Re: Anonymity in Meetings LO2586

AlexiaM@aol.com
Sun, 27 Aug 1995 02:28:48 -0400

Replying to LO2524 --

Barry,

>>Doesn't this call out a fear that by using anonymity, we are actually
promoting to some degree the use of a crutch? Isn't there some degree of
"enabling" (in the negative sense, as when parents enable negative
behavior in offspring by inappropriately "coming to their aid") going on
here?

In my experience of using electronic meeting support to brainstorm or to
quickly sift through lots of ideas by using simple voting mechanisms, I
don't believe we are enabling anything but a group process---really no
different than using a Nominal Group Technique or some like technique. I
can't help but feel that when technology (computers) are used though, that
some new element of criticism is introduced. Computers are just tools,
and only as good as the people who introduce them and control them.

>>>To take your thought a bit out of context (but still to tie it to
month's earlier postings on this list), I'd say that our business tools
should do everything possible to connect us face-to-face.

Of course. But, we can't always meet face to face and do some
activities---like generate ideas and assess them as we can with
cross-distance electronic meeting support. Here, technology is actually
letting us do something we couldn't do in any other way.

>>The Talking Stick Circle represents something positive for me. It
represents THE direction.

I'd love to hear more about this. I'm intrigued by the process of using a
Talking Stick, although in my limited experience I feel that the situation
is contrived. And, at the same time, I love the situation of just one
person speaking and all having a turn.

>>Those electronic tools we have now at our disposal are wonderful, too.
But their abuse is well documented, is it not?

Yes. It's interesting that we forget about all the wonderful
documentation about other group processes and focus on the
technology-related abuses. What's at play here? Again, can we not learn
from using new tools?

>>I think I'm walking a fine line here, and would love to hear from
others. Roughly speaking, we have typed about three levels (?) of things
on this list: ideas, tools and people. Is there a natural hierarchy at
play? Some of us have indicated so. If so, where does essential humanity
fit in to the GROWTH picture, along with increased market share, ROI and
iterative improvement of processes?

People should always come first and be the recipient of tools, ideas,
process

--
Alexia Martin
alexiam@aol.com