The TED Meeting Phenomenon – Chapter 2

Posted on March 4, 2013 by John

In the previous blog I explained the history of the TED Meeting (actually the official name is the TED Conference) and how it has become a new genre of dialogue that has both grown and been copied around the world.

Richard Saul Wurman sold the TED Meeting to Chris Anderson, a British entrepreneur and publisher in 2001. Anderson bought it through his Sapling Foundation so that it became a not-for-profit. Despite the high cost of admission, which was $6000 per person in 2007, demand for the event and related activities, including international meetings, continued to grow dramatically, and the prestige of having given a “TED Talk” grew with it (great for your resume). Anderson was a creative marketer and came up with TED Prizes, TED Fellows and other initiatives which strengthened the TED community.

He continued to video the presentations as Wurman had done before, but decided to experiment with the idea of putting some of them online for free. The response was so phenomenal that he decided to turn his concept upside down. Since his vision had always been “Ideas Worth Spreading” he built a website around the talks. The conference was the engine to generate the great content, but the website was the amplifier to take these ideas to the world. In July 2012, a total of 1300 TED talks had been posted, with 5 to 7 additional talks posted every week. In June, 2011, the number of views passed 500 million. By November, 2012 it had exceeded one billion! If you’ve watched a TED video you have to appreciate the production quality of each talk. Multiple cameras, excellent audio and professional operators assure first class output.

Obviously not every talk is fabulous. So, not every talk is posted. But the real reason there are so many good talks is that Anderson introduced a new concept in 2009 called “TEDx”.

As the TED website explains, Continue reading →

The TED Meeting Phenomenon

Posted on February 25, 2013 by John

Why are lessons from TED meetings so extraordinarily relevant to running successful businesses and organizations?

Have you watched a TED video? Many millions of people have. The TED meeting and its children, TEDx meetings, have become a popular genre for sharing ideas. Indeed, the motto of TED is “Ideas worth sharing”. There are many thousands of these meetings conducted around the world today. Understanding where they came from and how they work will be the subject of several upcoming blogs.

The TED meetings were started by Richard Saul Wurman, an architect and prolific author, in the early 1980s. “TED” stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design. For Wurman, the idea was like having a personal dinner party in which the guests were very knowledgeable and experienced in certain fields, extremely articulate, and passionate about their beliefs. They weren’t trying to sell you anything, they were sharing their most intimate discoveries and passions. Speakers came from many backgrounds and spoke about totally unrelated topics. Architects have to be integrators, so he was ‘architecting’ a meeting. He even wrote a fascinating book called “Information Architects”.

Wurman was able to attract some amazing leaders in various fields to come and share their ideas. He was also very good at juxtaposing speakers in a way that inspired the audience to think. The audience members were just as prestigious in their fields as were the speakers. Part of the ritual was that speakers had exactly 18 minutes to do their presentation. Wurman would give a short introduction and let them speak. As they got close to the allotted time, he would come on stage and start walking closer. In extreme cases he would escort them off. There were no questions allowed. Instead, he provided for one hour breaks between groups of talks to give the audience plenty of time to interact with both speakers and each other.

He developed a “10 Commandments for TED Speakers” that exists with some variations to today. Here is the version I received in preparation for my TEDMed talk in 2009: Continue reading →

Connected but Alone?

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Lisa

I think we would all agree that technology and virtual communication through Skype, facebook, Linkedin, texting and other electronic devices has made it easier to conduct global business. It has also made it more convenient to stay connected and communicate across the world to our family and friends. Although virtual communication has become a necessity, nothing replaces human connection. Technology is not only changing what we do but who we are. It is shaping our modern relationships. As we expect more from technology do we expect less from each other?

For those times when we need to rely on virtual presence to conduct business it helps to have techniques that can stimulate better team dynamics, especially when the group is just getting to know each other. I would like to share a technique that we used at Kingbridge last year with a group of people from across North America tasked with coming together to engage in a brainstorming session. We were unsuccessful finding a date to get everyone together in person so we decided to take advantage of our virtual communication options and connect via Skype. The owner of Kingbridge, John Abele and I were apprehensive at first of using Skype because many of the proposed working group didn’t know each other. We decided to try to create a social and relaxed atmosphere for conducting this meeting so our virtual guests would feel as included as possible among the physical group. The result of these efforts was a virtual dinner engagement. We went so far as coordinating the menu, wine selection and how we wanted to decorate the tables with our virtual guests allowing us to share the same meal and feel like we were physically in one location. We even positioned the cameras and used larger sized monitors on both sides to create the illusion of each table virtually joining together.

The evening was a huge success. Not only did we engage in stimulating conversation and make new friends but we also were able to conduct our business objectives successfully. So, what I learned through this Skype interaction was by blending a social activity like dinner together with the business task we had to achieve it allowed a different dynamic to unfold particularly when the majority of us hadn’t met prior. The 2-hour event became playful and allowed us to connect quicker and be more creative and candid when we needed to share and critique ideas. At the end of the night we laughed because when it was time to say our goodbyes we all naturally stood up from our tables making the exchange feel similar to what we would have experienced if we were physically together. In that moment we all realized how enjoyable that virtual exchange had been and we had forgotten we were not in the same physical space.

If any of you have experiences to share where you were able to connect in a more meaningful way through a virtual medium to conduct business, please insert a post so we can learn from each other.

As a final thought I reference Sherry Turkle, founder and director of the MIT Initiative on Technology who poses some interesting questions for us to ponder regarding the increasing integration of virtual and physical communication today:

Are we redefining human connection and communication?
What types of new connections do we want to have?

Change Begins with Inquiry

Posted on February 11, 2013 by Lisa

I recently attended a heated town meeting where there was a significant difference of opinion on how to most effectively develop a large parcel of land that resides across from our Conference Centre. As I sat there listening to the various perspectives I found myself becoming frustrated that, considering the importance of the issue, nobody was there to moderate the conversation. The intense atmosphere of anger led the participants to become polarized. Here a community was coming together to try to create something we would all be proud of, however, because the conversation was allowed to get so out of control we lost sight of the bigger picture. Interestingly, as I was jotting down notes from the conversation I began to notice points of agreement from the different sides, but because of the hostility those points weren’t captured. If a competent moderator had been present these connections could have been brought to the forefront of the conversation and mitigated participant polarization.

Asking the right questions can refocus a polarized group of people, spur creativity & innovation, shape strategy, enable change, encourage people to think differently, build better teams & stronger relationships, as well as restore trust and confidence. In addition to knowing how to frame questions in ways that open the mind to think differently, it is also important to create the right environment and conditions so participants feel comfortable being open and candid.

Sometimes when a team I am working with gets stuck and becomes frustrated with each others view points I find something as simple as the use of a humorous video clip satirizing a similar situation can get them to open their minds and shift their current ways of thinking. Now, after a good laugh and a much needed shift in perspective we can start over having a very different conversation that allows us to break through those polarizing and frustrating moments. I tend to use video clips from “The Daily Show with John Stewart”, he has a humorous way of showing the audience how silly things sound when opinions have become so diverse that we have lost our ability to focus on the issue at hand.

Here are some strategies for leaders when a discussion starts to get emotional and go off track:

Ask for a “Quaker moment” of silence. It’s sort of like counting to 10. But it can last for 60 seconds. It allows a team to “restart” the discussion in a more productive manner.
Ask what would a great leader do in a situation like this? Ask opposing parties for their suggestions. eg, what would Lincoln have done?
Ask if there are ways to test each other’s responses
Reframe the question – what if we were to define it in another way.

In addition, below are some helpful guidelines for asking effective questions to use with your team ~ provided by Michael Jones one of our Fellows in the Kingbridge Collaboration Centre, Michael’s work focuses on helping organizations and communities engage in transformative conversations. He also uses music to encourage people to have better conversations with each other. Continue reading →

Finding the Right Language

Posted on February 4, 2013 by John

We may all speak English, but “language”, in this case, refers to how we communicate to find common understanding. And that’s hard.

It’s not just academics versus business people. Different businesses have different languages. Different departments within businesses have different languages (finance versus sales versus R and D, versus production, etc.). Children and adults have different languages. And, of course, different disciplines within the sciences speak and think differently. We tend to think that when we’ve made a point the other person obviously understands it. But they’ve actually heard something else. We all have our special tribal language.

It takes a special skill to be a translator, negotiator or bridge builder between different tribes. One strategy is to constantly rephrase the same point in multiple ways. Another is to turn it into a story with a debriefing at the end that explains some insights about the conclusion. Sometimes it helps to start with a story whose conclusion is not so obvious and then carefully lead the group through the logic of why things turned out the way they did. Malcom Gladwell does this very artfully in most of his writing. He loves to have you jump to the wrong conclusion and then explain why. That way you get surprised and are more likely to remember the point that he was making. Employing the right metaphor or multiple metaphors with the right timing, humor, confidence and humility is part of the skill.

Good leaders must be masters at communicating in a way that is understood by many tribes. It is their job to make sure they are understood individually and collectively about organizational goals, principles, issues and values. One of the best ways to do that is how one deals with a problem, challenge or crisis. These are teachable moments. They are real time stories where everyone is listening. In describing the problem and the strategies for action, the leader can express values, process and desired outcomes (how success will be defined). They can create a mindset that defines expectations and can inspire small groups to do better as an organized team than they would have as individual tribes.

This is the job of great sports team coaches. It’s what a symphony conductor does. It’s what business leaders do. And it’s what Research and academic leaders do. Finding that right language is part of the magic of great leadership.

A common concern among leaders is the idea that they won’t be able to successfully change their mindset – the “can’t teach an old dog new tricks” outlook. Good news! There is a large body of research called neuroplasticity outlining the brain’s powerful ability to change itself and adapt to changing environments. Neuroscientist Michael Merzenich’s research in neuroplacticity suggests that in order to be more open to others languages and find common understanding we need only to engage our brains differently. In the below TED talk Merzenich looks at one of the secrets of the brain’s incredible power: its ability to actively re-wire itself allowing us to update our “Mindset”. For several real world examples and stories about the endless adaptability of the human brain check out Norman Doidge’s best seller “The Brain That Changes Itself: Stories of Personal Triumph from the Frontiers of Brain Science”

Resiliency in Leadership

Posted on January 28, 2013 by John

Leaders and motivated individuals alike are becoming well acquainted with the new forms of technology and platforms for communication in order to be collaborative and inclusive but all too often the behavioral side of utilizing and implementing these actions isn’t considered a priority – an issue being addressed at the 2013 World Economic Forum themed “Resilient Dynamism”. Forum founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab says the theme was chosen because resiliency is the ability to adapt to changing contexts and withstand sudden shocks, both of which are increasingly common occurrences. In addition Klaus asserts that either attribute — resilience or dynamism — alone is insufficient, leadership in 2013 will require both.

Author and leadership advisor, Don Tapscott described the Davos program as ambitious to the point of mind-boggling, and built on three pillars. The first is “Leading through Adversity,” which means boosting the resiliency of organizations, improving decision-making, and strengthening personal resilience. The second is “Restoring Economic Dynamism,” which means that we achieve inclusive prosperity, rebuild economic confidence, and encourage entrepreneurial innovation. The third is “Strengthening Societal Resilience,” which means reinforcing critical systems, dealing with natural resources in a sustainable manner, and establishing shared norms.
>
It can no longer be ignored that the world is changing, becoming more volatile and unpredictable, and making the traditional leadership systems and mindsets counterproductive to governments and corporations alike. In order for organizations to grow sustainably it is imperative that leaders learn and embrace a new paradigm of behaviors including adapting to rapid change, encouraging collaboration both internally and globally as well as fostering creativity and entrepreneurialism.

Kingbridge offers programs that help leaders develop the behavioral shifts needed to move their organizations forward and adjust to current and future requirements of business and the workforce. To learn more visit our website.

Collaboration and The Marshmallow Challenge

Posted on January 21, 2013 by John

Some years ago Tom Wujec, author, Senior Fellow at Auto Desk and an amazing graphic illustrator gave a TED talk called “The Marshmallow Challenge”(video below). In the talk he described how different groups of individuals approach a technical design problem. The objective of the exercise was for each group to build the tallest free-standing structure in 18 minutes with one yard of tape, one yard of string, 20 sticks of spaghetti and a marshmallow. The groups in this exercise ranged from CEOs to MBAs to lawyers, engineers, architects and kindergartners. The results of this challenge showed how these different groups worked together on the challenge.

Perhaps the most surprising result of this experiment was that the children did better than the CEOs and the MBAs were the worst! The reason the children did so much better was because their design process included prototypes and instant feedback from each other sharing what they learned along the way. They discarded the failed ideas and built on their successful structures. The MBAs on the other hand spent much of their time debating who would be in charge and what plans they would follow. Architects and engineers did pretty well. The message taken from this exercise is that how we collaborate is influenced by our habits and the cultures we come from. Understanding and managing those cultures is essential for effective collaboration.

Collaboration Stations

Posted on December 28, 2012 by Admin

In a recent HBR article, Brad Power makes the point that face-time is still crucial in our increasingly disparate marketplace. He argues that although we don’t always work in the same place, at the same time, with the same people, making a habit of “face-to-face” work can really pay off.

With information accessible from everywhere, new co-working centres opening every day, and the near-constant publishing of articles touting the benefits of social business, the idea of collaboration is taking hold. There is, however, another disturbing trend starting to develop. With the proliferation of so-called “social tools” we have ended up substituting the truly “social” experience for a kind of pseudo-social virtual interaction.

All collaboration is great, but virtual collaboration seems to be missing something. There’s no room for nuance, or body-language, or intimacy, leaving virtual collaboration as a sort of hollow shell. When we can fill that shell with face-to-face time, even just a little, we strengthen the core of that collaboration. We should keep talking in the physical metaphor here because we can literally fill a room with opportunities to collaborate just by changing a few things about the room itself.

Imagine a place where you can bring the team – a place dedicated to team-building, ideation, and problem-solving – to work together in person. In comes the Collaboration Station – a real physical space which meets the needs of those collaborators. These people work together all the time, but if that work is only ever virtual, they may be seeing less-than-stellar collaboration results. Having a physical space dedicated to collaboration and innovation means everyone knows where to go to find help, and everyone knows what they’re supposed to do when they get there.

A Collaboration Station could be filled with inspiring material to generate the best ideas. It could promote collaboration by it’s very design, as opposed to promoting hierarchies. You could have project and idea headquarters and the facility could become a permanent idea incubation and innovation centre for the company. Plus, building routine into collaboration helps the team adapt to the culture inside your Collaboration Station and they become better team players, more creative thinkers, and more loyal employees. Not bad for a side effect.

Why We Need to Collaborate

Posted on December 21, 2012 by Admin

Considering the number of people participating in the sharing economy, it’s a wonder it’s not growing any quicker. With the increased popularity in sharing and collaborating, I believe we are currently watching sharing “go viral”. At first it’s a few organizations building a few websites to participate, now it seems like collaborating is the new hot thing. I’ve been following collaborating in the news for the last few years and recently I’ve seen a massive influx in all things “sharing”.

The UK Consumer Earnings from Sharing 2012 is an earnings report done specifically for Global Sharing Day to outline the number of people already working within the sharing economy and the advantages therein. When you look at the numbers, collaboration is only gathering more and more evidence as the next innovation revolution. Collapsing tiers and hierarchies and business sectors seems to be an ideal solution and inevitable response to this increased “need for sharing”.

When you look at who is collaborating, and how, you realize that it’s not just one business that changes because of collaboration – it changes all business. We’re seeing companies collapse silos into one collaborative entity; projects that were one person’s idea turning into global movements; entire secondary and tertiary economies developing – collaborating is literally revolutionizing business from within.

It started with a general interest in efficiency, and has become a global project. “Sharing”, “collaborating” – whatever you want to call it – has turned from a way to minimize cost and maximize value into what will become the only way to do business. The numbers are only going one way, and as far as I can tell, they’re speeding up. As more and more people seek to join the sharing economy, there will be fewer and fewer that will do business with so-called “non-collaborators” or “loners” – if these people keep resisting change, they’ll be left behind.

Collaboration Across Boundaries

Posted on December 14, 2012 by Admin

Boundaries like hierarchies, departmental disassociation, difference in expertise and even personal opinion consistently get in the way of collaboration. It’s no one’s fault, but it’s everyone’s responsibility to account for it so we can stop it from getting worse. These boundaries exist wherever there is any, shall we say “difference”, between collaborators. This could be a difference in rank, a difference in expertise, a difference in interest, or even a difference in personality, but regardless of the difference, it creates a boundary that must be overcome.

Minor friction between different personalities is to be expected – some people just aren’t great team players. In many cases though, there is a specific reason for this friction, and something to be learned from it. The disagreement you’re having is probably based on something else you actually agree about. Carl Jung would have something to say about this. You both want what is best for the company, and you both think you’re right, and you’re both missing a piece of the puzzle.

Hierarchies too. There are people in every level of an organization who presumably spend some percentage of their time thinking about how to make the company better, and because of their relative positions within the company, we can presume that they would have different opinions on how and what to improve. This conflict between so-called “managers” and “employees” could happen because front-line staff are better informed of a company’s daily activities than the managers and executives. Or just the opposite.

In most cases, the external conflict that arises between collaborators is actually because of a paradoxical internal conflict – collaborators both fundamentally agree and disagree. In this conflict there is opportunity. The subtle agreements underlying the disagreements are the foundation for a good collaborative team, but they have to be developed in lieu of the much more obvious disagreements. Each side has a chance to understand the other side, each has a chance to learn why this conflict exists, and learn from the other side.

Conflict across departments is the same story. Different expertise = different opinion = some fundamental disagreement somewhere. And yet you work in the same place. Some conflict in collaboration is good – it’s going to challenge everyone a little bit – especially when that conflict arises because of a shared desire or interest. Boundaries can be good too, because they point out the most obvious opportunities for development. Boundaries can be barriers to collaboration, but they also present the chance to build bridges.

Kingbridge Conference Centre and Institute

Open Minds and Expand Thinking "The paradox of real collaboration is that it is not about getting the best minds together – it's about creating a New Mind Set."

Category Archives: Collaboration