some startling statistics on the impact of un-necessary emails on business.
  3. A prediction that emails will be dead by 2018 .  This post, by David Christopher at Stop!ThinkSocial explains the thinking behind the prediction that was made in 2008. Keep an eye on progress.
  4. Practical Action. Predictions are fine, but what we all want is some practical down to earth experience. It doesn’t get more down to earth than a social housing provider in the North West of England, Halton Housing Trust. Their Chief Executive Nick Atkin (@nickatkin_hht) is on a campaign to ban internal staff emails which you can read about in this Guardian article. I’ll be eagerly following progress.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Inappropriately used technology can cause as many problems as it solves.
  2. Our behaviour is key, “emails don’t send emails (or do the other annoying stuff) people do”.
  3. People have been very generous, kind and helpful in response to my blogging and tweeting on this topic. Thank you.

20130120-115101.jpgSecondary cat picture. Need to check which is most appropriate with consultant.

Email Read Receipts. Does the misuse of minimum effort technology undermine trust between colleagues?

Posted on by
17

20130113-111352.jpgDo email read receipts make your spirits soar…….? Not mine.

Why do people send them? Many people I’ve spoken to have, like me, been on the receiving end of read receipt misuse. Pointless, irritating and questionable behaviour.

I must admit that when I get one, particularly from repeat offenders, I’m sorely tempted to just delete the email without even reading it. Not quite the user experience (UX) emotion or response I’d imagine programmers, developers or the email sender were looking for.

There are many reasons why people need to send email read receipts. These range from the well-intentioned and legitimate, right through to something more sinister like, a lack of trust between colleagues. Unfortunately the virtually effortless act of sending a read receipt request can lead to misuse and undermine trust (I’ve explained my logic on this previously). Here are some thoughts on why people send them, particularly in relation to colleague to colleague communication.

Legitimate and Well Intentioned. This does what it says on the tin. This is a really important email you need to read. Possibly something that affects your terms of employment, has legal implications or involves money. It’s a bit like the ‘registered post’ package you have to sign for at the front door. A hassle to carry out, but necessary for your protection, and the person sending you the package. These situations are generally few and far between in colleague to colleague communication.

Unconscious Ignorance. I’m being generous here. Some of the ‘read receipt’ emails I’ve seen relate to very innocuous interactions. Why on earth would someone require a read receipt for an invite to an optional lunchtime presentation? I can only assume that it’s because the sender has some email feature set to automatic and isn’t aware of the impact (or how to turn it off). At least they get to feel the pain of the response emails flooding back in their own, undoubtedly, massively overloaded inbox.

Something More Sinister…… I Don’t Trust You! Unless the document falls into the same category as ‘registered post’ I really don’t see the need for the read receipt. The only other conclusion I can draw is that “you don’t trust me to read and act upon your email, so you want evidence in case you need to use it against me”. It’s a bit like sending a ‘cc’ to the boss of a colleague, a sneaky action that undermines trust between colleagues.

The read receipt is undoubtedly a useful feature that has great value, in the right circumstances. However I’m not sure that the potential for misuse by people was fully appreciated. Unfortunately the misuse that is enabled by virtually zero effort (cognitive and physical) turns something useful into a problem. For those on the receiving end the impact can range from mild irritation to something much less desirable, the undermining of trust between colleagues.

Interestingly the technical community can also feel the pain of their creation. Here’s an interesting story about an email migration project on exchangeserverpro.com. The project encountered 24,368 unread ‘read receipts’ held by a single person (the mind boggles at the state of that inbox!) This is a technical account but worth reading, particularly for the first comment……, “Read receipts have to be the most inane and narcissistic feature of email. They’re the first thing I disable when being setup under a new email system.” Nicely put….! Perhaps we should all get our IT departments to follow this advice, for the sake of trust between colleagues.

I’ve not got much to add to that other than what I’ve said before, ‘emails don’t send emails, people do’. Same for the ‘read receipts’, it’s all about how we choose to behave.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • There are legitimate and well-intentioned reasons for sending ‘read receipts’. Think ‘registered post’, otherwise don’t use it.
  • The impact of a ‘read receipt’ is two-way. Think about what your request means for your recipient? Also, do you really want 24,000 confirmation emails back in your inbox?
  • It’s all about behaviours. We have choices about whether to send ‘read receipt’ or not; ‘read receipts’ don’t send themselves, people do.

Photo source: Check out the Paul Cunningham post on exchangeserverpro.com

http://exchangeserverpro.com/real-world-case-read-receipts

Good News.
There is something practical you can do to switch off the annoying read receipts.
Here is an excellent link from @Darrenruddick, thanks Darren.

http://blah.winsmarts.com/2010-7-Outlook_2010_-and-ndash;_Disable_the_read_receipt_annoyance.aspx

The email ‘cc’ option undermines the very fabric of society. A 19th Century invention using 21st Century technology.

Posted on by
5

20130103-075702.jpgYou’ll need to follow my logic here. Trust is one of the strands that hold people, communities and society together. People need to be able to trust each other, at an individual and group level to coexist and get things done. The alternative is some sort of oppressive dystopian society where everyone spends most of their time; seeking proof, scrutinising and watching what everyone else is doing. All a bit 1984……..

If you do something to diminish trust you undermine one of the strands that hold society together. My dislike of the email ‘cc’ option comes from this viewpoint.

Before explaining, here’s a bit of the history. The abbreviation ‘cc’ stands for carbon copy (of course you already knew that). It comes from a process developed about 1806 aimed at assisting blind people to read. You can find out more in this article, The Exciting History of Carbon Paper! The expression ‘carbon copy’ came about as ‘carbon paper’ was used to produce duplicate copies.

The widespread use of carbon copies appears to have taken off from the 1870′s. This was linked to the use of typewriters and the desire to have duplicates of important documents such as; receipts, invoices, money orders, financial records or legal documents. The significant point here is that these were ‘important documents’. It took effort to produce these exact copies that were used for very specific purposes.

The introduction of other methods of copying documents from the 1950s (photocopiers etc) led to the inevitable decline of ‘carbon paper’ methods, so why does the term and practice still exist? Here is an interesting suggestion from this Mental Floss article that, “perhaps in deference to a technology they replaced, most e-mail programs allow the author to send a carbon copy, or cc, to a secondary recipient.”

This raises an interesting question. The process of sending an email ‘cc’ is instant and virtually effortless. There is little of the thinking process, physical activity or time delay that would have been required to produce a typewritten carbon copy. Is the email ‘cc’ option an example of technology solving one problem while creating another, the undermining of trust?

Let me try and explain in terms the bad email ‘cc’ behaviours I think undermine trust. I mentioned in this previous post about email overload. Please note that these observations focus upon world of internal, colleague to colleague emails which seem to burden most large organisations (check out this Infographic for details).

Bad ‘cc’ Behaviours that Undermine Trust:

  • Look how busy I am. Someone who copies everyone into low value or pointless emails, usually outside of office hours, or while on holidays.
  • Look how clever I am. This involves pointing out flaws or problems, and letting everyone know via ‘cc’. These can range from spelling or grammar errors or something more significant.
  • I’m Just Covering My Back. By using the ‘cc’ option, with as many recipients as possible, some people think they have reduced a risk. More like ‘reduced the risk to themselves’ by trying to spread responsibility.
  • Your Boss Needs to Know You Have Messed Up. A bit like ‘look at how clever I am’, with a sinister twist. The recipient might (hopefully) get punished as a result, or at the minimum look bad in front of their boss.
  • I Don’t Trust You To Do Your Job. I am going to ‘cc’ your superiors to make sure you do what I’m telling you. This is coercion and threats in any other language, but sadly seems to be almost acceptable through email.

All of these behaviours amount to an attack upon trust between people. The ‘cc’ option is a very easy way of eroding trust at the touch of a button. It’s a vicious circle. Start by sending that ‘cc’ to show everyone how hard you are working over weekend and before long it will be ‘cc’s colleague’s superiors to intimidate them into doing what you want. Where does that leave trust between colleagues, teams, organisations and society itself?

It’s not just me who doesn’t like misuse of the ‘cc’ option, are plenty of others. Have a look at this Greg Savage post which mentions ‘The cc King’ and ‘The cc Clown’.

Finally……. Don’t even get me started on those automatic requests you get to confirm you have received an email…….

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Sometimes technology can create as many problems as it solves. Carbon Copies are a 19th Century idea that has become enabled by 21st Century technology.
  2. Behaviour is key. Emails cc’s don’t send themselves, people do.
  3. Think about what you want to achieve before you use the email ‘cc’. You don’t have to use the ‘cc’ option, so don’t.

For good advice on general email behaviour check out the emailcharter.org

20130103-075713.jpg

Haven’t had a cat picture for a while. Here is one for Helen Reynolds who commented about cc’s in the earlier post and prompted this one. Thanks Helen.

Photo caption via Andy Ball (@ball_localgovt)
“damn these old fashioned typewriters….. Where’s the mouse?”

Picture source: http://evandashevsky.com/2012/02/writing-update/

Idea Antibodies – Do some organisation have an autonomic immune response that kills ideas?

Posted on by
3

20121223-150016.jpgI’ve just met an old friend who told me they had moved jobs because the old organisation was ‘sucking the life out of them’. As an ‘ideas person’ they were fed up of constantly having their ideas; dismissed out of hand, ridiculed or worse, buried in bureaucracy. They were getting out before their spirit was crushed and they became one of the ‘sheep’. Sounds familiar?

With innovation and improvement (all fuelled by good ideas) being so high on the agenda it’s disappointing to hear this. Shouldn’t the ideas people be cherished and encouraged, not crushed and ridiculed?

Here are some ‘ideas’ about how ideas are killed off in organisations, suggesting that this might a very deeply seated behaviour. Could there be an evolutionary response that pushes people (and organisations) down the path of settling for ‘best practice’ and the status quo? Sub consciously are most of us are resisting new ideas as a type of autonomic response.

Blocking new ideas is an evolutionary trait. I touched on this in the post is best practice the enemy of innovation where I referenced an article, Innovation is not Best Practice by Alf Rehn from Manchester University. The article talks about us still being hunter gathers that rely upon the evolutionary advantages of sticking to best practice. To survive we know the ‘best’ place to catch Bison, the ‘best’ way to gather roots and berries and this is transferred into modern-day thinking. The majority of the time we stick to what we know. Established practice is what got us to where we are now, so why would we want to try out ideas that are new and potentially dangerous?

Mavericks and Accidents are source of ideas. This is a point made by Dave Snowden in this video about the discovery of the method for measuring Longitude. Ideas generated by Mavericks are frequently ignored by the establishment for a long period of time, before they become accepted. The role that established experts play in suppressing new ideas is significant. New ideas can represent an attack upon the power base of the experts (their expertise and knowledge) and the organisation. Dave used the analogy of ‘autonomic response’ by organisational ‘white blood cells’ killing ideas when he spoke at this event. Mavericks (like my friend) have a tough time in many organisations.

Turning to what you might do about the organisational ‘autonomic immune response’ to get ideas accepted, here a few suggestions:

  • Pretend you’re not a Maverick. If the autonomic response doesn’t recognise you or your ideas as a threat, you might get past the white blood cell defences. This is quite a difficult position to achieve. There is always the risk you will ‘go native’, ‘get the life sucked out of you’, and become one of the sheep.
  • Use Immunosuppressant Agents. In the context of an organisation this might be strong leadership saying ‘all new ideas are welcome’. There are many examples of this working, but it takes time and commitment from the top.
  • Just Wait. It’s funny how once upon a time radical ideas, (for example using open source software) appear mainstream once the rest of the world catches up or overtakes the organisation.
  • Find a Host that accepts you. There are places that love ideas. For example Ricoh in Telford and other organisations who are Members of IdeasUK, a body which focussed on helping organisations to involve their staff in generating ideas and getting them implemented. The percentage of ideas being implemented in Ricoh was in excess of 80%, a fantastic example of an organisation that nurtures ideas and the people who come up with them.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • An autonomic response to killing ideas could be a deep-seated in some organisations. The causes could be evolutionary or expert driven.
  • Recognising the organisational level of ‘immunity to new ideas’ would be helpful before embarking upon any improvement programme that depends upon ideas.
  • Pick your tactics carefully to get around the immune response. Sometimes it might require finding a new ‘host’ organisation (like my friend).

Just one final thought, Zombie Organisations. Are these the places where the people who like to crush ideas need to move on to, or are the idea killing organisations actually already on their way to becoming zombified?

Disclaimer: I know this post might upset a few organisations that are good at nurturing ideas. Please let me know of your good work in the comments.

Picture source:  Graphic by Laura Sorlava of http://www.auralab.co.uk/. Created at this event with the Wales Audit Office, http://www.wao.gov.uk/assets/englishdocuments/WAO_DaveSnowden_sketchnotes_Auralab.pdf

Facilitation Essentials #1. Why I upgraded from a clockwork cat timer to a countdown /stopwatch app

Posted on by
7

20121207-072758.jpgI’m feeling very modern this week. I’ve upgraded one of the basics in my facilitation box, the cherished kitchen timer. Yes it was a clockwork cat, although it’s previously been a mouse and the inevitable chicken shaped egg timer. For me the timing device has been a very helpful facilitation tool, let me explain.

Much of the facilitation I do involves lots of people presenting information or giving feedback. This requires a degree of organisation to make sure everyone has sufficient time to speak, nobody is excluded and we finish on time. Typically people are given a fixed time to make their presentation or give their feedback, and my job is keeping them to time.

That may sound relatively straightforward but it can be fraught with difficulties. In the worst case scenario this is how it goes:

  • Participant “I cannot possibly give this presentation/feedback in 5 minutes. I need a least half a day“. Some people really don’t like boundaries and rules.
  • Others just stay quiet and ignore the rules anyway.
  • The longer time they have available the more they get sidetracked into irrelevant issues and repeat themselves.
  • The audience gets bored and fidgety.
  • As a general rule nobody ever, ever finishes early.
  • When you give the ‘times up’ signal, people ‘look daggers’ at you, even if they are just about to finish.
  • A fair number say, “I’ve just got a little bit more to finish off” and carry on regardless.
  • They then still ‘look daggers’ at you when they finish with extra time.
  • Some even go as far as complaining or make pointed comments about being harassed.

The answer for me is the inanimate object. Something onto which people can transfer their angst and frustration, instead of me. The humble clockwork kitchen timer has made my facilitation days so much better. By following these steps I’ve seen some interesting effects:

  • Some people still complain about the lack of time upfront, they always do.
  • I place the timing device in clear sight of the presenter and move out of the way and watch what happens.
  • Most people will self manage their time by keeping an eye on the timer.
  • They tend to focus upon the important points and not get sidetracked too much.
  • The audience stay alert (after all it’s only 5 minutes).
  • They generally stop speaking when the ‘pinger’ sounds.
  • Most importantly, any angst or frustration they have is directed at the timer and not me. Hurray, result!

That act of transference of frustration onto an inanimate object might have something to do with my modern upgrade to an app this week. Once again my clockwork timer had been accidentally damaged (sabotaged). I’ve been through dozens of them over the years.

This left me with one option; quickly download an app and display it in front of the presenters. I was worried this was a step too far. Would the inanimate stopwatch be a bit too inanimate? Does a clockwork cat have more appeal than an image of a stopwatch on a screen?

The stopwatch image actually worked much better than the clockwork cats, chickens and mice ever did. The large screen, second by second countdown, instant reset and a nice loud ‘ping’ when time is up worked perfectly. I just hope that my tablet doesn’t end up on the receiving end of any presenter angst.

So, what’s the PONT?

  • Structure and time boundaries are likely to remain a substantial part of facilitation in the world I occupy (the utopian dream of all-pervasive ‘open space unconferences’ is still a long way off ).
  • An inanimate object (countdown timer) is a good way of depersonalising a potentially difficult part of the facilitation process.
  • Apps are taking over the world. My cherished clockwork cat timer has gone forever.

20121207-072748.jpgPicture: Jumbo Stopwatch app. http://appfinder.lisisoft.com/tag/jumbo-stopwatch.html

Experts are great……. you just have to keep them in their box.

Posted on by
6

This is something a former boss of mine used to say. I realise it has the potential to upset a few people (particularly experts); please don’t get offended just yet.

This post Is Best Practice the Enemy of Innovation generated a bit of discussion that got me digging deeper into the role of experts in innovation. Here are a few of the things I learned.

It takes hard graft to become an expert. You study, develop your understanding, you practice a lot (an average of 34 months for London Cabbies to get The Knowledge), you learn from failure and keep on working to become more experienced and knowledgeable about what you do. Becoming an expert takes a lot of effort.

Part of the development involves learning about how to identify a situation and then how to respond to it. It is a process of pattern entrainment in the brain which is described in this video by Dave Snowden. In the case of the London Cabbie, they will recognise the patterns of street signs and buildings that will allow them to identify where they are, and where they need to go (amongst 25,000 streets). The same could be said for the experts scanning the contents of suitcases at the airport check in. They know the patterns of what is ‘normal’ amongst the thousands of things people carry onto aeroplanes and can quickly pick up what’s abnormal or different.

From sport I heard Matthew Syed (three times Commonwealth Table Tennis Champion) speak about the same pattern entrainment process in tennis. Expert players will recognise the body patterns of people serving to them. As a result they make predictions and position themselves to receive the ball as it arrives. Someone unable to recognise the ‘patterns’ of the server would take much longer to react, and loose the point.

On an entirely parochial note, I do wonder if this happened in Welsh Rugby? The attacking patterns of our strike runners have been recognised and learnt. Opposing teams now know exactly how to react in defence (maybe it is time for another Shane Williams?)

What happens to experts when things change? If an expert is out of their known problem solving environment, things could get challenging. There is a risk they might apply what they know and force a solution which could have negative consequences. Interestingly, I bet if you took a London Cabbie to Cardiff and asked them to navigate across the city they wouldn’t do it based upon what they know about London; they would seek some local information. I’m not sure that’s the case with all experts who find themselves tackling problems outside of their experience. They quite naturally apply what they know.

So how do experts approach innovation? Given that innovation is about things that are new and different, beyond what you already know, things could be tough for experts. In this video about the discovery of longitude, Dave Snowden says “when the basic structure around you changes expertise can be an inhibiting factor”.

Business Psychologist, Phillipa Davies commented on the previous post that, “‘experts’ defending their status against loss of face can cripple the new and the risky”.

I’d imagine that if the power base you have developed through years of hard graft (your expertise) is under threat, it’s probably a natural response to fight against the new and unknown.

The approach for experts (to avoid being kept in the box) probably needs to be around understanding and willingness. Understanding that being an expert (who are absolutely necessary), may be a barrier to innovation and the willingness to do something about it. Returning to my former boss where this started, he was an expert in several areas (some of them quite obscure). What he did have though was awareness of his limitations in areas outside of his expertise. Shortly after being put in charge of a sensitive, people focused department (definitely not his forte) he said “it’s like putting King Herod in charge of Mothercare, I need some help!”

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Experts are absolutely necessary. The hard graft they put in to achieve their expert position should be recognised and rewarded.
  2. Innovation is about new things that may be unknown to experts. It’s not about doing the old things better.
  3. Experts need to be aware of the potential risks and not force solutions based upon what they know already.

Picture Source: http://4realleaders.com/2012/07/expert-syndrome/

This is from an interesting post by Doug Blackie who talks about Expert Syndrome. Worth a read for anyone involved in participation, engagement and collaboration projects.

Purpose, Meaning & Happiness on the Camino. Also, why is there a bullet hole in this road sign?

Posted on by
1

At a recent conference (forgotten which one exactly) the speaker said something along the lines of; “having purpose and meaning are the main things that lead to long-term happiness in life”. He also added that “if you achieve this sort of happiness you can tolerate all sorts of hardships and frustrations”.

These thoughts resurface during my cycle ride along part of the Camino de Santiago in North West Spain. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go all spiritual and ‘Zen’ on you. I just thought it was interesting to reflect upon this and some of what I observed on the Camino.

Camino Pilgrims are extremely happy people. Obviously with the exception of my cycling companion Geof, who loves being grouchy. Pilgrims stride purposefully along the path with euphoric smiles and greet strangers with ‘Buen Camino’ (good road).

You might expect this from people who are on a pilgrimage to a site of religious significance, but surely not everyone?

I think the source of their happiness has something to do with purpose. Depending on where you start, the Camino de Santiago can be 1000′s km long; the French Camino route we were cycling is 780km. It’s a long distance and having a very clear ‘purpose’ to complete the walk is likely to feature greatly with people.  Perhaps this is why they are so happy?

One other thing.  There is nothing like racing downhill at 45kmh on your bicycle, passing a pilgrim on foot. Not sure what that does for their happiness, but it certainly cheered up Geof, bellowing ‘BUEN CAMINO…….’ as he sped past.

Camino Pilgrims put up with great hardships. After 30km of slogging it along the dusty road, carrying your belongings on your back, in all sorts of weather, scorching heat, torrential downpours, wind, snow and sleet……spending the night in feather bed luxury is just what you need.

Sadly this isn’t the case for most pilgrims. The accommodation is usually an Alburgue or refuge. These are very basic places, what would you expect for a few Euros a night?

Maybe this substantiates the idea that if you are deeply happy (fueled by purpose and meaning) you will tolerate all sorts of hardships.

Obviously you don’t have to stay in Alburgue. You ‘gets what you pays for’ and there are plenty of decent hotels along the route. I should probably be ashamed of myself for saying this but, I did like the ones that gave complimentary use of the minibar for ‘pilgrims’ (just show your credentials).

Camino Pilgrims look lost at the end of the road. I reckon this is a difficult thing for many pilgrims. On reaching Santiago de Compostela, and achieving your goal, what happens next? You no longer have a ‘purpose’ in life. This may bit melodramatic, but it was interesting to see people wandering around aimlessly after the initial euphoria of arriving in Santiago had worn off. One chap with a large beard (there are oh so many of them), was loudly and proudly proclaiming on Wednesday afternoon “I walked 1000km to get here…..” Thursday afternoon he looked completely lost, in every sense.

I wonder if this is where some of those epic ‘walk around the world’, ‘I jogged home to Tonmawr from Tibet’ journeys come from? People found happiness with a purpose (walking somewhere) and just needed to keep on walking.

Finally, why is there a bullet hole in the road sign? A couple of theories:

  • Basic law of the Universe. In rural areas where people have guns, the road signs get shot. Simple.
  • Some of the people who live alongside the Camino never actually get to walk it for any distance. As a result they lack purpose and meaning in their lives, are unhappy and engage in random acts of vandalism (shooting road signs).
  • Please suggest your own theories in the comments.

So, what’s the PONT?

  1. Achieving long-term happiness may well have a lot to do with having a purpose and meaning to what you do.
  2. If you are happy, it probably is easier to tolerate hardships and frustrations.
  3. Beware of the void once your purpose has been achieved. The ‘what’s next’ can be a very challenging question.

There are some great blogs about the Camino: http://www.caminosantiagodecompostela.com/pilgrims-credential-el-camino-de-santiago/