We came together to talk about – and experiment with – various tools and techniques of group facilitation.  The retreat was arranged by Viv McWaters (@vivmcw) and Johnnie Moore (@johnniemoore), who had also just flown in from a couple of weeks of facilitation in the Solomon Islands and other places.

As much as it was about learning and doing stuff, it was about relaxing and having fun. I was there as Matt Moore (@engin_eer) had invited me. (Thanks, Matt!) Although I did already know some of the other people there, it was also a great time of meeting new people. It was also the first time that I had picked up a guitar for over a year – Geoff Brown (@geoffbrown3231) very kindly didn’t protest when I borrowed his every time he put it down!

Wildwood was a bit run down, as it was actually on the market, and the owner was no longer resident on site. The catering was excellent, and the location marvellous, but the nights were getting cooler, and the wood fire heating was rather short of fuel. Some of us tracked down some wood, and Geoff kindly wielded the splitter. Given my experience with wood fires at Blackwood, I got the Coonara going on the first morning there, and kept it stoked up for the duration. (For which I was christened “fireguy” by Johnnie.)

One of the highlights was the evening that I was sitting around fiddling with the guitar (or guitaring, I guess), and Johnnie suggested we improvise a song. After a bit of work, we got a chorus going, and improvised as many verses as we could as the others came into the room – and then ran away to the other end of the room as quickly as they could!

The tune was Waltzing Matilda – the best-known tune – and the chorus was as follows:

Facilitation of deep conversation.
Our congregation at Wildwood Retreat.
If we all make our way to
Deep in the Otways
We’ll have a confabulation, won’t we?

I guess you had to be there.

So what did I learn? I did pick up some facilitation techniques. But I think that I learnt more from Johnnie’s style and approach to facilitation.

Johnnie’s approach to facilitation is one that could best be called informal. Shawn Callahan (@unorder), another friend and long-term colleague there, has blogged his thought on the retreat here, with a very thoughtful piece on Johnnie’s approach. Shawn quoted this as “notice more, do less”.

I personally found this approach incredibly refreshing. After learning a few techniques elsewhere recently that place great emphasis on planning and preparation, I was beginning to feel that my preference for putting the emphasis on “making it up as I go along” was perhaps somewhat frowned upon.

Not that I don’t plan – in fact, I often plan in great detail, but I am always prepared to modify the plans to meet the need of the audience and the context at the time of delivery. (There’s a military term for this: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” – although the use of the term “enemy” is not really appropriate in this context!)

There was a strong improv theatre flavour to what we were doing – and not only in the song. As Shawn has written, the emphasis was on emergence. Emergence is what happens in complex adaptive systems – and a group of people together, involved in cognitive work and interacting, make a complex adaptive system.

One example of how complex patterns emerge is in the movement of a flock of birds.  It has been said that the birds only follow three very basic “rules”:

1. Fly towards the centre of the flock
2. Match speed with the birds on each side
3. Avoid collisions

Yet from this simple set of procedures, amazingly complex and intricate patterns of movement arise.

Improv theatre also follows a set of basic rules. Michelle James (@CreatvEmergence) once wrote about this in the blog article Improv Theatre and Complex Adaptive Systems. (I’m not an expert on improv myself – although I did take part in a rather fun improv exercise at trampoline last Saturday!) Michelle lists a set of seven “rules” of improv, and particularly notes that when the players break these rules, it makes for bad theatre. The emergence is lost:

So, what make it “look hard” when it is not working so well? Simple: any violation of the principles. If one of us tries to orchestrate, or worse impose, our own agenda or plot on the piece. If one of us tries to be the “star” and take too much focus. If even one of us is not present to what is unfolding, moment-by-moment. If one of us worries about the plot, and starts to figure out how to “save” it. If we expect that someone should respond in a certain way. In short, anything that gets us out of the moment and what is emerging – and into our controlling heads.

So I see this as support for Johnnie’s “notice more, do less” facilitation approach. You need the groundwork there first – you need to have an understanding of the group of people involved, and some sort of plan or general direction. You need to do the “Hosting”. But the rest is up to the people themselves.

Let the results emerge.

The slide pack, including speaker notes, is available at SlideShare. A list of references is also included on the Notes page of the last slide.

The main ideas drawn on for this presentation are as follows:

• Some thoughts from Theodore Zeldin on “conversation and minds”, from  David Gurteen’s site.
• Research by Anita Williams Woolley, et al, who found that “small groups demonstrate distinctive ‘collective intelligence’ when facing difficult tasks”.
• My previous post  on The Idea Monopoly?.
• An article about Steven Johnson’s ideas on cultural progress, discussing his book Where Good Ideas Come From.
• Research by Oscar Ybarra, et al, showing that even brief, friendly conversations can improve individual mental function.

We also discussed the pros and cons of the format, with mixed results. I think that it is a great format, provided that it can lead into further discussion as required. We have just started using MeetUp for managing Melbourne KMLF events, so expect further discussion on the MeetUp post.

The first part  addressed the dynamics of collaboration and CoPs – a discussion about community.  This is built on articles I have written previously, one of which is discussed on this site.  This also refers to Stan Garfield’s Communities Manifesto.

The second part provided some of the outcomes of the work Matt Moore and I did in our survey and report OzCollab – Collaboration Software in Australia. We then broke into a collaborative exercise, using another card game involving Patrick Lambe’s KM Method Cards.

The final part of the session then addressed the approach to participative change that has also been discussed here before – The Idea Monopoly.  This highlights the need for creativity, trust and openness in today’s complex organisations, and draws on the Cynefin model and other recent research.

“Nearly 60 percent of projects aimed at achieving business change do not fully meet their objectives.” – IBM, 2008.

Why does this happen? As many working in Knowledge Management and related fields understand, it’s all about people and complexity. Organisations are increasingly dependent on people and what they know in order to operate successfully in today’s environment. It is no longer sufficient for organisational change to be driven by a small handful of people – there is no monopoly on ideas.

This is the topic of the presentation I delivered last Wednesday night at the Melbourne KMLF.  The slide pack is now available on SlideShare.

I have posted on this topic here before, and delivered an earlier version of the presentation at trampoline.  

Key points in this presentation are:

• Recent insights into effective organisational change.
• The impact of complexity and the importance of engaging people. 
• Creativity and the wisdom of crowds. 
• Social Media – the power of trust and openness.

For more background on the topics covered, here are some links to the material referenced:

• See the Wikipedia entry for Cynefin.
• Read more about Teresa Amabile’s work in an earlier post here – or see the original Harvard Business School article.
• See the RSA Animate overview of Dan Pink’s Drive on YouTube – The surprising truth about what motivates us.
• Read Greg Lloyd’s blog post about Drucker – Enterprise 2.0 Schism.
• See John Smythe’s Engage for Change site.
• See the Wikipedia entry for The Wisdom of Crowds.

For more on the change management tools and approaches mentioned, see these sites:

• Cognitive Edge - David Snowden’s site  – for Cynefin and complexity tools.
• Anecdote - Shawn Callahan and Mark Schenk’s site – for business storytelling, change and anecdote circles.
• Gurteen Knowledge - David Gurteen’s site – for knowledge cafés.
• Change Management Toolbox – Michelle Lambert’s site - for the change management cards..
• The Organizational Zoo – Arthur Shelley’s site – for the book The Organizational Zoo and the matching zoo cards.

Finally, see “How to organise a children’s party” on YouTube.

This work describes national cultural patterns, and how they affect knowledge sharing.  Here is a simple summary diagram I have put together of the four basic types they described:

Both types of culture in the left column are independent and individualist, and predominantly Western. 

The top left quadrant is the domain of the rugged individualists.  They are mostly found in France, Germany, the UK and USA.  These people see each other as unique, and accept inequalities.  Thus they can naturally accept a social class structure.  They tend to hoard knowledge, and see this knowledge hoarding as power.  They like theoretical analysis.

The horizontal individualists in the bottom left domain see themselves as equal in status with each other.  Bhagat et al state that they also have “a relatively high tolerance for ambiguity and complexity”.   They are mostly found in Denmark, Sweden and Australia.  This is of particular interest, and will be discussed further.

The collectivist cultures represented in the right column are mostly Eastern.  These collectivists are interdependent, and tend to be much better at sharing knowledge than the individualists.  They historically share knowledge by storytelling, and have persistence – they are happy to let time take its course. 

At the top right, we have the culture of duty and conformity found in China, Korea, Singapore and India.  People in this cultural pattern respond to hierarchy and authority, and believe in service and sacrifice for the benefit of the group.  At the same time, individuals still see themselves as different from each other. This pattern is particularly evident in the caste system in India.  Another feature of this cultural type is favouritism shown to family members – seen in some developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Finally – and perhaps most interestingly – is the horizontal-collective pattern, shown in Japan and the kibbutzim in Israel.  People in this pattern tend to have similar tastes and preferences, and strong group customs and relationships.  They have an ideal of equality as “oneness” with the group.  They are independent thinkers, yet prefer to make decisions by consensus.

Individualist cultures prefer working with explicit knowledge; collectivist cultures are comfortable with tacit knowledge.  There may also be a left brain – right brain analogy here as well.

Application of the model

I would suggest that this particular view is a somewhat blunt instrument – there are many other distinctions between cultures.  However, George Box’s maxim “all models are wrong, but some are useful” applies here.  Even at this coarse level, this model is useful for increasing our understanding of the impact of basic cultural types not only on knowledge sharing, but on many aspects of how the world operates.

The main intent of the model was to understand the barriers to knowledge sharing between different cultures.  Knowledge sharing between the cultural domains is easiest up and down the diagram (individualist to individualist or collectivist to collectivist), more difficult across the diagram (individualist to collectivist or vice-versa) but most difficult along the diagonals.

Looking at the nationalities exhibiting these cultural patterns, this highlights the great difficulties involved when attempting to take knowledge across some borders, such as, between Japan and the USA.  Similarly, it may also explain that even though Australia may be geographically part of Asia, we struggle to be seen as culturally belonging.

It is also useful in attempting to understand some of the basic differences in cultural context – the differences that cause global conflict.  People in one culture have difficulty with even a basic understanding of how people in another culture view themselves and the world.  This shows why attempts to impose universal moral standards generally fail.  

For instance, the concept of democracy is attractive to some cultural groups; less so to others.  It is not that some people “like” it more than others; it just makes more sense in some contexts than others.  Democratic cultural groups see democracy as an absolute, to be sought after regardless of context.  They cannot understand why people in other parts of the world would not want to be democratic, nor can they understand that these people may not see democracy as an absolute, but only as another aspect of a foreign culture – as much to be sought after as fast food restaurant chains.

I also find the impact of these cultural types on knowledge sharing and other activities within the culture just as interesting.

It is interesting to look at the model through the Cynefin lens.  Individualist cultures in general are represented as having an affinity for ordered systems, and collectivists as more comfortable with complexity.  This is perhaps reflected in the problems that Western cultures have in coping with complexity.  It seems that we still persist in attempting to use analysis and other ordered systems approaches to solve complex problems.

Down under

So how well does Australia fit into the horizontal individualist pattern?  “Australian culture” can be interpreted in a number of different ways.  There are also people who would claim that the term itself is an oxymoron.

Traditional Australian culture, as typified by “bush” culture or the Anzac legends, is the culture of mateship, of the “fair go”, of “she’ll be right”.  It is the culture of the larrikin or ocker, with scant respect for authority – or at least for authoritarians.  This is horizontal individualism at its purest – “I’m just as good as you are”.  (Even the grammar defies conventions!)

It is the dry, black humour born of the hardship of the pioneering days.  The original title of this blog was based on a typical Australian story dating from World War II.  It is interesting that this culture of equality was born out of a rigid class system – the history of squatters (landed gentry) and convicts.

Even the exalted position of the Anzac in Australian culture is interesting.  The Anzac legend was born from the crushing World War I military defeat at Gallipoli.  Even though the Anzac spirit is all about the sacrifice and the journey, the stories of the time are full of irony and self-deprecation.  Today’s pomp and ceremony seem a little out of place when you read these stories.

The Australian sense of equality is so ingrained that whenever people from vertical individualist cultures address me as “sir” I feel slightly offended, and find it hard to take them seriously. 

Successive waves of immigration have also added to and strengthened an amazingly rich multicultural nation.  Where else can you walk into your local Turkish restaurant to see a wedding reception in progress where the groom is Maltese and the bride Malaysian?

This culture has many laudable characteristics, but it is a coin with two sides.  It can also be racist (even if usually in an offhand, non-malicious way); it can also be misogynist.  It has historically ignored the existence of the indigenous inhabitants of the country that gave it birth – or looked on them with misguided pity or worse.  The concept of universal equality gives rise to the “tall poppy” syndrome, where even our loved heroes are eventually torn down to same level as the rest of us.  This indicates a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem.  In some ways, maybe we are still not comfortable with who we are.

On its brighter side, though, this typical Australian culture should give us some potential advantages in the knowledge age.  It is a beneficial environment for knowledge sharing, and a natural habitat for social media.  All tweets are equal.

But is this the whole story?  The culture that we see around us in organisations in Australia today seems to be much more vertical individualist in nature.  We have adopted much from the business culture of the USA and UK.  This may have been a good idea during the industrial age, but it no longer serves us well.

We have just been celebrating Anzac Day a week or so ago.  Let’s see if we can bring back some of the best aspects of the Anzac spirit and strengthen the collaboration in our organisations!

The 3e Factor is an innovative management consultancy specialising in business transformation, leadership development, and recruitment services, with its head office in Melbourne, Australia. Our focus is: Transforming Strategic Thinking into Reality by Developing Corporate Capability.

Have a look at the site, and browse the capabilities of the consultants working with the group.

Please feel free to contact me or The 3e Factor  if you would like to know more.

The topic of organisational change – and getting people more involved in it – is something I have been becoming quite passionate about for a while now.  This presentation at trampoline will be the first time I have presented on the topic. I intend to develop this work, and its linking themes, in time to come.  I am currently playing with a new term for this – “orgsourcing”. You heard it first here!

Talking Cock (v.): A Singaporean term meaning either to talk nonsense or engage in idle banter.
 - The Coxford Singlish Dictionary

Over the last few years, I have had the privilege of traveling to Singapore on a number of occasions to speak at conferences.  I have greatly enjoyed the experience - both the conferences, and wandering around Singapore as a tourist.  I have met some fantastic people there, and have greatly enjoyed the culture – and the food!

Singapore is a land of contrasts.  It is richly multicultural, with all public signage in four languages.  The population is predominantly Chinese, yet most of the public institutions are as British as they were before independence.  It has earned a reputation as a non-democratic nation, yet the country is alive with art and innovation, and not in the least like a totalitarian state.  I feel safer walking around the streets anywhere in Singapore than I do in some parts of Melbourne.

Some would like to portray Singapore as a place where freedom of speech is suppressed by the government, yet Singapore is now becoming increasingly open. One friend I have made in Singapore is Enrico Varella.  Enrico introduced me to a fantastic local web site – Talking Cock.

This site bills itself as “Singapore’s premier satirical humour website”, and includes the delightful Coxford Singlish Dictionary.  (Singlish is the version of English spoken in Singapore.)  Talking Cock presents itself as apolitical: “Our main aim is to celebrate all the nonsensical parts of Singaporean life. We make fun of people in every sector, strata and profession in a completely democratic way.” Yet a sensitive government could easily take much of the satirical content on the site as criticism and take action against it.  The site also warns that “We have employed… language which might be upsetting to some and which some consider unsuitable for children.”

So what does this have to do with Mr. Conroy?

It appears that Australia’s Communications Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy has proposed imposing a filtering system on the Internet.  This purports to be an attempt to shield children from inappropriate content.  A number of people have raised many problems with this.  At the very least, it would significantly slow Internet traffic for all Australians – some estimates put it as high as an 87% reduction in speed. If indeed it is primarily aimed at protecting children, then it also takes away from parents the responsibility of making their own decisions on what is suitable for their children.  There are many more arguments about this proposal – others have advanced these very eloquently.

My view on this is typified by the Talking Cock website.  Would this be one of the estimated 10,000 sites that our government is likely to block as “unsuitable”?  Would we block a site that the Singaporean government overtly allows?  If not initially, would sites such as this be blocked in future? Is it possible that our current or future governments would block sites that are deemed to be critical of the government of the day?  And if so, how would we ever know which sites were being blocked? 

This all seems like an attack on freedom of speech and access to information that is far too open to abuse.  Who will be making the decisions about which sites will be blocked, anyway?

If Talking Cock was determined to be a site that should be blocked, will my blog site also be blocked, because of this post?  As I also use this site for my business, would this expose the government to a liability for unfair restraint of trade?  Does the fact that the site you are looking at now is actually hosted on servers in the USA make me more or less likely to be subject to government scrutiny?

It seems that Mr. Conroy is attempting to use a simplistic industrial-age concept to address a very complex problem, and like most simple solutions, I believe that it is totally inappropriate.

Will we be able to say in future something like this statement on Talking Cock’s home page:

We donno how we’ve escaped the speech-smothering tentacles of the state, but we suspect it’s got a lot to do with you Singaporeans and your tremendous (and very touching) support for us since we began.

“It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problem just with potatoes.”
 - Douglas Adams

These badges have been apparently been used for some interesting investigations into free will.  By tracking individual movements and personal interactions, MIT researchers found that “we are more instinctual and a lot more like other creatures than we care to think…  a good 90 per cent of what most people do in any day follows routines.”  Interesting…

In a more recent application, as New Scientist reports, “… one of the researchers, Ben Waber, has blogged about handing out the badges to delegates meeting with their corporate sponsors.”  This application was used to develop and display a social network map, visible to the participants.  “… over the course of the day, more people became connected within the network as they met more people.”

As this was all done in near-real time, the display had an impact on the behaviour of the participants.  People could see who they had interacted with, and were then inspired to network more to modify the display.  A classic case of a measurement tool changing the subject of the measurement.  (Think of a standard tyre pressure gauge – each time you use it, you change the pressure in the tyre.)

However, this is also potentially a networking tool because of its impact on the people involved.  It was seen to be encouraging people to network more widely, and to compete with one another to be the “most connected”.  It should be noted that only code numbers were shown on the display, not individual names, but the participants were keen to identify themselves in comparisons with others. 

The event organiser saw this as a way of highlighting the benefits of MIT sponsorship – the people and organisations you can network with more effectively.  This then implies that there is a direct benefit from networking with other people.  (Intuitively true, but can it be quantified to give a Return on Investment?)

Certainly a very interesting experiment, and potentially very interesting and useful applications.  I do wonder what damage it could do in the wrong hands, though…

Another alternative view from an MSN conversation I am having as I write this: “Why do people spend so much money on useless things?  That money to make those things could have saved a few lives in Africa.”  To which I countered: “More effective use of high-tech tools to improve networking of clever people may save even more lives.”  Who knows?  (My correspondent shall remain nameless.)