I’d like to start a space here to discuss last week’s Symposium on Communication and Communication-Intensive Instruction where, hopefully, we can aggregate some feedback and thoughts for the staff which will help them plan next year’s event.
This was my first symposium, and I had a fine time. It’s nice to break up the monotony of our academic day-to-day, to mix with folks from the outside world, and also to get to know some of my fellow fellows better. I thought both Keynotes were good. William Taylor’s talk resonated through our small-group discussion, and I thought it was an effective mixture of presentational models: part book talk, part corporate motivational speech, and part exhibit on public presentation. Chris Anson’s talk was interesting due to his knowledge and polish, but felt a little disconnected to me… I’m not sure that the format of a fireside chat meshes well with a Keynote in this context. Perhaps other folks felt differently.
My discussion group was enjoyable, though we could have used a few more business folks and a finer focus. Everyone was amiable and contributed something to the discussion, but our group didn’t get much further with the questions than the fellows had when we wrote them. That’s ok, since the purpose was to generate dialogue between businessfolk and academics. Much of our group’s talk revolved around the relationship between authenticity and effectiveness in communication. I argued that there was no determined relationship between the two, and that most businesses care less about being “authentic” with their customers than they do about effectively communicating their way into pockets. Authenticity can be a tactic, but communication can be just as effective if the communicator is being inauthentic. In many cases, “effective” communication requires inauthenticity (see: buildup to War in Iraq). The afternoon discussion did not address the question we came up with in the morning, which was: “Given a world with too many forms of communication, how do we create an architecture that ensures that we communicate effectively within our organization?” Perhaps that question was unanswerable, or maybe the answers were obvious.
My final point, which obviously says more about me than anything else: I should have been more prepared for this, given that we’re at Baruch and given the nature of this gathering… but in my many years of graduate school, I’ve rarely been in a room where the big C seemed so far off the table.
By the way… those mini-cheesburgers? Man alive… and grilled to a perfect medium, too. We should have applauded the Chef at the Players Club right after we cheered for Mikhail and Mr. Schwartz.
This was my fourth symposium and I think they keep getting better and better. By better I mean the issues under consideration are of increasing significance, they are being discussed in meaningful ways, and, personally speaking, I come away with a head full of ideas that require work.
I also liked Taylor, yet I had a bit of problem connecting what he had to say to with theme of the symposium. I’ll be reading his book over the summer and maybe I’ll have more to say about this connection at a later date.
I share Luke’s feeling about Anson chat. It just didn’t click with me.
We had a great discussion group. Everyone was involved, lots of ideas, strong defense of positions, and, in the end, I think we were able to synthesize our time together into a pretty cogent idea that could be the basis for additional work.
I’m big on prep. If you are interested, you can find my preparatory notes at http://jmsdrgn.squarespace.com/storage/Schwartz Symposium Seven.pdf.
I toasted Herb, Mikhail, Elizabeth, and Mr. Schwartz at the Thursday night dinner. I do so again. Their energy and ideas have been critical over the last few years. I’ve been associated with the Institute since early 2002 and have watched it grow in confidence, and in the quality and quantity of its staff and what they deliver. Communications has, in my view, never been more important and its importance will only increase. Organizations need to take on the associated issues and I’m pleased to be associated with a group in the forefront of doing just this.
I think the Symposium succeeded in starting a lot of great conversations and made a lot of the participants think about issues they normally don’t. This might be a benefit to academics like me, although I am not sure how business people feel about participating in an intellectual exercise that might not have a clear conclusion.
My group talked about a lot of different things and we ended up deciding that in order to have meaningful, honest and effective communication, we need to know ourselves, be self-aware. I am still getting trouble remembering how we arrived at this particular discussion but that is where we ended up at the end of the day. What does this mean? Some of us felt that communication does not have to be honest to be successful. We questioned what it means to have an “honest” conversation in a business setting. Think about all the things your bank never tells you that they will charge you for, or about your cell phone contract. The whole concept of “self awareness” can mean so many different things we probably could have talked and debated this for hours. I enjoyed it because I would have never arrived at such a conversation and so it was challenging and surprising.