Blog

"I realized this morning that your event content is the only event-related 'stuff' I still read. I think that's because it's not about events, but about the coming together of people to exchange ideas and learn from one another and that's valuable information for anyone." — Traci Browne

Welcome to the Conferences That Work blog!

You're in the right place for the latest posts on conference design, facilitation, peer conferences, associations, consulting, and stories like being trapped in an elevator with a Novel Prize winner.

Or sign up for a subscription to my blog posts or RSS feed so you never miss another post.

Freeman’s Trends Report Q4 2024 is a must-read

I’ve not always agreed with Freeman’s Reports, but, if you’re in the meeting industry, Freeman’s Trends Report Q4 2024 is a must-read.

Freeman 2024 Event Organizer Trends Report We’ve calibrated our research and confirmed our hypothesis: many organizers are operating on outdated definitions of attendee and exhibitor value. The good news? We’re here to help you speak the same language as your stakeholders and overcome the obstacles that prevent progress. This report is your playbook for embracing shifts, equipping you with the insights and strategies to make change now. Fall 2024 Freeman Syndicated Survey of Event Organizers. Copyright Freeman 2024

“We’ve calibrated our research and confirmed our hypothesis: many organizers are operating on outdated definitions of attendee and exhibitor value. The good news? We’re here to help you speak the same language as your stakeholders and overcome the obstacles that prevent progress.

This report is your playbook for embracing shifts, equipping you with the insights and strategies to make change now.”
Fall 2024 Freeman Syndicated Survey of Event Organizers. Copyright Freeman 2024

Why you should read this Freeman report

Read this report to discover if you’re doing what’s needed to improve your events for your attendees.

The biggest takeaway? Only a quarter of event organizers are constantly evolving their event designs. Freeman calls them the Innovators and describes how their approach differs from their Conventionalist peers.

“Although most organizers report that they consider market trends and audience needs when developing their most important events, only 27% of organizers report that dramatic audience-centric changes occur from one event to the next.”

Why this matters

Freeman’s Innovators create events that align closely with the true needs of attendees, while Conventionalists often stick to outdated models. The result? Innovator-led events are far more likely to delight attendees—and ultimately, all stakeholders.

As Freeman puts it:

“It makes sense that organizers are more focused on attendee-related outcomes than exhibitor/sponsor outcomes. After all, if your attendees don’t get value from your event, then your event partners won’t get value either.”

Freeman’s conclusions come from comparing the event attendee intent and behavior data from their Q1 2024 Trends Report with this report’s survey data of event organizers.

Here are three examples of how the Innovators set themselves apart:

1. Learning at events

There’s a significant gap between what organizers and attendees think are important factors affecting learning at events:
Top learning factors at events: organizers versus attendee perceptions

  • 65% of organizers believe classroom lectures are top learning methods, while only 31% of attendees agree.
  • Organizers underestimate the importance of hands-on interactions or participatory activations (31%) compared to 56% of attendees who prioritize them.
  • Informal meetings with SMEs are rated important by 24% of organizers, but 48% of attendees find them crucial.

Innovators are better equipped to meet these important attendee learning modalities than their Conventionalist counterparts.

2. Experiential factors

Next, compare the differences in perception of top experiential factors.
Perception of top experiential factors: organizers versus attendees Attendees highly value hands-on interactions and immersive experiences (64%) compared to 46% of organizers. This mismatch suggests that many organizers are missing opportunities to deliver what attendees find most engaging.

3. Resource allocations versus attendee needs

Finally, let’s review where organizers allocate resources, compared to attendees’ event priorities.
Rank order of resources versus priorities Both organizers and attendees rank exhibits as the top priority. But attendees place networking second, while organizers rank it fifth—behind keynotes/general sessions, education sessions, and special events. This misalignment can mean missed opportunities for valuable attendee connections.

Event organizers, are you listening?

Sadly, three-quarters of you are not.

The barrier to becoming an Innovator

I don’t want to be too hard on the majority (56%) of event organizers who want to evolve their meeting designs but continue to hold static events. According to Freeman, nearly half of event organizers don’t feel empowered to make changes:

So, we must ask: Why do most event programs remain the same when market trends and attendees continue to change?”

“Nearly half of event organizers do not feel empowered to evolve their event.
We’ve uncovered a troubling new gap. Although most event organizers want to evolve their program, only some feel empowered to do so.
The data suggests that many event organizers aren’t just faced with attendee and exhibitor misalignments, but misalignments with leadership that limit or prevent event evolution.”

This is a polite way of saying that leadership is often afraid of creating connection at events because they see it as losing control. Even though such control is a myth.

Freeman found that a majority of Innovators felt “extremely empowered” to evolve their event programs and reported greater satisfaction with their event evolution. Interestingly, 49% of Innovators have a single person or a small team dedicated to networking-related activities.

Wait, there’s more!

I’ve only reported some of the conclusions in the report, which is full of useful little tidbits, like this one:

“Innovators plan to focus more on elevating the attendee experience (40%) than increasing the number of attendees (38%). Perhaps because Innovators understand that by enhancing the experience, they’ll attract high-quality attendees.”

So read the whole thing!

Two minor quibbles

1. Generational models: Freeman uses the popular Generation XYZ framework to explain changes in attendee needs. I’ve written about the limitations of the slotting of people into Boomer/Gen X/Millennial/Gen Z categories as it mistakes new behavior for shifts in human nature rather than a change in opportunity. Much of the “difference” between “generations” is caused by a change in that generation’s environment or circumstances. In my experience, attendees have always responded favorably to events with the priorities that Freeman suggests, event designs I’ve been championing for decades. It’s just that these days they are more in tune with what younger generations find normal.

2. The language of connection: The words we use for meetings matter. Reports like Freeman’s often use the term “networking,” but what attendees truly seek is meaningful connections. Let’s talk about creating and supporting connection, rather than just “networking”.

Conclusion

Freeman’s Trends Report Q4 2024 is a must-read. Ten years ago, Innovators were rare, but today they make up a quarter of event organizers. This is a promising trend, but there’s still a long way to go. I hope our industry embraces these insights and continues evolving in a positive direction.

Vote for The Top 100 Most Influential People in the Event Industry for 2024

Vote now for the 100 most influential people in the Events Industry for 2024. Eventex Awards
Click to vote for The Most Influential People in the Events Industry for 2024!

Dear colleagues and friends,

I hope you’re thriving in your event industry endeavors! I’m excited to share that I’ve been nominated again for the Eventex Index as one of The Most Influential People in the Events Industry for 2024.

It’s an incredible honor to have been recognized among the 100 most influential figures in our industry for four consecutive years (2019-2022). This recognition reflects the passion and commitment of the entire event community, and I’m grateful to be part of it.

This year marks my sixth consecutive nomination, and it’s all thanks to your continued support!

I would be grateful for your vote, which supports not just me, but also our shared commitment to participant-driven and participation-rich event design.

How To Vote

Voting for the Eventex Index is a straightforward process. Here’s what you need to do:

  1. Visit the Eventex Index Voting Page for 2024. Votes must be cast by 6 P.M. Eastern Time, Friday, October 25.
  2. Cast your vote: Find my name in the list of nominees (it’s near the top!) and click to vote. Remember, you can vote for up to ten people, so please support other deserving #eventprofs too.
  3. Spread the word: Spread this post with your colleagues, friends, and peers to encourage their support!

Your vote isn’t just for me—it’s for our collective dedication to innovation, excellence, and the future of our industry.

Thank you for your support, and let’s continue this incredible journey together!

With immense gratitude,

Adrian Segar

A plea to journalists, interviewers, and podcasters

journalists interviewers podcasters: Adrian Segar being interviewedHere’s a simple plea to journalists, interviewers, and podcasters: After you interview me, please let me know when your article or interview will be published!

This blog is one of the most popular resources on meeting design, so I frequently receive interview requests. Journalists often seek my insights on current issues, quoting me in their articles. Meeting industry publications reach out after reading my posts or comments. Podcasters are always on the lookout for interesting guests. All these folks contact me, and I’m usually happy to oblige!

At the end of each interview, I always ask to be informed when the piece will go live. The response is usually positive—”Yes, I’ll be in touch as soon as I know.”

Yet, experience has taught me that only about one in ten interviewers actually follow through.

Often, I learn about published articles weeks later—sometimes through a colleague or a Google Alert I’ve set up with my name. This delay is unnecessary and a missed opportunity.

Interviewers—let me help you!

I want to know when your article or podcast is released for three main reasons:

  1. I genuinely enjoy seeing my name in print and my ideas reaching a wider audience. I’m passionate about my work, and it’s gratifying to see it shared.
  2. I appreciate writers who keep their word, and I’m more inclined to build a relationship with those who do.
  3. Most importantly, if I know your publication date, I can help amplify your content! I have a large following on social media and often repost content on this blog. Let me help you extend your reach.

Finding out about an article weeks after it’s published makes it much less likely that I’ll share it.

Some do better than others

Print media often struggle with keeping me informed, while podcasters tend to do a better job. Most podcasters will reach out when their episode goes live.

Previewing articles

I often offer to preview articles to provide feedback on how my interview is represented. (I always emphasize that writers can ignore my suggestions 😀.) Some journalists appreciate the input, while others politely decline—and that’s completely fine.

Most journalists do a great job without my feedback. A few have misrepresented me, but c’est la vie.

Excuses, excuses

I understand why it can be challenging to inform sources about publication dates:

  • Interviewers often don’t know the publication date immediately, especially if the piece isn’t on a tight deadline.
  • Tracking and remembering requests like mine can be cumbersome, especially when publication might be months away.
  • Some interviewers aren’t even informed when their work will be published by their employers.

I truly appreciate the rare interviewer who admits upfront that they may forget to follow up or may not have access to the publication date. At least that way, I know what to expect.

Journalists, interviewers, and podcasters: listen up!

Please keep me in the loop when your article or interview is published! It’s a win-win for both of us.

When Music and Memories Collide: Tuvan Throat Singing at Marlboro School

:

The other day, I had the incredible opportunity to attend a mesmerizing performance of Tuvan throat singing by the Alash Ensemble at the Marlboro Elementary School, a small pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade school in my hometown of Marlboro, Vermont.

It brought up a whole host of emotions.

Tuvan throat singing

The eerie, captivating music produced by the trio’s throats was spellbinding. Every sound humans make contains a spectrum of frequencies, but the magic of Tuvan throat singing is that specific frequencies are isolated and made audible, allowing the singers to produce multiple vocal notes simultaneously.

The band’s manager and interpreter Sean Quirk, introduced us to various styles of Tuvan singing, with each member demonstrating a different technique. My favorite moment was their a cappella opening performance, where the raw beauty of their voices took center stage.

The music was hauntingly beautiful. I’ve shared a short video of this a cappella performance above.

In the company of children

The performance marked the first time being around the children of Marlboro Elementary since the pandemic began over four years ago. Before COVID-19, my wife and I had volunteered at the school for decades. I spent time reading to the fourth and fifth graders weekly, gathered around after their lunchtime recess, sharing both classic and contemporary chapter books.

I love being around kids; their innocence and curiosity remind us of the purity we all possess when we first come into the world.

As I walked into the gym—fondly called “the outback” where school meetings and events are held—I felt a lump in my throat as the children filed in. I hadn’t realized how much I missed being in their presence.

Children and adults alike remained spellbound throughout the performance.

The children’s questions

Toward the end of the performance, we were invited to ask questions, which Stephen Quirk translated for the musicians. The children’s questions were delightful—thoughtful, curious, and brimming with wonder.

The final question came from a pre-kindergartener who asked: “Do you have a cat?” The room erupted in laughter. One musician responded that he had dogs, while another paused and, with a smile, said he had children. More laughter followed. My wife remarked later how the child was seeking a common connection with these musicians who sang in a foreign language and came from a place far away.

Serendipity

I feel blessed to have experienced this performance, especially because it wasn’t on my calendar when I woke up that morning. As it happened, I was dropping off a check for a nonprofit that supports the school to cover the cost of the performance. When I arrived, the school secretary asked if I’d like to attend the afternoon performance. My wife and I had some free time, so we came.

We’re so glad we did.

Google’s Audio Overview is an AI love-bath and a propagandist’s dream

Why are people raving about the conversations produced by Google NotebookLM‘s Audio Overview? Because Google’s Audio Overview is an AI love-bath!

I can’t take credit for characterizing Audio Overview’s appeal like this. Kudos to Johnnie Moore, who responded to my first post on Audio Overview with this insight:
"And you've really nailed the trouble with the relentless enthusiasm. When I tried Notebook the first time on my own stuff I loved it. Cos, I now realise, I was flattered by the AI love-bath. But now I see it says this to all the people it's dating!" —Johnnie Moore

“And you’ve really nailed the trouble with the relentless enthusiasm. When I tried Notebook the first time on my own stuff I loved it. Cos, I now realise, I was flattered by the AI love-bath. But now I see it says this to all the people it’s dating!”
Johnnie Moore

I’ll return to the dangers of this seductive tool later in this post. But first, let me share what happened when I fed content containing inconsistencies and incorrect information into Audio Overview.

Testing Audio Interview with inaccurate content

In last week’s post, I showed how Google’s Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output from accurate content. This week, I tested its performance when fed inaccurate content.

I asked ChatGPT to write a short article on the solar system, deliberately including a few inconsistencies and errors. Below is the article, along with ChatGPT’s list of factual errors and inconsistencies.

ChatGPT_inaccurate_article_about_the_solar_system

 

Now here’s the audio “conversation” that Audio Overview generated from the article, along with a transcript:

Google NotebookLM Solar System conversation

Man: All right. Get ready for liftoff. We’re diving deep into the solar system today, and you’ve given us a stellar lineup of readings on each planet, from the Sun to Mars. We’re gonna ditch the boring textbook stuff and blast off into the really mind blowing parts.

Woman: Exactly. Think cosmic secrets, the kind of stuff that’ll have you winning all the trivia nights and impressing your friends.

Man: You know how everyone thinks they’ve got the solar system basics down?

Woman: Yeah.

Man: Sun in the middle, planets go round and round.

Woman: Sure, sounds simple enough.

Man: Well, what if I told you even those basics are about to get seriously shaken up?

Woman: It’s true. Sometimes all it takes is a fresh perspective to completely change how we see even the most familiar things. Like, take our sun, for example.

Man: Big ball of fire. Keeps us warm. Pretty important, right?

Woman: Absolutely. But we tend to picture it as this fixed point in the center of everything. But the reality, it’s way more dynamic than that.

Man: Okay, you’ve got my attention. How is the sun not just some stationary star?

Woman: Well, picture this. The Sun, with all its planets in tow, is actually hurtling through space on this incredible cosmic journey.

Man: Hold on. The Sun’s on the move. It’s not just chilling in the center of the solar system. Where are we headed, and do we need to pack snacks for this cosmic road trip?

Woman: Well, imagine a giant spiral, a cosmic waltz, if you will, where our Sun and its planetary entourage are gracefully swirling around the center of our Milky Way galaxy. That’s our trajectory.

Man: Okay, I’m kind of trying to picture this cosmic waltz, but it’s definitely not your average ballroom.

Woman: You’re not wrong there. And when it comes to measuring this journey, we’re not talking miles, we’re talking galactic years.

Man: Galactic years. Okay, now you’re speaking a language that’s out of this world.

Woman: One galactic year. The time it takes for our solar system to make one loop around the galactic center is roughly 230 million Earth years.

Man: 230 million years. That makes driving across the country on a family vacation seem like, well, nothing. It really puts things in perspective, doesn’t it?

Woman: It really does. It’s a reminder that we’re part of something so much bigger than ourselves.

Man: So, back to the sun for a second. One thing that really surprised me was that it doesn’t just give off energy. It actually absorbs some, too.

Woman: It’s true. While the sun’s main energy source is nuclear fusion happening way down in its core, it does have this interesting habit of, well, snacking on space dust.

Man: Space dust? Like the stuff that collects on my furniture?

Woman: Kind of, but on a cosmic scale. And it’s not just some quirky cosmic habit. It actually plays a big role in those incredible solar flares we see.

Man: Wait. Those solar flares that can mess up our satellites and even cause blackouts here on earth, you’re telling me that space dust is involved.

Woman: You’ve hit the nail on the head. When the sun absorbs energy from space dust, it can trigger these massive bursts of radiation.

Man: So the sun is building up energy from these space dust snacks, and then, boom, solar flare.

Woman: That’s a good way to put it. It’s like the sun releasing all that pent up energy, and sometimes we get caught in the crossfire.

Man: Okay, note to self, the sun is a force to be reckoned with, even if it enjoys a little cosmic snacking. It’s on the move, it’s absorbing energy, and it can definitely pack a punch.

Woman: It’s anything but boring.

Man: Alright, with that in mind, let’s shift gears and zoom in on the planet closest to this mighty star, Mercury. Most people probably think it’s this tiny, insignificant little planet.

Woman: Right, easy to overlook.

Man: But the research you sent paints a completely different picture.

Woman: It’s time to ditch that outdated image of Mercury as a dull, gray rock. This planet is full of surprises. For one thing, it’s much larger than people think. It’s almost the size of Earth.

Man: Really? Wow, I had no idea it was that big. But size isn’t everything, right? What else makes Mercury so interesting?

Woman: Well, let’s just say it’s not the fastest spinner in the solar system. In fact, it’s an incredibly slow one.

Man: Okay, how slow are we talking? Like, if we’re on Mercury, how long are we waiting for the sunrise?

Woman: Well, pack a lunch and maybe a book, because a single day on Mercury, meaning one full rotation on its axis, takes a mind boggling 59 Earth days.

Man: 59 Earth days.

Woman: And since Mercury’s orbit is oval shaped, not a perfect circle, a full day night cycle from sunrise to sunrise actually lasts a whopping 176 Earth days.

Man: Wait, so that means you’d have to wait three Earth months to see the sun peak over the horizon.

Woman: You got it.

Man: I think I’d be bored to death by then. Speaking of extreme conditions, you know what else blew my mind? The fact that there might be ice on Mercury. Ice. On a planet that’s practically touching the sun? How is that even possible?

Woman: It does seem counterintuitive, right? But remember that incredibly slow rotation in those long, dark nights. Well, believe it or not, those are the perfect conditions for ice to survive on Mercury, tucked away in those deep, dark craters at its poles.

Man: So it’s like hiding from the sun in plain sight.

Woman: You could say that. Those craters are so deep the sun’s rays never reach them, leaving those spots in permanent shadow.

Man: So we’ve got this paradoxical planet. It’s surprisingly large, incredibly slow, scorching hot during the day, but with hidden pockets of ice. Who knew? This solar system is full of surprises. Alright, next up, Venus, Earth’s so called twin, but I have a feeling those similarities are only skin deep.

Woman: Venus, huh? It’s always been this bright, beautiful thing in the sky. We always hear it called Earth’s twin.

Man: Right. Easy to assume they’re practically identical.

Woman: But after going through this research, you said, I’m starting to think this twin has a bit of a wild side.

Man: You’re definitely on to something. Venus might share some surface level similarities with Earth, like its size and what it’s made of, but that’s about where the family resemblance ends. This planet is like the rebellious sibling, always going against the grain.

Woman: Rebellious how? Give me the dirt! For one thing, Venus spins in the opposite direction of most planets in our solar system. It’s called retrograde rotation. Imagine, instead of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, it’s the opposite on Venus.

Man: Wait, seriously, the sun rises in the west on Venus. That’s wild. Any idea why it spins backwards like that?

Woman: It’s a bit of a mystery. The leading theory is that way back when, early in its life, Venus got slammed by something huge, like a massive collision that sent it spinning off in the opposite direction.

Man: A cosmic fender bender, huh? Makes you wonder what else Venus has up its sleeve.

Woman: Well, its atmosphere is nothing like ours. It’s incredibly thick, full of carbon dioxide, and there are these clouds of sulfuric acid just hanging out up there.

Man: Okay, sulfuric acid clouds. Definitely not on my travel bucket list. So much for Earth’s twin, more like a weird distant cousin we don’t talk about much. But speaking of this crazy atmosphere, I read about these super bright flashes of light that have been observed on Venus. What’s the deal with those? Alien disco parties.

Woman: I wish I could say it was aliens, but the reality is probably a bit less exciting, though just as intense. Scientists believe those flashes are caused by these megastorms with lightning way more powerful than anything we see here on Earth. Venus’s thick atmosphere traps heat, creating this runaway greenhouse effect.

Man: So picture this. We’re on Venus, braving the heat and the sulfuric acid rain, the sun setting in the east, and then bam, these megastorms erupt, lighting up the entire sky.

Woman: You’re getting a pretty accurate picture, but it doesn’t stop there. There’s one more thing about Venus that really sets it apart. It’s magnetic field. Now, we know Earth has a magnetic field. It’s like our protective shield. It’s pretty stable.

Man: Yeah, it keeps us safe from all that nasty radiation from space. Essential stuff.

Woman: Exactly. But Venus, its magnetic field is a whole different story. It’s all over the place, shifting dramatically every few years.

Man: Every few years, that’s nuts. I can’t even imagine what would happen here if our magnetic poles went haywire that often. Our compasses would be spinning like tops.

Woman: Right, it would be total chaos. And on Venus, these magnetic field shifts likely contribute to its extreme and unpredictable weather. Like, Venus can’t catch a break, even with its own magnetic field.

Man: Okay, I think it’s time we retire the whole Earth’s twin nickname. Venus is in a league of its own, and frankly, I’m not sure I’d want to take it to that party. Speaking of strange planetary companions, can we talk about something that really threw me for a loop? Earth’s second moon. I always thought we were a one moon planet.

Woman: It’s not exactly a moon in the traditional sense. Think of it more like Earth has a cosmic dance partner.

Man: Okay, I’m intrigued. Tell me more about this dance partner.

Woman: This object, called Cruithne, isn’t orbiting Earth directly. Instead, it’s locked into this gravitational dance with both Earth and the Sun. It traces out this horseshoe shaped path around our star.

Man: So Earth and Cruithne are in this cosmic waltz around the sun, never quite colliding, but always kind of connected.

Woman: Exactly. And while it’s fun to think about Earth having a secret companion, Cruithne is technically classified as a quasi satellite, not a real moon.

Man: Quasi satellite. That sounds even cooler, if I’m being honest. But should we be worried about Cruithne? Is it going to crash our cosmic party anytime soon?

Woman: Not to worry. Kruthne’s orbit is very stable. It’s not a threat to Earth. More like a curious neighbor, always nearby, but keeping a safe distance. Speaking of neighbors, our next stop is a planet that’s been in the news a lot lately. Mars.

Man: Mars, the red planet, right? Yeah. I mean, it’s always been this red, dusty world in our imaginations.

Woman: Yeah, rusty red deserts as far as the eye can see.

Man: Exactly. But these articles you said, they mentioned something about blue areas on Mars. Is that some kind of Martian mirage?

Woman: Not a mirage at all. We’re so used to thinking of Mars as this red planet, and most of it is thanks to all that iron oxide. But it turns out the Martian color palette is more diverse than we thought. Recent observations have actually revealed patches of blue, especially in certain areas around its equator.

Man: Blue on Mars, huh? Ha ha. Alright, Color Me Intrigued, what’s causing these blue zones to appear?

Woman: It’s pretty cool actually. These blue regions are thought to be caused by concentrations of different minerals, not just iron oxide. Picture ancient volcanic eruptions spewing minerals up from deep inside Mars. These eruptions could have literally painted these blue streaks across the surface.

Man: So we’re talking about a planet that’s not just a flat red desert. It’s got this hidden layer of geological activity and even a dash of color. And speaking of hidden wonders, this next one really blew me away. Mars has auroras, just like Earth, but on a way grander scale. Apparently these Martian light shows can stretch across the whole planet. Talk about a sight to see. What makes these auroras so different from what we see here on Earth?

Woman: You’re right. The auroras on Mars are in a league of their own. See, on Earth we have our magnetic field, right? It acts like a shield, funneling those charged particles from the sun towards our poles. That’s how we get those beautiful but localized auroras. Mars, on the other hand, well, its magnetic field is weaker and, let’s just say, a lot more erratic.

Man: Okay, so instead of a shield, it’s more like a sieve.

Woman: Exactly. Those charged particles aren’t being channeled to the poles on Mars. They’re free to roam across the entire planet.

Man: Wow, so they collide with the Martian atmosphere all over the place.

Woman: And create these incredible, planet wide auroral displays. Imagine looking up at night and seeing the entire sky lit up with those shimmering lights.

Man: Now, that’s an Instagram post. I’d love to see. But okay, let’s talk about the discovery that really has everyone talking. That underground water network on Mars. We’re not just talking about a little bit of ice here and there anymore, right?

Woman: You’re right. This is huge. For years, we’ve been finding hints of water on Mars, but now we have solid evidence that there’s liquid water beneath the surface forming this vast interconnected network.

Man: So like a hidden Martian oasis.

Woman: You could say that. And this discovery has really profound implications, especially when it comes to the search for life beyond Earth.

Man: Because where there’s water, there could be.

Woman: Life. Even if it’s just microbial life, finding it on another planet would be revolutionary. It would totally change how we understand our place in the universe. It would mean that life, in some form, might be way more common, much more resilient than we ever imagined.

Man: It’s mind blowing to think that something as seemingly simple as water could unlock one of the biggest mysteries of our existence. Are we alone? It makes you wonder what other secrets are out there, just waiting to be discovered.

Woman: That’s the thing about space exploration, isn’t it? Every time we answer a question, we uncover a dozen more. It’s this incredible journey of discovery that never really ends.

Man: Well said. From the sun’s cosmic dance to those hidden depths of Mars, we’ve journeyed through some truly mind blowing corners of our cosmic neighborhood. It’s a good reminder that there’s always more to learn, more to explore, just beyond the horizon. Keep looking up, everyone. You never know what you might find.

Evaluating Audio Overview’s performance

So, how did Audio Overview respond to the errors in the article? According to ChatGPT, the original article contained thirteen factual errors. Here’s how Audio Overview handled them:

  • Errors Omitted: Three factual errors (23%): the Sun’s age, sunspot-related gravitational effects, and Mercury’s temperature were not mentioned in the audio conversation. It’s unclear whether the system identified and omitted these errors or simply failed to include that content.
  • Errors Omitted: Three errors (23%)—concerning Venus’s atmosphere composition, the description of Cruithne, and Mars’s mineral colorations—were avoided, possibly suggesting some filtering or avoidance of incorrect data.
  • Errors Repeated: The remaining seven errors (54%) were repeated, including the Sun dragging planets in a spiral, exaggerations about Mercury’s size, Venus’s magnetic field shifts, blue regions on Mars, highly visible Martian auroras, space dust triggering solar flares, and exaggerations about Mars’s underground water network.

To summarize, Audio Overview’s conversation left out 23% of the factual errors in the content I fed it, avoided 23% of the factual errors, but repeated the majority (54%) of the factual errors, creating a plausible “conversation” that reinforced them.

The Real Danger of Audio Overview

The real danger of Audio Overview’s “AI love-bath” lies in its ability to produce convincing, natural-sounding, audio conversations between two computer-generated voices. The seductive quality of these conversations is magnified by what Johnnie Moore rightly termed “relentless enthusiasm.”

In today’s digital world, people are increasingly skeptical of what they read. However, an audio recording featuring two people eagerly summarizing content feels far more trustworthy—even when it’s completely AI-generated and contains errors.

Rather than celebrating how authentic Audio Overview’s conversations sound, we should be wary of how easily such tools can become a propagandist’s dream.

Google Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output

bogus audio discussions: Screenshot of the Notebook guide created for the text blog post. NotebookLM provides buttons to generate a FAQ, Study Guide, Table of Contents, Timeline, Briefing Doc plus a Summary, an Audio Overview, and some suggested questions. Summary The sources compare the responsibilities of news organizations to the responsibilities of conferences, arguing that both should prioritize their users and be transparent, open, and reliable. The author draws parallels between Jeff Jarvis's principles for media platforms and his own principles for conference design, which emphasize participant-driven, collaborative, and ethical practices. Both sources advocate for a shift away from outdated, broadcast models and towards user-centric approaches that foster trust and empower participants. Here we go again—another generative AI service churning out plausible-sounding, but misleading content. This time it’s Google’s NotebookLM, branded as “your personalized AI research assistant powered by Google’s most capable model, Gemini 1.5 Pro”. It now includes Audio Overview, which creates audio discussions between “two AI hosts” who supposedly engage in a “lively deep dive” based on your sources. But Google’s Audio Overview tool in NotebookLM generates bogus output.

As I’ll explain below, when I tested Audio Overview on last week’s blog post, it generated a five-minute “conversation” that misrepresented the content. It introduced contradictory information, and fabricated topics that didn’t exist in the original post.

Why Audio Overview is concerning

The real danger of this tool lies in its ability to produce convincing, natural-sounding, audio conversations between two computer-generated voices. In today’s digital landscape, most people are becoming more skeptical about what they read. But an audio recording of two people enthusiastically summarizing content sounds far more trustworthy, even if it’s completely AI-generated.

How I tested NotebookLM’s Audio Overview

Testing the Audio Overview feature was quick. I created a new Notebook, uploaded the text of my recent blog post titled “How the Responsibilities of Conferences Mirror Those of Media Platforms,” and waited for the tool to generate its insights.

As you’d expect from LLMs these days, NotebookLM provided a good written summary of the post:

“The sources compare the responsibilities of news organizations to the responsibilities of conferences, arguing that both should prioritize their users and be transparent, open, and reliable. The author draws parallels between Jeff Jarvis’s principles for media platforms and his own principles for conference design, which emphasize participant-driven, collaborative, and ethical practices. Both sources advocate for a shift away from outdated, broadcast models and towards user-centric approaches that foster trust and empower participants.”

So far, so good. But then, I clicked on the Audio Overview feature, and that’s where things took a turn. I’ve added the audio and a transcript below.

Listen to at least some of the audio to understand how eerily convincing such an AI-generated “conversation” can be. You’ll hear what sounds like two people constantly interrupting each other in their enthusiasm to share their 100% positive take on the post.

Audio track

Transcript

Woman: Ever feel like you’re stuck in a conference rut? You go, you sit, you listen, maybe snag a pen or two.
Man: Yeah.
Woman: But something’s missing. Like it doesn’t really change anything back at your desk.
Man: Right.
Woman: That’s what’s got me so fired up about this deep dive. We’re flipping the script on conferences, how to make them crazy, valuable, engaging, all that.
Man: Okay.
Woman: Get this. Our source. It’s this blog post comparing, get this, designing online platforms like the Big Dogs, Google, Twitter, to designing amazing conference experiences.
Man: Totally.
Woman: I know, right? Total apples and oranges, you’d think?
Man: Totally.
Woman: But stick with me. This article makes a killer case. Borrow some key things from those platforms, that user first mindset.
Man: Okay.
Woman: And boom, revolution in conference land.
Man: See, that’s what I’m talking about, because what’s always bugged me is how we treat conferences.
Woman: Yeah.
Man: It’s always been the same old, experts on stage, everyone else just sits there, soaks it up.
Woman: Passive.
Man: Exactly. But the platforms we use every day, they’re all about putting you in control. Choices, shaping the experience, big difference.
Woman: Huge! And this Jarvis guy, he wrote the article, nails it. He lays out these parallels, like how platforms are all about users controlling their own data, right? And he says, hand over control to your users, give them power, design and flexibility. Imagine that, but for conferences, forget the fixed schedule, you choose what sessions actually speak to you, your own path.
Man: It’s not just showing up anymore, right? We’re drowning in information everywhere else. I want to grab what matters, meet the right people, walk out with, like, usable knowledge, you know?
Woman: Totally. And that’s where this openness thing comes in, Jarvis talked about. This whole data portability thing really stuck with me. In the online world, it’s like, taking your stuff with you, contacts, files, whatever, when you switch platforms, no biggie.
Man: Right, right.
Woman: So how do we steal that? For conferences, make them really pay off for people, you know.
Man: It’s that feeling walking out and it’s not just a blur. Like what was that keynote again? No more business cards. You’ll never actually…
Woman: Tell me about it. The black hole of business cards.
Man: Gone. You leave with stuff you can use.
Woman: Okay, I’m with you. But how? How do we take data portability? Make it real for conferences.
Man: Picture this, conference app, right? Not just the schedule, but as you’re there listening, you’re highlighting stuff, snapping pics of slides.
Woman: Instead of scribbling like mad while they talk.
Man: Exactly. Your own notes, all in the app. Then, boom, conference ends, it bundles it all up, highlights notes, even like who you need to connect with, your own little takeaway package ready to go. That’s data portability.
Woman: No more digging through that stack of notes a month later trying to remember.
Man: Exactly. You get max value. You’re not just consuming, you’re curating. Putting it to work.
Woman: It’s so obvious when you say it like that. But honestly, so many conferences I walk out. Yeah, I learned stuff. But what am I going to do?
Man: Missed opportunity, right? Yeah. For everyone. You’re putting in the time, the money, you deserve to get something back.
Woman: For sure. Okay. So say we buy into this whole user first thing. Where do we even start? How do organizers make it happen? That’s a whole new way of looking at it, right? Not just an audience in the dark, but they’re part of it, shaping the whole thing.
Man: And that starts way before anyone even shows up. What if, like, before the conference, bam, organizers send out surveys?
Woman: Okay.
Man: Not just “How’d you hear about us?”
Woman: Yeah.
Man: But what are you hoping to get out of this? What are your goals even? How do you learn best?
Woman: I love that. It’s like actually caring if people get something out of it. Like, say it’s about the future of work or something. Wouldn’t you be way more into it if you had a say in what they even talked about?
Man: Totally. And picture this. What if there were, like, online forums, but before the conference?
Woman: Okay.
Man: People connecting, saying what they’re hoping for, starting the conversation early. By the time they get there, they already know people.
Woman: No more awkward icebreakers. You’re already halfway there.
Man: Exactly. And then the conference itself. Ditch those long, boring presentations, right? Shorter, punchier, more hands on stuff, workshops, solving problems together.
Woman: Instead of just sitting there, you’re doing something, working with people, trying out new ideas, so much better.
Man: And feedback. Not just those forms you forget on the way out.
Woman: Yeah.
Man: But all the way through, telling them what’s working, what’s not. They actually listen and make it better.
Woman: So you’re always tweaking, making it better as you go, based on what people actually need.
Man: Exactly. People feel like they’re part of it. Like their voice matters. That’s community, right there.
Woman: So, bottom line, maybe it’s time we stop just accepting the same old conference, you know?
Man: It’s time to expect more.
Woman: We can be those users demanding better, and who knows? Maybe change the whole game. That’s what I’m taking away from this.
Man: Me too. It’s about potential. Conferences could be so much more than we settle for.
Woman: Totally. Thanks for diving deep with us. Hope this got the wheels turning about what these things could be. See you next time.

How NotebookLM’s Audio Overview went wrong

Everything I wrote is wonderful!

My post about how the responsibilities of conferences mirror those of media platforms was an opinion piece. NotebookLM’s Audio Overview turned it into a PR flack’s dream.

Can NotebookLM be critical? Does it ever respond: “I can’t summarize this post intelligently or accurately?”

Somehow, I doubt it.

Despite sounding fluent and convincing, the generated “conversation” was riddled with inaccuracies. Here are some major issues:

Who wrote the blog post?

Hey, Audio Overview, I wrote the blog post, not Jeff Jarvis!

Misrepresentation of the responsibilities of platforms vs. conferences

The “woman” in the conversation says the blog post compares designing online platforms like Google and Twitter to designing conferences. This isn’t accurate. My post compares the responsibilities of media platforms and conferences, not their designs.

Exaggeration of user control

The conversation suggests that platforms like Google or Twitter are “all about putting you in control,” implying complete user freedom. However, my post and Jeff Jarvis’s quote are more nuanced. While Jarvis advocates giving users power and flexibility, there’s no suggestion that media platforms fully hand over control to users.

Invention of new topics: data portability, apps, and live feedback

The audio invents topics I never mentioned, such as data portability (taking contacts and files when switching platforms), a high-tech conference app where participants take notes and pictures, and vague musings about live feedback during the event. While these are interesting ideas, they have no basis in the original post, where I discuss the portability of the peer conference process, not technology.

Fabrication of pre-conference engagement

The “man” talks about sending surveys to conference attendees before the event, to ask what they want to learn. While this could be a useful idea, I didn’t mention anything about pre-conference surveys in the blog post. The blog discusses uncovering participants’ wants and needs during the event, not beforehand.

Conclusions

Audio Overview in Google’s NotebookLM generates bogus output. The tool transformed my blog post into an overly simplified, inaccurate PR pitch for conference engagement. What concerns me most is that it does this convincingly by aping the conversations humans have used to communicate and connect for over a hundred thousand years. Consequently, users may not question the validity of what is said because the format is familiar and comfortable.

But wait, there’s more! In my next post, I’ll explore how the Audio Overview service handles factually incorrect content. Stay tuned for my next test!

How the Responsibilities of Conferences Mirror Those of Media Platforms

responsibilities of conferences animated gif
Rereading a 2012 post by Jeff Jarvis, I was struck by the parallels between his take on news organizations’ responsibilities to their platforms and the responsibilities of conferences. Here’s the post in full:


Let’s compare Jeff’s points about media platforms’ responsibilities with my views on the responsibilities of conferences.

Users come first

“A platform without users is nothing. That is why [it] was wrong for Twitter to put a sponsor ahead of users. That is why Twitter is right to fight efforts to hand over data about users to government. That’s why newspapers built church/state walls to try to protect their integrity against accusations of sponsor influence. That is why Yahoo was wrong to hand over an email user to Chinese authorities; who in China would ever use it again? Screw your users, screw yourself.”
—Jeff Jarvis

At conferences, the “users” are primarily participants. For decades, I’ve championed responsible conference designs that prioritize participants. This approach benefits everyone—participants, sponsors, and organizers—because when attendees’ wants and needs are met, their satisfaction positively impacts all other event stakeholders.

A platform is defined by its users

“In other words: Hand over control to your users. Give them power. Design in flexibility. That’s not easy for companies to do.”
—Jeff Jarvis

Similarly, participant-driven and participation-rich conferences are defined by the participants themselves. They decide the topics and issues to focus on. Participants also learn about their peers in useful ways, enabling them to choose who to connect with from whom to learn.

Platforms collaborate

“Platforms have APIs. They reveal the keys to the kingdom so others can work with them and atop them. Are they open-source? Not necessarily. Though making its underlying platform open is what made WordPress such a success.”
—Jeff Jarvis

In the same way, the processes of participant-driven conferences are open. My books and writing share these processes freely, allowing conference organizers to adapt them to their needs. Often, I adopt new ideas and share them with the broader meeting design community, fostering collaboration and growth.

Platforms need principles

“All this can, of course, be summed up in a single, simple principle: Don’t be evil. That’s why Google has that principle: because it’s good business; because if it is evil, its users — we — can call it out quickly and loudly and desert it.”
—Jeff Jarvis

In my first book, Conferences That Work, I define the primary goal of the conferences I design:

“The primary goal of a peer conference is to create the best possible conference for each individual attendee.”
—Chapter 5, Conferences That Work

All the principles and tools I’ve developed stem from this goal. For instance, I focus on creating safe conference environments, uncovering participants wants and needs, providing structure and support for connection and learning, and maximizing opportunities for reflection and facilitating change.

In contrast, conventional conferences often lack clear guiding principles, as they’re based on outdated broadcast models that cater to whatever principles the event owners prioritize.

A good platform is transparent

Black boxes breed distrust.
—Jeff Jarvis

Similarly, peer conference designs are transparent. There are no hidden agendas, and the program is chosen by the participants. The only surprises are those created by the participants themselves.

A good platform enables portability

Knowing I can take my stuff and leave reduces the risk of staying.
—Jeff Jarvis

The peer conference process is portable to virtually any topic or community. There is no “secret sauce”. Typically, I design and facilitate one peer conference for a client to address their event issues. Afterward, clients rarely need my help again unless their requirements change.

A good platform is reliable

Oh, that.
—Jeff Jarvis

In the 1990s, I began designing and facilitating peer conferences on topics I knew little about. After a decade, I realized that the processes I had developed worked reliably across a broad range of communities. While the tools I use depend on my clients’ specific wants and needs, I’m now confident I can provide a conference that reliably satisfies all stakeholders.

The responsibilities of conferences

I’ve previously written about the parallels between the evolution and missions of journalism and events. It’s not surprising, then, that there are also strong parallels between the responsibilities of conferences and those of journalism platforms.

Image attribution: The graphic includes an image by asier_relampagoestudio on Freepik

The Surprising Reasons We’re Bad at Predicting the Future

Can we predict the future: A glowing crystal ball floating in the air with two hands reaching towards it, surrounded by glowing screens full of informationThere’s no shortage of confident futurists. Unfortunately, based on results, we’re not particularly good at predicting the future.

Why is Predicting the Future Important?

Predicting the future has become increasingly vital as the pace of change in human societies accelerates. Without accurate forecasts, the negative consequences of unforeseen challenges can escalate.

Some global trends offer optimism: Incomes are rising (despite persistent disparities), poverty is steadily declining, people are living longer, wars are fewer and shorter, and the gender gap in education and income is narrowing.

However, many global trends are deeply concerning: Climate disasters, aging populations, increasing pandemic outbreaks, and ongoing geopolitical instability paired with more lethal technologies are just a few of the alarming issues.

Four Reasons We’re Bad at Predicting the Future

1. Human Nature Is Resistant to Change

Despite our desire to believe we are rational beings making decisions based on facts and science, it turns out that people are primarily driven by emotions, not reason.

At first sight, history seems to provide evidence that people can change. For instance, in the United States, a restrictive form of democracy was adopted in 1787, slavery was abolished in 1866, and most women gained the right to vote in 1920. However, these societal changes remain controversial even today.

Many people still vote for blustering, deceptive demagogues rather than democratic candidates. Wage slavery and prison slavery persist. Right-wing commentators continue to question whether women should even have the right to vote.

As the saying goes, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”.

Pundits often focus on cultural changes, overestimating how people’s fundamental psychological and emotional responses to experiences and issues evolve over time.

2. Technology Changes Everything—Faster and Faster

Alan Kay once said, “Technology is anything that was invented after you were born.”

In 2013 I wrote:

“We are enveloped by rapidly changing technology and we fixate on what is new. What was new quickly becomes taken for granted and largely invisible. As David Weinberger remarks: “Technology sinks below our consciousness like the eye blinks our brain filters out.”

Although technology in the form of human tools has existed for over three million years and we’ve had books for over half a millennium, the first history of technology wasn’t written until 1954.”

The invisibility of most technology and the escalating pace of innovations make it very difficult to predict how they will impact our lives.

Seth Godin illustrates this as follows:

“In a bad 1950s science fiction movie, you might see flying jetpacks, invisibility cloaks and ray guns.

What we got instead is a device that fits in our pocket. It allows us to connect to more than a billion people. It knows where we are and where we’re going. It has all of our contacts, the sum total of all published knowledge, an artificially intelligent computer that can understand and speak in our language, one of the best cameras ever developed, a video camera with editor, a universal translator and a system that can measure our heart rate. We can look up real time pricing and inventory data, listen to trained actors read us audiobooks and identify any song, any plant or any bird. We can see the reviews from our community of nearby restaurants or even the reputation of a doctor or lawyer. It can track the location of our loved ones and call us a chauffeured vehicle at the touch of a button.

And of course, we use it to have arguments. And to watch very short stupid videos.”

—Seth Godin, Living in the future

True, some people, like Isaac Asimov, have accurately predicted specific futures, but we tend to remember their successes and overlook the many incorrect predictions.

3. We Struggle to Predict the Speed of Change

Even when people successfully predict future developments, they rarely get the timing right.

happen.

Here are three examples:

Solar energy

In 1978, I started a solar manufacturing company, convinced that solar energy would become an important energy source. For five years we thrived building solar hot water heating systems, selling and installing them around New England. When Ronald Reagan became president he abolished the existing solar tax credits and the solar industry disappeared for twenty years.

In 2024, solar energy will provide about 4% of the electricity needs of the entire United States and is expected to supply an increasingly larger share.

We were right, but it took over forty years. Who knew it would take so long? No one!

Fusion power

Research into generating power from nuclear fusion reactions began in the 1940s. The goal of creating a sustained, net-power-producing fusion reactor has been around for fifty years, but fusion continues to remain “10, 20, or 30 years away”, depending on who you ask.

Meeting process

I have been designing and facilitating participant-driven and participation-rich conferences for over thirty years, and evangelizing the advantages of this approach since 2009. While the meeting industry is slowly realizing the importance of facilitating connection at events, traditional conferences still dominate. Whether my approaches will ever become mainstream remains uncertain.

There are many other examples

For example, predicting when the COVID pandemic will be over, the length and severity of wars, and the speed of acceptance of gay marriage in the United States come immediately to mind. You can doubtless think of more.

4. Technology Changes Our Lives in Unpredictable Ways

Futurists’ jobs are made even harder by what Kevin Kelly, in his thought-provoking book What Technology Wants, points out: The technology we create changes humans in ways that we couldn’t imagine.

As Winston Churchill put it:

“We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.”

In the early 1990s, I was one of the first users of the commercial internet. I was an IT consultant at the time and my enthusiastic conviction that the internet would change everything fell on deaf ears. Several CEOs told me later they wished they’d listened to me. Seth Godin supplies examples above of how the internet has indeed changed everything in unexpected ways.

How many of the social impacts of cars were predicted when they began to be mass-produced a century ago?

Or the impacts of developments in religion, law, political systems, medicine, and education on our lives?

Can we predict the future?

In my opinion, anyone who confidently predicts the future is guilty of hubris. Unfortunately, that won’t stop people from trying.

How to use human spectrograms to improve in-house events

human spectrograms: Apple Executive Organization Chart courtesy of organimi.comOne of the most valuable tools I use liberally at the start of peer conferences is a variety of human spectrograms, also known as body voting. There’s no quicker and more entertaining way to publicly uncover vital information about who’s in the room. [For a full description of the why, when, how, and tremendous range of this tool, check out Chapter 33 of my book: The Power of Participation.] While I frequently use certain spectrograms, such as experience lines and spectrogram maps, I always tailor them to the specific wants and needs of the participants.

For example, in 2020, I worked with several hundred cardiologists and used two-dimensional body voting to reveal the group’s mix of professional roles (clinical, research, and education) and research types (population, clinical, basic). This allowed the cardiologists to quickly connect with peers who shared similar professional backgrounds. Later, we ran a one-dimensional human spectrogram to explore opinions about the question: “What is the best heart-healthy diet? Plant-based versus omnivore?”. (Fun fact: cardiologists disagree!) We then set up a debate on the topic.

While I primarily work with peer groups, like association members or communities of practice, when the client is a single organization, human spectrograms can be used in a different way.

Using human spectrograms at in-house events

Most organizations have an organizational chart that defines roles and formal relationships:

“The organization chart is a diagram showing graphically the relation of one official to another, or others, of a company. It is also used to show the relation of one department to another, or others, or of one function of an organization to another, or others. This chart is valuable in that it enables one to visualize a complete organization, by means of the picture it presents.”
Organizational chart, Wikipedia

At the start of an in-house event, a human spectrogram can be a powerful way to reveal the formal structure of the organization. There are a few exceptions:

  • Large meetings (e.g., 500+ people).
  • Organizations with flat structures.
  • Small organizations where participants already know everyone.

Otherwise, an organizational chart human spectrogram provides several immediate benefits:

  • Allows participants to “put a face” to colleagues they may not have met, or have had little contact with.
  • Makes visible the size and scope of different departments inside the organization.
  • Uncovers the “shape” of the organization, such as the depth of hierarchies and the relative distribution of leaders, middle management, and other employees.

To facilitate the organizational chart human spectrogram, define a physical dimension in the room: “Leadership by this wall, subordinates towards the opposite wall.” You can then guide participants to form the spectrogram either top-down (leadership first) or bottom-up. The former is usually more efficient, while the latter allows for a more relaxed pace as people find their place and become aware of other participants.

If some employees will be absent, consider providing signs or cards with their names to install appropriately in the spectrogram.

Once the human spectrogram is complete, a good facilitator can leverage it in various ways, depending on the meeting’s goals and objectives. For example, you could:

  • Explore potential departmental reorganizations.
  • Uncover communication gaps within the organization.
  • Reflect on staffing levels.
  • Obtain feedback on outstanding issues and brainstorm solutions.

Given the variety of possibilities, such work should be carefully planned before the meeting.

Conclusion

I’ve only scratched the surface of how to apply human spectrograms to in-person meetings. Hopefully, you’re convinced that an organizational chart human spectrogram can be an insightful starting point for exploring an organization’s dynamics and addressing key issues.

Have you ever used an organizational chart human spectrogram? Share your experience in the comments below!

The corporatization of belonging

belonging: a corporate office with a slightly ominous feel that is full of professionals working I recently attended a conference session that made me uneasy, and not in a constructive way. I won’t name names, but the session was centered around a specific program to increase “belonging” in organizations and included statistics such as:

“Only 13% of organizations are ready to actually implement belonging as a practice.”

“47% of our audiences are lonely.”

When the presenter said increasing belonging would be beneficial, I asked: “To whom, the organization or the employees?” The answer, after a pause, was “Both”.

While I hope this is genuinely the case, my doubts persist.

Why I’m suspicious of programs to increase organizational belonging

First of all, what is belonging? Curiously, Wikipedia lacks a direct entry for the term ‘belonging’! Instead, it includes a long article on “belongingness” that provides a nebulous introduction, including a short section on belonging in the workplace (see below).

Lewis Carroll’s famous quip, “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean,” comes to mind here.

I worry that some people are corporatizing “belonging” to make a buck.

Here are four reasons I’m suspicious of the presenter’s program to increase organizational belonging.

1. What does successful belonging look like?

A great technique for looking at ideas from a fresh perspective is reverse brainstorming, aka “Let’s make it suck.”

When I applied this approach to “implementing belonging as a practice”, guess what first came to mind?

The most successful example of belonging is a cult!

belonging: photograph of scientology's "SeaOrg" members dressed in naval uniforms standing on a wooden floor next to a ship's wheel Attribution: licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ from Flickr user anonymous9000

This is not the kind of belonging that appeals to most people. Except for cult members.

In addition, a short section of the belongingness Wikipedia article covers belonging in the workplace. It includes this slightly ominous sentence:

“Charismatic leaders influence followers by bringing awareness to the collective unit and strengthening the feeling of belonging, and that enhances employees’ compliance.”

Enhancing compliance via “strengthening the feeling of belonging” is advantageous for an organization led by a charismatic leader. But what’s the benefit for the employees?

2. “Belonging” is a binary concept

“Belonging” is a binary concept. You belong or you don’t.

However, except in extreme situations—like cults—our relationships with peers and organizations are much more nuanced. You can be a member of an organization without feeling you belong to it. At times, you may feel strongly or weakly connected to your peers. Over time, your peer groups change. These days, belonging to an organization, if even possible, is unlikely to consist of forty years of devotion with an engraved watch on retirement.

This is why my ikigai is about facilitating connection, rather than attempting to force belonging.

“Implementing belonging” is trying to force an employee’s time-dependent experiences of connection into a yes/no box.

3. We can improve organizations without programs to increase belonging

The session presenter began talking about how they use stories to implement belonging. I asked whether they were familiar with Appreciative Inquiry, (the original AI 😀) a pioneering approach from the 1980s, and how their method was different.

After another pause, the presenter said they did know of Appreciative Inquiry.

They did not answer my second question.

From the Wikipedia article on Appreciative Inquiry:

“AI revolutionized the field of organization development and was a precursor to the rise of positive organization studies and the strengths based movement in American management.”

“AI advocates collective inquiry into the best of what is, in order to imagine what could be, followed by collective design of a desired future state that is compelling and thus, does not require the use of incentives, coercion or persuasion for planned change to occur.”
—Gervase Bushe, professor of leadership and organization development at the Beedie School of Business

Although I’m not trained in AI, the approach is simple enough that I’ve often used it with clients to build a positive environment before moving into the “problems” they’ve hired me to solve. It strengthens connections between employees and their organization by uncovering and sharing good experiences and expertise that live in the culture of all but the most dysfunctional organizations.

Tip: (A good and inexpensive introduction to the simplicity of Appreciative Inquiry is The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry by Sue Annis Hammond.)

4. Let’s add a computer and make money!

The presenter explained that their approach involved recording stories and feeding them into a computer which analyzed the words used and classified the sharer’s type of belonging. They did not go into detail, because the whole process, including opaque computer intermediation, is the secret sauce they’re selling.

Using a computer to quantify “belonging”, in some unknown and likely unscientific way, is a classic example of building an unverified model of a system and then believing in its pronostications. Until this approach has a verifiable scientific basis, from my (50+ years) experience of model building it should be treated with extreme skepticism.

I wouldn’t pay for it.

An alternative

We already have at least one well-established method, Appreciative Inquiry, that uses positive human-mediated processes to meaningfully transform organizations. There may be others I’m unaware of.

Enticing organizations with the promise of quantifying ‘belonging’—a concept that may not lend itself to such reduction—seems, at best, to be overhyped, and at worst, misleading.

Scientology’s “SeaOrg” image attribution: Flickr user anonymous9000 [License]