The article explores the evolving role of Christian faith communities in the public sphere, particularly in the context of increasing secularization in Western societies. The authors analyze how religious communities, specifically in the United Kingdom, engage in the public square through various events and activities, contributing to the Eventization of Faith.
Evanston, Illinois leaders and faith community hold post-election unity rally
Key Points
Secularization and Religion’s Role
The article begins by discussing how secularization, particularly in Europe and North America, has led to a diminished public presence of religion. Despite this, global trends and events have intensified the visibility of religion in the public square, especially through the actions of religious communities that engage in public dissent and events.
The Eventization of Faith
The concept of Eventization of Faith is central to the paper. It refers to the process of turning religious activities into events that create a public presence. Such events, sometimes contestational, are seen as a means for faith communities to assert their identity and influence in a secular public space.
“Even in places where religion is believed to be best served as a muted witness in the private realm, Jews, Christians, and Muslims share a long tradition and heritage of political dissent, such as gathering on street corners to express their faith and their views. This political dissent is often guised in the form of events as a method of creating a public presence…”
“…Contributing towards the development of the concept of the Eventization of Faith, this study interprets ‘events’ broadly, through a critical events perspective, acknowledging the contestation of secular spaces for sacred or faith-related purposes, as well as the potential for contestation of sacred spaces used for non-faith events.”
—From the abstract of Events, Christian Faith Communities, and the Public Square, Dowson, Ruth (Rev.) and Olsen, Daniel H. (2023), International Journal of Religious Tourism and Pilgrimage: Vol. 11: Iss. 4, Article 13.
The Venuefication of Sacred and Non-Sacred Space
Venuefication refers to the transformation of both sacred (e.g., churches, and temples) and non-sacred spaces into venues for events that may or may not align with their original purpose The article provides examples of using secular venues for sacred events, and taking over outdoor public spaces and an entire city for religious events. It highlights potential tensions regarding the appropriate use of these spaces, especially when the events held there contrast with the original religious or cultural significance of the site.
Public Space and Contestation
The article also discusses the broader theoretical framework of public space and contestation, highlighting how different communities, including religious ones, vie for influence and representation in public spaces. The authors emphasize that events organized by religious communities are often not just about religious expression but are also a form of political and social contestation.
Conclusion and Future Perspectives
Overall, the article argues that despite the challenges posed by secularization, faith communities continue to find innovative ways to maintain and even expand their presence in the public square through the strategic use of events. This engagement reflects a broader trend where religious groups use public events as a platform for political and social expression.
Ken Jennings: “Welcome to America’s favorite answer and question game, Adrian! The answer is ‘The Fishbowl Sandwich’.”
<DING!>
Adrian:“If you had to pick one unique/creative/innovative session format or strategy you successfully implemented or you’ve witnessed that resulted in better interaction and engagement, what would that be and why?”
—Merijn van Buuren question via LinkedIn, July 17, 2024
Ken Jennings: Right!
And, just like that, I was on to the next round!
We can dream
Here’s how I answered Merijn’s question:
“In 2015, I invented the fishbowl sandwich. It’s a session format where hundreds of people can profitably discuss and learn more about a “hot” topic—typically “hot” because it involves difficult challenges for the participants—and crowdsource creative, unexpected solutions by drawing from the ideas and experiences of the entire audience.
A well-designed and facilitated fishbowl sandwich is the best way I know to uncover, share, and develop solutions in a single session. People are often unaware that they know things that could be of immediate value to other group members. The fishbowl sandwich process finds these individuals and helps them share their knowledge and expertise. It encourages active participation and ensures that multiple perspectives are heard.
As a bonus, you can also use a fishbowl sandwich to offer structured consulting to group members grappling with a specific issue or problem.”
Having only one tool in your tool chest of conference session designs and formats won’t get you far. No problem! I also wrote The Power of Participation: Creating Conferences That Deliver Learning, Connection, Engagement, and Action, which Julius Solaris called “a mandatory read for the modern event professional”.The book comprehensively covers twenty-seven fundamental session formats that transform traditional conference sessions into a powerful learning and connection experience for your attendees. That’s why Jerry Weinberg described The Power of Participation as “a catalog of tools for designing meetings”.
For each format, the book includes:
A descriptive overview.
When to use the format.
Required resources and pre-planning.
Step-by-step implementation guidance.
Thousands of event professionals have purchased Event Crowdsourcing and The Power of Participation. They’ve beefed up their event design toolkits with the tools to tackle the hardest event design jobs.
In 1997, Dar Williams, inspired by listening late at night to New Hampshire and Vermont’s progressive radio station WRSI The River, wrote the song “Are You Out There”. Her beautiful song about audiences and humans’ desire for connection speaks to today’s events industry.
Why? First, listen!
Hoping that Dar will be OK with this, here are the relevant fragments of her song’s lyrics.
[Verse 1] “…You always play the madmen poets Vinyl vision grungy bands You never know who’s still awake You never know who understands and
[Chorus] Are you out there, can you hear this? Jimmy Olson, Johnny Memphis I was out here listening all the time And though the static walls surround me You were out there and you found me I was out here listening all the time
[Verse 2] Last night we drank in parking lots And why do we drink? I guess we do it ’cause And when I turned your station on You sounded more familiar than that party was…
[Verse 3] …So tonight I turned your station on Just so I’d be understood Instead another voice said I was just too late and just no good
[Chorus] Calling Olson, calling Memphis I am calling, can you hear this? I was out here listening all the time And I will write this down and then I will not be alone again, yeah I was out here listening Oh yeah, I was out here listening Oh yeah, I am out here listening all the time”
—Lyrics [full lyrics here] courtesy of Genius
“I am out here listening all the time.”
Like Dar Williams, a true fan of obscure (at the time) music, people search for experiences that meet their wants and needs. We yearn for connection and look for opportunities to get it. Events are the most powerful opportunities for connection (and learning). While today’s radio is, with few exceptions, a pure broadcast medium, it’s available to anyone with a radio who wants to turn it on and find an interesting program.
Event professionals must remember that their events’ true fans are “out here”. They are the people who will form the nucleus of your events’ success. These days, we have far more powerful tools than broadcast radio to find true fans. Use them!
“I will not be alone again.”
The young Dar Williams learned through her radio that other people like her “got” the music she loved.
While listening late at night, she realized that she was not alone.
In this continuation post, I’ll share what I learned from Rachel’s feedback.
I get client feedback!
Right after PSFG’s second peer conference in May 2024, I was delighted to receive detailed feedback from Rachel (in red), which I shared in full in Part 1. Here’s what I learned.
Peer session development process
Rachel made two great additions to the peer session development process we’d designed for her first peer conference.
1 . BRAINSTORM AND REFLECT
I like the ancillary questions she added to the key prompt: “If you could pick a session to hold … using the people and resources around you, what would it be?”
What topic or question would it address?
Who here could you enlist as an ally or speaker or support person?
Why does it matter? (Here and now)
These are excellent ways to help participants think more deeply about a session they might propose.
2. SESSION DESIGN
“…we gave [participants] the option of either working alone or finding someone else to create a session (we wound up having a group of 6 people interested in a specific topic create a two-party session together, which was great). We also had them confirm any facilitators or speakers during this creating time, which made the voting/scheduling piece easier for us.”
Adding time for people to explore buddying up to create a session together is a wonderful way for participants to choose session leaders. In the past, I’ve given this task to a small independent group of subject matter experts. Giving participants time (if available) to do this work themselves is a definite improvement when—as in this case—most if not all participants have significant experience and expertise to share.
Full group share outs
PSFG used my personal retrospective process during their conferences. For the second conference, Rachel added an innovation: participants could optionally share their action items with the whole group.
She reported: “We had 4 participants elect to share their action items to the full group and it turned out in a few cases that participants in other groups had someone to offer that person around their action item. It was useful for us as conference organizers to know some of the things that actually came out of the conference.”
I’d describe this as a novel variation on the “action” version of Plus/Delta included in my second and third books. Scheduling this opportunity during the personal retrospective allows participants to share with the full group what they’ve just uncovered and verbalized. This can make sharing more impactful because the work is fresh. On the other hand, an action Plus/Delta’s sole focus on individual offers of accountability and asking for help is, I think, a more structured and inclusive process to consider when a group wants to move to action on one or more objectives.
Group retrospective process
“We shifted this to a reflection exercise where we asked people to reflect on four things (LEARN, APPRECIATE, PLUS, DELTA), circle 2 of their top items from each category, write them on post-it notes, and then we did a gallery walk. After the gallery walk, we invited share outs on what people noticed. We made this shift because last year, we found that the plus/delta process wound up being mostly focused on logistics and we really missed getting insights into what the group noticed about themselves, so we tried to parse that out a bit. We also heard from the introverts that they did not like having to come up to the mic to share. This process felt more introvert-friendly, while allowing people to still “hear” from one another (via the post-it notes). I copied the questions we asked below in case it’s useful.”
Column 1: LEARN
What did you learn? About yourself? This community? Your work?
Column 2: APPRECIATE
Who or what do you want to celebrate or appreciate today?
Someone in this room? Yourself? One of your pair share partners? Maybe it was someone who facilitated a session or someone you met at the snack table
Column 3: PLUS
What’s something you thought went well? What are the things you wouldn’t change, that you really appreciated about the Annual Meeting?
Column 4: DELTA
Deltas are the things you might change or do differently next time.
This is a creative and excellent alternative to Plus/Delta. I, too, have noticed that Plus/Delta sharing can focus on logistics rather than participants’ learning and connection. Rachel’s process has three great features. It:
Allows participants uncomfortable speaking in public to share their thoughts and feelings in writing.
Emphasizes personal, community, and work-related learning outcomes.
Provides a specific place for appreciations. Although I always encourage participants to give appreciations during a closing Plus/Delta, I think featuring an opportunity to post them is likely to encourage more sharing.
A small improvement: I’d add a prompt to the appreciation column to include the “why?” of the appreciation.
On the other hand, I still like the classic Plus/Delta for three reasons:
With large groups, due to its fast pace, a classic Plus/Delta provides more opportunities to share.
Its fast pace typically leads to an emotionally energetic closing session.
When sharing deltas, alternative points of view can be shared immediately as pluses.
Having received Rachel’s feedback, I will consider using her approach for more introverted groups with enough time to complete her process. And I think I will change my Plus/Delta instructions to encourage sharing and appreciations more than I have in the past.
Unsolicited client feedback is a gift
In conclusion, think about a teacher or mentor who helped you in some important way in the past. Did you ever thank them and tell them why your experience with them was important to you? If you’re like me, the answer to that question is usually “no”.
So please remember that unsolicited feedback is a gift. Thank you Rachel LaForgia ( and my other generous clients) for giving me such excellent client feedback that tells me my work has been noticed and values it enough to suggest how it might be improved.
Image attribution: photograph of a PSFG meeting from the home page of the organization’s website.
I love my clients, but some have a special place in my heart — those who generously give me feedback.
All the conferences I design and facilitate have a time and place for participants to share their experiences. But most clients don’t give me post-event feedback about my work or the event.
And that’s okay. After all, feedback benefits me, and it takes time and effort for a client to articulate clear feedback.
So when a client graciously takes the time to share significant and useful feedback with me, I am very grateful.
The PSFG is a community of practice headquartered in Washington, DC, that “connects and supports the global community of funders advancing peace and security efforts in order to build a more peaceful, just, and equitable world.” Its members include over fifty well-known international foundations, non-profits, and collectives.
PSFG has a deep appreciation for the importance of meeting design. Here’s what Cath Thompson, Managing Director at PSFG shared about this topic in a 2024 interview:
“…One thing that we have learned over the past several years is that we need to be designing our events with such deep intention to bring folks together to have the conversations that they cannot get elsewhere, to not be reinventing the wheel, and to create spaces where people know they belong, they can find their people, and they can also have these challenging and expansive conversations that lead to social change. So that, we see as the core of our work, is not just to design a whole bunch of programs, but to design them well, to bring the right people around the table together. …In networks, the strength is in the collective wisdom of the participants. One of my colleagues said to me recently, “If PSFG members can just watch the recording after an event and get out of it as much as they would have if they had participated in real time, then we’ve done them a disservice.” So we try to design things so that we are both addressing the power dynamics that are inherent in the field of philanthropy and trying to dismantle some of that and also making it very valuable to people where they walk away knowing at least one new person, for example, or knowing something new, or engaging in self-reflection that helps them improve their own work. We do a lot of that and focus on that.” —Extract from an interview with Cath Thompson of Peace and Security Funders Group (PSFG) by Alec Saelens on January 25, 2024
Rachel contracted me in 2022 for design consultation on PSFG’s first online peer conference.
Over several meetings in 2022 and 2023, we spent ten hours reviewing and refining her excellent draft design. PSFG held their first online conference in May 2023 [“We just finished our first peer conference—people loved it! “], and a second in May 2024.
I get feedback!
Right after the second peer conference, I was delighted to receive detailed feedback from Rachel. I share it here [in red] because it’s a terrific example of the value of client feedback.
“Reporting back from another fantastic peer conference! Our second peer conference was even better than our first. We had great feedback from participants and even had one participant interested in learning how to bring peer conferences to her own work (I recommended your book and blog!).
We made three tweaks this year that worked really well for us:
1. Peer session development process.
We added more scaffolding/support to the peer session design process and got noticeably better (clearer, more well-defined) peer sessions. We added some guided reflection around possible topics (including asking people to think about why their session mattered to this group). Then, we had them workshop their idea with a partner in a quick pair-share (this was intended to just have them speak their idea aloud, which in of itself can help them get more clarity, but also to get some feedback from a colleague).
After that, we gave them the option of either working alone or finding someone else to create a session (we wound up having a group of 6 people interested in a specific topic create a two-party session together, which was great). We also had them confirm any facilitators or speakers during this creating time, which made the voting/scheduling piece easier for us. I copied the details below.
2. Full group share outs.
We asked for share outs at various points in our agenda, but found that asking for share outs after the individual retrospectives was really helpful both for us as organizers and for the participants. We had 4 participants elect to share their action items to the full group and it turned out in a few cases that participants in other groups had someone to offer that person around their action item. It was useful for us as conference organizers to know some of the things that actually came out of the conference.
3. Group retrospective.
We shifted this to a reflection exercise where we asked people to reflect on four things (LEARN, APPRECIATE, PLUS, DELTA), circle 2 of their top items from each category, write them on post-it notes, and then we did a gallery walk. After the gallery walk, we invited share outs on what people noticed. We made this shift because last year, we found that the plus/delta process wound up being mostly focused on logistics and we really missed getting insights into what the group noticed about themselves, so we tried to parse that out a bit. We also heard from the introverts that they did not like having to come up to the mic to share. This process felt more introvert-friendly, while allowing people to still “hear” from one another (via the post-it notes). I copied the questions we asked below in case it’s useful.
Here’s a quick run down of the peer session process and the group retrospective:
PEER SESSION PROCESS (Total time: ~45 minutes, probably could have used an hour)
ENROLLMENT AND INSTRUCTIONS (5 minutes)
We gave examples (from last year) of the conference agenda, explained how long the sessions were, etc.
(About 70% of the attendees had done the peer conference the prior year, but we did have a lot of new people this year–interestingly many new people wound up leading sessions)
BRAINSTORM AND REFLECT (5 minutes total)
If you could pick a session to hold at this Annual Meeting, using the people and resources around you, what would it be?
What topic or question would it address?
Who here could you enlist as an ally or speaker or support person?
Why does it matter? (Here and now)
PAIR SHARE (6 minutes)
Turn to a person next to you.
Person 1 shares the what/who/why of your session in 1 minute
Person 2 has 2 minutes to offer tips/feedback/ideas/ask clarifying questions.
Switch!
SESSION DESIGN (30 minutes)
Now that you have shared and gotten feedback, you have the next 15-20 minutes to further develop your idea.
Again, by the end of this time, the goal is for you to create a topic for one conference session that you feel like you could make some headway on in 60 minutes tomorrow, with the people in this room.
You have two options:
Work independently. You can draft your dream session by yourself.
Find friends. You just spent an hour listening to what other people want to do and what expertise they have. Is there anyone here you want to buddy up with to propose a session?
By 5:10, here is what we need from you:
A Title for your session
A 7-10 word description of your session
Who can lead it/speak on it (yourself or others–go find them and confirm they are on board before submitting)
GROUP RETROSPECTIVE (30 minutes)
Column 1: LEARN
What did you learn? About yourself? This community? Your work?
Column 2: APPRECIATE
Who or what do you want to celebrate or appreciate today?
Someone in this room? Yourself? One of your pair share partners? Maybe it was someone who facilitated a session or someone you met at the snack table
Column 3: PLUS:
What’s something you thought went well? What are the things you wouldn’t change, that you really appreciated about the Annual Meeting?
Column 4: DELTA:
Deltas are the things you might change or do differently next time.
Hope this is useful info–happy to hop on a call to debrief this further or answer any questions you might have.”
I love Rachel’s feedback! In Part 2 of this post, I’ll explain why, and what I’ve learned.
In early 2024, I wrote two long, detailed posts (1, 2) that explained why using “facial analysis” technology at events is ethically and legally dubious. Now I’ve learned of strong evidence that the core claim of such technology — that it can reliably measure attendee emotions at events — is seriously flawed.
“The best available scientific evidence indicates that there are no universal expressions of emotion.
In 2019, the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest engaged five senior scientists, including me, to examine the scientific evidence for the idea that people express anger, sadness, fear, happiness, disgust and surprise in universal ways. We came from different fields—psychology, neuroscience, engineering and computer science—and began with opposing views. Yet, after reviewing more than a thousand papers during almost a hundred videoconferences, we reached a consensus: In the real world, an emotion like anger or sadness is a broad category full of variety. People express different emotions with the same facial movements and the same emotion with different facial movements. The variation is meaningfully tied to a person’s situation.
In real life, angry people don’t commonly scowl. Studies show that in Western cultures, they scowl about 35% of the time, which is more than chance but not enough to be a universal expression of anger. The other 65% of the time, they move their faces in other meaningful ways. They might pout or frown. They might cry. They might laugh. They might sit quietly and plot their enemy’s demise. Even when Westerners do scowl, half the time it isn’t in anger. They scowl when they concentrate, when they enjoy a bad pun or when they have gas.
Similar findings hold true for every so-called universal facial expression of emotion. Frowning in sadness, smiling in happiness, widening your eyes in fear, wrinkling your nose in disgust and yes, scowling in anger, are stereotypes—common but oversimplified notions about emotional expressions.
Where did these stereotypes come from? You may be surprised to learn that they were not discovered by observing how people move their faces during episodes of emotion in real life. They originated in a book by Charles Darwin, “The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals,” which proposed that humans evolved certain facial movements from ancient animals. But Darwin didn’t conduct careful observations for these ideas as he had for his masterwork, “On the Origin of Species.” Instead, he came up with them by studying photographs of people whose faces were stimulated with electricity, then asked his colleagues if they agreed.”
“…In short, we can’t train AI on stereotypes and expect the results to work in real life, no matter how big the data set or sophisticated the algorithm. Shortly after the paper was published, Microsoft retired the emotion AI features of their facial recognition software.” –Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett, “Think AI Can Perceive Emotion? Think Again.”, Wall Street Journal, May 16, 2024
Facial analysis is a poor indicator of emotional states
“In real life, when you perceive someone else as emotional, your brain combines signals from your eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin, and the internal systems of your body and draws on a lifetime of experience. An AI model would need much more of this information to make reasonable guesses about a person’s emotional state.”
One of the research paper’s general recommendations is to “Direct healthy skepticism to tests, measures, and interventions that rely on assumptions about “reading facial expressions of emotion” that seem to ignore published evidence and/or ignore integration of contextual information along with facial cues.”
Based on the presented research, that sounds like good advice to anyone considering acquiring facial analysis technology.
The other day, Liz Lathan told me about a version she invented of my core peer conference process The Three Questions. She uses it to solve problems together at Community Factory‘s Spontaneous Think Tanks and Club Ichi, her community for B2B event marketers.
The classic version of The Three Questions, described in detail in all my books, invites open responses. Participants typically share topics and issues they want to discuss and learn about. While some people include current problems, this is generally less common.
Liz’s version explicitly focuses the group on individuals’ top-of-mind problems and elicits group resources to solve problems together. Here are her three questions:
How did I get here?
What problems do I have?
What kinds of problems can I help with?
My thoughts on Liz’s version of The Three Questions
Liz’s adaptation of The Three Questions emphasizes a practical, problem-solving approach that leverages group experience and expertise. By focusing on top-of-mind problems and fostering a collaborative environment, participants not only get help with their challenges but also contribute to the growth and success of their peers.
The success of Liz’s approach highlights an important aspect of facilitation: the ability to adapt core principles to fit the specific needs of a group. Whether through addressing pressing problems or exploring broader topics, the structure of The Three Questions offers a powerful tool for fostering meaningful dialogue and generating actionable solutions.
By asking the right questions and providing a safe and collaborative environment, we can unlock the full potential of group problem-solving and create a supportive community where everyone benefits.
Have you experimented with different versions of The Three Questions in your practice? What outcomes have you observed? Share your experiences in the comments below!
I got my first paid consulting job in 1983, solving IT problems for a lumber yard. I’ve been a consultant ever since. I’m so grateful to the hundreds of clients I’ve served over the last 40+ years.
Here are five reasons why I’m grateful for my clients.
1—It’s always a people problem
I was a technology nerd when I got that first gig. I was your guy if you had a problem with personal computers, flaky local area networks, or database systems. It took me about five years of having CEOs confiding to me their non-technical woes despite being hired to solve “tech” problems to learn the truth of Weinberg’s Second Law of Consulting:
“No matter how it looks at first, it’s always a people problem.”
I became fascinated by the culture of organizations. As an outsider, I marveled at the variety of dysfunctions I observed. Over time, I got better at solving the people problems I uncovered. Eventually, I realized I was more interested in working with people than technology.
Without the copious experiences of people problems that my clients provided, I’d never be doing what I love today: facilitating connection between people.
2—My clients allow me to try new things
My clients come to me with problems they can’t (at the time) solve. As I work with them they give me opportunities to try new things. Yes, occasionally, I discover I already know how to solve their problems, but that’s rarely the case. My clients’ wants and needs challenge me to be creative. I invariably end up recommending and doing things I’ve never tried before. Consequently, I learn about what works and what doesn’t. My knowledge base and skill set expand.
Because my clients allow me to try new things, I become a better consultant.
3—My clients are my teachers
I’m grateful for my clients because I learn from them. Here are a couple of examples.
Improving Conferences That Work
I designed and facilitated my first peer conference in 1992. I ran them in my spare time for thirteen years before writing my first book. Conferences That Work: Creating Events That People Love took four years to write. Having spent seventeen years developing the why and how of peer conferences, you might reasonably expect that the book provided a somewhat definitive guide for peer conference rationale and design.
Not so.
I’m still proud of how well Conferences That Work lays out the fundamental reasons for the importance and value of peer conferences. However, it turned out that the implementation sections, adequate for their day, had some important gaps and limitations. When it was published in 2009, my peer conference work exploded.
And, my goodness, I got feedback! It was great feedback. Clients critiqued the approaches I’d developed. Participants said, “Why don’t you do that this way?” It was scary but exciting because much of the feedback included great ideas.
The result was that I wrote two supplements to the book that I published in 2013 and 2015. They included everything I’d learned from my clients that improved peer conferences. I made them free to download. It seemed the least I could do.
Getting thoughtful specific feedback
This doesn’t happen very often. But last week I received a long email from a client whom I’d consulted a couple of times on the design of her organization’s online conferences. After sharing that “our second peer conference was even better than our first” she gave details of “three tweaks…that worked really well for us”.
Her process changes were extraordinarily well-described, creative, and innovative! So good, that I expect to write about them on this blog soon.
Feedback like this is a gift that helps me improve my craft.
Today, because consulting on meeting design and facilitation is a niche practice, marketing via sharing my website posts with subscribers and on social media has also become a significant source of new clients. When potential clients visit this site, they can view my sample client list, assuring them I have credible authority as a consultant.
5—My clients pay me for work I love to do
Yes, I do pro-bono work (e.g. industry education). And I’m happy to discuss innovative ways of getting paid. (No, not by “exposure”.) But, otherwise, my clients pay me for work I love to do.
How cool is that!
Thank you
Finally, I also want to thank everyone who isn’t a client (yet) who has given me feedback over the years.
That includes the ~2,000 folks who have commented on this blog, my professional friends and colleagues, in person and on social media, and tens of thousands of participants who have supported my work and continue to help me learn and grow.
Since 2009 I’ve maintained an informal calendar of peer conferences (aka unconferences) on this site. It’s informal because I only list events I hear about, a minuscule fraction of the unconferences people hold every day. Even so, the calendar lists hundreds of events.
Currently, I add a few peer conferences a month. For example, as I write this the May 2024 listing includes an online peer conference and in-person events in Vienna, Austria; Raleigh, North Carolina; and two in Nepal.
For fun, I extracted a sampling of geographic locations from the calendar and plotted them on a Google map. Click the image below to view the detailed map.
As you can see, peer conferences take place all over the world!
World map of some major geographic locations of peer conferences listed in the Conferences That Work peer conference calendar. Click on the map for details.
Who holds peer conferences?
Look at the calendar to see the fascinating variety of communities that hold peer conferences. Some groups, like software developers and testers, are big fans and it’s interesting to see how often finance, healthcare, and food industry professionals, as well as religious groups, universities, and small businesses hold unconferences.
It’s also amusing to see groups you might not even know about who hold peer conferences. Associations for casino security, veterinarians, voiceover coaches, independent gardening stores, makers, builders, attorneys, teachers and education, sports commissions, product managers, cybersecurity, transportation, and many other communities of interest are listed. And then there are plenty of unconferences focussed on social and cultural issues, like leadership, DEI, the environment, peace work, political movements, good government, animal welfare, veterans rights—the list goes on!
Why I do this work
The incredible diversity of communities, organizations, and businesses that use participant-driven and participation-rich event formats is astounding. This calendar provides strong evidence that any group with something in common who wants to connect and learn can benefit from peer conference designs. As a perpetually curious person, I love the hundreds of opportunities I’ve had over the last few decades to learn about many kinds of communities, topics, and issues and the people who grapple with them.
Seeing how peer conference designs benefit these folks when they come together warms my heart.
“Organizations are afraid of connecting. They are afraid of losing control, of handing over power, of walking into a territory where they don’t always get to decide what’s going to happen next. When your customers like each other more than they like you, things can become challenging.
Of course, connecting is where the real emotions and change and impact happen.” —Seth Godin, ‘Connect to’ vs. ‘Connect’
The importance of connection
A survey I conducted of attendees while writing Conferences That Work confirmed (as do many other meeting surveys) that the two most important reasons people go to meetings are to connect (80%) and learn (75%).
Nevertheless, many conferences are structured like this.
No one’s connecting here, except, maybe, a single speaker to his audience. The audience members aren’t connecting with each other at all.
To create connection, conferences need to be structured like this.
Employs hierarchical meetings and events, controlling what happens by using a predetermined agenda of broadcast-style lecture sessions.
Creates a fundamental disconnect between the wants and needs of the staff and/or members and the structure of its meetings and conferences. Events that provide connection-rich sessions, allowing participants to discover their tribe and determine what they discuss, are anathema.
“An organization might seek to ‘connect to’ its customers or constituents…That’s different, though, than ‘connect'”
Some organizations try to obscure their control-based culture by asserting their goal is to “connect to/with” their clients. There’s plenty of plausible-seeming advice available along these lines; e.g., “How to Connect With Customers” or “5 Ways to Connect With Your Client“.
However, this goal attempts to disguise a desire for control. The leadership wants to control how the organization will “connect with” customers. Such a goal is a one-way street. It ignores the reality that, for healthy relationships, connection is a two-way process.
In contrast, a functional organization makes it easy for customers to connect about their wants and needs.
Connection is no longer a goal (noun). A functional organization connects (verb). In the same way that change is a verb, not a noun.
Creating exceptional connection—and organizations
Exceptional organizations take connection to an even higher level. They facilitate connection between their constituency members, supporting the creation of tribes.
Seth, once more:
“When you connect your customers or your audience or your students, you’re the matchmaker, building horizontal relationships, person to person. This is what makes a tribe.”
Tribes—self-organizing groups bound by a common passion—are the most powerful spontaneous human groups. Tribe members pour energy into connecting around their purpose, which leads to meaningful, powerful action. Having them associated with and supported by your organization reaps substantial rewards for everyone involved.
Seek out and create organizations that don’t fear connecting.
You’ll make your world and the world a better place.