The challenge these animals faced was this:

“They had no tail, but a head at each end, and sharp horns on each head.” and “…no matter which way you came towards him, he was always facing you.”

I always thought that an animal like this would die out, because if the heads were equal, it would never be able to go anywhere.

We all know about “too many chiefs and not enough Indians”, which has a similar problem.

So how do you handle a situation where there’s either too much push or too much pull?

In t’ai chi ch’uan (commonly referred to as just tai chi), one of the techniques has to do with pushing. Pushing takes on many different aspects, from forceful lifting/pushing, to a gentler slower movement. As I think about how we work with teams and organisations, it occurs to me that all too often we’re either pushing too hard and too directly, or not enough.

Consider, first, what happens when you try to push someone. What do they do? They brace themselves, at a minimum. Sometimes, they prepare to push back, and then they do push back.

How about if you come up on them gradually? Let’s say you’re standing next to someone, and you slowly shift your weight so that you’re leaning on them – pushing – more and more, little by little? How do they react? Most typically, they will notice when you cross some threshold that is very specific to them. Many times, it will be when some “significant” amount of pressure reaches their awareness. If you were walking down the street, then they’d realize at some point that you had steered them by either physically leaning on them or by entering their “personal space”.

If we are working with a group, team, or organisation, in helping them to adopt new principles, practices, and/or methodologies, some of us – myself most definitely included – have a tendency to push. To be emphatic, zealous, excited, energetic, passionate, insistent,…

We must be aware and wary of creating resistance through our pushing. We must consider whether it’s more effective to lean on them rather than to push them.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Inside or Outside? (0)
• I&I over P&T (2)
• A Culture of Heroism (2)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)

In fact, while I did circulate (he was very busy as the organizer and a participant), that circulation fit within my concept of my role. Here’s what I wrote to Dan:

Regarding my behavior at the event…

Harrison Owen talks about what I refer to as “invisible presence”. I remain very conscious that the event is not mine, nor about me. My value lies in holding space and holding time, as well as “igniting the spirit” (my term) and providing the opportunity for closure and continuation.

The opening: this is where I believe my responsibility is to ignite the spirit of the community, and to connect the individuals into something larger than themselves. While that responsibility includes guiding the process, my focus remains on helping the community that is present to form and grow.

The closing: “When it’s over, it’s over,” as Harrison Owen says. “And when it’s not over, it’s not over,” as Doc says. That is, the end of the event is an opportunity for people to share, and to absorb from other people’s sharing. The closing circle has a different flow of energy than that experienced at the opening, and it’s no less important. The chance to share one’s thoughts and feelings, and to feel a connection with others who share those thoughts and feelings, is extremely powerful. My responsibility is to guide them, encourage them, and to assure them that it’s all right to share and to feel.

In between: This is the interesting part. Harrison often says “find more ways to do less.” My focus during this time is on the process, and in allowing the participants to self-organize. It might be tempting to engage with the participants, to join sessions, or to otherwise be a part of the event. I believe that my role is not to do any of those, although on occasion I have participated in a session. Mostly, though, I take responsibility for making sure that things keep moving, that the participants have a sense of ownership, and for helping to keep things clean. That’s not to say that I’m disengaged. Rather, I have a vision, a sense, of what my role is and what my responsibilities are, and that’s where I try to stay. That’s why the place I choose to spend my time is generally out of the direct flow of traffic, but visible and accessible. It’s important to me that people know where to find me, are aware that I’m there and available, but do not feel that I’m trying to control things or in any way intrude on their event/experience.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• You don’t know me… (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• The Margolis Wheel (1)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)

While in Boston, I got to spend a good chunk of time with Dan Mezick (InfoQ writer, founder of Agile Boston, founder of New Technology Solutions). Dan was the organizer and driving force behind Agile Boston Open 2010, which had about 250 participants. The event was a hybrid: programmed sessions in the morning, which included Ken Schwaber, Amr Elssamadisy, and Michael de la Maza; true Open Space in the afternoon, including an opening, agenda creation, and closing.

In the evening after the Open Space, Agile Boston held their regular monthly meeting, and I was privileged to follow Jean Tabaka on the program. Jean presented Twelve Agile Adoption Failure Modes. I presented Facilitation Patterns & Antipatterns. The synergy between our presentations, and between us, was exceptional. It was GREAT fun!

The following day, Dan and I did some walking and sightseeing in Waltham and Boston. During that time, we talked a lot about topics that interest both of us, much of it around group relations, group dynamics, facilitation, and working with Agile teams.

At one point, our conversation focused on how to deal with disruptive individuals in groups. My focus was on meetings and events, while Dan’s was on working teams, during this conversation. As we were discussing this, Dan casually said “Identify, isolate, and remove.” That really caught my attention, because it’s such a clear, simple formula.

The challenges with that formula are twofold, for me:

1. It may apply to a working team. In fact, I’d say that there are circumstances where it clearly does. I feel that it does not apply to meetings and events. Isolating someone and removing someone from a meeting is countereffective, as it will engender the wrong feelings in the target, and negatively affect the group.
2. It’s so simple that I fear it could become a mantra, and misapplied because it’s so easy to remember and apply.

I’m not disagreeing with Dan, or arguing that I don’t like the formula. I find it compelling, if only for its simplicity. I’m just being cautious that it doesn’t get misused in the wrong circumstances.

That said, I give Dan full credit for spontaneously articulating something that is so effective as a model.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Push-Me, Pull-You (6)
• What’s in it for them? (0)
• Video of a webinar I did – Group Wisdom, Group Genius, and Leading Agile Teams (1)
• The Plow (2)
• Patrick Kua: A time and place for everything (0)

Organizers and attendees alike agree that the Facilitator is a critical element in the success of any Open Space event, whether it is an internal meeting or a public conference.

An attendee at ALT.NET Calgary, Adam (AdamDotCom) said:

“Thanks for facilitating the ALT.NET conference in Calgary. Observing your openness, venerability, and integrity within a technical setting shattered my view of the traditional technical realm. Previous to this event, I had been perceiving the technical setting as a sterile (often hostile) environment. Now, I find myself embracing relationships, conversations, communication, and team work more. I find myself happier, and more enthusiastic about life in general.

Keep up the great work! I’m also enjoying your blog!

-Adam”

Followed by Howard Dierking, Editor-in-Chief, MSDN Magazine

” It is quite true Ð you have a very disarming, perhaps even fatherly approach to managing groups of incredibly talented but high-strung individuals; and I think that without that approach, events like ALT.NET would likely devolve into little more than shouting matches.

Kudos!”

According to Simon Guest of Microsoft:

“I first met Doc at the ALT.NET conference in Austin, TX in 2007. In my opinion Doc is one of the leading open space faciliators in the industry – the attentiveness, preparation, and passion that he showed at the ALT.NET conference made the event come together for all of the attendees. I am looking forward to working with Doc at other open space opportunities this coming year.”

According to David Laribee of Xclaim Software:

Simply put: Doc is an amazing Open Spaces facilitator. An excellent speaker and consummate “people person” he latched on to the Open Spaces concept right away and guided a group of very opinionated and seasoned people through the process. Doc was a key ingredient in making this an event to remember, and when planning the next event one of our first questions was: “can we get Doc?”

Read “A Description of Open Space Technology” by Lisa Heft

From Wikipedia:

In Open Space, a facilitator explains the process and then participants are invited to co-create the agenda and host their own discussion groups. Discussions are held in designated areas or separate rooms known as ‘breakout spaces’ and participants are free to move amongst the discussion groups. Each group records the conversations in a form which can be used to distribute or broadcast the proceedings of the meeting (in hard copy, blog, podcast, video, etc). Online networking can occur both before and following the actual face-to-face meetings so discussions can continue seamlessly. In a multi-day Open Space, participants have the opportunity to announce new discussion topics / late-breaking sessions each new morning. At the end of the day (or 2 days or 2.5 days) the full group reconvenes for comments and reflection. This helps participants to re-engage in the full group over the duration of the meeting.

While the mechanics of Open Space provide a simple means to self-organize, it is the underlying principles that make it effective both for meetings and as a guidepost for individual and collective effectiveness. The Law of Two Feet (also known as the Law of Mobility in settings where participants don’t necessarily have the use of both feet) — a foot of passion and a foot of responsibility — expresses the core idea of taking responsibility for what you love. In practical terms, the law says that if you’re neither contributing nor getting value where you are, use your two feet (or available form of mobility) and go somewhere where you can. It is also a reminder to stand up for your passion. From the law, flow four principles:

• Whoever comes are the right people
• Whatever happens is the only thing that could have
• Whenever it starts is the right time
• When it’s over, it’s over

People can choose different roles for participation in Open Space meetings:

• Host: the person who feels a burning passion for the subject and is willing to take responsibility to call the conversation, invite others in and make sure something gets harvested.
• Participant: Anyone who is drawn to a conversation wants to stay the whole time and participate fully.
• Bumble bee: The ones who move from conversation to conversation cross-pollinating the learning.
• Butterfly: A butterfly may not want to be in any conversation, instead they prefer to sit on the lawn and look beautiful. A new, unexpected conversation may happen when two butterflies meet.

The organizing theme of an Open Space meeting is that people who care about the subject will come together. The initial meeting notice takes the form of an invitation, thus the people who have attended have chosen to be there and are willing to contribute. The objectives for the meeting and the time available affect design decisions such as whether action planning is included in the Open Space or not.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)
• The Margolis Wheel (1)
• Retrospecting on the Community Courtyards (2)
• Retrospecting on ITARC Atlanta (0)
• ITARC Atlanta (0)

First of all, most of the people who attend Open Space events would tell you that these are among the most valuable events they attend. Then, I also find that people are coming to some of these Open Spaces from all over the world, because they know how valuable they will be. Whether they drive or fly, they are typically spending their own money to get their, and sometimes substantial amounts of money.

It does cost money to put these events on. So let’s do a little bit of math…

Let’s say that it costs $5K to put on an event, and the organizers decide to cap attendance at 150 people. The hardest part of these things is to find sponsors – someone to cover the venue, someone to cover food, and someone to cover supplies and such. In my experience, the organizers spend substantial time just trying to find sponsors.

$5K, 150 people. Hmm – if 150 people paid $50 each, that’d be $7500, which is probably enough. And if they paid $100 each, that should be more than enough, depending on the venue and the cost of the food.

How much would you spend for a weekend event that you knew would be particularly valuable? $250? $500? $1000? So why not $50 or $100?

The example I gave to my friend was this: suppose that 20 of the colleagues that you like and respect most said “Let’s get together and talk about stuff we really care about, and let’s split the cost.” How much would you be willing to put up? $25? $50? $100?

I’m not suggesting that the organizers of these events should be looking to make money. I am suggesting a model in which they break even by sharing the cost with the participants. Is that unreasonable?

We won’t even talk about PAYING for the facilitator, who is a professional, eh?

===========

* Okay, I ranted and he listened politely. And then he said “oh – I get it – that makes sense!”

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Presenting at XP2010 in Norway and Better Software in Las Vegas (0)
• Interviewed at CodeMash 2010 about Open Space (1)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• ThoughtWorks India helping to put on the first RubyConf India 20-21 March (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• You don’t know me… (0)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)
• Taken to extremes (0)
• Push-Me, Pull-You (6)

Now to work on the second deck of cards for March (SDC2010) – I want to have two variants of the deck ready to go for all three conferences.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Interviewed at CodeMash 2010 about Open Space (1)
• Free Open Space Conferences (3)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• ThoughtWorks India helping to put on the first RubyConf India 20-21 March (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)

http://technologyandfriends.com/archive/2010/02/01/tf0067.aspx

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Presenting at XP2010 in Norway and Better Software in Las Vegas (0)
• Free Open Space Conferences (3)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• ThoughtWorks India helping to put on the first RubyConf India 20-21 March (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)

http://www.scandevconf.se/

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• New graphics for facilitation patterns (1)
• More new graphics, and Agile2009 (0)
• You don’t know me… (0)
• ThoughtWorks India helping to put on the first RubyConf India 20-21 March (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)

http://fiesta.lostechies.com/

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• You don’t know me… (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• The Margolis Wheel (1)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)

http://www.altnetseattle.org/

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• You don’t know me… (0)
• The Unconference: Where Geeks JIT Together (2)
• The two faces of “It’s all about me!” (1)
• The Margolis Wheel (1)
• The Facilitation Four-Step(tm) (4)

The Negator may seem to be contributory and helpful at times, as their suggestions come across as helping you to see risks and dangers*. However, this behavior pattern, when exercised to the exclusion of balance, can become seen as the person’s identity, rather than one pattern of behavior among many.

* See Edward De Bono’s “Six Thinking Hats”

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Taken to extremes (0)
• More new graphics, and Agile2009 (0)
• First full presentation of Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns today #agile2009 (2)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Helpless (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Chicken Little (5)

At 2pm Central time today, I’ll be doing the first full delivery of the Facilitation Patterns & Antipatterns workshop at the Agile2009 conference.

Yes, I’m excited.

I’ve gotten great response from the folks I’ve told about it.  Hopefully some of them will turn up.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Taken to extremes (0)
• More new graphics, and Agile2009 (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Negator (9)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Helpless (1)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Chicken Little (5)

Helpless is only detrimental to a group in the sense that this individual doesn’t contribute fully nor live up to their potential.  Other than that, they may be very positively contributory in discussions and in helping the group move forward.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Taken to extremes (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Chicken Little (5)
• More new graphics, and Agile2009 (0)
• First full presentation of Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns today #agile2009 (2)
• Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns: Curious George (2)

Chicken Little is not a bad person, by any means. Chicken Little just sees everything as a portent of bad things to come.

Just in case you’re not familiar with the tale of Chicken Little, let me refresh your memory:

The basic premise is that a chicken eats lunch one day, and believes the sky is falling down because an acorn falls on her head. She decides to tell the King, and on her journey meets other animals who join her in the quest. In most retellings, the animals all have rhyming names such as Henny Penny, Cocky Lockey and Goosey Loosey. Finally, they come across Foxy Loxy, a fox who offers the chicken and her friends his help.

Depending on the version, the moral changes. In the “happy ending” version, the moral is not to be a “Chicken”, but to have courage. In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean “do not believe everything you are told”. In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper.

The challenge with Chicken Little is that he/she is believable, has great conviction, is convincing, and generally brings passion to their arguments. While you might not agree or believe at the start, through these attributes, Chicken Little will often persuade others to his/her point of view, thereby stalling or derailing the team.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Taken to extremes (0)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Helpless (1)
• More new graphics, and Agile2009 (0)
• First full presentation of Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns today #agile2009 (2)
• Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns: Curious George (2)

• Convergence
• Co-Worker
• Dominator
• Zealot
• …and more

I don’t remember if I’ve mentioned that these characters will make their “live” debut when I present my session on Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns at Agile2009. I’ve developed a workshop around these ideas, and I think it will be a lot of fun.

Tweet This Post

Related posts

• Taken to extremes (0)
• New graphics for facilitation patterns (1)
• First full presentation of Facilitation Patterns and Antipatterns today #agile2009 (2)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Negator (9)
• Facilitation Antipattern: Helpless (1)