I Love It!

Ok, so it's late (11:58pm) and I need to go to bed, because well... I have to work tomorrow. So, I'm catching up on my Jay Cross's reading for class. (No, it being summer and my being a grad student has not created a smooth collaboration just yet.) Anyway, I just have to say, I love the idea about Unmeetings.

Generally speaking I don't like meetings. My experience has been that most are unproductive, somewhat pretentious and pointless. For all that was said I could have read it in a memo or at least have given it the attention that I give most memos. (You know, you peruse it for information that is vital to you, then you toss it aside. Or you just toss it aside, because there wasn't anything vital nor interesting to you.) You say it shouldn't be about what's important to me. But isn't that the way we evaluate everything? If it is not vital to my interest, concerns or causes I have no place for and will therefore forget it, even if I heard or saw it.

Unmeetings sound like gatherings for those who really want to be there. Wherever there is. Those who have something to share or want to be shared with. These are gatherings for those who mean to do business, but not in the conventional sense. Take away the fluff and the stressor and get down to the real business of sharing, collaborating and exploring possibly something new, maybe something old, but definitely something with pertainance. (Is that a word?)

I am looking forward to my first unmeeting, G'nite all :)

Tell me again why I should stay?

One of the most dreadful comments you can make to a person is, 'You should know this.' Followed by the question, 'How long have you been here?' That's like telling your son or daughter they should know something, because of the age they are. It presupposes that in some way, the information was taught. Subsequently, it makes the listener (son, daughter or employee) feel like in some way 'they' missed the vital information. They missed the opportunity to snag the nugget of information that would have saved them from what is now a defeated moment. It also puts them on the defense.

Length of employment does not always equate into wealth of knowledge. Nor does it equate into being effective. While the opposite assumption is made, what is missed is the application of the knowledge. That which is unapplied is lost. My client has often experienced this.

In the general sense knowledge is present, but it is dormant. What is remembered is the idea of how something was suppose to work. The problem is that the information has not been applied in years and new processes have totally taken the place of what was known from before. The statement, 'I forgot' has replaced it. It was not forgotten on purpose; it was lost as part of a natural transition to a new process.

On those occasions where there is no loss, it has been because my client has been able to build upon the knowledge that was present. The full process was not lost; only a portion of it became obsolete. It was replaced with a more powerful function. In this the employee has seen the link between the two portions, the old and the new and possibly found an additional application. This is were the happy thoughts stopped. If the new application is not presented in way that generates buy in those listening (usually managment), or in some case if the planets are not aligned, no further application is allowed. That is until some time later, like maybe years.

I have witnessed people leave because they could know grow with my client, the way they had hoped. I have also watched people agonize over the decision of whether to go or to remain. They remained, but did so begrudgingly. Their staying was for reasons differing from the growth potential. Staying required patience for change and hope for more growth opportunities to make the staying worthwhile.

The sad part is departures were not discouraged; even though the person was a valuable asset, their worth was not consider reason enough to persuade them to stay.

The processes of my client are very cut and dry; black and white; very concrete. It is the methods of running these processes which allow for growth. It is with the introduction of wikis, writeboard, google docs etc. that will help my client to explode with possibilities on communicating with each other and with their customers.

Perhaps there is a wiki in their near future.....

Sharing...like we were taught in kindergarten

Organization-Centric vs Network Centric
difficult coordination vs easy coordination
closed and proprietary knowledge vs open and transparent

My client really exhibits a combination of traits from both sides. I must admit, while trying to maintain an open and neutral stance, it is more difficult to weigh out the network centric characteristics. However, the truth is that there are inklings of it showing through. My client is a well established entity, who like many other institutions, have only changed in ways which affected their customers, rather than their employees or learners. Any change was primarily meant to benefit their customers, because after all, if it were not for the customers the institution itself would not exist.

Over time what has occurred is that as new people are hired, they customarily bring with them, not their negative habits, but their positive ones. They brought with them ideas and processes which worked at their last place of employment. Quite naturally, when they mentioned these ideas and processes, they were met with blank stares or the 'deer in the headlights' look. Followed by the, 'No, we've never heard of that before...'. Followed by the list of reasons why 'we never do it that way'.

My client was top heavy with decision makers and bottom heavy with employees who were waiting to be spoonfed rationales, processes and other reasons for why a job was being done a particular way. Unfortunately, this also caused there to be fear of blame for errors, mixed with a large dose of, 'I did what I was told'. There will always a certain portion of this in any organization I believe. What is equally unfortunate though, is that even if the employee knew what they were being told was incorrect, they would still do as they were told. There was reluctance to share what was known by them with management, because of how they felt management viewed them. Management on the other hand was not particularly willing to hear and/or implement was the employee shared, because the suggestion or observation was viewed as the employee trying to get out of working. Interesting how things translate, huh?

With the hiring of both new management and support staff, has been new inklings of knowledge, willingness to try new concepts and procedures and exploration of ideas. The staff is starting to share more amongst each other. Management is becoming a listening ear instead of a shut-off brain.

And I say again...I see network centric organization on the horizon, ever so faintly : )

Centric on what?

My client is very much organization centric. I believe some within my client's domain strive to be network centric, but are stalled. Older institutions tend to have more difficulty changing their mode of working. Clay Shirky mentions this tendency in his book, 'Here Comes Everybody'. My client is a long standing entity like religious organizations, greek organizations, fraternal orders etc. Many operate under the, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mode of thinking. What generally occurs is that 'broke' is defined by the heirarchy, not the regular members. Such is the case with my client.


I have observed times when staff members have suggested changes in a process. These staff are the users of the process. However, their suggestions have been immediately shot down and explained away with 'we've never done it that way' or 'I don't think it will be approved'. However, the same idea is later given thought when a member of the heirarchy suggest it and then it's implemented. While the thought is in limbo the staff member who initially suggested it feels defeated and unheard.

Coordination in the organization is difficult because of the levels of authority that must be involved. Sometimes it seems that each level of the heirarchy tries to think for the level above it, acting like a filter for those to whom they report. No one necessarily wants to be the one who brings an idea that may be deemed 'crazy' or 'unreal'. Often my client has heard comments from the external customers regarding their lack of technological prowess, because my client is considered by some to be on the cusp of technological changes. However, while other departments may exemplify new technical changes, my client is often stymied by those in control over it. Those who already dabble in techical advantages like wikis have less of a problem conceiving of the idea of processes progressing in new technical ways. They are often ready to rid themselves of the technological relics of the past which were great when they were first conceived.


Those who are right brained oriented have less of a problem within my client's organization. They thrive less on creativity and more on being concrete in thought. Hence, they also tend to love what they are doing or at least obtain a great deal of satsifaction from it.

Sharing of information here is like the military way of thinking: On a need to know basis. Often the sharing of information can be seen as even cliquish in nature. The problem with this is that the ones who need to know the information, the ones who would benefit most from access to it, are often the last to hear it and normally hear of it from somewhere else first. Information is often given in portions, instead of fully. Because information is missing it's absence leads to mistakes in how it's processed and forwarded. The funny thing is that in some cases, the missing information is not such that would cause a staff member to adversely affect the system used by having it. (The staff member only has access on an inquiry only basis.) Knowing it would simply complete the picture of the full process. Instead of information being free flowing, staff members must return to the heirarchy and repeated ly ask more questions. This gives the impression of having to play 20 questions, over the course of several visits. A simple remedy would be to have all parties involved meet in one place, at one time, to discuss, decipher and explain the process. Ahh, but that would be too open and transparent, now wouldn't it?


I have to believe that network centric is trying to make its way over the horizon. I have had a faint siting of it...or was a bird?