It’s not a box, it’s a lens

A few years ago I had the opportunity to spend a couple of days training and exploring different methods of collaboration with the partners at Innovation Labs. One issue that we were all wrestling with is where is the “magic” in collaboration? When you break collaborative process design into its core elements you’re left with a set of principles that on the surface look rather pedestrian, yet we’ve seen for years and years that when it all comes together there is a certain “magic” that happens. People’s passion and energy is unleashed, creative ideas begin to flow and people accomplish a ton of work on very complex issues.

We framed up this exploration with a question: “What is inside the black box?”

The idea is that at the kernel of this activity there is a “magic” that happens but we couldn’t really define it.

I would like to rethink the entire metaphor of the black box and articulate a new way of thinking about process design. I propose that the nucleus of collaboration, the “thing” that makes it all possible, is conversation. Two people conversing is the molecule of collaboration, the building block if you will.

Part of the skill in process design is developing the right kinds of conversations for people to be having. Conversations that explore different vantage points or that direct the conversation to the creation of “tangible work products” are the beginnings of great work. It is less about a magic box and more about providing a multiplicity of “lenses” through which to view and explore a problem.

It was after reading Peter Block‘s book, Community, that I pondered the connection between the “black box” model and Block’s model of change for neighbourhoods. In short, Block suggests that conversations about the “gifts” that people bring to a challenge, the desired future that people want to see and honest conversations about how each person is potentially inhibiting the creation of that future are all useful in an organizational context as well.

What is Engagement?

Recently I had the pleasure of attending a really good conversation hosted by Decode, a consultancy in the innovation and strategy space. They convened a conversation about “engagement” of the market segment that is between the institutions of school and family, ie. the 23-30 age group. It was a really diverse group of people ranging from post-secondary administrators to arts and culture evangelists to a Toronto city councilor. The conversation was held at the Centre for Social Innovation, which is a great place to hold conversations of any type.

I came into the conversation with very little context so when Eric, the convener of the circle, asked an open question of how we could define “engagement” my first reaction (which subsequently came pouring out of my mouth) was imagining a marketing person deciding to use the word as a euphemism for “sell to”. I’m sure you’ve heard some disingenuous person shift their verbiage to “engage” as a result of a consultant telling them that it’s no longer about selling, it’s about “engaging in a conversation with your customers.” I said this knowing that nobody in the conversation actually represented this view, but it got me thinking about the bigger definition of engagement.

Some of the people who were in the room work for large not for profits who rely on the generosity of the community to keep their programs going, so I decided to be a little more provocative by suggesting that looking to “engage” young people still had a hint of “selling” in that engagement to them meant convincing young people to donate their time or money to that particular organization. This “problem” of a lack of engagement is partly what led to this conversation being convened.

I would suggest that volunteering time and money with a large not for profit is a great example of engagement, it’s not the only one. For example, I feel as though spending time with my fellow “free agents”, attending their events, mutual problem solving and working together is an important example of engagement. It’s not within the context of any particular institution but I feel as though it makes my neighbourhood, my city, my community a stronger place.

What does engagement mean to you? Are you engaged? How could you be more engaged?