MOIP #9: What I’ve Learned This Spring

Working from home… in the bedroom version!

I wrote this short article for our Liberating Structures extended network of practice. I thought it might be useful here too!

The last few months have been rich with lessons for our amazing global network of LS practitioners, and all the sub-communities it holds. Here are my lessons that have been surfacing:

  1. Creative destruction RULES. DEConstruct before trying to REConstruct offline events into the online space. TRIZ is our friend!
  2. The six knotworking questions are SUPER useful at this moment in time for developing flexible, emergent plans. 
  3. Critical Uncertainties was MADE for this time!
  4. This is an oldy, but a goody: slow down to go fast. While we can dance with abandon at the novelty as we move and reframe different Liberating Structures online, we must also hold space for people to move forward together when the moment calls. This translates to fewer structures piled into an online meeting, holding generosity to extend our practiced F2F timings and keeping technical options at the min specs, vs max specs. (Purpose to Practice is helpful here!)
  5. Ask for help. Ask specifically and offer your first ideas. This way people are more likely to respond and respond generously. As our Slack community grows and grows, we want each person to find and offer value. So ask as specifically as you can. Show you have done a little thinking already…
  6. Offer help! The connections we create through these asks and offers weaves our network.

There is a LOT more… right now I’m processing what I’ve learned through three series of rather intense online events, thinking about time, space, embodiment, humane-ness and all sorts of good stuff. So more to come. But if I wait to “finish” this, I will never finish this!!

What have you been learning?

MOIP #7: Virtual Peer Assists

I’m shortening the title… Moving Online in Pandemic is now #MOIP! This is 6th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1#2#3,  #4 , #5 and #6. This time a client has graciously allow me to share their story!

I’ve been having a great time working with the Floodplains by Design Network (FbD), particularly the Culture and Capacity Building Action Group (C&C in our shorthand!). C&C members have targeted peer to peer (P2P) learning as an important tactic for identifying and sharing knowledge. One form of P2P learning is to ask for and get help from peers. Peer Assists are one format for the giving and getting of help. They help tap both local and network wide knowledge, support local contextualization (no “one ring to rule them all” as Frodo might wish), and are easy to do. Some even say it is pleasurable! This Spring the C&C members have committed to at least two Peer Assists.  And to make them accessible across our wide geography, we decided to do them online. That turned out to be a wise choice given the Covid-19 outbreak. 

About Peer Assists

There are many ways to do PAs. You can simply call up another network member and talk about your challenge. This is helpful for matching specific expertise with a specific need — and we recognize we need to figure out a mechanism so FbD members can easily find each other for this sort of direct exchange. 

We also benefit from a diversity of views. Sometimes the most helpful ideas come from the “unusual suspects” and people who see and experience the world differently than we do. Here are some variations to consider:

  •  Troika Consulting , User Experience Fishbowl and Wise Crowds are three of my “go-to” peer assist variations. They create simple “containers” for people to get direct help on a challenge. The difference is that Troika works in an intimate trio, Wise Crowds uses rotating small groups to enable multiple people to get peer assistance, and Users Experience Fishbowl supports two layers of support – direct and indirect. It is a bit of hybrid option. 
  • If you are trying to elicit expertise, instead of trying to apply it in context, you can try  or Celebrity Interview. THis is not exactly the same thing as peer to peer assistance, but by asking people questions, we often get more and deeper insights than if they just did a presentation. It is more engaging for those watching as well. 
  • Appreciative Interviews help pull out current success upon which we can build. So maybe one watershed has really made huge progress, but we can’t quite figure out how to make that same progress in our watersheds. Discovery and Action Dialog can help us discover who is succeeding where the rest of us are struggling. (A way of surfacing positive deviance!)

C&C’s First Peer Assist

In early April we had our first Peer Assist, helping Kat, a member move her work on a strategy element forward. She was looking for ideas about how to frame and build a strategy element that reflected views FROM the network, so a Peer Assist seemed useful. She identified some people she wanted present and others from the C&C volunteered to be her consultants. To help shine a light on the process and add another layer of support we invited the whole C&C to be the “bowl” of the fishbowl. 

We convened on the Zoom video conferencing platform. In an hour Kat laid out her challenge, the “consultants” asked clarifying questions, and then Kat turned her back to her computer screen while her consultants talked about her challenge. After about 20 minutes she turned around, shared the key insights she gained and thanked her consultants. 

At the end, we debrief and came up with the following observations to help improve our next Peer Assist:

  • Great way of engaging. It takes courage — and you need to be truthful and honest about the feedback. Incorporate it in and be willing to accept the harsh reality.
  • Lesson: French Revolution – king reached out but didn’t do anything with the input! Input –> heard, seen, respected and USED!Suggest that problem statement for peer assist be elaborated in written text and distributed to panel in advance so they can gather thoughts / questions
    •  +1 Some of my best thinking happens during drives/walks/showers/doing the dishes…
  • From a Bowl person: Not quite sure how to engage, questions are relevant, but didn’t know what process looked like. How does this all work? (Lesson: not everyone got the same instructions in advance due to later additions of participants. Don’t let that slip through the cracks.)
  • If more time engage the outer ring
  • What would be a valuable question for a peer assist? Examples of questions, projects in different stages. 
  • How do we know about peer assist tool? Share more about the methodology (this article!)
  • In times of Covid and working at home with kids → Evening Peer Assists after kids go to bed
  • Humor: happy hour assists might cross certain lines, but the feedback would flow

Want more tips on how to do Peer Assists? Online and need to learn how to use zoom? 

Want the geeky process details? Here is an outline of how you can set up your own Peer Assist using Users Experience Fishbowl method:

Preparation: 

Identify your peer assistee. Ask if they have individuals they want as their consultants, and/or cast a net more widely. You do NOT need a large group. In this particular variation 3-4 consultants in the fishbowl with the peer assistee provides time for depth and sufficient intimacy for the conversation. Other useful folks are the “bowl” observing and sharing other ideas in chat which can be processed by the assistee later. 

For a small group, one person can guide the process and take note. If there is a larger “bowl” of people it can be helpful to have one person to take notes in addition to the facilitator.

Invitation: 

Send an invitation out. Draft copy below…

Thanks for being willing to do a peer assist. We are doing a peer assist variation called “Users Experience Fishbowl” where a small group of people support a person with a challenge or question (the “fish”) while other observers listen and respond afterwards.

Please come and help NAME OF PEER ASSISTEE think about her next steps with the CHALLENGE PERSON HAS. ADD THE PERSON’S CHALLENGING QUESTION HERE.

Technical Details: We’ll meet on a Zoom video platform so ideally you need a mic and a camera attached to your device. Best is a computer, then tablet, then phone. Log on a few minutes early if you are new to Zoom to make sure everything is running well. Due to the huge current loads on Zoom, sometimes it takes a few tries to get into a Zoom room… the days we live in!

Preparation: In preparation, we’ll send you WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SEND. KEEP IT BRIEF to skim as time is available. Mostly bring your ears, your brains, experiences and insights from your floodplains work. 

The X NUMBER OF FISH – YOU CAN NAME THEM will be ASSISTEE’S NAME consultants.  Other interested folks will observe the process, staying off camera and just listen/ take notes in the Zoom chat.

How this will work: Tight 60 minute agenda

  1. 10 minutes: Brief introductions both of fish and “bowl folks.” 
  2. 5 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE shares their challenge. (It is helpful if this builds on what was sent in advice, versus telling the same thing again.)
  3. 3-5 minutes: Consultants ask clarifying questions (no ideas, suggestions or their own stories yet.)
  4. 15-20 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE will turn off her Zoom camera, turn around with a notebook and simply listen as you talk about her challenge. She will not nod her head, respond, rebut or interject in any way. JUST LISTEN. As consultants, talk amongst yourselves with advice, experience, comparable stories. Range freely and think boldly. Dive into your experiences and data. The notetaker/facilitator will take notes. 
  5. 5 minutes: PEER ASSISTEE will turn around and thank you, and if they want, share the most useful things they heard from you. They will share her next step in addressing their challenge.
  6. 10 minutes: Invite the observers to share any highlights or comments they noticed.
  7. 5 minutes: Debrief the process and outcomes.

MOIP #6: Get and Give Help Online With Liberating Structures

I’m shortening the title… Moving Online in Pandemic is now #MOIP! This is 6th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1#2#3,  #4  and #5. Slides for the event mentioned here. And chat...

I do get enthusiastic… and then things go fast and other things fall behind. VERY SLOW. How is it that March 21 can seem so far away? How is it I started drafting this on March 31 and now it is April 13th???

Our Liberating Structures community has done so many experiments, moved the practice of using Liberating Structures online SO FAR, SO FAST, that time is playing tricks on me. I’m trying to circle back and at least share artifacts and a few reflections, if not a fuller description of what happened, what that means and what is next.

Here goes a super hurried drafty effort for our gathering 3/21/2020 to explore how to use Liberating Structures online to give and get help. The purpose of the gathering was to engage people in experiencing how even strangers can give and get help, we can do it online, and we can do it humanely. Slides and built in-created-in-the-moment harvest/notes here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SPIaIjyu2_6bf0AIU1KZJJ_eqcB9-plERZQq79CTjLk/edit?usp=sharing

The slides lay out all the process should you want to try this. The What? So What? Now What? harvest slides #19-24 are totally worth reading through. I am still trying to process it all, but if I wait for that, this blog post will NEVER get posted!

I’m going to use What? So What? Now What? as my own reflective structure. Feel free to amplify in the comments!!!

What Happened?

  • We mobilized a volunteer team from the Liberating Structures community to facilitate, tech host (manage all the zoom breakout rooms), harvest key insights, and generally help people as needed. Those with Zoom experience renamed themselves with a * in front of their names so people could private message those folks for help.
  • We set up a set of slides with instructions for each LS we planned to do, along with some “punctuation” in between. In LS language, punctuations are little connective tissues pieces between LSs themselves.
  • We had a very large group… I think it peaked at 68 but I lost track. My sense was it was diverse – familiar folks, new folks, folks experienced with LS and some brand new, some tech familiar, some not.
  • We all were getting a little frazzled with all the Zoom events, so our punctuations all focused on taking a breath, being in our bodies, even as we were connected electronically. We used “Just Three Words” to get settled and present. (For more on Just Three Words see https://fullcirc.com/2014/03/04/faciliplay-play-as-an-online-facilitation-technique/)
  • To identify WHAT we wanted to get help on, we used 15% Solutions.
  • I rolled out 15% pretty awkwardly and confused a number of people.
  • We did Troika Consulting in breakouts of 3 people.
  • We debriefed with What? So What? Now What? in groups of six people (two troikas joined up).
  • People captured their WWW in the slide deck, one slide per group.
  • We informally said goodbye and some stayed on for a longer, informal debrief.
  • We did NOT record – we decided less recording was a little freer, more intimate.
  • We DID capture the chat notes to share.

So What? What meaning to we make of it?

  • No matter who shows up in your triad, there is always something of value they bring. It astonishes people, yet it is real.
  • Don’t do this alone. If I had not had my friends as my team, this would have been a mess, particularly since it was a large and heterogeneous group in every sense of the word.
  • Breathe. Breathe. As we paused, slowed down, we could go more deeply and thoughtfully. The stress of the initial response to moving things online in Covid19 time has amped many of us up, winding our clocks a little too tight???
  • Small groups/breakouts are essential to scale large groups, creating both a broader shared experience AND deeper interpersonal connection and intimacy.
  • Clear instructions, Nancy, CLEAR instructions. Will I never learn?
  • WWW in small groups seemed to work well – with a little confusiasm. It needed more than 6 minutes of breakout time.
  • Tech note: need to figure more graceful ways of dealing with the “two user” problem when someone is on video through their computer and audio through a phone. Zoom treats them as separate users and when you automatically do breakout rooms, they often end up in two places and the video is a “ghost.”
  • Time, time, time. I wrestle with that wicked question of “how is it that time constraints make us sharper and we need more time.” (Or is it simply right now we crave more time in the smaller conversations?”

Now What? What is the next step?

  • I’m working on a series of online “peer assists” for a client in the natural resources sector and I want to encourage them to do Troika Consulting. There is an inclination towards wanting consultation from wider sets of stakeholders, or focused “experts.” What happens when we resist those inclinations and simply turn to each other?
  • How can people quickly find and convene Troika Consultations in these crazy days? What can function as matchmaking/matchmaker?

What is made possible: unleashing Liberating Structures in our personal practices

Mari Dumbaugh
Mari Dumbaught, PhD

Note: Last September I co-led a Liberating Structures Immersion in Atlanta and met Dr. Mari Dumbaugh, BA MSc PhD, Founder & Lead Consultant, Insight Impact Consulting, Adjunct Instructor & Research Associate, University of Illinois-Chicago. I was so enlivened by her follow up comments, I asked to interview her. It took us a while, but enjoy what she has made possible in bringing LS to her international development work!

What happens when you discover something that simply resonates for you? Mari Dumbaugh, qualitative program evaluator, training facilitator and professor of Global Health, had that experience by the end of the first day of a two day Liberating Structures immersion workshop in Atlanta last year. The moment of clarity came towards the end of the day when she was sitting with two others in a Troika Consulting exercise. Troika allows each person to get help on a challenge – no matter who they are sitting with. In the span of twenty minutes, Mari received significant feedback and ideas. “In just a day I discovered how accessible the structures are, and with the immersion – even one day – I could walk away with concrete things I can do across settings and cultures.” She also discovered things she had in common with two people who were before perfect strangers– both were also independent female consultants, looking to engage their clients in innovative, interactive ways. These two strangers-turned-colleagues inspired Mari to shift her entire approach to her facilitation and training work.

Mari realized she could make radical changes in how she was going to deliver her next training of qualitative research teams two weeks after the immersion. In the span of a few days she redesigned her training program from a primarily content delivery mode to an “unleash and engage everyone” mode using Liberating Structures.

Mari shared, “Often I’m facilitating training in settings where participants are coming from didactic education systems with few experiences of real engaged, classroom interactions. They are used to just taking notes of what the professor says.  So their starting expectations were different. They were used to sitting around tables and expecting to be filled with knowledge!” One thing her Troika group suggested was to get rid of slides. Mari was very open to the idea – she was not a huge fan of PowerPoint. As a university lecturer at a public university in Illinois, she found slides a convenience. There was some hesitation to dump the PPT all together because like so many of us, it had become a crutch. A safety tool.

And then she left for a remote part of the Central African Republic to run a Qualitative Research training workshop for a group of individuals with varying degrees of research experience. For some workshop participants this would be the first time they heard the term qualitative research. The training and subsequent program evaluation would take place in an area where there was often no power (no PowerPoint), a ton of material to cover, and on top of it all, she would be working in French! Did she regret missing day 2 of the immersion? I don’t think so. Mari was on FIRE!

Civil society and education systems in the Central African Republic have been rocked from general lack of funding and the most recent civil conflict that began in  2014. Education systems have been completely interrupted, and Mari was working with people with varying levels of literacy. It was clear to her that having participants write down notes, word for word from slides, was not an efficient way to learn.

The transition was not always easy. “When I tried  interactive activities on Day 1 of the training, it was hard to pull people out of the structured classroom expectations.” But by ditching most of her slides, she also ditched the stress of not knowing when the power (and thus PPT) might go off. So she got rid of it entirely! She delivered a full 5 days of training with her newly created workbooks she printed in Chicago and carried with her on the 7,000 mile journey to Berberati, Central African Republic..

The workbooks featured all of the qualitative training content and content Mari used in previous trainings, but now with Liberating Structures as the vehicle for a more participant-engaged delivery. Some of the foundational qualitative content  came straight from her previous slides, and other parts were left open to build on the participants’ knowledge, perceptions, questions and experience. A number of Liberating Structures lend themselves seamlessly to teaching qualitative research techniques, so participants had the chance to experience some structures and think about how to use them in their field research work.

Here are some of the structures (both established and emerging) Mari used and how she used them. I felt the detail was worth the longer reading time. 🙂

Spiral Journal – To emphasize the centering of participant voices from the very beginning of the workshop, Mari began the workshop asking participants to reflect and journal on their previous relevant experiences and why the group was lucky to have them as part of the research team. Journaling sessions served as the foundation for a number of LS strings throughout the workshop, including Impromptu Networking and 1-2-4-All.

1-2-4-All – From creating a Community Collaboration Agreement to establish agreed upon ground rules and parameters for our workshop together (i.e. mutual respect…and turn off those cell phones!) to reflecting on what participants took away from the Celebrity Interview, 1-2-4-All was an excellent way to get participants reflecting, sharing, benefiting from all of our diverse perspectives and previous work and co-creating the workshop experience. Mari strung 1-2-4-All after a Celebrity Interview, a Spiral Journal session or as a way for participants to generate questions about the material being covered. Mari reflected that this structure was especially helpful in moving away from PowerPoint-centric teaching and facilitation. After participants shared their own perspectives, Mari was able to expand upon, gently redirect and/or insert new information around what participants already knew or shared.

Celebrity Interview – To introduce the foundational concepts and associated skills of qualitative research Mari had great success using an expert “Celebrity Interview.” “I served as the ‘expert’ and gave my colleague questions to use in the ‘interview’ so that I could introduce the basic concepts of qualitative research…while also modeling in real time how to conduct a quality interview!”

Mari followed the Celebrity Interview with 1-2-4-All. First, participants individually reflected on what they learned and observed during the interview, then shared with a partner, and finally merged into a group of four. By the end of the activity the group had collaboratively formulated a list of key concepts and competencies and Mari filled in any gaps with anecdotes from her own field experience – even acting some of the anecdotes out! The entire activity was so personal and rooted in the lived experiences in the room. The key was that the participants had ownership over the process. In reflecting back on the experience, Mari shared “It felt liberating for me as an instructor. I know this stuff, of course. I have a PhD. But with  PPT slides you feel you can’t break away from them. All the knowledge in the slides is IN me and I can deliver without slides.”

Mari also learned some other things from the Atlanta workshop. “We had someone illustrating the entire session, an artist who put a visual to every activity we were doing. I thought about how to do this to give my qualitative researchers some context about their work. I had to explain this complex intervention we were evaluating. I decided to do it as a visual. I practiced ahead of time with a colleague. I visually drew out each of the stages of a relatively complex intervention. I know this sounds simple, but it flips our way we have traditionally developed teaching and learning. That has been dry, and not multisensory. This flips it on its head and is shockingly different ways of looking at the world. In 15 minutes I clearly shared, and they saw where they fit into the picture.”

In the end, Mari felt they had accomplished something huge. “It felt like a collaboration, instead of me just delivering information and being in hierarchical power and knowledge relationship. We were collaborating together as a team. We asked much more and more engaging questions.”

Of course, some form of didactic information transfer is necessary, especially when introducing concepts or skills to a group. Mari wanted to make sure participants left the workshop with consistent information in print. Yet she  worried that by printing workbooks of what was in her previous training slides people would just fall back into “receiving mode.”  Her solution was to print text that conveyed foundational concepts, but bring along highlighters for each participant. “There was an exercise to highlight key concepts and words as we went through the stages. This played well into the Liberating Structures. Then they discussed between and amongst themselves. In the end, I avoided having participants writing out information or having an extreme amount of reading. There was just enough of both to engage them.”

When I talked to Mari, I asked her to think about the moment when she was able to say “yes” to shifting how she did this work. “I was feeling the support and enthusiasm at the immersion, and it buoyed me a lot. I participated and went through the activities, and not just a superficial way, but in a way that gave me concrete, applicable strategies. I saw the structures worked.”

“Troika Consulting was especially helpful. By the grace of universe to be paired with two women from different fields but both consultants, we were able to communicate similar challenges across our fields where we need to communicate information that isn’t always so exciting. They gave suggestions with confidence,” recounted Mari.

Liberating Structures constantly talks about engaging and unleashing everyone. I asked Mari if her workshop participants in Central African Republic started to have access to their own expertise? “Yes, [after 3 days of classroom training] we started with a pilot study to test the research tools and give the workshop participants experience before the “real” data collection phase. Comparing this experience to a previous (successful) ppt based training, the reactions were very different. The team from CAR came back from the field more animated and excited about their roles as researchers. It got them excited about their role, to apply the role to themselves and built confidence for conducting the research. They too can do this, even just having been introduced to qualitative research. After three days built using LS, they came back with huge smiles on their faces. And they were motivated to continue.” During the training session immediately following the participants’ pilot field experience Mari used Spiral Journaling and 1-2-4-All to encourage personal and group reflection. Participants shared challenges they encountered during the pilot study and the group generated ways to address the solutions during upcoming data collection together.

We talked about what happened after Mari left, what she did to support her CAR colleagues’ new skills and confidence. “I left them with something… the workbook that they actively contributed to creating and added along the way. They have a resource to go back to should they confront challenges and opportunities (even in different contexts).” Mari also added that a number of participants expressed a palpable enthusiasm and deep understanding of the importance of qualitative research. Mari believes the collaborative and experiential approach to the workshop played a huge role in communicating the power of qualitative research to workshop participants in a profoundly personal way that is not always possible with a more traditional, didactic approach.

Mari sees the power and applicability of Liberating Structures. “ LS needs to be introduced to more NGOs in general, especially in contexts like Sub Saharan Africa where many systems are still scripted, where the leftovers of colonial approaches remain. As far as engaging individuals, NGOS could really benefit from having these trainings brought to local levels.

What is Mari’s next step? “Attend more immersions! Experience more of the structures myself. My next step is looking at my next semester of teaching. I get mostly great reviews, but the class could benefit from more engagement and less straight lecture. I want to learn how to integrate more structures into my classroom teaching.”

From training, to university teaching, to consulting – Mari doesn’t stop. “I want to refine and develop my LS skills for my consulting as well.” Mari is interested in how immersions can help spread LS. “The immersions and the ways you apply them into your setting depends on your group. I love that creativity – react to the group you are with. It keeps me on my toes. While I can plan, I can also leave space for creativity to emerge. Of course, vulnerability is required.  The structures allow it.”

Note: After this interview Mari went on to facilitate a training of qualitative researchers from both Malawi and Ethiopia in Addis Ababa. Liberating Structures – and the lessons she learned from her workshop Central African Republic – formed her approach to training a group of experienced researchers, many of whom were university professors themselves! The workshop and subsequent data collection were great successes, proving yet again that these approaches are flexible and translatable across context and levels of experience.

Mari has also maintained a personal and professional relationship with one of the Atlanta Immersion participants who was in her Troika group – they exchange on their experiences using LS in different workshops and hope to collaborate in future to bring LS Immersions to more of their circles.

Moving Online in Pandemic #5: This is the time of creative destruction

This is 5th in a series of posts about the tidal wave of moving online in the time of Covid-19. #1#2#3 and #4 Slide deck and artifacts for the event.

Many people learning together

It is being said around the globe: move a bad meeting online and you have a terrible meeting. People are already in “zoom fatigue” and are “Zoombie Zombies.” The signal is loud and clear: we need to figure out what to stop doing so that we can focus on what is truly important.

In talking to people desperate to figure out their next move with strings of critical upcoming face to face (F2F) events, it has become clear that one way forward is to first DEconstruct. Get clear on the deepest purpose of each meeting or event. Figure out what NOT to do or to STOP doing, and prioritize only those things that will move them towards their goals. That was the signal I was sensing when I wrote about Ecocyle to notice what is shifting a couple of weeks ago.

Now is not the time to simply tick the task box as done.

I decided I wanted to engage my communities of practice in figuring out how to help people DEconstruct and then REconstruct. Thus was born the DEConstruct/REConstruct episodes. The idea is to put together a string (sequence) of Liberating Structures that groups can use on their own or with a facilitator to focus on essentials, and then, and only then, move into design and facilitation considerations of what is born anew through the process.

I asked one of the people calling for help if they would help us “learn in public” by going through a rapid version of the deconstruct/reconstruct (D/E) process online in a Zoom meeting. I proposed we would do this in a “fishbowl” context with the team from the organization being the fish swimming through the process, and observers in the fishBOWL (fish bowlers) first listening, then breaking out into small groups to offer questions and suggestions to the fish team.

By using this learning in public approach, we could also facilitate a few other things. Potential facilitators and consultants in the bowl could reach out and offer support (getting me out of the matchmaking position). And the wise crowd in the bowl could give suggestions to improve the process.

My friend and colleague Eva Schiffer brought her team as the fish for Episode 1 yesterday. This group has the challenge of redesigning what was going to be a two week field based capacity building program in an African country. There were multiple levels of travel – of the consulting team to the country to work with their government partners, then out into the field with private sector wildlife conservation partners. Now none of these folks can travel. AND the pandemic is creating an new challenge for those using tourism as a way to preserve ecosystems.

In preparation for the fish bowl I shared the six questions I’d ask and we spend just 30 minutes on a call to walk through the process. Through some email back and forth there were just initial consideration of the questions because we wanted the conversation to be fresh and alive during the Zoom gathering. I also set up a Google Slides deck with the meeting agenda, process overview, a slide for each of the six questions for note taking, and then templates for note taking by the fish after their breakouts.

By start time we had 48 people on the call (out of 66 registered), six fish and the rest bowlers. After brief verbal introductions of the fish, and text introductions by the bowlers, we dove in with a story of their current challenge.

Next we launched into the deconstruct using the six questions from Strategic Knotworking. Here are the six questions.

  1. What is the deepest purpose of our work through this gathering and why?
  2. What is happening around us that demands change (in how we were planning this gathering –go deeper than social distancing if possible!)?
  3. What challenges and wicked questions do we face in achieving our purpose?
  4. Where are we starting, honestly? 
  5. Based on what we have learned, what is now possible?
  6. What is our first step and how will we know we are making progress towards our purpose?

Over the course of the next 45 minutes we focused primarily on question 1, around purpose, really digging past the signposts of their contract deliverables. Then we spent a few minutes on questions 2-4 to set context, challenges and baseline. I mentioned that question 4, “where are we starting, honestly” really benefits from a deeper look and suggested the use of Ecocycle Planning both to map out their project activities AND relationships. The team consistently talked about the importance of relationship and trust which typically they develop and deepen in F2F moments.

Finally we got to the really juicy question, “based on what we have learned, what is possible now?” That is when I felt the shift from what was, to what is now possible. The team thoughtfully balanced both their responsibility to their client (contract, deliverables) and the unique opportunity afforded by the shift online. Instead of the human and financial constraints (we can send the four people who are willing to travel), they realized they could tap more widely into the talents of their own team beyond the four. They could potentially engage more of their government clients and their private sector partners at a time when those partners are most stressed and could use support, even if there was no immediate money or business deal to be had.

Next we did breakout groups of 4-6 with the bowlers where they formulated a sharp, insightful question(s) and their most salient advice for the fish. They put these in dedicated slides (one for each group). While the bowls were doing this, the fish went into their own breakout room to make sense of what was happening. This unplanned innovation proved really helpful for the fish. So I want to repeat that twist – maybe keeping the fish in the main room so the facilitation team can learn from them. We’ll find out tomorrow when we try Episode #2

Take a peek at the insights from the Bowlers in slides 20-30 .

Finally, we did a VERY FAST (too fast?) What? So What? Now What? process and captured the insights in chat. I feel we could have gotten more out of this, but it was also important to stick to the 90 minute window.

Debrief

When faced with new constraints, we are able to leap past our old habits, assumptions and ruts. Something new becomes possible. This is at the heart of the idea of creative destruction and DEconstruct before REconstructing.

Looking across the amazing notes of the 7 bowl groups and the overall chat, including the debrief for those who stayed on for an additional 10 minutes, I think there was a) enough value to repeat this experiment next week with another NGO, b) gather and share a bit more information for the bowl folks so everyone get dive in quickly, and c) run the experiment one more time to see which questions deserve what amount of time.

We rushed through some great stuff, probably missed some stuff and really filled the 90 minutes, but it would have been wonderful to get the bowl engaged sooner and more interaction between the fish and the bowl. It would have been really wonderful to let the fish debrief themselves before we finished. That is lot in 90 minutes.

I was surprised that some actionable ideas emerged even before we got to the action planning question #5 – particularly Liberating Structure ideas that could be used in the deconstruction and assessment elements that could pull out some of the more complex issues and help the team prioritize actionable next steps.

As I second guess myself, I need to remember that my goal was not that these experiment could be fully completed – the full deconstruct and reconstruct – in 90 minutes, but to start the process. To explore and test the process. To connect people around the process. I think many of us hungered to fully DO the process which tugs at us. We want good things for each other and results. So I need to frame that this is a starting point.

I’m not sure if anyone followed up with anyone for the matchmaking intention. We’ll see if that shows up. I plan to check back with my fishes over the coming weeks to see what happens and will invite them to write up their reflections if that is helpful.

If you would like to be the FISH in the DE/RE bowl, please leave a comment before. We have more facilitators stepping up to do more!

Resources:

Timezone Converter Link