«
»

Do you review event evaluations like a Chinese censor?

Monday, April 13th, 2015 by Adrian Segar

event evaluations: black and white photograph of a standing Chinese official pointing to the screen of a computer used by a seated civilian. Photo attribution: Flickr user charleshopeA fascinating piece of research published in Science concludes that the Chinese government allows people to say whatever they like about the state, its leaders, or their policies—except for posts with collective action potential, which are far more likely to be censored. This reminds me of the meetings industry’s common response to event evaluations.

What do stakeholders do with event evaluations?

I often wonder whether organizers actually read event evaluations. And, if they read them, do they act upon them? Given the same old event designs I see repeated year after year, my experience is that most changes stemming from attendee feedback concentrate on logistical improvements or cosmetic restyling: changes that rarely get to core dissatisfactions experienced by many attendees.

This is why the bar is so low for event expectations. The majority of attendees assume that an event can’t be much better than what they routinely experience. Ask attendees what they consider to be a worthwhile meeting. You’ll frequently hear that they’re satisfied if they “learn one useful thing or meet one useful person a day”. You may think that’s acceptable. I know we can do much better.

Use event evaluations to improve future meetings

Can we significantly improve our events through attendee feedback? Yes. Done right, event evaluations provide an incredible opportunity to build community around our events. Yet, invariably, we squander this opportunity. Evaluations—either in the form of paper smile sheets or online surveys—get kidnapped, disappearing into the hands of the event organizers, never to see the light of day again.

When we routinely solicit comments about our meetings’ value and then ignore feedback that could fundamentally improve our events we are acting like Chinese censors. The minority of attendees who have experienced the value of participant-driven and participation-rich meeting designs—who know the value of small group work with peers and public evaluation during the event—expect something better from your meetings. If you don’t give it to them, they will stay away or go elsewhere.

A warning. They won’t be a minority forever.

Photo attribution: Flickr user charleshope

Related posts:

  1. The Reminder—a new way to obtain long-term evaluations of events Can conference organizers get evaluative feedback on the long-term outcomes of their events? Check out The Reminder and find out! Last week, I pointed out that short-term evaluations routinely solicited...
  2. The hype and reality of personalized learning Billions of dollars are being spent on "personalized learning" in education, with 97% of US school districts investing in this hot educational trend. But what is "personalized learning" and are...
  3. Conferences are containers for ideas Conferences are containers for ideas. “Books, those bound paper documents, are part of an ecosystem, one that was perfect, and one that is dying, quickly… …We still need ideas, and...
  4. Measurable work—it’s a trap! If you are a “professional”, doing measurable work can be harmful to your future. For over a hundred years, management has been obsessed with measuring what workers do. The rationale was to...
  5. Two ways to make conferences better How can we make conferences better? Samantha Whitehorn of ASAE’s Associations Now recently wrote an interesting article on new staff roles for meetings and events and I’ve picked out two...
  6. Design conferences for a connection economy Useful knowledge increasingly resides in our social networks, not in our individual heads. Consequently, we are moving from an industrial economy to a connection economy. One which creates value by concentrating on...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *