Is this the highest compliment?
This photo was taken just as 70 delegates were entering a UN meeting room in Nairobi last week. It was Day 1 of our three-day meeting.
I’m glad I didn’t know this beforehand, but I learned what usually happens with UN multi-day meetings is that attendance drops off each day! So, 70 people typically become 50 on Day 2 and perhaps 30 stalwarts stick it out to the end.
But we experienced the opposite.
Our Day 2 had 80 people. (Where did those extra 10 people come from?). Day 3 had over 90. (Why?)
Good questions. It turns out that the people in the room were texting their colleagues, who then changed their plans, and showed up to join in. Yes, it created problems for seating, and for lunch vouchers, but that’s administrivia.
They came, I think, because we successfully designed ‘frameworks for thinking’.
We were dealing with the complexities of applying billions of dollars of funds, in the highest impact way possible, to the world’s most pressing environmental concerns. And, we had not the luxury of just talking for three days - but we had to generate concrete agreements, with clear action steps.
So, what did our ‘frameworks for thinking’ look like?
I can comment here on just three design features:
We set up three very different types of sessions: Of 11 sessions across three days, we had 2 green sessions (“Get to know each other”), 4 blue (“Let’s generate ideas”) and 5 grey (“Let’s consider concrete proposals”). Each had a very different ‘feel’ and, therefore, ‘product’, and people welcomed this variety that crossed the relational, the conceptual and the pragmatic.
We used an efficient ‘stimulus-response’ approach. Each 90 minute session had a consistent ‘choreography’ comprising a (brief!) plenary presentation from a subject-matter expert or working group (Guiding Principle: “Tell them what they need to know; not what you know”). This was followed rapidly with either breakout group or plenary discussion on no more than 2 well-defined questions. As they reported back, this enabled me, as lead, to offer progressive summaries of the group’s evolving thinking, reinforcing the narrative flow, and re-emphasising recurring or cross-cutting themes.
We established six ‘rules of engagement’, which set the tone from the outset: (i) be fully present; (ii) speak up; (iii) listen with a preparedness to have your mind changed; (iv) make a safe space for honest dialogue (no quoting or attributing remarks outside the room); (v) all ideas are equal; and (vi) be concise.
I then went to Geneva to assist with the UN’s transition to the newly agreed Global Framework on Chemicals, where we did something similar, but on a much smaller scale. But, even there, with different subject matter, and different (and much fewer) people, the ‘frameworks for thinking’ approach worked. The senior person sent me the following kind remarks afterwards: “Thank you for yesterday, it was very good!! Thank you for the advice and for thinking with us”.
Now, it’s that last part I want to draw your attention to: “thinking with us”.
Because, when I read it, my heart glowed.
I read it as the highest compliment to a consultant like me. After all, I’m not thinking for them (I can’t, and shouldn’t), and I’m not simply ‘facilitating’ a group discussion (they want - and expect - much more than that). ‘Thinking with us’ means giving space for different types of conversations, within ‘rules’, and having a form and flow that makes sense, and that ‘lands’ somewhere useful.
There’s more ‘thinking with them’ to come, and I look forward to it.
Question: What ‘frameworks for thinking’ are you setting up so people can have breakthrough insights, quickly and efficiently?
One powerful word
A fascinating use of language came up for me this past week too. A UN client wished me “Good luck on your mission”.
What she meant was the journey I was to undertake to Geneva on the Chemicals Framework above. And, she didn’t use the term loosely. Within the UN, being ‘on mission’ means being ‘in the field’, doing the ‘real work’, pushing your agenda or objectives forward. When someone’s not in the office, it’s likely they’re ‘on mission’.
This word is used in corporate life in so many different ways today that its origins are worth mentioning. Religious orders first used it in the 16th century, from the Latin word that means ‘to send’. Jesuits sent members of their order overseas to establish schools and churches. Much later, when diplomats and humanitarian workers travelled abroad, those trips were referred to as missions.
But, there’s a bigger stake here than just ‘making a journey’.
The word mission implies converting a group of people to an idea. Or achieving the practical application of a big concept. Or getting people to buy-in to a new way of thinking or behaving.
And, so we get today’s widely used organisational triumvirate of ‘mission, vision and values’. We have economist Marianna Mazaucato writing about “Mission Economies”, specifically, about how large-scale government-spurred innovations can thrust us forward societally, in areas like healthcare, space exploration and environmental protection. Indeed, one my clients, Monash University, has within its Research Plan, clearly articulated “Moonshots and Missions” which are designed to spur research into three ‘global challenges’: climate change, geopolitical security, and thriving communities.
So, is the term useful?
I think it is. Very. Because it speaks to a cause greater than ourselves. Something that requires enlisting others’ support. And, it requires travelling, either physically or metaphorically, to a ‘new place’.
Question: What ‘missions’ are you (and your team) currently on?
The effect of affect
I spent just a few days in Geneva where I couldn’t resist but go on an afternoon tour of the chocolatiers of the town. Swiss chocolate is justifiably famous and, if it wasn’t for middle-aged spread, I’d have it as a staple of my diet.
The chocolate tour was led by a charming (and vivacious - which will be relevant in a moment, you’ll see) young woman. Victoria is a law student picking up extra Swiss Francs by telling us not just about chocolate (and offering tastings of plenty of it), but about the history of Geneva.
In case you don’t know, Geneva is in French-speaking Switzerland and was a key city in the 16th century’s religious Reformation. John Calvin, one of the sternest advocates of Protestantism, was based there and he instituted a kind of ‘moral police’, of the sort you’d encounter in Iran today. People who were frivolous, laughing, visibly enjoying themselves, were reprimanded and even punished.
And, centuries later, this habit persists.
My wife and I, at a gorgeous resort in Bali years ago, encountered a Swiss couple. We asked them, “How are you enjoying things here?”
The man replied, with a scowl, “It is very nice. But there is one problem. Everyone here is always smiling”.
We laugh about it to this day, but it masks a truth, which is this: every culture, be it national, or organisational, has an affect that it prizes. By affect, I mean it psychologically: the emotional state, or mood, that one expresses.
The Swiss have low affect: people walk silently, speak in low voices, don’t make eye contact, rarely smile. Where I was last week, in Kenya, the polar opposite applies: strangers take any opportunity to meet your eye, clasp your hand, and laugh freely. They behave with such familiarity that a couple of times, I had to ask, “Have we met before?” The answer, “Maybe!”
But businesses are the same when it comes to affect.
I’m writing this on a Qatar Airlines flight, where the ‘house affect’ is expressive and welcoming, yet serious and slightly deferential. On Qantas, or Air New Zealand, it’s discernibly different: still expressive, but more relaxed and egalitarian, with a hint of underlying humour.
Now, Victoria, of the chocolate tour, was distinctly un-Swiss in her manner.
Why? Because she was guiding non-Swiss, mostly Americans, who demand openness and eye contact, and facial expressions. Although born and raised in Geneva, she explained, in response to a question about her heritage, “Actually, my family is from Spain”. That explains her mobile features, and even the colouration in her face rising when she got particularly excited about a story she was telling us.
So, the upshot of all this is that every business, including yours, has a ‘desired affect’, a way you want your people to emotionally engage your customers.
If you get it wrong (if Victoria acts ‘too Swiss’) customers will be deterred; if you do it inconsistently (some cabin crew are deferential, while others are not) you’ll confuse people who want a predictable 'customer experience’. If you get it right, however, you’ll engage people who are your target audience at a very elementary level, emotionally, and present as relatable and even inspirational.
Question: How much affect do you need your people to convey, and how do you systematically select and train people to do this?
By the time you read this, I’ll be back on Australian soil, and delighted to be enjoying Melbourne’s spring weather. Do reach out, with a 'heart’ or a comment, and let me know what of the above resonates with you.
And, in the coming week, watch how businesses craft their affective strategies towards their customers, and note who does it really well — and who doesn’t.
I’ll be with you again next Friday,
Andrew
So many great titbits in this post Andrew. We are in the midst of community engagement and your experience in Nairobi resonates for me, particularly the 'stimulus-response' approach and the Guiding Principle: Tell them what they need to know; not what you know.
Great post Andrew, nicely done.