In this age of limited resources, companies are scaling back on travel. But they’re achieving “virtual travel” by providing web conferencing and webinars!

Have you participated in any webinars or web meetings recently? If so, you’ve probably noticed that the field is advancing before our very eyes. In my attempt to keep up, I started participating in webinars sponsored by various companies, such as publishers and professional associations. It’s great because you get to see how these things are run. I’m always interested in knowing: How interactive are they? Can the participants speak to the presenter or host? How do you ask questions? This exposure is helping me get over the “virtual hump”, and now colleagues are asking me what functionality is out there!

Here’s what I’m discovering about interactivity: Turns out that many webinars are minimally interactive, with presenters talking for 30-40 minutes. Oftentimes, the webinar allows only one-way audio, to listen to the presenter. If you want to ask a question, you type it in, usually at the end of the session, for the presenter to respond to. In one recent example, I learned that the host is adding an Instant Messaging feature, so you can IM the presenter during the talk. In these presentations there’s often two lead roles: the presenter (content expert) and the host (the sponsoring organization). The host helps out by managing the software, fielding the questions and passing them on to the presenter.

Increasing the interactivity: Most conferencing software now includes polling and/or survey functions, so that the presenter can check in with participants during the session. The more participatory sessions are conducted with collaboration software, for example: Webex, WebIQ (now WIQ), Facilitate Pro. We should be clear what we mean by “collaboration” – are we sharing documents? allowing people to edit the document – one at a time, or several at a time, like a wiki? or simultaneously writing our ideas and submitting them to a shared whiteboard? The purpose of your online meeting will help determine the functionality that you need; for example, for a presentation, you may only need the presenter to show their slides. If you want people to be able to make comments on the slides, they need editing rights. If you’re brainstorming ideas, you’ll want everyone to be able to write on a whiteboard.

What are the challenges of “going virtual”? First of all, you’ll want to learn the different capabilities of the software platforms; if you want to host a meeting or a webinar, you have to learn how to use the software, or find someone to partner with who can take on that role. You have to get familiar with the audio and video features – are you using 2-way audio, so people can participate in the conversation? How do you deal with unwelcome noise? You may need to limit the number of participants if you’re going to allow for discussion. If you want to have breakout groups, you have to plan for that; you might have to pre-assign people to small groups, and decide whether they’re going to work on the same task or different tasks. Some platforms allow now allow for breakout groups, which is a wonderful feature (i.e. Webex training center, Maestro Conference).

Want to learn more? You can take advantage of free webinars, such as: American Management Association (amanet.org); HR.com; Pfeiffer Publishers (pfeiffer.com). See you online!

If you were looking for innovative ideas for in your company, who would you ask? Say, ideas for improving the supply chain. Where, from whom, would you expect people to get those innovative ideas?
Turns out someone has done some research on that, as reported in a fascinating new book “Here Comes Everybody – the Power of Organizing Without Organizations”, by Clay Shirky. Shirky describes the research of Robert Burt, University of Chicago, who has written a paper called “the Social Origins of Good Ideas”. (pg. 230-231) The people with the best ideas (as judged by the managers) were those who had connections to employees outside their immediate department – their social network extended beyond their own departments. The ideas of employees whose network focused within their department lacked the diversity of thinking and clash of ideas that sparks innovation.

Shirky explains that social networks can have 2 kinds of capital: bonding and/or bridging capital. Bonding capital refers to the connections within a homogeneous group, whereas bridging capital refers to connections between various heterogeneous groups. The employees who had access to innovative ideas had bridging capital to other departments. When ideas were floated within a department in this electronics company, they were often rejected.

What’s the takeaway from this? Well, if knowledge is socially constructed, then the potential power of collective knowledge is enormous. For the purposes of innovation, we should look for cross-pollinization of ideas, considered across departments, or across stakeholders. For the purposes of knowledge building, we should look for sharing ideas across our networks.
There was a recent discussion about this in a LinkedIn group. Many of us belong to Communities of Practice, and several of us belong to more than one. Some of us serve the function of “connector”, bridging across those communities or networks, connecting people, and bringing ideas from one community to another. As Naava Frank said, “It is important to help people become aware of which communities they are members and how their role as knowledge brokers can strengthen all of their communities.”

We’ve all been there: someone’s dominating the discussion in a meeting, or the discussion is getting off-track. What to do? Does the facilitator stop the dominating voices, or refocus the group? If not, do you sit there and put up with it? Chances are you’ve experienced both scenarios. As a facilitator, I see it these as two of my primary tasks: to rein in the dominators, to make sure that everyone has a chance to speak, and to keep the meeting on track towards its desired outcome. But ask yourself – is it only up to the facilitator to intervene? What power, if any, do the participants have?

I’m in favor of shared leadership and shared facilitation; I think that anyone in the group can comment, and even recommend a shift, in process. Sometimes the best interventions come from participants. My students asked me recently for language that we can all use, as participants, to shift the conversation. Interventions are most likely to be effective when they exhibit the following characteristics:

• They exhibit concern for the benefit of the whole group.
• They don’t come across as scolding or blaming.
• They come from a place of curiosity, and checking if others in the group share our perception of what’s happening.
• They come across as suggestions rather than dictating answers.

Given those characteristics, here are some possible comments to help move the conversation forward:

• I’m a little confused; I would find it helpful to know what the goal is for today.
• I’d like some clarification – is there an agenda for us to follow?
• I’m wondering if we could postpone some of these questions to the end? Or if they could be addressed offline?
• I’m concerned that we’re not going to have enough time for X, so could we discuss that now?
• I may not be speaking for the whole group, but here’s what I’m noticing… and I’m wondering if anyone else is feeling that way.

Participants don’t have to sit back and give in to their frustration.  Let’s give people guidelines to help them help us and the group with the process.

I was delighted this week to receive an email from Rep. Mike Capuano. He’s asking his constituents for their opinion about health care reform, specifically in regards to the legislation proposed in the House this week. When Obama came into office, his administration initiated a call for Transparency and Open Government. They invited recommendations from professionals in the fields of deliberative democracy and civic engagement re. the principles and implementation of this initiative, focusing on how the federal government should go about including citizen input into public policy.

Obama’s initiative is still in its first stages and implementation hasn’t begun yet – so I was delighted to see Rep. Capuano’s email, as if he has caught the bug of civic engagement. I wonder if there are other Congress-people who have sent out similar letters asking for their constituents’ opinions….

As a facilitator of civic engagement and large-scale change, I strongly believe in the need to involve the public in government decisions, at every level: city, state and federal. “The public” includes the general public, who can express their values (what’s important to them), as well as stakeholders with related expertise, whose opinions might carry more weight in the decision-making process. There are several models of citizen engagement, from Study Circles to America Speaks, which are facilitated discussions for the purpose of creating action plans re. local, state, or federal policies or activities. My city, Somerville, used to host yearly Study Circle conversations, on Racism, Youth and Adults, Sept. 11, where every group developed recommendations for city officials to improve city governance. American Speaks created the “21st Century Town Meeting”, and they engaged 4,000 people in Manhattan after 9/11 in a discussion about the future of Ground Zero.


We have many large social problems and issues to address in the 21st century: public health (single payer, anyone?), climate change, cleaning up the environment, education reform, to name a few. Most of us realize that there are going to be trade-offs to any public policy decision, and we’re going to have to make choices. That’s why it’s essential to include citizens in these discussions – so that they (we!) understand the trade-offs, and so that they/we can’t complain that “the government did this” (if they don’t ask us).

If you’re in Rep. Capuano’s district, I encourage you to respond to him, and tell him how much you appreciate his asking for your opinion!!

By the way, another example of civic engagement is the Boston Civic Summit, which I wrote about here – it’s an example of involving citizens in creating a vision for the city, and in developing an action plan for citizens to work together with city/ government officials in realizing it.

How many CEO’s do you know who keep a daily blog of the workings of the organization, or of a hospital? (see footnote) Can you imagine making public the reflection and problem-solving process in the organization? What a great example of organizational learning Paul Levy is setting at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston. In a remarkable display of transparency, Levy writes:

Regular readers know that I believe in administrative, as well as clinical, transparency in our hospital. I have trouble understanding why this is unusual, but I know that it is. I just can’t imagine trying to solve the problems of an organization and having a common sense of purpose and direction unless everybody is aware of what’s going on.

Levy has openly discussed problems facing the hospital, from budget issues to health coverage, to surgical errors – all of this open to the public eye. Some people who submitted responses to Levy’s blog disagreed with the open discussion about the surgeon who operated on the wrong leg last year (July 2008). This could have implications for insurance payments, and for malpractice suits, to name just two. In a high-risk environment, the disclosing of errors can be tricky. On the one hand, leaders in a learning organization want to identify the problems and glean the lessons to be learned. On the other hand, surgeons or clinical staff whose errors are publicized might be less likely to reveal errors in the future – whereas the hospital wants to maintain an open environment where errors and problems can be discussed, at least among the staff. That’s why hospitals have Grand Rounds, so the physicians can learn from the successes and mistakes of their colleagues. In terms of making errors public, it’s also critical to maintain the public trust – so a hospital wants to have a very low error rate – and, being transparent about errors might also serve the public trust. It’s a tough balancing act.

As a leader on the cutting-edge, Levy is taking on that challenge, and seems to be having some success on that balancing tightrope. He understands – and makes is his job to explain to his staff, as a good leader should, – the connection between calling out problems and maintaining a safer workplace:

We need to improve the way we organize work at the hospital to make it more efficient and less expensive. We have taken some baby steps in this direction with BIDMC SPIRIT. This program incorporates “Lean” type of thinking by encouraging people to call out problems in the work place, analyze those problems to their root cause, and invent solutions. If done right, this kind of continuous process improvement makes a safer and more pleasant workplace for our staff.

I’m keeping my eye on Paul Levy’s blog- seems pioneering and “leaderful” to me!

Footnotes:
1. In fact, there are several blogs of CEO’s, including those of Whole Foods, Marriott, NU Horizons – but they don’t seem to have the same organizational earning focus of Paul Levy’s.

2. The Boston Globe reported in July 2008 that “Figures from the Department of Public Health show that in the first five months of the year, hospitals and doctors statewide have reported five wrong-sided surgeries.”

tq86j7uc9g

Or not, as in the case of the Health Care hearings on Capitol Hill.

The conversation sponsored by the Obama administration about “Open Government Brainstorming” is continuing, as people continue to post comments about civic engagement – engaging citizens in public policy decision-making, at the local, state and federal levels. I’ve posted a few comments, about best practices. But the recent news raised a flag for me about this invitation for input, as I remarked in this post:

We’re all talking about how to engage citizens in the government’s decision making process – yet, there have been hearings this month on Capitol Hill on health care, convened by Sen. Baucus, where public input on single-payer health care has not been welcome, and has been obstructed. There were many doctors and nurses who wanted to participate and be heard, but they were excluded, and escorted out of the room. So I’m confused why we’re giving suggestions for models and tools, when there appears to be a basic question about the premise: to what extent is public input being invited?

Shortly after his administration began, Pres. Obama issued a document stating his commitment to open government and transparency. In May, the administration invited recommendations to their new website “Open Government Brainstorming”. The organizations who have been involved in the planning of this include NCDD, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation, America Speaks, International Association for Public Participation, and others. Anyone and everyone can post suggestions on this website. Here’s my recommendation on “Training for Facilitative Leadership”.

In order to create a program of dynamic public engagement, elected officials and government staff need training in the process and skills required to be successful – and this is a great opportunity to develop such trainings.

In order to support effective public engagement, leaders from federal, state and city government need to learn best practices for engaging the public, to understand:

* Facilitative leadership: they are the conveners of a process, whose purpose is to gather wisdom from many people. They need to identify and include the stakeholders who have a stake or interest, to help solve a problem that no one agency can solve by themselves. Government officials shouldn’t feel the need to have all the answers.

* The need for ongoing support and guidance: it’s not enough to convene a meeting of several hundred people. Citizens bring their skills and energies, and a willingness to work with government. They need ongoing support and resources to carry out action plans – people to help them identify their purpose and goals, help with, or training, on effective facilitation of meetings, funding for materials or professional assistance.

* Bringing citizens together to help solve problems raises their expectations. If the conveners – state, federal or local government – cannot deliver the resources or can’t stay engaged in the implementation, then it’s better not to convene citizens in the first place.

Here are some issues to address in a training on “How to conduct public engagement:”

* Who’s involved in sponsoring the event? Who else needs to be involved? How do we get their buy-in?
* How do we get the right people in the room? Who are the “right” people? How do we get the non-mainstream people, or people who feel marginalized, to participate?
* How do we build bridges and trust before the event?
* What do we need to address so that people don’t shrug their shoulders and dismiss the event as “another misguided effort” by the politicians?
* What is our responsibility to participants? Are we raising expectations that we can’t fulfill?
* What resources do we need in order to support the outcomes that the participants generate? What organizations need to be included as sponsors in order to provide those resources?
* What kind of support and guidance should we commit to providing if we’re going to hold such a summit?
* What are the components of an engaging meeting or summit? How do we make it participatory? What kinds of activities should we steer away from?
* How do we get people to engage with one another? How do we build community in such an event?

For those of us trained in participatory meetings and consensus building, attending a meeting based on Robert’s Rules of Orders can come as a real shock. Here’s a case where the structure itself doesn’t maximize, and may not allow, inclusive conversation, and the decisions apparently arrived at may not be supported by everyone. It feels constraining to me to define people’s comments as proposals, when we might just be thinking out loud. Sometimes we need to hear ourselves think, or hear other’s thoughts, and see what the range of opinions could be, before we’re ready to think in terms of a “proposal”, yea or nay.

At a meeting I attended last week, soon after an idea was put forward, the moderator asked “Does anyone object?” Moving too quickly to objections doesn’t allow for divergent thinking – it prematurely calls for convergent thinking, when the full spectrum of ideas hasn’t been discussed. Some moderators may allow for longer divergence, but there’s something in the paired structure of proposal and objection that sets up the convergence. As well, anyone who does object to the idea is put on the spot, because their response is set up in advance as an opposing idea, instead of just voicing an opinion, or exploring options. People who have reservations may hesitate to express them at that point, especially if there’s a sense that they are going against the majority view.

I find the language of proposals distances us from the discussion – to me, it detracts from the immediacy of the discussion because we have to think in terms of proposals: is this a new proposal, is my comment a response to a previous proposal, has the previous proposal been decided on, if not, do I have to wait before expressing my thought? If the moderator asks these questions, then I get impatient with them for interrupting the discussion; if I have to ask myself these questions, it stifles the generativity of my thinking. If we don’t want to stifle people’s contributions, then we need to let conversation flow. Good facilitators sense when the options have been exhausted, and they can also check in with the group, i.e. “Have we explored all the options? Are you ready to make a decision?”

To me, a facilitator has done an excellent job when her role seems to be invisible, and when participants have the feeling that they arrived at their decisions by themselves. I have yet to see this kind of excellent facilitation when Robert’s Rules have been used. I’d love to hear if anyone has had a different experience.

How many times have you heard that a company’s strategic plan is collecting dust on the shelf? I just heard it again – thankfully this time, the senior staff know that they don’t want to produce another place-holder on the shelf. They know that they need to focus on implementation, and they need to develop a workplan for ongoing check-ins on their progress. They understood their mistake in not focusing on implementation – and they needed someone to explain that to them.

Sometimes companies don’t know what they don’t know – so they hire someone to facilitate the strategic planning process, without realizing that this generates a change management process, and that they might need ongoing assistance with change management. At the same time, it’s incumbent on us consultants to make this clear – strategic planning is just one piece of a longer process, and the company really needs to pay attention to managing the change. That includes project management, managing the people side of change, and a communications plan, that says who needs to be kept informed of our progress, what they need to know, and how often they need to be updated.

If we help companies manage the change and implementation, they’ll have more room on their shelves – for the books that we recommend, or that we write!