Raise The Papers Potential

This is an application of WaitingForTheGoodShoeToDrop, from WaitingForTheOtherShoeToDrop.

(Problem:) Normally during a writers' workshop, the author sits through the praise part of the session, waiting for the other shoe to drop. Normally the other shoe is a bad shoe. Although it is "promised" that the SuggestionsForImprovement will be helpful, the author feels that the suggestions are going to start of with a negative, that their ego will get squashed. And this is a reasonable expectation, because that is what often happens.

Most commentators are not used to watching their wording, and most moderators prefer not to intervene - perhaps they do not recognize the significance of the role they play.

People cannot always make a useful "here is how to fix it" Suggestion. Nor is that always useful - often simply noting that the group is having trouble with a paragraph is sufficient to let the author think about and fix the paragraph. So what can be done?

(Try This:) With each comment, focus on what the paper Could Be if a selected aspect were attended to. Raise the paper's potential. Accept that the author is good, that leaving the good things said in the praise section alone, the paper can become either better or even remarkable.

You may say, "I had trouble understanding why the author left this section in. It did not contribute much to me..." Now take on the burden of wondering what the paper could become if that section were removed, replaced, or improved.

When 8 people do this, the power of the session increases. The goodness in the paper stays, more good gets added. Eight people brainstorm to find how the knowledge of the author could be applied to benefit the world. They see possibilities in the paper that the author may not have, rather than just corrections or deletions.

The moderator must stay on top of this situation, and intervene, saying something, "...And so a possible correction could be?", or "...How do you think the author could work the current style / paragraph / topic to advantage, assuming that they wish to keep it basically the way it is?"

(Result:) With continually WaitingForTheGoodShoeToDrop, the author is moved from a mood of negative apprehension (what horrible thing are they going to say next) to one of positive attention (what good thing are they going to think of next). The work group has a positive feeding frenzy, as they begin to see the paper's potential rise and rise and rise.

Possibly, the first working paper should receive careful coaching from the moderator, while the group is new and tense. Possibly also the 4th or 6th, after the group starts to relax and get either too chatty or personal. The authors can start to look forward to the Suggestions section of the workshop, instead of fearing it. That can only happen if the group stays in place and the trust level goes up.

(Operating Principle:) We had already dropped the first shoe, and it was Praise. The other shoe is (ugh) correction. So let us make the "other shoe" two shoes: the first shoe is "didn't like", the other shoe becomes "what could be". Now, WaitingForTheOtherShoeToDrop is a positive experience, instead of a negative.

(Example:) We applied this in the last Pattern Languages of Program Design (Sept '96) and noted it worked well, besides several other things. Our group was recognized as being unusually highly charged and positive. Dan Polanza sat through the whole thing and said he had never seen a group like it in 5 PLOPs. Cope visited and made similar comments. Doug Schmidt asked afterwards what we had done, because he kept encountering people from our group who kept talking about what a great group it was.

About papers 4-5, the group started to get chatty, and then a bit personal to the other speakers, as they lost inhibition. I noticed an immediate drop in attention and energy as that happened. So we revisited the speaking scheme, tightened up the comments, and the energy level went back up.

When the "suggestions" came as a simple negative comment, the room's energy level immediately went down. Note again that a "fix-it" suggestion is not always possible or even desirable. However, searching for a way to raise the paper is. On the last paper (the ninth), we had a visitor from another session who spoke a simple criticism. We automatically asked for an improvement. I noted how this, what had become a reflex for us, was hard for our visitor.

Application of this idea was critical in our group. We had several papers which looked to be rejected by the group. By searching ourselves for what the paper could be, leaving the author's desires and intents alone as much as possible, those papers grew in possibility to the point that we look forward to seeing the next versions. Three authors entered all defensive, and left calm, happy, enthused, respectively.

This is a bit long, but the experience is worth replicating.

-- AlistairCockburn

See RaiseTheWikiPagePotential