Design Goals and Principles
- Practice designing engagements
- Practice group physics
- This was unquestionably the worst workout session of the ten that I did. Last week, I talked about the tension between content versus practice. This week, I fell on the wrong side of that tension.
- The main problem was with the design and with my assumptions. (More details below.) But there were logistical challenges too. I only had two participants today. I don’t know that it would have been better if I had had the full group, but I think the chances would have been better. Both participants were late (one of whom told me beforehand that this was likely), and we ended late as well. With a larger group, we can start on time and just have the late participants catch up.
- The other logistical challenge was with the space. The WiFi here doesn’t work (meaning I had to scrap an exercise), and they’re just not very accommodating. I’m going to have to find another space.
- The midpoint assessment worked nicely. I wasn’t originally going to take up workout time for this, but Rebecca’s comment from two weeks ago made me reassess.
- Simply taking the time to reflect on your own progress and on others was a great and worthwhile exercise.
- People seeing other people’s feedback on their progress and comparing it to their self-perception was eye-opening.
- Scores are relative, not absolute.
- The ability to give face-to-face context for the feedback was really important. Lots of great nuggets emerged from this. It further motivates me to integrate a Kangaroo Court-like feedback mechanism into bootcamp.
- I changed “Dealing with conflict” in the original app to “Leaning in” here. One participant rightfully called me on it. They’re not the same thing. Need to be more clear about the competencies.
- The other two participants will really miss out in not getting to discuss the feedback with others.
Design Case Study
- I designed two iterations, but we didn’t even get through the first one, which was too grandiose to begin with.
- I needed to be clearer about the instructions for picking a community, especially since they were going to work on this exercise together. What kind of community? It had to be one that both of them would have some familiarity with, or at least that one could tell the other about. The participants did a good job here, focusing on people who are interested in transformational development.
- The colocation exercise confused them. The point of it was to get them conscious of group physics. The goal and the community was very big. I’m realizing it’s a hard exercise, and they were under duress.
- They did a nice job of working together to combine their visions into one. But they really weren’t thinking through the problems with their vision, and when I pointed the issues out, they didn’t know how to address them.
- They had great attitudes. I was struggling, and they were really working hard to understand what I was asking them to do and to stay engaged.
- We didn’t have the chance to walk through P2 together. We didn’t have time, and even if we did, the WiFi wasn’t working.
- However, P2 did what it was supposed to. It increased engagement between sessions. People weren’t waiting until the night before or morning of to do the homework. I think it felt less burdensome and more interactive.
|Went Well||Could Be Better|