Tue, Feb 24, 2009
Blue Oxen Sensemaking Series
#
I've gushed over and over again about how much I love my work, my
clients, and my community. I'm very lucky. But I'm also always
conscious of BlueOxenAssociates' larger mission. Namely, how can we
disseminate knowledge about the field more deeply and broadly? (N4V)
This question is becoming more and more urgent every day. It's
critical that we understand how we can collaborate more effectively,
but that often requires us to quickly gain expertise in a variety of
complex topics. And of course, the more critical it is, the less time
we usually have to spare. (N4W)
I wanted to design an offering that provided high-quality learning on
important topics related to collaboration in an engaging,
collaborative manner. (N4X)
With this in mind, I'm thrilled to
announce the Sensemaking
Series, an online coaching series. The format is simple: A topic,
small groups (no more than five participants), and an expert in the
field coaching the group. This format is not only a high-quality
experience for participants, it's a wonderful opportunity to engage
first-hand with some of the brilliant people in my community. (N4Y)
Our first series is on
Internet
Identity, coached by my friend and colleague, GabeWachob. He'll be
offering two four-week sessions in March, one on Tuesdays and another
on Thursdays. (N4Z)
Working with Gabe will be a great way to gain a deep understanding of
the Internet Identity space very quickly. Please
register and
spread the word to folks you know who may be interested. Use the
discount code, "eekim", to register, and you'll get $50 off. (N50)
/blueoxen |
Posted at 9:08pm
Smart or Creative?
#
When I was a kid, I'd ask my Mom whether it was better to have broad
or deep knowledge. Her response: "It's better to have broad, deep
knowledge." (N4M)
My friend, LisaChu, asked me a similar question recently: Would you
rather be called smarter or more creative? (N4N)
I thought it was a great question, so I did a
straw poll on Twitter and
Facebook. The results? Overwhelmingly "creative." In fact, only
one person responded,
"smarter." A few folks avoided the question and chose both. (N4O)
Choice responses: (N4P)
- CindyAlvarez responded: "Creative, definitely. Smart w/o creative implies you
function brilliantly - but only if all conditions optimal. Which
they never are." (N4Q)
- LeahDetlefson?: "I would rather be (and be known as) creative. Smart
to me implies quick and clever, but creative implies seeing a wider
range of possibilities and solutions." (N4R)
- JasonLau?: "IMO, no such thing as a creative dumb guy. So creative." (N4S)
My response? My first instinct would be to avoid the question and
answer, "Both." But if I absolutely had to choose, I would say
"creative." (N4T)
What's your response? And are you surprised by these results? (N4U)
/personal |
Posted at 1:09pm
Mon, Feb 23, 2009
New Blue Oxen Blog
#
Over the past six years, I've had the pleasure of working with a
number of amazing groups on all sorts of collaborative
challenges. I've done my best to tell many stories here on this blog,
and I plan on continuing to do so. I've also managed to slip in more
personal stories here, which I also plan on continuing. (N4F)
However, last year, I started recognizing the need to tell the
BlueOxenAssociates story better. The story is not about me, although I
clearly play an integral role in it. (N4G)
As a result, I launched a new BlueOxenAssociates
web site earlier this year. Included in the
new web site is a blog. (You can
subscribe to its RSS feed.) I
plan on sharing a lot of the higher-level stories about my work there. (N4H)
For example, the latest post,
"Tapping Your Organization's Intelligence," tells stories about
groups I've worked with who have strategically (either on their own or
with my help) sought to tap into its own knowledge before seeking
outside help. (N4I)
I hope you enjoy the stories there! (N4J)
/blueoxen |
Posted at 10:09am
Thu, Feb 05, 2009
Straying Off Point
#
Meeting Best Practices #1 and #2: (N3K)
- Have a goal (N3L)
- Have an agenda (N3M)
The meeting facilitator's challenge is to keep the group on point and
to finish the meeting on time. That's where the agenda comes in. (N3N)
Here's the problem: What if the agenda is wrong? (N3O)
We decide to the best of our abilities what the agenda should be,
based not only on the goal but on the makeup and state of the
group. The latter factor tends to be the trouble-maker. Everyone may
agree that the goal of a meeting is to come up with an action plan
that everyone stands behind, but what if the people in the room all
speak different languages or have different understandings of the
problem? You have no chance of creating that action plan without
SharedUnderstanding and SharedLanguage, and so an agenda focused
entirely on making a plan is doomed to failure. (N3P)
The challenge is knowing your group well enough to make these
decisions. That's why I often say that good design is more
crucial to a meeting's success than good facilitation, because you are
tackling these questions before you even step into the meeting. (N3Q)
What happens if the goal shifts? This happens often when the problem
is complex enough. Everyone agrees before the meeting on what the
problem is, then in the course of collectively drafting a solution,
you suddenly realize that you don't understand the problem after
all. Now the facilitator's role is critical, because he or she needs
to decide whether to stick with the agenda or revise it on the fly. (N3R)
The reality is that agendas are important, but they need to be
fluid. As a facilitator, you need to reserve the right to stray off
point if you feel like the situation merits it. This is one reason
that I feel so strongly in
hiding the
agenda, especially with the kind of highly emergent meetings that I
usually design. People tend to cling to the agenda like a
life-preserver rather than risk swimming into the unknown, which is
certainly scarier, but is often necessary. It's better to trust the
facilitator to stay on point and stray off point when the situation
merits it. (N3S)
This is also why I like DialogMapping so much as a facilitation
technique. With DialogMapping, the emergent structure of the
conversation along with the key underlying questions are explicit and
apparent to all of the participants, so that you can effectively
leverage the CollectiveIntelligence of the group rather than rely on
the facilitator to be the sole driver. (N3T)
/collaboration |
Posted at 5:36pm
