Lessons from Helsinki: Kill the Speaker / Attendee Divide

Posted on July 1, 2010 by Scott Gould

The best bit about Like Minds Conversation Helsinki was when the panel got up and crossed the invisible divide that separates speaker and attendee, and began chatting with the people in the crowd like equals. Because guess what, that’s what they are: equals.

Almost a year ago, when I was forming the ideas for Like Minds, I knew that ‘attendee’ would never be a word in our vocabulary. Everyone at Like Minds is a participant – whether they stand and delivery a keynote, turn to the person next to them and share their experience, or help guide a group a discussion.

The reason for this is quite simple: people are smart. The speakers are smart, and the listeners are smart.

I’m now seeing the word ‘participants’ replace ‘attendees’ all over the web. It certainly seems this participatory form of event is catching on – and I love it. In a people-to-people world, a people-to-people event needs to be participatory in order to ensure people learn. Note this isn’t about the speaker satisfying their ego, or the listener satisfying their lust for criticism – this is about learning.

Inspired by my friends Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz who write the number 1 event management / event design blog in the world (at least, in my eyes), I’m sharing what we found in our latest event what worked and didn’t work, by experience, in regards to creating a participatory learning environment.

Killing the Divide

Worked: Preparing keynotes and panels. I know it’s obvious, but all too often a keynote is being prepared on the plane, and the panel in the corridor before hand. Preparation means I’ve thought about what the community of people who are present need to hear – not just what I’ve said before. Don’t underestimate speakers – they want you to help them prepare and want your direction on how they should prepare.

Didn’t work: Laptops for keynote speaker notes. The best thing about TED Talks is that they are so focussed and well oiled that they impart exactly what they want to communicate, free from fluff or ‘urms’. This means as a viewer I get to connect with them, free from standing behind a laptop, and connect to their ideas that have been well thought out and are being clearly communicated. This is the way I’m going for the future – no laptop notes.

Worked: Panels with giving people who seek the truth on behalf of the listeners. You need strong people on the panel – but they need to be able to give and take, speak and listen, and act on behalf of the listeners. This means carefully selected panelists based on their facilitation skills, more than their speaking skills.

Didn’t work: Un-facilitated panels. Our panel preparation wasn’t good enough, and we left the panels unmoderated. I actually think we need facilitators more than moderators. A facilitator will help keep the panel focussed, and also draw questions from the floor.

Worked: Having panelists go into the crowd and begin talking with the clusters of groups. A few people said they enjoyed this even more than the keynotes. We called this ‘Crowd Discussion’. What we also did was ask people to sit it different seats each time they came back from the break, which increased discussion the new people that were engaging with one another.

Didn’t work: Adjusting the break length and crowd discussion length when the internet participants were lost because the stream went down. We shouldn’t have adjusted the experience for the people present to cater for the ones who weren’t present. Mistake.

The Future – Your Leading Thoughts

I’m keen to hear your feedback on this. As you know, I have a little event framework for four levels of learning: person-to-people, persons-to-people, people-to-people and person-to-person. So, person-to-people could be a keynote; persons-to-people could be a panel or interview, etc.

What is the future of participation in events, in your opinion?
What would you like to be done different to increase your learning? (I’ve got a suspicion we could use my 7 Levels of Particpation model here.)
How do you increase participation without creating disorder and therefore reducing the potential to learn?

Cool photo courtesy of looking4poetry

Preparation WITH Action

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Scott Gould

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6skbTUknac

If you can’t see the above video, click here, or watch it directly on YouTube.

I had a phone call a while ago with someone who basically wasn’t doing any action because they were in preparation. Whilst I say myself that if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail, I believe there is a difference between preparation with action, and preparation for action.

Let me explain:

Preparation for action believes that you need to create a masterplan and therefore need your key relationships and connections in place before you can do anything. It believes that all action will be based purely on this preparation. It says theory defines reality.
Preparation with action believes that everything is fluid. As I described yesterday, you can’t predict what will yield a return in your life – and that preparation in a vacum without action is like trying to create a master plan and predict every turn without understanding that once you begin acting, everything changes. It says reality defines theory.

The reason why I’m thinking about this is because my 18-year old brother Todd is at a cross road, as are many young people. People his age have been paralysed with too many choices, and the trait of our generation (I’m 26) is that few get into a working habit and settle down with focus. Of course, not that you have to be settled into a day job – but these guys also generally lack the self insight to know what skills they are amassing – and therefore find themselves at 30 without that fundamental knowledge of themselves, and then having to start all over again and reboot their working life.

The truth is these guys have a wealth of transferable skills, but no one to help them see that (because often they can’t see it themselves). I am concerned that we have a stronger focus on a process of “College, Uni, Gap Year, Job”, that when it breaks, people freak out, and that also skips the whole point of learning skills and leadership through action!

The lie that we’ve created for Todd and others is that you need to follow the trail of University education and everything will be OK. But I continually have graduates asking for my advice and asking to do internships with me because they have no experience and no one will hire them. They’ve been preparing for action – not preparing with action.

Preparation with action is a mindset. It just requires you to think “DO”. I keep telling the young people I work with to start doing what they love now. If they want to be film makers, don’t wait to college to ‘learn’ – start making films now! And the same with practically every other career.

My advice is two fold:

Do. (Well, Do Talk Do)
Rather than thinking “Uni, gap year, job, work my way up”, think “Where can I get the next transferable skill that I need to learn?”

Your Leading Thoughts

What would be your pieces of advice to the people in Todd’s position?
Is there a framework you know of that is more fleshed out than this that I can share with my interns?

Another look at Scattering Seeds

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Scott Gould

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NigmIlPr9k

If you can’t see the above video, click here, or watch it directly on YouTube.

This is a quick clip of me on Tuesday 15th June in Helsinki, chatting about how Like Minds Conversation Helsinki came together. I wanted to show it because I’ve having another thought about value vs volume and also about spreadability being like scattering seeds.

The point is that Like Minds in Helsinki came about through a chain of events that I could never have planned. In actual fact, it came about because we asked 1000heads to partner with us for our Like Minds Conference in February, but without charging them – so essentially promoting them for free. We loved what they were doing and just wanted to use the platform that we had to give them more exposure.

Of course, our relationship began to flourish from that point. One connection then hooked onto another, and before we knew it, we’re in Helsinki running a Conversation and also a Summit with the tourist board of Finland.

Value vs Volume

The value play says that rather than seeking to grow through shallow touches with lots of people (therefore volume being required to turn a profit), we seek deep relationships that have far more yield. This is contrary to most internet and social media marketing which is purely about volume. However with my story of Helsinki, I want to reevaluate this a little.

I’m not sure if you can predict which relationships will be valuable and which won’t. We’ve all been let down by people we had expectations of, and then been surprised by others who have exceeded our expectations. This is church, in business, in work, in life, in family – in relationships of any kind.

This means that if I carefully plant my few seeds in a few select locations, am I not leaving room for this exception equation. You’d invest in the ones who you predict will yield the most return, and leave the ones that you predict would not yield a good return. And then problem with that is as we described above – your expectations aren’t always right. People surprise you – either by letting you down, or coming to the fore.

In my mind I am beginning to see that we need both the value and the volume play. Spreadability is like scattering seeds – and you don’t know which of those seeds will yield what. But by scattering a volume of seeds, you create room for expectations to be both let down and exceeded.

This volume-based scattering is like the training ground where value-based relationships then come to the fore. Something that my social sales funnels make room for.

Your Leading Thoughts

We all acknowledge this effect – synchronicity – is the product of planning?
Can you predict a value based relationship?

Building The Kingdom: Generalists and Specialists

Posted on June 15, 2010 by Scott Gould

We’ve been discussing the mini-series of “Building the Kingdom”, which has been a very insightful time for us to hear from one another on what it takes to build something that is strong, influential and significant. Notice I don’t say successful, which has personal and financial nuances, but rather I say significant, which instead speaks of legacy and making a difference to others.

Today I want to discuss something that came from our church leadership team, and is something that we have been thinking about and working out over the last 9 months.

A Leadership Dilemma

Despite having pioneered a number of successes over the last 7 years that I have been self employed, 6 months ago I found myself again in an all too familiar situation: I hadn’t built team, evidenced by these core symptoms:

I was doing a lot of the final production work that was being delivered in my areas of responsibility
I kept attracting people to myself who weren’t team builders themselves
I wasn’t regularly adding people into my teams
I wasn’t getting past the issues of scaling my areas, due to a lack of team
I was the bottleneck for at least 70% of the tasks being done in my areas of responsibility

The diagnosis? I was a perfectionist. Or rather, I was a specialist.

Specialists

If it’s focussing on one particular task or element that you often find yourself doing, tinkering over one cog in a machine almost obsessively, then you may well be a specialist.

Specialists are those who have a perfectionist, often creative, streak and tend to over focus on something in order to master it. They can multi-task, but they find it hard to have too many priorities in general in their life at a time, and often when a few interest or ‘fad’ is found, the old interests are cast aside.

As a result of their ability to focus deeply on one thing, they can produce at a high level of excellence in their interest. This is why I find most academics, creatives, athletes, geniuses and such are specialists.

Generalists

If it is organising multiple parts of a project, having an instinctive ability to put people to task, and bringing an idea to fruition, then you’re likely to be a generalist.

I think most people who are ‘born leaders’, and tend to be the typical number 1, are generalists because they see the bigger picture. If the specialist is obsessing over the function of a single cog, it is the generalist is overseeing the production of the machine – or rather it’s ability to produce.

Generalists tend to think with the end picture and with result, whereas specialists (myself) are more motivated by things being done right and in their perfect order.

Putting Them Together

For team building you need both generalist and specialists, and they need each other to achieve significance. As it’s said, one is too small a number to achieve significance:

A generalist, the natural team builder, needs the specialists to perform the expert and intricate tasks, in order to achieve an end result
A specialist needs the generalist to focus their work and link it together with other specialists, in order to achieve an end result

Nature and Nurture

The big question then, coming back to where I found myself 6 months ago, is can you be a specialist and become a genrealist, and vice versas?

Having discussed this concept with our church leadership team 6 months ago, I gained the self-insight that I am a specialist by nature. Every since I was a kid, I’ve had a fascination with order and doing things right, and focussed obsessively on my creative endeavors to make them the best that I could.

However the dilemma was facing me: I wasn’t building team. Through gaining the self-insight into myself, I was able to deduce two things:

I have influence with people because I have focus, expertise and a good track record
I can learn anything that I decide to specialise in by obsessing over it

Therefore, I decided that I could turn my obsession onto becoming a team builder, and expand my influence into building my team.

The result? I’d like to discuss that later, actually. What I’d like to discuss now though, is what I’d like your leading thoughts on.

Your Leading Thoughts

Are you a generalist or a specialist? Why? What’s the evidence for either?
Can you learn one or the other?
Are their General Specialists and Special Generalist? If so, what the two axis in this 2×2?

Building The Kingdom: Knowing Me, Knowing You

Posted on June 9, 2010 by Scott Gould

My friend Robin Dickinson had what I described as the greatest blog ever recently. His post “Share Words“, in which he gave hands on advice on assisting people with their own share words – short phrases to help him share what they are about – to every person who commented. The best bit was how the community began helping one another with their share words, and to date, there are 697 comments.

To be a king maker, you have to know your kings. The strongest teams are those who know each other inside out, and can maximise each other’s strengths and minimise each other’s weaknesses. This is why Robin’s share words are so important, because they help us know each other.

Knowing you, and you knowing me, means that we don’t compete with each other but we complete each other:

When anyone asks me who to speak to about digital publishing, I tell them it’s Andrew Davies and Ed Barrow at Idio.
If anyone needs measurement and integration consultancy with Social Media, I tell them they need to speak to Olivier Blanchard and attend Red Chair in London later this month.
Anyone who is overloaded I tell to read Robin Dickinson’s blog immediately and start developing diamond-focus.
Those who want Social Media advice and are in Bristol or Cheltenham I tell to speak to Chris Hall and attend Media140 in Bristol this month.
Any person who wants to really impact on a social scale I hook up with Stephanie Rudat and the exceptional work she is doing, or point to Jeff Hurt and Dave Lutz to learn how to improve learning.
For those wanting to take their organisations beyond marketing, I refer them to Ann Holman.

And likewise, these people are plugging people into me who need the strengths that I have.

The Multiplying Effect of People-to-People

When we talk people-to-people like this, we encounter a multiplying effect. A scripture in the bible that confounded me for years was “One can put a thousand to flight, two can put ten thousand to flight.” I never understood how 1+1 could equal 10, but then I began to realise that if I spend my day doing what I am best at, and let others do what they are best at, then I no longer have to waste my time and neither do they. My day becomes more productive, and our combined productivity equals a 10.

The big question of course is “do you know me?” – or rather – “do I know you?” The volume-based game that most are playing online booms with a resounding “No” because everyone is too busy building their own super personal ego brand, complete with logo and 30 day programme, that they don’t have the time nor the inclination to get to know you.

However people-to-people is not a volume but value play and we must know each other – and know each other well. Without this, we do not understand each other’s strengths and therefore don’t achieve this multiplication of strengths.

The answer then is plain: know me, and enable me get to know you.

Note: this is an active pursuit, and the one of a leader. Followers not necessary.

Your Leading Thoughts

How do you get to really know people, practically?
How are you managing those relationships successfully and ensuring that you build deep, value-based relationships rather than getting sucked into the volume game that most people play?

P.S. If you have no idea what that photo above is about, watch this.

People-to-People: The Future Of Everything

Posted on June 4, 2010 by Scott Gould

On Wednesday 16th June, the evening before Like Minds Conversation Helsinki, I have the honour of being invited to speak at the prestigious Dicole Oz meetup.

Dicole Oz is hoted by Teemu Arina, one of our panelists at Like Minds, who Joe Pine referred me to – so it’s like minds allround.

I’m guessing most of you won’t be there in person (in fact, it’s full already) – but you can watch the live stream here at 18:45 on Wednesday 16th June, Helsinki Time.

I’m going to talk about People-to-People: The Future of Everything, something that any regular reader here will understand. People-to-People is the new way that we are operating in a knowledge economy, where people are more valuable than parts, and success is built not by the speed of a machine, but by the strength of your team. (Yes, there will lots of rhyming.)

Here’s the Test

I want to go to Helsinki and talk about this community. I want to talk about Exeter and bringing £100,000 into a city’s economy through social media. I want to talk about the stories of like minded individuals across the world – most of whom haven’t met yet. I want to talk about the depth of discussion that we generate here.

What I need are your stories and examples – from the boardroom, to the big deals, to the unique engagement, to the personal touches, to the new friendships – so that I go to Helsinki equipped with the examples to show what a people-to-people community looks like.

Let’s talk:

Are You A King, Or A King-Maker?

Posted on May 27, 2010 by Scott Gould

I wrote yesterday about my dear friend Trey Pennington who I described as a king-maker. People really liked the analogy of being a king or king-maker, which isn’t surprising - but I wonder how many people really are making kings?

It’s far more rewarding, effective and exciting to be the king-maker, than trying to put yourself on the throne all the time. Ego is hard work, and trying to make yourself king is tiring. I’ve tried it before, and not only did I find it exhausting, but I found I wasn’t helping anyone else but myself.

You know how it is when someone is trying to be king – the ego casts a shadow a mile long, right? Not always. It can be very subtle. In fact, I find pretty much the whole of the Twitter community are trying to be kings. There’s nothing wrong with that, but doesn’t all this ‘share’ talk annoy you when the ones who shout ‘share’ really mean ‘share me?’

Those who are trying to be kings are always:

Trying to get attention, rather than give it
Trying to get traffic, than send it
Trying to get comments, rather than give them
Trying to sell, rather than buying
Trying to build the house, rather than build the hostel

The difference between these people, and king-makers, is that king-makers get attention, by giving it, and so on.

Of course some people are kings. But the best kings were king-makers first - and will always be king-makers – because these are the ones that better the country they lead.

Your Leading Thoughts

Every regular at this blog that comments aren’t self proclaimed – I know you all. So my question is:

Are you a king-maker. If yes, or if no, why?
If you’re not, shouldn’t you be?

Image courtesy of Timothy K Hamilton.

I Love Trey Pennington

Posted on May 26, 2010 by Scott Gould

A year ago today I met Trey Pennington: 26th May 2009.

We got talking on Twitter in early 2009, and when he was due to come over to England, we arranged to meet up. Trey actually did one better, and came down to Exeter for one of our first tweetups.

For those of you who know the history, it was the same day that Like Minds began. Trey suggested we do an event, hooked me up with Olivier (whose blog I had been reading for sometime), and we set the date of Friday 16th October 2009.

You know what I love about Trey and people like him? They connect like minded people together.

There’s a saying that you can be a king, or a king-maker. You only get to be king once, but you make many people kings. When I look at Trey I see a king maker, and it inspires me to do the same. Trey never seeks to build his own kingdom, he just helps others build theirs. Another friend I made, Chris Brogan, would call it being the elbow.

In fact, Trey so believes in making kings out of other people, that through doing just that he got to interview his hero (and almost everyone’s hero) Zig Ziglar recently, saying his classic line: “if you help others fulfil their passions, you’ll fulfil yours along the way.”

When I think about how much Trey means to me, as a friend and a person who kickstarted the vision that’s taken me thus far, I realise it’s far more rewarding, effective and exciting to be the king-maker, than trying to put yourself on the throne all the time.

While we’re here, I also want to shout out to my friends Ruairi Fullam and John Harvey, sat either side of Trey, who’ve also supported me continually and mimic Trey’s king-making talents.

So here’s to Trey. I love him, and I thank him.

People, Not Parts

Posted on May 18, 2010 by Scott Gould

The Dream Team – hanging out with some of the people at the Like Minds Summit 2010 at Bovey Castle.

Around the end of the last year I wrote a series of posts on ‘free from the factory‘, in which we talked about the shift from an industrial economy to a knowledge economy, and the change in business and society that followed.

The main point is that in a knowledge economy you don’t manage people like parts in a machine – you lead them and guide them, because unlike parts in a machine, they have the ability to develop and grow, rather than rust and break. It’s this difference in mindset, between managing production and leading people, that is the reason why most companies don’t get it.

The organisations that will thrive and are thriving are people-to-people. They value people, not parts. The news yesterday was that YouTube now has 2 billion views a day. Facebook is about to hit 500 million users. What causes their success? Factories that churn out products faster and cheaper (the way we compete in an industrial age), or are they teams of very skilled, highly motivated people whose synergy and vision creates communities and platforms with depth that better provide customised experiences that meet the emotional needs of other people (the way we compete in a knowledge age.) Continue reading →

4 Things Charities Can Learn From Christian Aid Week

Posted on May 12, 2010 by Scott Gould

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdRbDXf8Hxk

If you can’t see the video above, click here, or watch it directly on YouTube.

I got an email last week from Sally Douglas from Agenda21Digital.com asking me to say something about Christian Aid Week which runs all this week to raise awareness and finances for some core social justice issues around the world.

Why am I posting it? First of all, I believe in it.

Secondly, it’s not hard to imagine they targeted UK bloggers based on keywords like “Christian” and “Pastor” – but the fact that they did that, that not only an agency did it, but a charity like Christian Aid also went with it, deserves some respect.

I also love the way Sally went about doing it. She gave me very clear points, posted three bit.ly links (so as to not cram my screen), and then kindly asked me to post a link to them. It was easy for me to write this post - all the research was done for me. The tools were complete.

The campaign is actually pretty cool. You can do things like “donate your Facebook status” (on this page here), which is a very low participatory way to help spread the message that is also new and not just the regular retweet button or host of share buttons that no one ever uses. Continue reading →