Symbols… artifacts… rituals… the keys to creating behaviors and culture. One of the easiest ways to appreciate them, is to observe those that run counter to your own perspective or history.

In the throes of debate around “DEI”, Ace advocates for leaders to think about the nuance of the bottom line value of diverse teams. Beyond statements, what makes the difference?

Challenging Assumptions Team Exercise:

1. Ask your group to list every assumption we typically make about the concept of a garden.

2. Play the video.

3. Break group into small teams and challenge them with generating ideas…

While many of us default to brainstorming as an ideation technique, it’s arguably loaded with bias and limiting in the concepts it generates. Instead, consider Brainwriting.

When we’re looking to find the source of a problem, or generate alternative solutions to innovation problems, we default to “what is the core purpose?”. In this illustration, what is the core purpose of a hotel?

“Colour & Advance” is a fun way to give control to the audience to ensure they’re getting the pace and depth that they need to garner information that’s relevant to them. And great for pitch rehearsals when practice audiences can guide as to what is relevant and what distracts from the core message.

Lucy, in defense of facilitation in the round. If we remove the angles, we ensure eye contact, openness, and equality of views. Even better if we remove the table as a barrier between us. Making the case for getting away from the boardroom table and into the round.

While the internet gives us access to almost limitless information, the decision architecture created by algorithmic nudges leads us to experience fewer and fewer perspectives and sources. To innovate, or to see different perspectives, we have to outflank the architecture of the technology stacks.

80% of the ideas we generate don’t have a chance of making it to the shortlist of workable ideas. We need to generate as many options as possible to increase the pool of options for decision-makers to stretch their perspectives and find the optimal solution. If leaders of St Louis had limited the options they’d consider, we’d have a knock-off of Paris’ Arc de Triomphe instead of Saarinen’s Gateway Arch. Go for scale. Embrace the ridiculous. Give yourself options.

Deploying a “yes, and” mindset can be generative and generous to team members as you find new ideas to solve legacy and emerging problems. As much a way of living as a leadership tool, Lucy walks through the attributes of a “yes-ander” and finds a rather familiar stranger to volunteer to try the improv tool for shifting from closed to open thinking.

You haven’t had time to do our full Conflict Resolution program yet, so here’s your cheatsheet from Roger while on a break from a mediation in London.

1. Ask open questions… get to the heart of the issue.

2. Build rapport… empathise, be kind, give some trust.

3. Listen rather than hear… find what’s behind the answer.

A core step in negotiations and conflict resolution is to determine the objective facts of an issue and separate them from the subjective interpretations of issues. That pool of facts gives a framework for discussions to take place. In the age of Generative AI, when imagery and text can be created in fractions of seconds to appear as “primary sources”, we need to focus more on validating data and evidence before starting good faith negotiations.

Why do we have ideas in the shower? The slight distraction of ambient noise. Thinking directly “at” a problem rarely generates creative solutions. Better to approach the challenge indirectly by providing a degree of distraction, allowing your mind to take alternative approaches to solutions. Whether walking, dancing, or paddleboarding… finding a distracted path to a solution can be more effective than taking a challenge head-on.

When creating environments for mediation or negotiation, analysis the space through the lens of symbols, artifacts, and rituals. We illustrate the concept through the communications of the Office of the President of Ukraine. Let the stagecraft carry some of the weight of the message.

While we often feel powerless, we rarely are: we always have the option to shift to a different base of power. Drawing from French and Raven’s early work in defining types of power, Scott uses a single location in the heart of London to illustrate the four types of positional and four types of personal power that can be drawn on in negotiations and mediations.

As equity is becoming a politicized word, we dive into what it means. Ace and Scott dive into the nuance between equality (where everyone gets the same) and equity (where everyone gets enough of a platform to build their own success). Part of a series of conversations diving into context and best practices of Allyship.

Outside Danny Meyer’s original Shake Shack, we talk through the “Performance Quadrant” approach to building high-performing teams.

Inspired by Meyer’s philosophy around application of a leader’s time in building the best kitchen and front-of-house restaurant team, this approach works in all demanding work environments whether it’s Union Square Hospitality Group, your business, government agency, or non-profit.

When reinventing a product, service, or organization, it’s important to challenge assumptions and embrace ideas from the past as well as present: the latest tech trend isn’t always where the customer need is.

Here, Ace starts afresh thinking what a ride-share (Uber, Lyft) service might look like if it were designed for the traveler of today.

Conflict escalation works the same way between individuals as it does between nation-states. Here, we discuss the positive-feedback-loop aspect of conflict escalation and the exaggerated steps (and self-awareness) needed to reverse its dynamic. And we recognize that “who started it” analysis is fruitless in its returns.

The challenge with “confidential” meetings is that - if we respect confidentiality - it’s hard to use the information discussed. At the other extreme, “on-record” meetings risk individuals not speaking their full opinions for fear of retribution. The “Chatham House Rule” navigates a middle-ground of non-attribution.