Category: communities of practice

MOIP #9: What I’ve Learned This Spring

Working from home… in the bedroom version!

I wrote this short article for our Liberating Structures extended network of practice. I thought it might be useful here too!

The last few months have been rich with lessons for our amazing global network of LS practitioners, and all the sub-communities it holds. Here are my lessons that have been surfacing:

  1. Creative destruction RULES. DEConstruct before trying to REConstruct offline events into the online space. TRIZ is our friend!
  2. The six knotworking questions are SUPER useful at this moment in time for developing flexible, emergent plans. 
  3. Critical Uncertainties was MADE for this time!
  4. This is an oldy, but a goody: slow down to go fast. While we can dance with abandon at the novelty as we move and reframe different Liberating Structures online, we must also hold space for people to move forward together when the moment calls. This translates to fewer structures piled into an online meeting, holding generosity to extend our practiced F2F timings and keeping technical options at the min specs, vs max specs. (Purpose to Practice is helpful here!)
  5. Ask for help. Ask specifically and offer your first ideas. This way people are more likely to respond and respond generously. As our Slack community grows and grows, we want each person to find and offer value. So ask as specifically as you can. Show you have done a little thinking already…
  6. Offer help! The connections we create through these asks and offers weaves our network.

There is a LOT more… right now I’m processing what I’ve learned through three series of rather intense online events, thinking about time, space, embodiment, humane-ness and all sorts of good stuff. So more to come. But if I wait to “finish” this, I will never finish this!!

What have you been learning?

MOIP #7: Virtual Peer Assists

I’m shortening the title… Moving Online in Pandemic is now #MOIP! This is 6th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1, #2, #3,  #4 , #5 and #6. This time a client has graciously allow me to share their story!

I’ve been having a great time working with the Floodplains by Design Network (FbD), particularly the Culture and Capacity Building Action Group (C&C in our shorthand!). C&C members have targeted peer to peer (P2P) learning as an important tactic for identifying and sharing knowledge. One form of P2P learning is to ask for and get help from peers. Peer Assists are one format for the giving and getting of help. They help tap both local and network wide knowledge, support local contextualization (no “one ring to rule them all” as Frodo might wish), and are easy to do. Some even say it is pleasurable! This Spring the C&C members have committed to at least two Peer Assists.  And to make them accessible across our wide geography, we decided to do them online. That turned out to be a wise choice given the Covid-19 outbreak. 

About Peer Assists

There are many ways to do PAs. You can simply call up another network member and talk about your challenge. This is helpful for matching specific expertise with a specific need — and we recognize we need to figure out a mechanism so FbD members can easily find each other for this sort of direct exchange. 

We also benefit from a diversity of views. Sometimes the most helpful ideas come from the “unusual suspects” and people who see and experience the world differently than we do. Here are some variations to consider:

  •  Troika Consulting , User Experience Fishbowl and Wise Crowds are three of my “go-to” peer assist variations. They create simple “containers” for people to get direct help on a challenge. The difference is that Troika works in an intimate trio, Wise Crowds uses rotating small groups to enable multiple people to get peer assistance, and Users Experience Fishbowl supports two layers of support – direct and indirect. It is a bit of hybrid option. 
  • If you are trying to elicit expertise, instead of trying to apply it in context, you can try  or Celebrity Interview. THis is not exactly the same thing as peer to peer assistance, but by asking people questions, we often get more and deeper insights than if they just did a presentation. It is more engaging for those watching as well. 
  • Appreciative Interviews help pull out current success upon which we can build. So maybe one watershed has really made huge progress, but we can’t quite figure out how to make that same progress in our watersheds. Discovery and Action Dialog can help us discover who is succeeding where the rest of us are struggling. (A way of surfacing positive deviance!)

C&C’s First Peer Assist

In early April we had our first Peer Assist, helping Kat, a member move her work on a strategy element forward. She was looking for ideas about how to frame and build a strategy element that reflected views FROM the network, so a Peer Assist seemed useful. She identified some people she wanted present and others from the C&C volunteered to be her consultants. To help shine a light on the process and add another layer of support we invited the whole C&C to be the “bowl” of the fishbowl. 

We convened on the Zoom video conferencing platform. In an hour Kat laid out her challenge, the “consultants” asked clarifying questions, and then Kat turned her back to her computer screen while her consultants talked about her challenge. After about 20 minutes she turned around, shared the key insights she gained and thanked her consultants. 

At the end, we debrief and came up with the following observations to help improve our next Peer Assist:

  • Great way of engaging. It takes courage — and you need to be truthful and honest about the feedback. Incorporate it in and be willing to accept the harsh reality.
  • Lesson: French Revolution – king reached out but didn’t do anything with the input! Input –> heard, seen, respected and USED!Suggest that problem statement for peer assist be elaborated in written text and distributed to panel in advance so they can gather thoughts / questions
    •  +1 Some of my best thinking happens during drives/walks/showers/doing the dishes…
  • From a Bowl person: Not quite sure how to engage, questions are relevant, but didn’t know what process looked like. How does this all work? (Lesson: not everyone got the same instructions in advance due to later additions of participants. Don’t let that slip through the cracks.)
  • If more time engage the outer ring
  • What would be a valuable question for a peer assist? Examples of questions, projects in different stages. 
  • How do we know about peer assist tool? Share more about the methodology (this article!)
  • In times of Covid and working at home with kids → Evening Peer Assists after kids go to bed
  • Humor: happy hour assists might cross certain lines, but the feedback would flow

Want more tips on how to do Peer Assists? Online and need to learn how to use zoom? 

Want the geeky process details? Here is an outline of how you can set up your own Peer Assist using Users Experience Fishbowl method:

Preparation: 

Identify your peer assistee. Ask if they have individuals they want as their consultants, and/or cast a net more widely. You do NOT need a large group. In this particular variation 3-4 consultants in the fishbowl with the peer assistee provides time for depth and sufficient intimacy for the conversation. Other useful folks are the “bowl” observing and sharing other ideas in chat which can be processed by the assistee later. 

For a small group, one person can guide the process and take note. If there is a larger “bowl” of people it can be helpful to have one person to take notes in addition to the facilitator.

Invitation: 

Send an invitation out. Draft copy below…

Thanks for being willing to do a peer assist. We are doing a peer assist variation called “Users Experience Fishbowl” where a small group of people support a person with a challenge or question (the “fish”) while other observers listen and respond afterwards.

Please come and help NAME OF PEER ASSISTEE think about her next steps with the CHALLENGE PERSON HAS. ADD THE PERSON’S CHALLENGING QUESTION HERE.

Technical Details: We’ll meet on a Zoom video platform so ideally you need a mic and a camera attached to your device. Best is a computer, then tablet, then phone. Log on a few minutes early if you are new to Zoom to make sure everything is running well. Due to the huge current loads on Zoom, sometimes it takes a few tries to get into a Zoom room… the days we live in!

Preparation: In preparation, we’ll send you WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SEND. KEEP IT BRIEF to skim as time is available. Mostly bring your ears, your brains, experiences and insights from your floodplains work. 

The X NUMBER OF FISH – YOU CAN NAME THEM will be ASSISTEE’S NAME consultants.  Other interested folks will observe the process, staying off camera and just listen/ take notes in the Zoom chat.

How this will work: Tight 60 minute agenda

  1. 10 minutes: Brief introductions both of fish and “bowl folks.” 
  2. 5 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE shares their challenge. (It is helpful if this builds on what was sent in advice, versus telling the same thing again.)
  3. 3-5 minutes: Consultants ask clarifying questions (no ideas, suggestions or their own stories yet.)
  4. 15-20 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE will turn off her Zoom camera, turn around with a notebook and simply listen as you talk about her challenge. She will not nod her head, respond, rebut or interject in any way. JUST LISTEN. As consultants, talk amongst yourselves with advice, experience, comparable stories. Range freely and think boldly. Dive into your experiences and data. The notetaker/facilitator will take notes. 
  5. 5 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE will turn around and thank you, and if they want, share the most useful things they heard from you. They will share her next step in addressing their challenge.
  6. 10 minutes: Invite the observers to share any highlights or comments they noticed.
  7. 5 minutes: Debrief the process and outcomes.

MOIP #6: Get and Give Help Online With Liberating Structures

I’m shortening the title… Moving Online in Pandemic is now #MOIP! This is 6th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1, #2, #3,  #4  and #5. Slides for the event mentioned here. And chat...

I do get enthusiastic… and then things go fast and other things fall behind. VERY SLOW. How is it that March 21 can seem so far away? How is it I started drafting this on March 31 and now it is April 13th???

Our Liberating Structures community has done so many experiments, moved the practice of using Liberating Structures online SO FAR, SO FAST, that time is playing tricks on me. I’m trying to circle back and at least share artifacts and a few reflections, if not a fuller description of what happened, what that means and what is next.

Here goes a super hurried drafty effort for our gathering 3/21/2020 to explore how to use Liberating Structures online to give and get help. The purpose of the gathering was to engage people in experiencing how even strangers can give and get help, we can do it online, and we can do it humanely. Slides and built in-created-in-the-moment harvest/notes here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SPIaIjyu2_6bf0AIU1KZJJ_eqcB9-plERZQq79CTjLk/edit?usp=sharing

The slides lay out all the process should you want to try this. The What? So What? Now What? harvest slides #19-24 are totally worth reading through. I am still trying to process it all, but if I wait for that, this blog post will NEVER get posted!

What? So What? Now What? Small group harvests

I’m going to use What? So What? Now What? as my own reflective structure. Feel free to amplify in the comments!!!

What Happened?

  • We mobilized a volunteer team from the Liberating Structures community to facilitate, tech host (manage all the zoom breakout rooms), harvest key insights, and generally help people as needed. Those with Zoom experience renamed themselves with a * in front of their names so people could private message those folks for help.
  • We set up a set of slides with instructions for each LS we planned to do, along with some “punctuation” in between. In LS language, punctuations are little connective tissues pieces between LSs themselves.
  • We had a very large group… I think it peaked at 68 but I lost track. My sense was it was diverse – familiar folks, new folks, folks experienced with LS and some brand new, some tech familiar, some not.
  • We all were getting a little frazzled with all the Zoom events, so our punctuations all focused on taking a breath, being in our bodies, even as we were connected electronically. We used “Just Three Words” to get settled and present. (For more on Just Three Words see https://fullcirc.com/2014/03/04/faciliplay-play-as-an-online-facilitation-technique/)
  • To identify WHAT we wanted to get help on, we used 15% Solutions.
  • I rolled out 15% pretty awkwardly and confused a number of people.
  • We did Troika Consulting in breakouts of 3 people.
  • We debriefed with What? So What? Now What? in groups of six people (two troikas joined up).
  • People captured their WWW in the slide deck, one slide per group.
  • We informally said goodbye and some stayed on for a longer, informal debrief.
  • We did NOT record – we decided less recording was a little freer, more intimate.
  • We DID capture the chat notes to share.

So What? What meaning to we make of it?

  • No matter who shows up in your triad, there is always something of value they bring. It astonishes people, yet it is real.
  • Don’t do this alone. If I had not had my friends as my team, this would have been a mess, particularly since it was a large and heterogeneous group in every sense of the word.
  • Breathe. Breathe. As we paused, slowed down, we could go more deeply and thoughtfully. The stress of the initial response to moving things online in Covid19 time has amped many of us up, winding our clocks a little too tight???
  • Small groups/breakouts are essential to scale large groups, creating both a broader shared experience AND deeper interpersonal connection and intimacy.
  • Clear instructions, Nancy, CLEAR instructions. Will I never learn?
  • WWW in small groups seemed to work well – with a little confusiasm. It needed more than 6 minutes of breakout time.
  • Tech note: need to figure more graceful ways of dealing with the “two user” problem when someone is on video through their computer and audio through a phone. Zoom treats them as separate users and when you automatically do breakout rooms, they often end up in two places and the video is a “ghost.”
  • Time, time, time. I wrestle with that wicked question of “how is it that time constraints make us sharper and we need more time.” (Or is it simply right now we crave more time in the smaller conversations?”

Now What? What is the next step?

  • I’m working on a series of online “peer assists” for a client in the natural resources sector and I want to encourage them to do Troika Consulting. There is an inclination towards wanting consultation from wider sets of stakeholders, or focused “experts.” What happens when we resist those inclinations and simply turn to each other?
  • How can people quickly find and convene Troika Consultations in these crazy days? What can function as matchmaking/matchmaker?

Moving Online in Pandemic #5: This is the time of creative destruction

This is 5th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1, #2, #3 and #4 … Slide deck and artifacts for the event.

Many people learning together

It is being said around the globe: move a bad meeting online and you have a terrible meeting. People are already in “zoom fatigue” and are “Zoombie Zombies.” The signal is loud and clear: we need to figure out what to stop doing so that we can focus on what is truly important.

In talking to people desperate to figure out their next move with strings of critical upcoming face to face (F2F) events, it has become clear that one way forward is to first DEconstruct. Get clear on the deepest purpose of each meeting or event. Figure out what NOT to do or to STOP doing, and prioritize only those things that will move them towards their goals. That was the signal I was sensing when I wrote about Ecocyle to notice what is shifting a couple of weeks ago.

Now is not the time to simply tick the task box as done.

I decided I wanted to engage my communities of practice in figuring out how to help people DEconstruct and then REconstruct. Thus was born the DEConstruct/REConstruct episodes. The idea is to put together a string (sequence) of Liberating Structures that groups can use on their own or with a facilitator to focus on essentials, and then, and only then, move into design and facilitation considerations of what is born anew through the process.

I asked one of the people calling for help if they would help us “learn in public” by going through a rapid version of the deconstruct/reconstruct (D/E) process online in a Zoom meeting. I proposed we would do this in a “fishbowl” context with the team from the organization being the fish swimming through the process, and observers in the fishBOWL (fish bowlers) first listening, then breaking out into small groups to offer questions and suggestions to the fish team.

By using this learning in public approach, we could also facilitate a few other things. Potential facilitators and consultants in the bowl could reach out and offer support (getting me out of the matchmaking position). And the wise crowd in the bowl could give suggestions to improve the process.

My friend and colleague Eva Schiffer brought her team as the fish for Episode 1 yesterday. This group has the challenge of redesigning what was going to be a two week field based capacity building program in an African country. There were multiple levels of travel – of the consulting team to the country to work with their government partners, then out into the field with private sector wildlife conservation partners. Now none of these folks can travel. AND the pandemic is creating an new challenge for those using tourism as a way to preserve ecosystems.

In preparation for the fish bowl I shared the six questions I’d ask and we spend just 30 minutes on a call to walk through the process. Through some email back and forth there were just initial consideration of the questions because we wanted the conversation to be fresh and alive during the Zoom gathering. I also set up a Google Slides deck with the meeting agenda, process overview, a slide for each of the six questions for note taking, and then templates for note taking by the fish after their breakouts.

By start time we had 48 people on the call (out of 66 registered), six fish and the rest bowlers. After brief verbal introductions of the fish, and text introductions by the bowlers, we dove in with a story of their current challenge.

Next we launched into the deconstruct using the six questions from Strategic Knotworking. Here are the six questions.

  1. What is the deepest purpose of our work through this gathering and why?
  2. What is happening around us that demands change (in how we were planning this gathering –go deeper than social distancing if possible!)?
  3. What challenges and wicked questions do we face in achieving our purpose?
  4. Where are we starting, honestly? 
  5. Based on what we have learned, what is now possible?
  6. What is our first step and how will we know we are making progress towards our purpose?

Over the course of the next 45 minutes we focused primarily on question 1, around purpose, really digging past the signposts of their contract deliverables. Then we spent a few minutes on questions 2-4 to set context, challenges and baseline. I mentioned that question 4, “where are we starting, honestly” really benefits from a deeper look and suggested the use of Ecocycle Planning both to map out their project activities AND relationships. The team consistently talked about the importance of relationship and trust which typically they develop and deepen in F2F moments.

Finally we got to the really juicy question, “based on what we have learned, what is possible now?” That is when I felt the shift from what was, to what is now possible. The team thoughtfully balanced both their responsibility to their client (contract, deliverables) and the unique opportunity afforded by the shift online. Instead of the human and financial constraints (we can send the four people who are willing to travel), they realized they could tap more widely into the talents of their own team beyond the four. They could potentially engage more of their government clients and their private sector partners at a time when those partners are most stressed and could use support, even if there was no immediate money or business deal to be had.

Next we did breakout groups of 4-6 with the bowlers where they formulated a sharp, insightful question(s) and their most salient advice for the fish. They put these in dedicated slides (one for each group). While the bowls were doing this, the fish went into their own breakout room to make sense of what was happening. This unplanned innovation proved really helpful for the fish. So I want to repeat that twist – maybe keeping the fish in the main room so the facilitation team can learn from them. We’ll find out tomorrow when we try Episode #2

Take a peek at the insights from the Bowlers in slides 20-30 .

Finally, we did a VERY FAST (too fast?) What? So What? Now What? process and captured the insights in chat. I feel we could have gotten more out of this, but it was also important to stick to the 90 minute window.

Debrief

When faced with new constraints, we are able to leap past our old habits, assumptions and ruts. Something new becomes possible. This is at the heart of the idea of creative destruction and DEconstruct before REconstructing.

Looking across the amazing notes of the 7 bowl groups and the overall chat, including the debrief for those who stayed on for an additional 10 minutes, I think there was a) enough value to repeat this experiment next week with another NGO, b) gather and share a bit more information for the bowl folks so everyone get dive in quickly, and c) run the experiment one more time to see which questions deserve what amount of time.

We rushed through some great stuff, probably missed some stuff and really filled the 90 minutes, but it would have been wonderful to get the bowl engaged sooner and more interaction between the fish and the bowl. It would have been really wonderful to let the fish debrief themselves before we finished. That is lot in 90 minutes.

I was surprised that some actionable ideas emerged even before we got to the action planning question #5 – particularly Liberating Structure ideas that could be used in the deconstruction and assessment elements that could pull out some of the more complex issues and help the team prioritize actionable next steps.

As I second guess myself, I need to remember that my goal was not that these experiment could be fully completed – the full deconstruct and reconstruct – in 90 minutes, but to start the process. To explore and test the process. To connect people around the process. I think many of us hungered to fully DO the process which tugs at us. We want good things for each other and results. So I need to frame that this is a starting point.

I’m not sure if anyone followed up with anyone for the matchmaking intention. We’ll see if that shows up. I plan to check back with my fishes over the coming weeks to see what happens and will invite them to write up their reflections if that is helpful.

If you would like to be the FISH in the DE/RE bowl, please leave a comment before. We have more facilitators stepping up to do more!

Resources:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/deconstructreconstruct-your-meetings-online-episode-2-tickets-101316392056

Timezone Converter Link

Developing a Shared Meeting Agenda

A colleague asked me today about how I work with teams who need to develop meeting agendas – hopefully together. As a facilitator, I’m particularly interested not simply doing this FOR a client, but building the capacity for them to do it.

Most facilitators have some version of this process. It is neither innovative nor unique. But for me it has been useful. Today’s request reminded me it might be helpful to share my process here on my (too) sleepy blog.

Below you can skim the process and see a template you can copy in Google Drive to try it yourself! Screen shot below just to spice things up a bit!

  1. Agree on tangible meeting outcome(s) together. Often I jump start this by asking “by the end of this meeting we want people to think, feel, know and do next…” Get those on the table, prioritized if necessary. Trim down to reality check after the first draft and once drafted, ensure agenda meets these outcomes. It is amazing how often there is not a match! I typically do this on a phone call with the planning team, and work through steps 1 and 2 of this process.
  2. Design first draft of agenda together. I use a table with the following columns: Time (from x to Y), Description/Purpose (what we want out of this agenda item), Process (how we will do it – more on that in a second) and Notes which includes who leads, who is responsible for any artifacts, etc). I like to do this in a collaborative editing space, NOT IN A CIRCULATING Word doc. I set it up before the planning call and share the URL. This online co-editing is not always an accepted practice, but it makes the process visible and participation (or lack of it) apparent. This visibility is critical in moving from us as consultants or leaders doing the work for them, to us coaching, to us being on call only as needed. It is very helpful when there are at least two members rather than one designing (yay co-chairs). They can use their unique talents together and it also is less risky for them individually.
  3. Review the agenda with a lens that reflects the values and principles of the group. Note, there is an assumption that a group has these. If not, this might be part of the step 1 conversation. This step does NOT mean we will have designed specific agenda items FOR these principles, but have chosen processes for the work agenda that leverage these things. One lens I frequently use comes from a Communities of Practice (CoP) perspective. It reflects the three parts of a CoP: community, domain and practice. When reviewing the agenda together we ask:
    • Is there something in this meeting that allows people to get to know/trust/enjoy each other better (community)? This supports the subsequent actions/follow up.
    • Is there something that deepens their domain understanding (domain)? This gives each individual some of their own professional development while participating in a meeting. Value in meetings should accrue in all directions if possible.
    • Does each person have a chance to practice what they need to do to execute going forward?
  4. Reality check against time/resources. Review and simplify where ever possible. I tend to make everything more complicated than it needs to be on first pass. This is where things tighten down.

With some groups there is not a widespread skill set of understanding their process options, how to mix and match them, etc. Good news – a friend and I are running a two day “Liberating Structures Immersion Summer Camp” in July down at Dumas Retreat Center here in Western Washington to teach this stuff. Leave me a note in the comments and I will let you know when the details are released.

Most meeting planning I’m involved in happens in an online video conference room (like Zoom) where we can screen share, see each other and take notes together. Phone is a distant second best. Most people cannot afford the time to do the planning F2F.

In a good working context, one person sketches out the first draft and invites people to review. We have our online meeting to discuss the outcomes, principles and draft. A DIFFERENT PERSON does the second draft with asynchronous online comments. The next online meeting is to prepare execution of meeting. If artifacts need drafting (slides, handouts, share background readings or data) we link those into the agenda so all materials are easily accessed and, where appropriate, shared.

Here is one more tip. While the facilitators’ agenda can be as detailed as you want, only send a summary agenda to participants UNLESS you are trying to build everyone’s meeting facilitation practices. I typically only put general times to avoid the “oh, I can slip out and take my phone call during this agenda item because it doesn’t matter to me.” Uh, no, our goal is that the entire agenda matters to you. If it doesn’t, we are failing.