less computer

direct the cadence

For groups

This tactic is related to the strategy of defining culture, and the implementation of an engagement plan. The general advice of running through three rounds of conversation at best, and two at minimum, creates an implicit cadence to a group conversation. It allows for time in between meetings, time that opens up space for reflection, and time that allows new ideas to be created, shared, and tested. It allows for people to follow up in writing, or to further engage in information collection. You are able to gather learnings from others in the time between meetings, you are able to expand the circle of people you are talking to.

In the context of computer use conversations, urgency is the presented frame - urgency is the snare, the trap. Tactically, when you apply a process to urgency, you begin to tame it, and to force urgency into a structure that refuses it. This urgency needs to be understood as a danger to careful decision-making. Another realm that needs attention is refusing to engage on timing terms that are already set if they minimize your ability to respond. If someone else has placed you in their cadence for engagement but there is no real space for influence, it is a mistake to participate under those terms without drawing attention to the problem. Governments do this all the time, as do large organizations. Learning what respectful engagement looks like is critical.

Directing the cadence in a group conversation process can look like a few of the following things:

  1. Circulating materials well in advance, so that there is genuine time and opportunity to edit and co-create them, and update them if need be.
  2. When you have a conversation, be mindful of how much time is spent setting the table, so to speak, so there is a shared starting place, vs. creating space for everyone to talk.
  3. A good rule of thumb is to have at least half/half time allocated to presenting and talking. But if there is a lot of background to be covered, it's totally fine to hold a session for information purposes only, with follow-ups for collaboration.
  4. Many norms have settled around what reasonable time for conversations look like. We see this with 15 minutes set aside for a Q&A or a panel for an hour with six people. Conversations need air and room to breathe and it takes an immense amount of humility to come to grips with how much can actually be said or done in an hour or two. It's almost nothing.
  5. Make friends with "unproductive" conversations. There is a cultural norm bordering on dependency to have outcomes, products, things that happened, closures. You can start a meeting with a statement about needing unproductive time to build community together, or for the need to model what it means to unwind the expectations of productivity. This is highly aligned with conversations about computer use.
  6. If you decide to have notes, share them in draft and give people a few weeks to add anything to them, drawing out the window for people to participate on their own terms. Make time yourself to spend time with these notes, if offered.
  7. If you look at cadence as breaking conversation down into units, you can reorganize the frame of slowness to one of careful process. If you need to defend the process, you can defend in on the terms of inclusivity and due diligence. It is known that doing things slowly may not be a sell for everyone, but when you move at a speed that reflects what it looks like to be careful with people, you'll see how much relief you create. And joy.
  8. One major goal of being more intentional about computer use is to protect relationships. By opening new windows of shared time through conversation, confidence is built and ties are strengthened. Having enough time to meet new people through conversational process can help bring new vantage points or perspectives to decision-making. But this relies on having built adequate time into your conversation process to not continually repeat old patterns of convening and deciding.

The cadence of conversations is an opportunity to model, in small and narrow increments, the kind of thinking we should be applying to computer use. We need to externalize processes around decision-making that we haven't had to externalize because they weren't under the volume of threats that they are today. This is about making the mundane exercise of sharing power in decision-making something we create with intent, and one of the mechanisms we use to do this is conversation.