Author Archives: Johnnie Moore

Idea Zoos vs Idea Habitats

Thinking some more about my previous post, and this common metaphor of “capturing” ideas and knowledge.

It makes me think of how wild animals are captured and put in zoos. The desire to provide the public with an amusing spectacle sits uneasily with claims about protection and preservation. Same with capturing ideas in brainstorms… are we really trying to protect and support these ideas, or are we really trying to keep other people reassured and entertained?

Maintaining the natural habitat for species is more challenging and doesn’t provide as much short term gratification. Similarly, supporting the kind of working relationships in which ideas naturally flourish is much more challenging to hierarchical organisations than creating brainstorms and innovation incubators and hubs. The urge to have something organised, and centralised may distract us from what really allows ideas to flourish.

Capture

What if we focus on the ideas that are so sticky, they don’t need a post-it note?

How often do we leave meetings where the walls are festooned with post-its? But do we really believe they are the sign of real productivity?

If we let go of this urgent need to “capture” knowledge, would we perhaps notice some more interesting things that are going on?

Messiness or order?

I found this after seeing a similar clip on Facebook. I find it mesmerising.

There are times when I see only a mess, and then you see order. The transitions can be breathtaking. When I watch it again, I seem to see more patterns and less mess. Feels like a metaphor for a lot of the best kinds of meetings. At the time they are often frustrating just before they become interesting. And with hindsight bias, we see less mess any more order.

Maybe it’s all order, all the way down?

Thanks to Anne McCrossan for helping me find a clip outside Facebook.

Emotions

Shawn Callahan sometimes shares this little video clip with people, without much preamble, and then asks them what they see happening:

OK, most people ascribe human emotions and actions to the shapes. They say things like, “the big triangle was bullying the little triangle and the circle but the little triangle saved the circle.” Or they will ascribe roles to the shapes saying things like “the father didn’t like the boyfriend but despite being pushed away the boyfriend still went out with the girl and the father was angry.”

We like to tell ourselves a story to explain what’s happening rather than merely say they are geometric shapes moving on a two-dimensional plane. And because we tell ourselves a story we feel emotions as the story unfolds. And depending on our surroundings, we will verbalise these emotions.

I love this. It falls into my celery stick collection: At school, I wasn’t much good at biology (the room smelt funny, for one thing). But I remember the experiment where we put a stick of celery into a dish of blue dye. And watched the dye get sucked up by the celery, thereby revealing the mysteries of capillary action. Shawn’s experiment really shows at a fundamental level how emotion and storytelling influence how we understand the world. Reason and emotion are bound together.

Shawn also goes onto to suggest that a byproduct of his experiment is that it gives him a clue about the level of fear among the group he is working with.

Hat tip: Nancy White pointed me to this post. I should have been reading Shawn’s blog anyway!

Contempt

I’ve been paying more attention to contempt recently. Noticing others expressing it, often in small ways, and catching it in myself.

So this article about the work of John Gottman caught my eye. It gives chapter and verse on his work showing how contempt is strongly correlated with the failure of relationships.

On one level, this isn’t so surprising – as many people exclaim in the comments to that article, often contemptuously.

Contempt often gives the person expressing it short-term satisfaction, but at considerable cost to relationship and long-term satisfaction. Contempt can be addictive.

I’m especially interested in “micro-contempt”: the small signs of contempt that we exhibit, either without realising, or thinking we’ve got away with it. Often though, we don’t get away with it: the other person picks up the contempt and responds in kind.

And this tit-for-tat will tend to escalate: we tend to underestimate the impact of the insults we deliver… but we feel the impact of those we receive more strongly. This can lead to vicious circle of escalation (See this post on how this happens in physical fights)

It’s quite the challenge, I reckon, to create ways to respond to contempt that aren’t themselves contemptuous. We can probably articulate theories about how to do it, but I suspect what’s really needed is practice. In my case, lifelong practice!

News as sugar…

Alejandra Quintero suggests that the news is bad for us, quoting Ralf Dobelli:

“The fortunate among us have recognized the hazards of living with an overabundance of food and have started to shift our diets. But most of us do not yet understand that news is to the mind what sugar is to the body.”

I tend to agree. I was then really struck by this graphic…

network3

..and her suggestion that too much news leaves us informed but not knowledgeable. Knowledge is relational, and a lot of news coverage feels atomising.

It also reminded me of this little diagram:

This originated at the Rand Corporation. They are thinking of energy grids, but it carries over to other networks. I apply it to meetings, where people often stick to A or B and avoid C, but C can often be the most engaging because it’s more human and more relational – though easily dismissed as mere gossip by those who prefer a more hierarchical form.

Neurononsense

I don’t think I’ve ever linked to the Weekly Standard before, but this debunking of the overplaying of neuroscience is a good read. (I’m overlooking the anti-liberal dig at the end).

I tend to agree with the takedown of “learning styles” which don’t seem that well-rooted in science and tend to encourage wooden leg thinking. I also quite enjoyed the snark against the word “workshop” even though I’m as guilty as most in using it.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen

Ideas

WebPerhaps connecting through ideas is over-rated.

This may sound almost sacrilegious or insane. Surely the whole of civilisation rests on ideas? Ideas having sex, etc etc.

And don’t get me wrong, I get as excited by new ideas as the next man, so I’m not pointing the finger at anyone in particular here.

But we often don’t notice what happens when we advocate ideas strongly. Or when we evaluate our conversations and meetings solely on the basis of whether some new idea occurred to us. People advocating ideas easily and unwittingly generate resistance. People hungry for ideas often come across as impatient and intolerant.

The insistence on new ideas in meetings can lead to a lot of ritualised writing of post-it notes that the next day, everyone has forgotten.

I have always loved the idea*, espoused by Robin Dunbar, that language emerged as an extension of grooming. You know, the stuff apes do, stroking each other.  I often wonder, when people are passionately espousing ideas, how this feels as a bit of grooming. My thought: Often, more like a poke with a stick than having your long, blond tresses lovingly brushed.

We’re so caught up in our ideas that we forget our, and others’ humanity and vulnerability. I know I do.

And there’s often a vicious circle in which ideas beget ideas, which seems on one level to be highly sparky and creative. But on another, becomes more and more insensitive and disconnected. Quite a lot of people with severe mental distress are those with a huge flow of ideas, so many ideas that they’ve lost touch with the world completely.

It’s why I like, when I can, to try to slow things down, and use a more reflective process. Which often feels very scary, rather like the stress we feel in rapid deceleration. I have found some of the most satisfying moments in conversations happen in the space that opens when we interrupt the rapid exchanges of ideas and sit with the discomfort that may follow.

And, paradoxically, some of the better ideas happen when we have stopped looking for them or insisting on them.

* Yes, I get the irony

(More stuff on this theme)

London facilitation workshops

WebI’m going to run a couple of open workshops in November. They’re in London on November 6th and 7th.

They’re for anyone who wants to get more out of meetings. I’ve developed this approach with Viv based on working in all sorts of places from Scotland to the Solomon Islands, and with all kinds of organisations, from corporates to charities.  The approach is informal, fun and way more engaging than your standard “turn to page 94 of the manual” training.

The first is on The Basics! It’s a day of the core ideas we use to help get more out of meetings, protect against death-by-powerpoint and get people more involved and interested.

The second is about Facilitation as Performance. Beyond tips and techniques, effective facilitation is a demanding performance. Viv and I have developed a few interesting ways to help you get more out of yourself when your on-the-spot and dealing with the unexpected.

There’s an early bird rate of £195 plus VAT until October 10th.

Details of both days are here.

Leadership, narcissism and what we really want

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic suggests why we end up with incompetent leaders, making a point about a bias towards men in the process:

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because we (people in general) commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women. In other words, when it comes to leadership, the only advantage that men have over women (e.g., from Argentina to Norway and the USA to Japan) is the fact that manifestations of hubris — often masked as charisma or charm — are commonly mistaken for leadership potential, and that these occur much more frequently in men than in women.

In the comments, the men vs women aspect generates a lot of heat, including some fairly unabashed sexism. I’m more interested in the points he makes about our desire for “leadership” generally.  For instance, this:

Unsurprisingly, the mythical image of a “leader” embodies many of the characteristics commonly found in personality disorders, such as narcissism (Steve Jobs or Vladimir Putin), psychopathy (fill in the name of your favorite despot here), histrionic (Richard Branson or Steve Ballmer) or Machiavellian (nearly any federal-level politician) personalities. The sad thing is not that these mythical figures are unrepresentative of the average manager, but that the average manager will fail precisely for having these characteristics.

In fact, most leaders — whether in politics or business — fail. That has always been the case: the majority of nations, companies, societies and organizations are poorly managed, as indicated by their longevity, revenues, and approval ratings, or by the effects they have on their citizens, employees, subordinates or members. Good leadership has always been the exception, not the norm.

I think our culture over-values and idealises leadership. It becomes a way of avoiding dealing with mess and vulnerability by hoping for magic. When people start talking about the need for leadership in a conversation, I want to know what specifically it is they want. Asking for “leadership” as an abstraction easily comes over as passive-aggressive.

I think this comes back to the human challenge to 1) know what we want and 2) be willing to make that desire clear to others without too much obfuscation and manipulation. When people vehemently demand leadership I suspect they either 1) don’t know what they want (and basically need someone else to tell them) or 2) do know what they want, but can’t bear the possibility they will be denied. In the worst cases, the call for leadership is really a demand for obedience, dressed up in fancy clothes.

Much the same applies to other abstractions like “innovation” or “action”.