To-Do List

It’s been a busy week. When things pile up, and I need to stay organized, I ditch the digital organization and go back to paper: the 1-page To-Do List.  Just write down what needs to get done, and do it.

Nothing can top the feeling of physicall crossing something off the list.  Scratch it off and voila!  Next, please!

And nothing is more frustrating–motivating?–of that one, uncrossed item staring you back in the face:  I’m still here! (Sometimes that item deserves a circle, as pictured above)

Usually, the uncrossed and circled items are the hardest to do–which is why we’ve left them there, picking the lowest hanging fruit from our list.  If I’m feeling up for it, I start with the hardest tasks first, knowing once they’re done, it’s all down hill from there.

How do you stay organized?

Don’t Dread the Group Process: Tips for the Jaded

Last Monday signaled the conclusion of a two-week long group process in one of my Environmental Studies courses.   This process began with the assignment of researching one of five selected environmental issues and giving a 40 minute presentation on its history, the way modelers have approached it, and how decision makers have handled it.  The class was broken up into 5 groups of three or four students, assigned a “consultant”–a TA or professor, and then sent off to complete the task.  What follows is my reflection on how our group was able to complete the assignment promptly, sufficiently, and successfully.

Establishing the Scope

The first, and arguably, most important question our group had to answer was, ironically, “What questions do we need to answer?“  Fortunately, the assignment was bounded by a list of talking points each presentation should address.  This list, generated by the class during discussion, was ever-present during our group process.

At first, the list of questions acted to define the scope of our presentation.  In other words, we knew we did not need to research what was not on the list.  In the end, we did allow our own interest in the environmental issue at hand to take us above and beyond what was expected of us.  But, the presence of boundaries allowed us to narrow the responsibilities needed to complete the assignment. With the list of questions in hand, we proceeded to figure out how to answer them.

Asking for Help

Early in the process, our group did not shy from utilizing the services of our consultant and other expert help.  Given that these advisors knew much more than we did, they helped us get answers to questions quickly.  The obstacle of knowing what questions to ask advisors was overcome by using the list of questions as a guide.

By asking for help, we were able to identify the location of critical information–i.e., specific papers, websites, and institutions that would be necessary components of a presentation on the issue. In effect, talking with consultants helped us bypass the messy process of searching through the haystacks to find the needle(s).  We first read one general paper on land use practices in the Mississippi Basin and their relation to the hypoxic zone in the Gulf.  This paper was recommended to us by our assigned consultant. After learning as much as we could about this “needle”, we took our questions and our knowledge to another expert–the author of the paper.  Again, we avoided much time-consuming search processes by having consultants available and accessible, and by not being afraid to ask for help.

I should also mention that the choice of the first, general paper was an intentional one–we knew that it served to both 1) introduce us to the environmental issue at hand, and 2) act as a gateway into the modeling and decision-making process, as the author of the paper worked here at the UW.  In one sense, we optimized the help available to us by choosing to address the assignment locally.

Division of Labor

Once we had consulted two experts about our assignment, we had learned enough to know how to divide the labor necessary to complete our task.   It was necessary to wait until we had consulted help to divide labor–otherwise, we might not have been able to identify where our strengths were in regards to the specific contours of the environmental issue.  Also, the consultants identified resources that each group member would need to complete their portion of the presentation.  If only one or two members had visited with the consultants, that last group member would have been on their own to embark on a longer, more complicated research project.

Dividing the labor was facilitated by stepping back from the specifics of the environmental issue at hand and looking at the list of questions provided during class. We set out to organize these questions in three categories, as there were three members of the group.  The categories seemed to emerge from the questions–history, the specifics of modeling, and the applications of modeling in decision-making processes.  With these categories identified, our group decided who would do what.  This turned out to be a seamless decision, as we each had natural tendencies and experiences in one category, and there was no conflict among group members.

One last important aspect of dividing labor:  setting goals and timelines.   Once we had divided the labor amongst us, we decided to meet in 5 days to report back on our research.  This timeline respected the presentation date–which was still 5 more days after the reporting meeting–and also the fact that group members had other work to do for other classes.  To keep expectations level, we identified the goal of answering the questions on the list, which were now separated into three categories.  Essentially, in 5 days, we needed to come up with slides for a presentation that answered the questions within our category.  Simple and easy.

Virtual meetings

Recognizing the time constraints inherent in class-based group processes (other classes, scheduling conflicts, etc), we made the most of email-based conversations and feedback sessions.  We first used email to establish meeting times, but quickly used it as a medium to answer specific questions or make progress on our project.  One group member circulated a master slide to guide our presentation.  Other group members commented on this slide and then decided it would suit the presentation.  Another group member circulated draft versions of his slides and asked for feedback.  These virtual meetings kept the conversation going between physical meetings, and enhanced the efficiency of the group process.  Specifically, the Google Documents application on Gmail allowed for group members to work on one file simultaneously, avoiding the problem of multiple files, translating others comments incorrectly, and losing attachments.

Practice

Especially given that our final task was a presentation, and not a report, we made sure to practice our talk before we gave it.  This practice session illuminated many potential problems that we were able to address before the final version–including transitions between research segments, stylistic differences in verbal presentations, grammatical errors on the slides, overcrowded slides, etc.  Rehearsal was a great way to ensure accountability, since we had all agreed upon certain goals and certain aspects of our presentation.

These factors above helped our group complete our task on time and with efficiency.  I think that these factors apply to many group processes, regardless of the task at hand, the number of group members, or the importance of the project.

Brainstorms and Back-Burners

Earlier this week, I sat down with several other graduate students to have lunch–a normal noon-time activity–and soon found that we had engaged in informal brainstorming–an odd behavior for fun-deprived, work-centric students like ourselves. I want to reflect on what evolved during this conversation, using People Skills as a tool for interpreting individual actions and statements, as well as overall group behavior.

Brainstorming, in and out of context

The topic at hand in our conversation was organizing a graduate student event, and specifically, what structure or format the event should take. It became necessary to describe what goals we wanted from the event first, and then ultimately, a convenient structure rose to the surface of our discussion. Though the structure seemed to easily or naturally become apparent, various people had various goals for the event itself.

One student proposed that panelists be present during the event, as she wanted to hear from experts rather than simply learn from peers. Her concern or goal was vocalized, but quickly fell to the back burner of the conversation. I immediately considered Bolton’s assertive group-minded leader, who would have “followed” and made sure this student’s idea was lassoed back into the conversation as a viable option. I did not take this action, but continued to watch as the group tossed in ideas and inadvertently, tossed others out.

Another idea that entered our conversation only to be quickly abandoned was the idea of “identifying an audience”, which had specific meaning to the group members in the conversation. At first, one person proposed that audience be a central topic for discussion during our planned event. As brainstorming went on, the idea again fell to the back-burner. This time, I did rope it back into conversation, hoping it would stick in our game plan for the event. In the end, the audience factor ended up not becoming a feature of our structure or format, though it did play a role in our conversation.

Out of the context of the “brainstorm”, this conversation seems have involved much talking and little listening. Or, to put it another way, only ideas that had lots of traction with a critical mass of group members were able to move forward. Other ideas were temporarily relegated to a back-burner space in the group, where they could either be roped back into conversation, or jettisoned completely.  This relegation could be achieved not just by carrying on conversation along a different idea’s path, but also through body language–shifting in a seat to talk to someone else, not looking at the person whose idea gets lost, and so on. On the surface, this type of conversation seems to involve poor reflective listening and poor group dynamics

In the context of a brainstorm, however, this group process could be highly productive–moving from idea to idea to find something that “sticks”–and then developing that idea as far as possible as quickly as possible. In deed, our conversation did produce meaningful results, including a set of goals and a format to achieve them during our event.  In this sense, it may be fruitful to consider how the step-by-step process Bolton lays out in attending, following, and reflecting may be context-based (to one-on-one conversations, for example), and that other contexts call for a modification or rearrangement of the steps, or perhaps new steps altogether.

Keep it on the Front Burner

Though we did have some success in our brainstorming session, I think there is room for improvement for incorporating the “back-burner space” or, put another way, lost potential in conversation. I consider these ideas “lost potential” because they were put forth by group members, and, at one time, embodied individual goals and meaning. There is a chance that individuals adapted their goals for the sake of the group, which would allow these individuals to abandon their own ideas. There is also a more likely scenario, however, that these members would feel more secure with the group decision if the ultimate course of action were similar to the individual’s original idea.

One method of capturing these ideas and ensuring they do not leave the brainstorming space completely is purely material–using a white board or some other space for projecting the ideas as they come about. This necessitates a few changes to the group dynamic, which the group may decide they do not want to pursue–namely, 1) that one person act as “record keeper” and that 2) a casual conversation becomes more official and formal.  We have already discussed how important a “record keeper” is in creating inclusiveness. The idea of formality, however, is an important one that I think deserves some consideration.

It is quite common for students to engage in brainstorming “off the cuff” or “on the fly”, as ideas or needs present themselves, rather than at a pre-determined meeting time at a set location. It is in these creative moments that innovation happens–and if it is not recorded officially or formally, it could become “lost potential.”

I think one trait of leaders–defined here as those who can translate creativity into action and change–is the ability to capture ideas and keep them in the “front burner” space of group processes. This may mean taking notes during a brainstorm and recirculating them over email a day later. Or, jotting down one’s own thoughts and submitting them during a group discussion. Or, perhaps, stepping back from the group to assess how people are thinking rather than speaking and using this assessment to reshape the group’s trajectory. In any case, the leader is aware of the path and the potential of the group, and is doing his or her best to direct both to point of higher achievement.

Bolton mentions in his discussion of the “spectrum of assertion” that one drawback to assertiveness is that it “can be painful” as it requires confrontation.  In the sense of the brainstorm, pain may be better understood as “more work” or “less fluid” in the casual sense, as a record keeper and a white board constitute a working role for someone involved in the brainstorm.  In the end, though, I think Bolton’s conclusions hold true–the payoff of assertiveness is worth the work involved.