Category: facilitation

Using “the clock” on telecons

Someone asked me the other day to remind them how to use the “clock” technique on telephone conference calls. So I dug out some old image examples and put this together and created a short (under 2 minutes) podcast. The lower images are based on a template one of the Online Facilitation alumni, Ray Guyot, made for us. Thanks again, Ray! Full pictures can be found on Flickr.

Teleconference Call Facilitation Tips

The Clock

“The clock” can be used on conference calls to help people get and keep a sense of place and participation in a disembodied conf call. It can be used with structured online chats as well. Ask every one to draw a circle on a piece of paper and mark the hours like a clock. Then, each person is assigned a spot on the “clock” as they join the group. So the first person is 1 o’clock, the second 2, etc. If there are more than twelve, start adding 1:30, 2:30 etc. Use this initially to create a speaking sequence for intros, and then use it to ensure everyone speaks. Participants can make notations by names and use it as a visual tool to match names/voices/input. If you are doing multiple rounds of “speaking” vary the “starting position” on the clock.

We want to use this in a workshop, so any feedback and suggestions for improvement are appreciated!

Edit: March 17th – Ray Guyot has graciously agreed to share his clock template. Ray Guyot’s Telephone Clock Template (pdf) Thanks Ray

The technology understanding gap

2008 #51: Still Not Connected
Eugene Eric Kim has an excellent post on The Technology Understanding Gap which uses a story to articulate one of the key challenges of technology stewardship – the frequent gap of understanding, and practice with technology that happens between a steward and her/his community. (The same goes for advisers, consultants and that geek friend who really, really wants to help you.)

First a quote from Eugene (I realize as I write this and having just written about Brian Hsi, that these guys both are smart and have a very thoughtful way of expressing both their ideas, and how they formulated them. I love that about both of them!)

Technology is insidious. It has a way of dominating a problem the way nothing else can. If you understand technology, it’s hard not to see everything in that light. If you don’t understand technology, it’s hard not to be overwhelmed by what you don’t know.

Eugene tells the story of a group he was facilitating and how they were trying to figure out how to connect a network of practitioners across the country. Eugene, recently inspired by Clay Shirky and his three column model, decided to use the “Tasks/Tools/Promises” framework for thinking about the group’s challenge.

Eugene Kim's flipchart picture
Eugene continues:

What do you notice about this picture?

Obviously, the Tools column is completely empty. That’s a dead giveaway that I’m facilitating this discussion. (That and the horrific handwriting.) Figure out the basics first. Don’t let the question about technology drive the discussion.

During the discussion, one of the participants asked, “What tools can we use?”

I responded, “Let’s not worry about that now.” So we kept talking and talking, and I noticed the two non-technical participants in the group squirming like crazy.

So I stopped, noticed how gaping the Tools column looked, and said, “You’re uncomfortable about not having discussed the tools, aren’t you.”

She nodded.

“Don’t worry about it,” I responded. “The tools part will be easy, once we figure everything else out.”

“Easy for you, maybe,” she said. “You already know what goes there.”

That was not quite true, but I got her point, and the force of it struck me so hard, I had to stop for a moment. I looked at the gap, and I saw possibilities. She looked at the gap, and she saw a void. That was upsetting for her. It made it hard for her to think about the other aspects of the problem.

It made me realize how much I take my technology literacy for granted. But it also created an opportunity to discuss how easily we are sidetracked by technology. “Tool” does not have to mean software, and making that assumption prevents us from exploring other viable, possibly better solutions.

In his post, Eugene goes on to reflect that next time he does the exercise he is going to start WITHOUT the tools column. I can see that as a really useful option. But I think there is an additional perspective.

Tools are sometimes not just practical affordances to get a job done, but they offer a way to visualize an outcome. we conceptualize them quickly with “technology” and all its bells and whistles, but tools are something bigger than just the latest software. Yes, they can limit us, but sometimes they also open up possibilities. As much as I’m a deep believer in the Task and Promise columns, I am surprised and reminded that some people, even non technical people, have a conceptual framework that builds ON the IDEA of a tool. So taking away that column may actually INCREASE anxiety for some, rather than reduce it.

My final question to myself and you, is how do we USE the tool column in a way that does not lead us down the technocentric path, but still helps us keep the concept and usefulness of “tool” in our conversations? How do we most usefully have and facilitate, as needed, these conversations?

Photo credits:
Creative Commons License photo credit: Jeroen Latour and Eugene Kim

NEXUS U Offerings

Nexus U OfferingsNexus U OfferingsLast week I blogged about Nexus for Change II March 29 – April 1 in Bowling Green, Ohio, USA. The first two days are Nexus U, a chance to dive into particular methods and approaches to whole systems change. Gabriel Shirley, who is coordinating the “U” sent out a list of the “explorations” available on Saturday. He said this is pretty set, but there may always be a last minute change or two. (PDF of Nexus U)

You can pick two. Then on Sunday you put them to work. There are some cool people and this will be a chance to work with them in small groups.

Watching twice and realizing I’m listening

I’m fickle.

I forget most movies the day after I watch them. Same for most books. Rarely do I want to see or read something a second time. So Monday’s video comes courtesy of a movie I have now watched twice and am actually thinking about getting a copy of the sound track and DVD – Across the Universe . (Sorry, I did not embed it. Tech issue.)

I was wondering why I like to hear music over and over again – a different pattern from books or movies. Then I realized Across the Universe is, in fact, a musical. And the other movies I have watched more than once have most often been musicals.

What is is about musicals?

If I look at the golden age of musicals they are often racist and sexist. But they, like our society, have evolved to convey real issues.

And they have music.

The music carries two things for me. One is emotion. I think of songs as the soundtrack of my life,  and they bring both a deeper connection with the emotion of the text and they embed a memory deeper in my brain.

The other is the switch between dialog and music allows us to step outside of our daily concept of “reality.”

It is like when I’m on a plane, 30,000 miles above terra firma and I can reflect on the world in a way that is different on the ground. A step away that gives a step closer to clarity.

There is a connection here with my recent playing with visuals. The addition of a different type of aural experience changes how we perceive something. I wrote a while back about the impact of adding music as background to a focus chat.  Facilitators often prime a room by having music playing as people arrive for a gathering. My dance and yoga teachers set the tone with their choice of music.

Is a fully lived life a musical?

Language, usefulness and exclusion

I work a lot inside of communities of one sort or another and they often have their own insider language. You know, jargon. People complain that jargon is exclusionary and it sure can be. But it is also useful short hand within a community and can convey succinctly something with specific meaning. The challenge for us is using that language either outside our communities or with intent to exclude.

But dang, it can be useful. Here is a great example from travel guru/insider Joe Brancatelli who does a lovely decoding for us outsiders. This time it is about talking to gate agents at the airport.

One example: When you don’t see your plane at the gate, don’t ask the agent if the flight is on time. Ask, “Where’s the equipment?” That will force the agent to go to the computer and find out where your aircraft is and when it will actually arrive. If the plane is already at the gate, ask, “When are we scheduled to push back?” Looking for an upgrade? Don’t blindly inquire about your chances. Ask, “How are the loads today?” The agent will tell you how many seats are empty and your number on the upgrade wait list.

What kind of insider language do you use? How do you interpret it for others?

Amazing chocolate airplane and photo by Stevepreneur on Flickr