The unconference format is great for energy, conversations and new directions. After last Friday’s SpeakUpNY session I was thinking about group discussions, and ways to make them even more effective. Ever noticed how similar discussions are to roundabouts (a.k.a. rotaries)?
Why are roundabouts better than signaled intersections? Because they move a higher volume of traffic with less stopping, and with an even flow of vehicles from each entry point, everyone keeps moving. But roundabouts fail when one or two arms entering the intersection have an imbalance of traffic. The other entry points get stuck, or everyone gets caught in a jam.
What does this have to do with discussions at unconferences (or planning)? Well, if all the people at the table are on the same page - topically, or technically - the conversation zooms along. But when there’s an imbalance in skills or interests or experiences, the conversation stutters. Rather than being a discussion where we all move along equally, a few people end up doing the talking and carrying the group - often, not in a way that reflects the potential range of views. This isn’t always bad, but it’s worth thinking of ways to avoid the unbalance.
Maybe moderators are the traffic signals - stopping the heavier streams of traffic to allow others to get into the flow? Is it possible to work moderators into the unconference mix without losing the flexibility and energy? Can more public meetings be more like unconferences without getting less productive or inclusive?
(File under ‘constructive criticism’. First in a series of posts about SpeakUpNY - a really interesting event that got a reprise at Planning Corps too)
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Great analogy, fkh, I notice this sometimes too. It’s especially cumbersome in topics that are more abstract or without a clear linear agenda. I know I personally find difficulty with conversations that jump left to right without clear, specific, sequential aims.